April is NFL draft month and, above all, of its great myths, of the irrefutable and immovable opinions and dogmas that are repeated year after year. But are they true or false? At Mundo NFL we resort to Jesus Soler (A Bad Kicker)one of the leading experts in Spanish in advanced statistics, to see if the franchises are correct in their strategy when it comes to choosing the university players who have to lead them to the ring of champions in professional American football.
Dogma: Always select the best player available regardless of his position on the field and the needs of your team
Verdict according to advanced statistics: Lie
It is the great myth of the NFL draft, the one that fills hundreds of texts every time the month of April approaches and a team has a high position in the first round, but, according to advanced statistics, that strategy is wrong. Or, at least, in part: if the player in question is a quarterback (QB), then you have to take him without hesitation for a second.
To explain it, Jesús Soler introduces two complementary concepts: positional value and surplus value. For one thing, franchises have to measure the impact of a player at a certain position based on how well he performs versus the cost of that preferred position with a player on a veteran rather than a rookie contract. On the other hand, these same franchises have to take into account the aforementioned surplus value, that is, the value of a player’s performance, estimated according to the market of veteran players, less his compensation.
According to these concepts, only the quarterbacks, who occupy the most important position on the field of play, can ensure greater profitability in the selection, while there are three other positions that are also remarkably profitable when choosing a player, especially among the top ten picks: offensive tackle (OT), interior defensive line (IDL) and edge rusherwhich is not a position to use, but a type of player with the ability to put pressure on the quarterback, either as a defensive end (DE) or linebacker (LB).
On the contrary, the least profitable positions are inside the offensive line (IOL), linebackers (LB), running backs (RB), tight ends (TE) and safeties (S), which allows It also puts an end to another of the great myths of the draft: unless you choose a quarterback, in the first round it is better to choose a defensive player… yes, but depending on his position.
I mean, if you’re in doubt, pick a quarterback. And if you don’t need a quarterback because you have Patrick Mahomes, select an offensive tackle, an inside defensive line or a edge rusher. Or a specialist in a specific situation that can occur in a game, something completely necessary in today’s NFL.
Dogma: If you think that the player you want in the first round is not going to reach your choice, it is better to reach an agreement with another team and move up positions to choose him (and more if he is in the top ten, since being in the top ten selected guarantees to choose a player who will be more Pro Bowl times)
Verdict according to advanced statistics: Lie
In this unshakable truth about the NFL draft, reason and emotion collide head-on. Based on advanced statistics, there is no evidence that going up in the draft is a positive return strategy. However, franchises do it all the time. Because? Mainly, because they tend to overestimate their ability to assess talent. And, above all, because of cognitive biases: talent evaluators fall in love with a certain player and are no longer capable of thinking rationally, of seeing their shortcomings, which they also have.
In fact, between 2011 and 2018, as Jesús Soler points out, the players chosen in a team for which a franchise had to go up in the draft did not provide any added value, especially in the higher rounds. On the other hand, in the lower rounds it did increase its benefit. Like everything, he has his rational explanation: players selected in low rounds are quickly cut by franchises if they don’t show their performance on the pitch and take advantage of the few opportunities they have.
Dogma: Dropping after making a deal with another team and racking up draft picks is a smart move (because that’s what Bill Belichick usually does)
Advanced Statistic Verdict: True
Yes, Bill Belichick knows what he’s doing. Not surprisingly, this myth is still, as Jesús Soler recalls, a corollary of the previous myth: if your ability to assess talent is low, if you have too many cognitive biases, accumulate selections and, in Soler’s words, “fish for drag” is the most appropriate strategy.
And even more so today: traditionally, the Jimmy Johnson table valued the top picks higher, but recent research has shown the difference between taking a player with the 10th pick or the 32nd pick It is much lower than previously thought.
In this case, in practically equal conditions, the quantity seems more decisive than the quality.
Dogma: Picking a project for long-term development in the first round solely because of innate talent, especially at quarterback, is not a good idea, as it never works (exceptions like Aaron Rodgers and Patrick Mahomes).
Advanced Statistic Verdict: No Evidence
Neither truth nor lie. The analytics find no evidence to show that picking an Aaron Rodgers or a Patrick Mahomes in the first round and trying to develop their talent over the long term is a strategy synonymous with success.
