San Jose Bills Fan Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 If my response was condescending, I sincerely apologize. And, no I'm not trying to be sarcastic. Of course, the draft is an art, and there are too many variables too possibly make any perfect predictions on the draft. I'd be foolish to think so. I'm doing this for a class assignment, and I thought I would post it for people's thoughts, comments, or disagreement. I only care about learning in my assignment and hoping the Bills draft a quality player. However, my only disagreement with you is that statistics (if used appropriately and not to "twist" information) does provide generally a more educated guess to just stating a personal opinion. Otherwise, statistics wouldn't be used in just about every measurement, including the NFL Combine. It is far from perfect, but statistics can provide an advantage to speculation. And, if my presentation seemed to come across as a display of superior knowledge, please know that was never intended either. It was merely a sharing of some work I had done for a class with the intention of creating a lively discussion. Best, Wizard Thought the post was thoughtful and nicely presented, Wizard. Thanks for the effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornerville Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 3.5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munch Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Excellent post! I will follow this for sure and i hope all that work wasnt for nothing and it proves somewhat accurate. Thanks for sharing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uforesircher Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 wiz and bob: good points by both of you - i understand what you both are saying let me put my half of a cent in (not worth two) - bob said that the draft is a crap shoot and that is a true statement - we have seen it time after time in the draft over the years - but bob did not mention why it is a crap shoot - here my reason why: it is not quantitative in nature - it is qualitative in nature and i'll explain - it all depends on who (the pick) the gm and hc think will be in the best interest of their team as each pick unfolds - that change triggers a response (sometimes emotional or reactionary) by human beings who react to the event at hand - ergo resulting in it's unpredictable nature - or simply reducing it to a crap shoot still it's fun to try and guess isn't it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in SC Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Thought the post was thoughtful and nicely presented, Wizard. Thanks for the effort. Fair enough. Just one more guess about the draft based on some different criteria. Somnething to speculate on during a dull off-season. Best regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uforesircher Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 oh btw it was a nice post wiz - a lot of work - i like the creative thought process of applying that statistical program to the nfl draft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEAST MODE BABY! Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 No hang-up here (and thanks for the insight about the role of descrptive statistics in inferential analyses). As a fellow Bills fan, I appreciate your efforts to predict the results of the draft (just like the others that appear here) even though, if we are really honest about it, there are far too many known and unknown variables to insert into your statistical analysis, given your sample size. It is an interesting approach to what is, essentially, a crap-shoot. My objection to your post had far less to do with your mis-categorization of standard deviation (or z - scores for that matter) than to its condescending nature. It is what, in 30+ years of teaching this content, I have railed against, i.e., trying to impress others with our knowedge(?) of statistical analyses, and why it is superior to anyone else's "best guess." It remains an imprecise art, at best. Does this constitute an intelligent response by your definition? I didn't take it as condescending at all. You may be a bit hypersensitive if this is a hot button of yours after teaching this subject for 30 years. Just a thought.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Thanks for the information. Yes...once I get the foundation for my first study, I will have a better idea of what variables to tweak. I think my goal is to take the 10-15 best sites/magazines, and then do an analysis/rating system of which have the best track record. However, this is a step or two away from where I am currently at. Does anyone know what are considered the most reliable/accurate sites and/or most read sites? I picked the 15 from my study without a lot of knowledge other than the sites were purportedly coming from pro's, media personnel, and/or above the average fan such as myself. Thanks again. Wizard There are some sights that are clearly fanboy message board geeks and have no basis in reality. The one sight that recentely popped out that I found pretty insightfull is http://www.nfldraft101.com The writers seem to offer a little more insight. Other sights I frequent WalterFootball.com TheHuddle.com KFFL.com fantasysharks.com fanball.com used to be good but it went downhill recently, I think it was bought out and the new group doesn't