Rich Hill has literally used all of the trades from the past 25 as input to create his chart. This focus on the mean means there will be outliers - even quite a few - but all of that is discussed in the statistical chart above.
You are in fact, so, so right. Right as rain.
(Because if youāre not right neither am I and I refuse to believe that).
1 Like
Lol so now itās not just one time? I literally proved your statement false in 30 seconds, now I have to do all of them? At least be smart like @Thats2 and say itās a law of averages instead of a definitive āit only happened onceā statement
I feel like the missing piece here might be weight. Meaning all trades are created as equal and it greatly influences the balance at the top half of round 1. Also, it doesnāt take into account factors such as where teams stand in terms of needs/picks.
Another example, the commanders donāt have a 2nd and 4th in this draft. The appeal of getting those imo increases the chances a deal gets done. Data is not taking this into account. So using straight numbers only is misleading (which is a very common theme in statistical data - like going for it on 4th downs without any context at all).
I think using the Hill formula based on past trades is actually a problem rather than āevidence.ā
But I could be crazyā¦
1 Like
Well yeah and trades at the top
Pay the QB tax
Which is why they match up often with JJ chart
Thatās part of the problemā¦data only, no context whatsoever.
In order for a team to drop significant spots in the top 10 or even top 20 they need more compensation. It usually takes you out of a player pool.
Data, although relevant for sure, itās a bad guideline for things like this. Again thatās just my opinion I guess. Itās a tool, but a baseline only.
Arizona didnāt take a QB when they traded up with Detroitā¦ Seattle didnāt take a QB in the other trade I looked up.
It only happened one time thoā¦ Except every other time it happened
Rich Hill chart is the best guide for data based evidence. Itās certainly not the better of the two imo. But itās the trendy one because people in the sports world have fallen in love with analytics and take it as facts. Because on one hand, yes they are actual facts. But like everything, context is equally important which data ignores.
3 Likes
If you want to read the full paper, here is the link. They are trying to develop their own chart, which I assume means they donāt think itās perfect either. And everyone agrees that there is needed context, which is why the 15-30% upcharge when trading up for a QB is such a known thing.
That said, they still did the side-by-side comparison to show that despite its faults, even as a tool or a baseline, it is still much more ācorrectā, which is the part I clipped and pasted above.
So yes, you are still crazy
4 Likes
Iāll accept that Iām just crazy then haha. Because Iāve looked at every possible trade in the 1st round for years now and the Rich Hill chart falls imo.
Statistics were my thing. Growing up I had a natural connection with math in general. I got it from my dad who is a literal genius. But these deep dive analytics have gotten out of hand. Too much weight has been put into them and it blinds people from the bigger picture. Iām not accusing you of this Iām just stating in general. Iām not using statistical data and charts to make my decisions. Iāll use it as a guideline sureā¦but the context is what really matters. The data is just a way to make you feel justified with decision making.
1 Like
Want to buy an accounting practice ?!
Yeah I donāt even know how to interpret that.
1 Like
I agree that context matters, but the best statistical studies - as it appears you know - try to take context into account as much as possible (or, to eliminate as many variables as possible). And these guys did this, they even mentioned as much in this part right here:
However, it must be noted that the scales of the two charts are not equal. In the Jimmy Johnson chart, the maximum pick is worth 3000 points, whereas in the Rich Hill chart it is worth 1000 points (also, as noted previously, the āpoints" in the Jimmy Johnson and Rich Hill charts are two entirely different currencies). As a result, direct visual comparison of the plots may be misleading.
To enable a meaningful comparison between the two charts, a scale-invariant error metric is required. Direct measures such as the root mean square error (RMSE) depend on the magnitude of the underlying scale and therefore cannot be used to compare models expressed in different units. A normalized metric is therefore necessary to evaluate how well each chart represents the empirical trade data.
Which is why they shifted to the relative root mean square error, because it allows for comparisons between models with different scales (as discussed in the paper). These arenāt cherry-picked stats the way they so often are on Twitter or what have you, this is a bona fide study where theyāre trying to do the opposite and add as much context and take away as many variables as possible.
Anyway you asked where is the evidence, and I literally gave you a research paper explaining it. I suspect in the history of this board no one has given better āevidenceā lol. Whether you agree with it or not, well thatās on you. But the vast majority of all evidence will be statistical, and for all of its faults (and I agree there are plenty), that is still better than the alternative.
And regardless of what you think of basing a model and the actual history that has happened like Rich Hill did, surely you can admit itās a better approach than the egomaniac Jimmy Johnson trying to do the same thing? One is a statistician, the other isā¦ well, Jimmy Johnson.
1 Like
Nah bro, the most solid evidence is vibes
2 Likes
Yeah thatās not what Iām saying at all, but roll with itā¦
I almost said itās better than vibes, rather than the opposite.
I didnāt say you were. I was mostly just making a social commentary jokeā¦you know, where no one cares about actual data and everything is just vibes.
3 Likes
I guess I just donāt put a bunch of stock into statistical data other than a tool to support oneās argument. Maybe thatās why I so often am accused of not coming with supporting evidence and Iām labeled the āvibe guy.ā
It appears that I am wrong from a straight statistical/data viewpoint in regards to which chart is more accurate. I mean I canāt argue with that side of itā¦I guess my stance is more that whatever chart you use, itās a small part of what makes a trade make sense.
1 Like
You said you are crazy & love math
Itās a good gig for you