The explanation, in reality, as Jesús Soler emphasizes, is very simple: evaluating the talent of quarterbacks is really complicated. With few exceptions in which his high level is abundantly clear, selecting a quarterback with the idea that he will be a determining player in the future success of a franchise is a matter of pure chance, like flipping a coin. in the air. And even more so if he is not selected in the first round: according to advanced statistics, quarterbacks selected from the second round have barely a 5% chance of succeeding in the NFL. But Tom Brady was selected in the sixth round.
As said, a coin tossed in the air.
Dogma: Picking an offensive lineman in the top 10 is a safe pick because it guarantees you’ll have a starter on your offensive line for the next 10 years.
Selecting an offensive lineman, especially a tackle, in the first round, let alone in the top 10, is a decision that can practically be considered on a cost-benefit basis. And the result, according to a conservative approach to decision making, is always the same: limit the risks and choose an offensive tackle.
Traditionally, offensive tackles don’t usually make it to free agency. In addition, they have a great translation and a very high durability. All this, coupled with its cost, translates into a maxim that is very close to absolute truth: take an offensive tackle in the first round whenever you can.
Dogma: Never take a runner in the first round (especially if he was a star in college since he will not last long among the professionals)
Advanced Statistic Verdict: True
The antithesis of the above myth is also virtually true: Don’t take a running back in the first round. At least according to the analytics. Unlike offensive tackles, running backs are widely replaceable with other running backs, and the difference in performance between a running back taken in a high round and one taken in a low round is almost imperceptible. Also, running backs cost little money in free agency and their durability is questionable.
Therefore, if you rely on advanced stats, never take a running back in the first round. And even less in the top ten.
Dogma: Big, tall receivers are better for the end zone, so if you need to get better in the end zone, go for a big, tall receiver.
Verdict according to advanced statistics: Lie
In the words of Jesús Soler, this myth is “interesting” for advanced statistics. Not surprisingly, without finding data that directly links to this hypothesis, one must understand this statement from a completely unstable starting point: the performance in the NFL end zone is wildly irregular and varies exponentially from one season to another.
Therefore, when choosing receivers in the draft to improve performance in the end zone, what analytics recommends is that you look for receivers based on their performance as a whole, not according to a certain ability or, as the statement says, a particular feature of his physique. I mean, a big, tall receiver doesn’t directly translate to higher points in the end zone.
Source: @PFF_Moo https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-splits-that-matter-do-red-zone-monsters-exist
Dogma: Pure speed is overrated and does not guarantee success in the NFL
Advanced Statistic Verdict: True
Without a doubt, this myth contains one of the great biases that evaluators present when selecting players: speed, alone, is not enough in the NFL. You need to have the full package of physical, technical and temperamental qualities to succeed in competition.
Advanced statistics, as Jesús Soler recalls, show that there is no real correlation between speed and performance. So why is there so much emphasis on player speed, ever since the NFL Combine, with dozens of videos about the 40-yard dash of every college draftee? Because franchises tend to overestimate athleticism…
Fuente: Raymond Tucker and Willie Black https://thesportjournal.org/article/predictive-validity-of-the-physical-skills-test-of-the-40-yard-dash-and-draft-placement-in-the-nfl-draft/
Dogma: A great physique is not equivalent to a great talent
Advanced Statistic Verdict: True
… An overestimation of athletic ability in talent evaluation that also leads to debunking, according to analytics, the last great NFL draft myth: no, great physique is not equivalent to great talent.
In any case, this statement should be explained: in theory, a better athlete does generate greater performance, but this progression flattens out in athletes with a great physique. As Jesús Soler emphasizes, the “super athletes”, those projects that are in an athletic percentile higher than number 75, are usually selected by the franchises earlier than their overall evaluation suggests and, once in the NFL, they do not return to those franchises the expected value with that draft pick.
Although that, in reality, can also happen with most of the teams, not only with super athletes.
Because you can perpetuate the myths and move up in the draft to pick a tall, big, athletic, speedy receiver in the first round who, in theory, will improve your team in the end zone.
Or you can heed the advanced stat and go down in the draft to rack up two first-round picks that make you go with an offensive tackle and an inside defensive line.
But the NFL draft will always be unpredictable.
