The Draft Trade Chart - Version 2.0
I tried to take a stab at revising Jimmy Johnson's famed draft trade chart. It is now almost universally acknowledged as outdated. I had some basic changes that I wanted to implement and thought that I could whip out a new, streamlined version pretty quick. It's just not that simple.
When it was first drawn up it was a secret weapon, though its exact origins are vague. Gil Brandt gave this history lesson on the chart.
The origins of the chart are vague. Gil Brandt, a former longtime executive with the Cowboys, said Dallas and Kansas City were among several teams that used an early version in the late 1980s. He said former Cowboys coach Jimmy Johnson modified it in the 1990s, ultimately coming up with a model that's closer to what clubs rely on today.
This chart was used to give Johnson's staff immediate relative values for every draft position on the board and allowed them to make rapid trade decisions while the selection clock ticked down on draft day.
This valuable tool migrated into other draft rooms as Cowboy assistant coaches accepted positions with other teams. Over time, the chart has been adopted by many teams and is still used when trades are done on draft day.
The original chart was constructed before the early first round draft choices were commanding king's ransoms as signing bonuses. We know that an early first round pick should be an immediate impact player for a team, but if that player does not live up to potential their huge salary is a burden on the team's ability to sign other players. The early first round picks do provide more potential but also more risk. These players are supposed to make immediate contributions to their teams and due to that that high potential a high draft pick value should still be assigned. The difficult part is trying to calculate what negative value should come from the players astronomical salary?
Another change I wanted my revised chart to reflect is to have groups of picks with the same values. The discussion for weeks prior to the draft is - Who will be the first pick? Right now there may be five different players who are all considered legitimate number one selections, doesn't this mean the team selecting fifth gets the same value player as the team selecting first overall? Since the fifth selected player was considered a worthy first overall selection I would say that the top five picks in the draft all have the same draft trade value. I carried this thought on through the draft - thinking, "What is the difference between the first pick in the fourth-round and the fifth pick in the fourth-round? Nothing." My new chart would reflect this.
Also, we have read that all teams prepare their individual draft boards and all have around twenty or so players they determine as worthy of being selected in the first round. Beyond that these teams don't feel they will be getting true first round value. My new draft chart would reflect a significant drop off after the twentieth selection of the first round.
Some of my own research shows that much of the talent is found within the top three rounds and my draft value trade chart would be front loaded to show this.
Finally, the current chart is like the income tax code, it's too complex and needs simplification. I would like to simplify it.
ProFootballTalk.com claims that some teams are already using a revised draft chart similar to the one that PFT designed.
There have been quite a few attempts, by a number of different people, at revising the chart. Here's another version and another.
I tried to come up with my own revolutionary new model that would meet the criteria I outlined above. I spent hours on it and nothing I could put together added up. It's like a Rubik's Cube - when I fine tuned one round I messed up another. It's harder than it looks.
What changes would you make to the chart?
14 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I am new to this draft chart stuff...
But perhaps the naive eyes can add a new perspective…
The first thing that stood out for me is the great drop-off in the late rounds. Is the first pick of the 7th really worth 7 times the value of the last pick?
Also, as each season seems to vary considerably in depth and talent, shouldn’t each year’s draft chart. For example, I seem to remember last year people saying that the talent looked to start dropping off considerably after the first 20 – 25 picks. Wouldn’t that mean that pick number 20 and pick number 10 should be closer in value than the difference between 20 and 30?
Right now, when you create a chart from the numbers, it is relatively smooth. In reality, it seems that there are larger groups of players that rank similarly, with larger drop-offs to the next batch.
I like the idea of “cleaning it up” and the example you gave was that the top 5 players were similar in value. So why not reflect this in your numbers? Given the high risk of the first pick (high salary), the argument for making these top values similar is even stronger. You have pick number 5 worth 1300 points less than pick number 1. As a frame of reference, the entire value of round 4 = 2271 points, and round 5 = 1100.
I’m sure you could make all kinds of adaptations based on each year, as well as the specific areas of need you are targetting. Drafting is, by it’s very nature, an inexact science… thus trying to quantify such things is equally difficult.
