Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
I love guys that run data around, but in this case, the "winner" would be the team that took the guy falling the most every single round, and I've seen in other studies that the opposite is true;
that is, teams that have conviction do better than teams that take the falling stars every round.
I love the Kylington pick, but I won't deny the risk in taking a guy that has fallen that far. Rico Fata was a similar story in 1998. Sometimes there is a big reason not to select a player at any point.
|
Not all guys are fallers though they are using the criteria PSC/%/Overall etc. If a team took them earlier then their ranking then they're a loser. If a team took them after then they're a winner.
A guy like Maniapane was rated higher with this system but we took him later.
Interesting study. Would like to read more on it.