Tweet
For those who saw last years' post, you can skip this first post as it's a copy/paste from my thread in the 2060 draft grades thread. I have changed the values to 0 out the per round averages, everything else is directly copy/pasted.
I wanted a draft grade that was a little more Best Player Available than positional need without overly punishing GMs who prioritize position of need when drafting. I also wanted a grading system where you can't brute force your way to the top by accumulating more draft picks. Below is my attempt at doing so.
I assigned values to draft spots based on what the "average" future value of a pick should be. average is in quotes because it is extremely subjective, but to give an example, let's say you are picking at 1.15, and on your shortlist is a 55 ovr. WR, 70 ovr. ILB, and a 60 ovr. CB. A pure BPA score would reward the ILB the most and punish the other 2, but if I say you should pick someone around 60 ovr, then the cb & WR score 0 (achieved positional need) and the ILB gets a +10 (achieved BPA).
If I did this correctly: The highest scores below are players that got best BPA scores for each of their picks (whether thru pre2 luck or drafted bars held), players close to 0 drafted as expected for their picks since they went more positional need than BPA, and players with negative scores either missed on picks, or chased affinities at the cost of raw overall score.
Scoring Low on this draft does NOT mean you drafted poorly, only that you stayed away from BPA.
I assigned the following expected future overall values to draft positions:
1.1 & 1.2 = 75
1.3-1.9 = 70
1.10 - 1.21 = 65
1.22 - 2.32 = 60
2.11 - 2.21 = 55
2.22- 3.32 = 50
4.1 - 5.21 = 45
5.22 - 7.32 = 40
This list is based on what I need the values to be for the per round average to be between -1.00 and +1.00. I am 100% willing to adjust these numbers to get a better representation of how we drafted, I'm using these numbers as a starting point.
What I do in the table below is take the difference between the players FV according to MTC scouts after the pre2 sim and the positional score to create a difference. I then average all picks by a team to come to a single number that gets ranked. I use average instead of summation to avoid rewarding pick hoarders, and reward players who pick well at each pick.
Finally, about kickers and punters. I will provide 2 lists, 1 with K/P and 1 without. The reason being that drafting a 70 ovr. kicker in the 7th round will give you a score of +30, which obviously throws everything off. On the other hand, finding a 70 overall kicker should be rewarded, since they are relatively rare. I've decided to simply do 2 separate tables, because otherwise I'll have to get into positional weighing for all positions, which is something we can build as a group for future drafts.
Sorry for the wall of text, next couple of posts are the results.
I wanted a draft grade that was a little more Best Player Available than positional need without overly punishing GMs who prioritize position of need when drafting. I also wanted a grading system where you can't brute force your way to the top by accumulating more draft picks. Below is my attempt at doing so.
I assigned values to draft spots based on what the "average" future value of a pick should be. average is in quotes because it is extremely subjective, but to give an example, let's say you are picking at 1.15, and on your shortlist is a 55 ovr. WR, 70 ovr. ILB, and a 60 ovr. CB. A pure BPA score would reward the ILB the most and punish the other 2, but if I say you should pick someone around 60 ovr, then the cb & WR score 0 (achieved positional need) and the ILB gets a +10 (achieved BPA).
If I did this correctly: The highest scores below are players that got best BPA scores for each of their picks (whether thru pre2 luck or drafted bars held), players close to 0 drafted as expected for their picks since they went more positional need than BPA, and players with negative scores either missed on picks, or chased affinities at the cost of raw overall score.
Scoring Low on this draft does NOT mean you drafted poorly, only that you stayed away from BPA.
I assigned the following expected future overall values to draft positions:
1.1 & 1.2 = 75
1.3-1.9 = 70
1.10 - 1.21 = 65
1.22 - 2.32 = 60
2.11 - 2.21 = 55
2.22- 3.32 = 50
4.1 - 5.21 = 45
5.22 - 7.32 = 40
This list is based on what I need the values to be for the per round average to be between -1.00 and +1.00. I am 100% willing to adjust these numbers to get a better representation of how we drafted, I'm using these numbers as a starting point.
What I do in the table below is take the difference between the players FV according to MTC scouts after the pre2 sim and the positional score to create a difference. I then average all picks by a team to come to a single number that gets ranked. I use average instead of summation to avoid rewarding pick hoarders, and reward players who pick well at each pick.
Finally, about kickers and punters. I will provide 2 lists, 1 with K/P and 1 without. The reason being that drafting a 70 ovr. kicker in the 7th round will give you a score of +30, which obviously throws everything off. On the other hand, finding a 70 overall kicker should be rewarded, since they are relatively rare. I've decided to simply do 2 separate tables, because otherwise I'll have to get into positional weighing for all positions, which is something we can build as a group for future drafts.
Sorry for the wall of text, next couple of posts are the results.
Comment