Tar Heels started this college Bball season with one goal in mind - that loss to Kansas in last year's final 4 will make this team all bid-ness!
while i agree that there are equally valued players that can be grouped
I worry you are eliminating the very tangible factor of choice. Having your choice of 5 similarly rated players is a big difference from being in position to take the last remaining of 5 similarly rated players.
how much of a difference do you assign to that? I have no clue, but I feel it would have to be a consideration in order for a new chart to have merit.
good luck, i’m interested to see your results.
'he nails an open three from the corner....just like you and me, this one was made by penetration' - Truthaboutit - Round 1 Game 5 Recap
KDP - You stole me thunder.
But, I will add this as well. Being at the top of a range, like #21 has a significant value. Supposedly, there are only 20 1st round rated players. Well, if one or two of those players happen to not be chosen, then now the team at 21 has more value. I think that this is why any rating system is completely bogus. The value of a pick is dependent on so many things and its value changes virtually after every pick.
lol, sorry about that
i’m quick on the reply button!
'he nails an open three from the corner....just like you and me, this one was made by penetration' - Truthaboutit - Round 1 Game 5 Recap
It's not just talent
In today’s Big Business NFL, the economics of a pick have to be as important as the potential talent. The problem with the whole chart thing is the “group think” it has introduced into the NFL. The Oakland A’s are a perfect example of combining good business economics with talent search. If I were a GM, I’d trade every 1st round pick I ever got and stockpile picks in the 2nd-5th rounds year after year. With more good picks and fewer must-hit picks, a team could stay competitive year after year without the inevitable salary cap crush.
by steelyeyedmissle on Apr 12, 2009 9:13 AM CDT reply actions
except for the fact that the method the A's employ hasn't led to championships
they are a feeder team for the rest of MLB because of it. They draft and cultivate the talent, then watch them become key pieces for other teams. Not a model I want my Dallas Cowboys to follow.
'he nails an open three from the corner....just like you and me, this one was made by penetration' - Truthaboutit - Round 1 Game 5 Recap
Last 12 years?
We haven’t even won a playoff game using our method. At least the A’s are always in it. 5-ll is the same as 13-3 when you suck in January.
by steelyeyedmissle on Apr 12, 2009 7:45 PM CDT up reply actions
Their is also the problem of everyones top 20 not being the same.
Jimmy Johnsons old value chart is a little out dated. They have newer ones that try to factor more in. The truth of the matter its more of a guideline. People say it doesnt work but most of the time it puts you in the ball park. I like it cause at least you have some sort starting point when trying to figure out trade partners and different senarios.
Yeah...
truth of the matter is that the “value chart” in all honesty should change year to year anyways.
Year to year, class to class, the quality of player and depth of player you can get is different.
They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time it works, every time.
I agree
And I am guessing the best GM’s in the league do tailor their charts each season.
Game Recognize Game
by pretty ricky on Apr 13, 2009 12:04 PM CDT up reply actions
$
Realistic or not, the salary paid to each pick in represents the expected impact of the position. I’d simply look at the money that goes to each pick and base it on that.
The salaries drop dramatically from the beginning of the first round to the end of the first round. I’m betting that most 7th round picks get pretty much the same thing. That seems like a realistic measure of the value of each pick.
I like this theory...
Talk about a simple system!
I am in Thailand, and the media is all over the protests here. The inside scoop? Follow the money… it applies to almost any situation in life.
Tar Heels started this college Bball season with one goal in mind - that loss to Kansas in last year's final 4 will make this team all bid-ness!
Oops...
Skip that Thailand crap – I was going to use that example of “follow the money” but just edited it to “it applies to almost…” blah blah blah
This “salary paid” theory is perfect. If you took average salary at each position over 3-5 years, it would be better than this numerical guessing.
Tar Heels started this college Bball season with one goal in mind - that loss to Kansas in last year's final 4 will make this team all bid-ness!
I'm gonna have to call shenaningans on the PFT revision
There is 100 points difference between the 32nd(670) and the 33rd (570)picks
But only 25 pts between the 31st(695) and 32nd(670)
and only 10 pts between the 33rd(570) and 34th (560)
I guess they are trying to value the first round higher but that makes no sense to me. Or am I missing something
Game Recognize Game

by 


