seem to care but there fantasy draft guides have still been quality (2/4 championship games,3/4 playoff teams,) footballguys.com does some cool stuff. Alot of the sights are fantasy football focused but most do Mock NFL drafts. The same nerds that are focused on fantasy football are focused on Mock NFL drafts. Not very scientific I just looked at my RSS feeds and bookmarks. http://www.nfldraft101.com has been shooting up the charts. I happen to hope that this mock comes true: http://www.nfldraft101.com/mocks/90/1/Chri...ing_Combine.jsp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuanGuzman Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 while I applaud the effort and it certainly has created a discussion and judging from the posts a lot of people enjoyed the read. My issue is the subject matter doesn't lend itself to inferential statistical analysis, essentially for statistical analysis to be meaningful e.g., to make inferences or prediction based the information at hand the statistic must be "observable" even if its only on a limited basis. For instance with just a small sample size e.g, if we take a sample of the heights of of 29 people who post on the Stadium Wall, we could say with great degree of likelihood what the average height of the entire board is, and describe the likelihood of a poster being 7'feet tall or being a midget. Whereas you're basing your analysis on the opinions of perceived experts predictions, unfortunately the true data is not observable and resides in the heads of GMs/and Coaches. Moreover the GM's intentionally obfuscate the discussion to disguise their poker hand, and the experts themselves (e.g., blogs, media) fall victim to group think, where their aim is not an accurate prediction but rather one that is in line with their peers to avoid embarrassment. I think your analysis works well as an aggregator of the opinions of the blogs/media, e.g., if someone didn't have the time to read 30 blogs and media predictions they could read your post and come away with an accurate description of the what the blogs are saying, but as far as using your post as predictor of what will happen it is simply not statistically valid. I do think you could say something valid with regards to the past performance of these websites in terms of accuracy of their predictions. Just off the top of my head Logit analysis would probably work the best as your dealing with qualitative information. Cheers, and thanks for the hard work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in STL Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 If my response was condescending, I sincerely apologize. And, no I'm not trying to be sarcastic. Of course, the draft is an art, and there are too many variables too possibly make any perfect predictions on the draft. I'd be foolish to think so. I'm doing this for a class assignment, and I thought I would post it for people's thoughts, comments, or disagreement. I only care about learning in my assignment and hoping the Bills draft a quality player. However, my only disagreement with you is that statistics (if used appropriately and not to "twist" information) does provide generally a more educated guess to just stating a personal opinion. Otherwise, statistics wouldn't be used in just about every measurement, including the NFL Combine. It is far from perfect, but statistics can provide an advantage to speculation. And, if my presentation seemed to come across as a display of superior knowledge, please know that was never intended either. It was merely a sharing of some work I had done for a class with the intention of creating a lively discussion. Best, Wizard Great post and research. Don't aplogize for it. So, as a football fan, who you really think we will draft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 while I applaud the effort and it certainly has created a discussion and judging from the posts a lot of people enjoyed the read. My issue is the subject matter doesn't lend itself to inferential statistical analysis, essentially for statistical analysis to be meaningful e.g., to make inferences or prediction based the information at hand the statistic must be "observable" even if its only on a limited basis. For instance with just a small sample size e.g, if we take a sample of the heights of of 29 people who post on the Stadium Wall, we could say with great degree of likelihood what the average height of the entire board is, and describe the likelihood of a poster being 7'feet tall or being a midget. Whereas you're basing your analysis on the opinions of perceived experts predictions, unfortunately the true data is not observable and resides in the heads of GMs/and Coaches. Moreover the GM's intentionally obfuscate the discussion to disguise their poker hand, and the experts themselves (e.g., blogs, media) fall victim to group think, where their aim is not an accurate prediction but rather one that is in line with their peers to avoid embarrassment. I think your analysis works well as an aggregator of the opinions of the blogs/media, e.g., if someone didn't have the time to read 30 blogs and media predictions they could read your post and come away with an accurate description of the what the blogs are saying, but as far as using your post as predictor of what will happen it is simply not statistically valid. I do think you could say something valid with regards