GunnerBill's mock versus the world

[Billy Claude]

 

I thought it would be interesting to see how @GunnerBill ’s mock objectively compared to others.   To do this, I used the Jimmy Johnson draft pick value chart and assign penalty points based on how far the mock pick was from the actual pick.   For example, if a mock had Derek Stingley picked 5th (1700 draft points) whereas he was actually picked 3rd (2200 draft points), the mock draft was assigned 500 penalty points.  This was done for 14 mock drafts.

 

Long story short, it appers that GunnerBill knows what he is talking about as his draft finished first.

 

1.      GunnerBill                                         6950 penalty points (lower is better)

2.      Michael Renner (PFF)                     7046

3.      Trevor Sikkema (PFF)                     7090

4.      Chris Traapsso (CBS)                     7136

5.      Ari Meirov (PFF)                              7290

6.      Ryan Wilson (CBS)                          7586

7.      Charles Davis (NFL.com)                7690

8.      Josh Edwards (CBS)                      8045

9.      Chris Collinsworth (PFF)                8546

10.   Pete Prisco (CBS)                            9080

11.   Doug Kyed (PFF)                              9577

12.   Kyle Stackpole (CBS)                      10175

13.   Christian D’Andrea (USA Today)     12291

14.   Vinnie Iyer (Sporting News)            13445

 

So GunerBill’s mock was the best match by a narrow margin.   One can argue the top five drafts were similar in quality.  For example, Michael Renner would have won easily based on the top 31 picks but he had Sam Howell who was picked in the 5th round as his pick #32.

 

Some other points of interest:

 

19 players appears in all 14 mock drafts.  One, Malik Willis, was not selected in the first round.

23 players appears in 12 or more mock drafts.  Two, Willis and Andrew Booth were not selected in the first round.

 

Only one player selected in the first round did not appear in any mock draft (Cole Strange)

 

Kaiir Elam appears in 6 out of the 14 mock drafts with the earliest at #25 (to the Bills).

 

 

[cage]

I always read @GunnerBill posts as he has excellent insight, but is that the best way to evaluate?  There's a big point slide scale across Round 1.  Won't that over-penalize for inaccuracy at the top of the round vs. those at the bottom.  Make a mistake on one guy in the top 10, Stingley was picked much higher than many expected, and you've blown the whole mock.  Perhaps some of these guys in the lower end of your list did much better later in the round, where the picking is far more difficult.

Edited May 2, 2022 by cage

[GunnerBill]

Ha! What an accolade! I do take @cage's point about whether it is the best way to score mocks. There are multiple methods out there. @eball linked to one a few weeks ago against which I was very much middle of the pack last year. I will score this year's effort against it. Despite only getting 4 exact matches this year I was pretty happy with how my mock went. Calling 27 of the 32 first rounds is the best I've ever done in that regard. Normally around 24. And by the method being used here I benefit from the fact that my 5 misses were Malik (who everyone missed on) and then Mafe, Booth, Gordon and Watson - all of whom went in the first 10 picks of day 2. 

[PetermansRedemption]

15 minutes ago, cage said:

I always read @GunnerBill posts as he has excellent insight, but is that the best way to evaluate?  There's a big point slide scale across Round 1.  Won't that over-penalize for inaccuracy at the top of the round vs. those at the bottom.  Make a mistake on one guy in the top 10, Stingley was picked much higher than many expected, and you've blown the whole mock.  Perhaps some of these guys in the lower end of your list did much better later in the round, where the picking is far more difficult.

Wouldn’t this also be an argument for why you do it this way? It penalizes the easier picks at the top of the round far more than it penalizes the more difficult late round picks. 

[Clark Rotary]

Wow, nice analysis and that's impressive GunnerBill!

[GunnerBill]

By the method here https://www.fantasypros.com/nfl/accuracy/mock-drafts.php I'd have come 57th out of 164. By that method my weak spot was picks 11-20. I aced 1-10 and did well 21-32. But those middle 10 picks with all those trades and trades involving players etc knocked me off course. 

[BringBackFergy]

25 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

By the method here https://www.fantasypros.com/nfl/accuracy/mock-drafts.php I'd have come 57th out of 164. By that method my weak spot was picks 11-20. I aced 1-10 and did well 21-32. But those middle 10 picks with all those trades and trades involving players etc knocked me off course. 

Josh Rosen liked this post. 
 

 

😂

[Billy Claude]

1 hour ago, cage said:

I always read @GunnerBill posts as he has excellent insight, but is that the best way to evaluate?  There's a big point slide scale across Round 1.  Won't that over-penalize for inaccuracy at the top of the round vs. those at the bottom.  Make a mistake on one guy in the top 10, Stingley was picked much higher than many expected, and you've blown the whole mock.  Perhaps some of these guys in the lower end of your list did much better later in the round, where the picking is far more difficult.

 

 

I specifically chose this method to penalize misses at the beginning of the round more than ones later in the round.   A miss by 3 slots in the top 5 is not very good, but a miss by 3 slots in 28 to 32 range is doing a pretty good job.

 

 

[Dr. Who]

2 hours ago, Billy Claude said:

 

I thought it would be interesting to see how @GunnerBill ’s mock objectively compared to others.   To do this, I used the Jimmy Johnson draft pick value chart and assign penalty points based on how far the mock pick was from the actual pick.   For example, if a mock had Derek Stingley picked 5th (1700 draft points) whereas he was actually picked 3rd (2200 draft points), the mock draft was assigned 500 penalty points.  This was done for 14 mock drafts.

