{"id":11871,"date":"2018-03-25T12:02:47","date_gmt":"2018-03-25T19:02:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mountaininterval.org\/journal\/?p=11871"},"modified":"2018-03-31T19:59:00","modified_gmt":"2018-04-01T02:59:00","slug":"moneyball-v","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/mountaininterval.org\/journal\/2018\/03\/25\/moneyball-v\/","title":{"rendered":"Moneyball V"},"content":{"rendered":"

In an ongoing effort to drive away readers by combining my love of the worst team in the NFL with my love of math<\/a>, here’s another post about the upcoming NFL draft.<\/p>\n

As I’ve posted previously, I buy in fully to the idea that most NFL teams are bad at valuing draft picks, and that the Browns have done a great job in recent drafts of taking advantage of that quirk of NFL management (note: they’ve done a great job acquiring<\/i> picks, and a terrible job of using<\/i> those picks). For example, while one can argue about whether Deshaun Watson should have been the Browns’ choice last year at #12, it’s tough to argue against the value they got for that trade, giving up #12 in 2017 for #25 in 2017 and #4 this year.<\/p>\n

In my predictions for 2018<\/a> I suggested that the Browns would take a quarterback #1, and then take advantage of teams willing to overpay to move up by trading away the #4 pick. The Jets recently traded up to the #3 position, heavily overpaying for that privilege according to the traditional draft value chart<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
IND trades<\/th>\nNYJ trades<\/th>\nResult<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
#3 (2200 points)<\/td>\n#6 (1600 points)
#37 (530 points)
#49 (410 points)
2018 2nd round pick (270-580)<\/td>\n		2200 points for 2810-3120 points
(28-42% premium)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

Assuming the Browns would get a similar premium for the #4 pick (worth 1800 points), the following are all trades that I suspect will be viable in this year’s draft based on the fact that there are four quarterbacks being discussed as top picks, and all of the following teams need QBs; were I the Browns’ GM, I would accept any of these offers without hesitation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Trading partner<\/th>\nPicks traded<\/th>\nResult<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n
Denver<\/td>\n#5 (1700 points)
#71 (235 points)<\/td>\n		1800 points for 1935 points
(8% premium)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Miami<\/td>\n#11 (1250 points)
#73 (225 points)
2019 1st round pick (590-3000)<\/td>\n		1800 points for 2065-4475 points
(15-149% premium)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Buffalo<\/td>\n#12 (1200 points)
#65 (265 points)
2019 1st round pick (590-3000)<\/td>\n		1800 points for 2055-4465 points
(14-148% premium)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Arizona<\/td>\n#15 (1050 points)
#47 (430 points)
2019 1st round pick (590-3000)<\/td>\n		1800 points for 2070-4480 points
(15-149% premium)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

Obviously making mathematically-smart trades won’t matter if the Browns don’t do a better job of actually drafting players that have success in the NFL, and thus the Browns clearly need to improve their talent evaluation. That said, statistically they’ve made all the right moves when it comes to maximizing their draft capital, and I hope that they don’t forgo that success this year when teams offer to trade a king’s ransom for whoever the fourth-best quarterback ends up being.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In an ongoing effort to drive away readers by combining my love of the worst team in the NFL with my love of math, here’s another post about the upcoming NFL draft. As I’ve posted previously, I buy in fully to the idea that most NFL teams are bad at valuing draft picks, and that … Continue reading “Moneyball V”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[49,25],"class_list":["post-11871","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-journal","tag-moneyball","tag-ramblings"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/mountaininterval.org\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11871","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/mountaininterval.org\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/mountaininterval.org\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/mountaininterval.org\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/mountaininterval.org\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11871"}],"version-history":[{"count":30,"href":"http:\/\/mountaininterval.org\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11871\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11916,"href":"http:\/\/mountaininterval.org\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11871\/revisions\/11916"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/mountaininterval.org\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11871"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/mountaininterval.org\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11871"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/mountaininterval.org\/journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11871"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}