Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Don't disagree on either point, but if you step hard into subjective analysis the whole thing is worthless.
If you use hard line objective math then you have an analysis with an understanding that it's flawed.
I'd rather be in the second camp as a starting point.
Your .85 to 1.00 example is a very good one, but at least that goes away as you go deeper into the draft.
We all know that Hanifin will be there at 3 so moving up to 3 and targeting that player is a guarantee, or at least close to one compared to say valuing the 9th pick right now versus the 15h and not knowing how the dominos will fall.
Better to have a historic view of the value of 9 vs 15 in your back pocket when evaluating the differential.
I think if I was at the table I'd run the average of 8-10 vs 14-16 to be less specific. In that case you have .54 vs .36 and a difference of .18 which is a very high 2nd round pick.
And once again despite that differential it would take more than that to do it.
|
There's a lamppost for a drunk analogy around here somewhere. It's very useful information and I'm sure trans must use some form of it. It's also very eye opening.
The biggest thing I learned from your analysis is that quality doesn't trump quantity, for the most part. Things are complex and Chicago has drafted relatively well, but it's the quantity of picks that has likely produced their prospect depth.
San Jose did remarkably well with what poor picks they had, but their lack of success with so few picks in the lady few drafts is the reason they've got no one to overtake their veteran leaders.
All in all, trans seen to live and die by the draft