 

Long story short, it appers that GunnerBill knows what he is talking about as his draft finished first.

 

1.      GunnerBill                                         6950 penalty points (lower is better)

2.      Michael Renner (PFF)                     7046

3.      Trevor Sikkema (PFF)                     7090

4.      Chris Traapsso (CBS)                     7136

5.      Ari Meirov (PFF)                              7290

6.      Ryan Wilson (CBS)                          7586

7.      Charles Davis (NFL.com)                7690

8.      Josh Edwards (CBS)                      8045

9.      Chris Collinsworth (PFF)                8546

10.   Pete Prisco (CBS)                            9080

11.   Doug Kyed (PFF)                              9577

12.   Kyle Stackpole (CBS)                      10175

13.   Christian D’Andrea (USA Today)     12291

14.   Vinnie Iyer (Sporting News)            13445

 

So GunerBill’s mock was the best match by a narrow margin.   One can argue the top five drafts were similar in quality.  For example, Michael Renner would have won easily based on the top 31 picks but he had Sam Howell who was picked in the 5th round as his pick #32.

 

Some other points of interest:

 

19 players appears in all 14 mock drafts.  One, Malik Willis, was not selected in the first round.

23 players appears in 12 or more mock drafts.  Two, Willis and Andrew Booth were not selected in the first round.

 

Only one player selected in the first round did not appear in any mock draft (Cole Strange)

 

Kaiir Elam appears in 6 out of the 14 mock drafts with the earliest at #25 (to the Bills).

 

 

Didn't know Gunner had a burner account.

[Billy Claude]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

By the method here https://www.fantasypros.com/nfl/accuracy/mock-drafts.php I'd have come 57th out of 164. By that method my weak spot was picks 11-20. I aced 1-10 and did well 21-32. But those middle 10 picks with all those trades and trades involving players etc knocked me off course. 

 

I didn't know there was a website that already did something like this.

 

I agree that a slight change in the metric would change the order.  Moving one pick in the top five mocks would put them first.  So I don't doubt the order at the top would have changed if the Bill's secret point value system was used instead.

[SoCal Deek]

The only important measure would be the points earned by correctly guessing that the Bills would select the SD State punter. Everything else is just noise. 😉

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

Nice work! You have earned my respect.

[FireChans]

@GunnerBill is basically must read on TBD and he has been for many years now. No one else is close.

[cage]

2 hours ago, Billy Claude said:

 

 

I specifically chose this method to penalize misses at the beginning of the round more than ones later in the round.   A miss by 3 slots in the top 5 is not very good, but a miss by 3 slots in 28 to 32 range is doing a pretty good job.

 

 

 

I don't want to belabor it as I have much respect for Bill's insights, but a miss of a few slots in the top 5 penalizes almost as much 2+ round misses on QBs that people were projecting going in the 1st

Edited May 2, 2022 by cage

[Royale with Cheese]

4 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

Ha! What an accolade! I do take @cage's point about whether it is the best way to score mocks. There are multiple methods out there. @eball linked to one a few weeks ago against which I was very much middle of the pack last year. I will score this year's effort against it. Despite only getting 4 exact matches this year I was pretty happy with how my mock went. Calling 27 of the 32 first rounds is the best I've ever done in that regard. Normally around 24. And by the method being used here I benefit from the fact that my 5 misses were Malik (who everyone missed on) and then Mafe, Booth, Gordon and Watson - all of whom went in the first 10 picks of day 2. 

Ill let you buy me a drink if I’m ever in England.

[The Dean]

Fantastic!  

 

BTW, what were Kiper and Shay's scores?

[Nextmanup]

To the OP:  I assume this means Mel Kiper did not finish in the top 14.

 

Did you add up a score for him?  I'm just curious how bad it is.

 

 

[Billy Claude]

12 minutes ago, Nextmanup said:

To the OP:  I assume this means Mel Kiper did not finish in the top 14.

 

Did you add up a score for him?  I'm just curious how bad it is.

 

 

 

24 minutes ago, The Dean said:

Fantastic!  

 

BTW, what were Kiper and Shay's scores?

 

 

I did not do Kiper and Shay's scores since they are behind a paywall so I don't have access.   The CBS and PFF were chosen just because they had all their mocks easily accessible from a single webpage and the other 3 were national sites that came up early on Google.

 

2 hours ago, cage said:

 

I don't want to belabor it as I have much respect for Bill's insights, but a miss of a few slots in the top 5 penalizes almost as much 2+ round misses on QBs that people were projecting going in the 1st

 

 

Certainly there are other metrics that one could use and might be better but I don't want to make up my own.   I chose Jimmy Johnson's draft points since it is well known and from the GM's point of view drafting a total bust with #2 pick is much more likely to get you fired than a total bust at #32.  That should hold for mock drafters also -- but again there can certainly be better metrics.

 

[TPS]

I appreciate the work and like your thread title.  I much prefer to read these types of threads than something Talley's wife said....

[Solomon Grundy]

On 5/2/2022 at 6:56 AM, GunnerBill said:

By the method here https://www.fantasypros.com/nfl/accuracy/mock-drafts.php I'd have come 57th out of 164. By that method my weak spot was picks 11-20. I aced 1-10 and did well 21-32. But those middle 10 picks with all those trades and trades involving players etc knocked me off course. 

I value your opinion of players/prospects more than Joe Marino from the Draft Network