to the past performance of these websites in terms of accuracy of their predictions. Just off the top of my head Logit analysis would probably work the best as your dealing with qualitative information. Cheers, and thanks for the hard work. I'm not a statistics guy but the point about the inside of the GM's brain seems true. But that brings up a good point; The grading system would have taken into account if the player the site proposed was available at the spot they proposed the player would be picked, maybe +- 2 spots. Somehow compared statistically with the position actually picked and the overall individual player ranking by (rivals.com). Again I'm not a statistics guy but it sounds like there atleast 3 of y'all that can figure something out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 No. I haven't yet to previous draft year (mocks)..but I do plan on doing a comparison the week before the this draft (April 15) to this report. And, then I plan on doing an analysis after the 1st round is over. I will be posting these around the 20th of April, and the final one a week after the draft to compare the results. If my hypothesis has any statistical validity, my April 15 Round #1 should be more accurate than almost any mock draft, if (and it is a big IF), the mocks of professional drafters and media are more accurate than fan mock drafts. The mocks of professional drafters ARE more accurate than fans (but since the fans then copy the pundits, the gaps close rapidly). See this site: http://www.thehuddlereport.com/Free/mockdraftscoring.shtml However, mocking the draft is predicting the unpredictable. GMs, being human, are neither random nor perfectly efficient at predicting the future of players. So it's basically impossible to pick, unless you aren't guessing. Gosselin, for example, predicts so well each year because he has contacts in the front offices of most teams who give him a very good idea of the way the teams will actually go. Interesting analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 There are some sights that are clearly fanboy message board geeks and have no basis in reality. The one sight that recentely popped out that I found pretty insightfull is http://www.nfldraft101.com The writers seem to offer a little more insight. Other sights I frequent WalterFootball.com TheHuddle.com KFFL.com fantasysharks.com fanball.com used to be good but it went downhill recently, I think it was bought out and the new group doesn't seem to care but there fantasy draft guides have still been quality (2/4 championship games,3/4 playoff teams,) footballguys.com does some cool stuff. Alot of the sights are fantasy football focused but most do Mock NFL drafts. The same nerds that are focused on fantasy football are focused on Mock NFL drafts. Not very scientific I just looked at my RSS feeds and bookmarks. http://www.nfldraft101.com has been shooting up the charts. I happen to hope that this mock comes true: http://www.nfldraft101.com/mocks/90/1/Chri...ing_Combine.jsp thanks I checked that site and it does seem a cut above - I hope the draft works out that way- I see Bulaga going instead Haden and us getting Williams but I'd rather have Bulaga by a tiny bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wizard Posted March 23, 2010 Author Share Posted March 23, 2010 while I applaud the effort and it certainly has created a discussion and judging from the posts a lot of people enjoyed the read. My issue is the subject matter doesn't lend itself to inferential statistical analysis, essentially for statistical analysis to be meaningful e.g., to make inferences or prediction based the information at hand the statistic must be "observable" even if its only on a limited basis. For instance with just a small sample size e.g, if we take a sample of the heights of of 29 people who post on the Stadium Wall, we could say with great degree of likelihood what the average height of the entire board is, and describe the likelihood of a poster being 7'feet tall or being a midget. Whereas you're basing your analysis on the opinions of perceived experts predictions, unfortunately the true data is not observable and resides in the heads of GMs/and Coaches. Moreover the GM's intentionally obfuscate the discussion to disguise their poker hand, and the experts themselves (e.g., blogs, media) fall victim to group think, where their aim is not an accurate prediction but rather one that is in line with their peers to avoid embarrassment. I think your analysis works well as an aggregator of the opinions of the blogs/media, e.g., if someone didn't have the time to read 30 blogs and media predictions they could read your post and come away with an accurate description of the what the blogs are saying, but as far as using your post as predictor of what will happen it is simply not statistically valid. I do think you could say something valid with regards to the past performance of these websites in terms of accuracy of their predictions. Just off the top of my head Logit analysis would probably work the best as your dealing with qualitative information. Cheers, and thanks for the hard work. I actually know what you are talking about. Of course, there isn't a perfect statistical equation or approach. It is a work-in-progress. Yes, an aggregator of opinions is all the information that I can use; however, my prediction of where people will fall in the draft can be statistically measured off of the aggregate opinions. It doesn't make my predictions more accurate, but it will give some insight into the accuracy of the pro and media people's thoughts. Again, it is a school project. There are many gaping holes, but these holes are accounted for in my paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wizard Posted March 23, 2010 Author Share Posted March 23, 2010 There are some sights that are clearly fanboy message board geeks and have no basis in reality. The one sight that recentely popped out that I found pretty insightfull is http://www.nfldraft101.com The writers seem to offer a little more insight. Other sights I frequent WalterFootball.com TheHuddle.com KFFL.com fantasysharks.com fanball.com used to be good but it went downhill recently, I think it was bought out and the new group doesn't seem to care but there fantasy draft guides have still been quality (2/4 championship games,3/4 playoff teams,) footballguys.com does some cool stuff. Alot of the sights are fantasy football focused but most do Mock NFL drafts. The same nerds that are focused on fantasy football are focused on Mock NFL drafts. Not very scientific I just looked at my RSS feeds and bookmarks. http://www.nfldraft101.com has been shooting up the charts. I happen to hope that this mock comes true: http://www.nfldraft101.com/mocks/90/1/Chri...ing_Combine.jsp I'll have to check all of these out. Of course, as has been said, when it is all said and done, it is quite likely that the draft will fall in a completely different order. After all, the only predictable thing about that draft is the unpredictability of some situations that will occur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wizard Posted March 23, 2010 Author Share Posted March 23, 2010 Great post and research. Don't aplogize for it. So, as a football fan, who you really think we will draft? I will do a follow-up study on the week of April 12 on the 30 sites and compare how players have moved "up" and "down" in projections since my March analysis, but here is my top 10 right now. I will compare this again in April, and then compare to the results of the draft at the end of April. Unfortunately, I don't have the Bills picking a guy I would like. Buffalo reaches for Davis, if they don't trade down. I would like Bulaga or Okung, but my study show far shows a low probability based on the 30 website slottings. Based on my current study, Davis can be had between 16-20, but Buffalo takes him at #9 because of the need for a OT. Buffalo passes on Clausen, and Clausen is scooped up by Jacksonville at #10. 1. Bradford (Rams) 2. Suh (Lions) 3. McCoy (Bucs) 4. Okung (Washington) 5. Bulaga (Chiefs) 6. Berry (Seattle) 7. Haden (Cleveland) 8. Bryant (Oakland) 9. Davis (Buffalo) 10. Clausen (Jacksonville) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maddenboy Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 2 Questions for the O.P. 1) Are you going to run this analysis again closer to the draft? With trades and FA pickups and rumored trades, the mock drafts will change a lot. So if the draft were tomorrow morning, your analysis would be based on much more reliable (if mock drafts can be called reliable) input. I hope you do, and I look forward to it. 2) As to trading down, its not just whether they guy you want will be available later, its also whether the guy someone else covets is available at 9. So for those of us analyzing who is available for the bills at 9, also think about who is available for some other teams that might want to jump up to 9. Well done, sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 The mocks of professional drafters ARE more accurate than fans (but since the fans then copy the pundits, the gaps close rapidly). See this site: http://www.thehuddlereport.com/Free/mockdraftscoring.shtml However, mocking the draft is predicting the unpredictable. GMs, being human, are neither random nor perfectly efficient at predicting the future of players. So it's basically impossible to pick, unless you aren't guessing. Gosselin, for example, predicts so well each year because he has contacts in the front offices of most teams who give him a very good idea of the way the teams will actually go. Interesting analysis. Nice work Thurman that site is awesome. I'm glad to see many of the names of writers on the sites I frequent near the top of the list. I knew there was a reason I wear your jersey most games at the Bills Backer bar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billsguy Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 That was a hell of an effort! Thanks for taking the time and being so transparent in your presentation. It's nice to read an intelligent post like this. I've copied it and will see how things stack up on draft day! I'm sure the nattering nabobs will weigh in and challenge it but I for one appreciate your work. I agree. It was a very nice effort and a refreshing change from all the endless and clueless Tim Tebow crap that gets posted here. Thanks for the post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill in Livonia Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Interesting post! I was intending to try to write something humorous but I became inerested instead Please send a re evaluation post after the draft. Thanks for the effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts