is that unless you are really willing to open your mind to understanding what 25 years worth of data, on over 7 million plays is showing you, then the idea is anti-intuitive.
Its a paradigm shift that people who rely entirely on their senses, their judgement, their opinions and their emotions simply cannot make.
They will pick specific moments to that satisfy their narrative to "prove" that the idea is wrong.
Part of what is so hard for them is that they believe that there is a perfect formula, or perhaps a set of formulas that definitively lead to wins. Describe a formula in probabilistic terms, and say that it accounts for variations and statistical outliers, it just defines those situations a lower probability, their act like you have killed their dog.
Give me Justin Pugh over Todd Gurley any day of the week, right? Fuck those RBs. They don't contribute shit to a team.
Why would anyone take an oft injured middle of the road Guard in Pugh over argubly the best back in football? You should have went with Zack Martin over Gurley.. and in that case I just may go with Martin
is that unless you are really willing to open your mind to understanding what 25 years worth of data, on over 7 million plays is showing you, then the idea is anti-intuitive.
Its a paradigm shift that people who rely entirely on their senses, their judgement, their opinions and their emotions simply cannot make.
They will pick specific moments to that satisfy their narrative to "prove" that the idea is wrong.
Part of what is so hard for them is that they believe that there is a perfect formula, or perhaps a set of formulas that definitively lead to wins. Describe a formula in probabilistic terms, and say that it accounts for variations and statistical outliers, it just defines those situations a lower probability, their act like you have killed their dog.
yes this is mostly true. though there is something to the notion that rbs have been so utterly dismissed by the staffing and financial behaviors of nfl teams that there could be an opportunity to capitalize on that devaluation. But spending a #2 on Barkley is not the way to do it. Obviously
Give me Justin Pugh over Todd Gurley any day of the week, right? Fuck those RBs. They don't contribute shit to a team.
Why would anyone take an oft injured middle of the road Guard in Pugh over argubly the best back in football? You should have went with Zack Martin over Gurley.. and in that case I just may go with Martin
though, just fyi, Pugh the SEVENTH highest paid RIGHT GUARD in the NFL makes more money per year than EVERY RB IN THE NFL except one.
is that unless you are really willing to open your mind to understanding what 25 years worth of data, on over 7 million plays is showing you, then the idea is anti-intuitive.
Its a paradigm shift that people who rely entirely on their senses, their judgement, their opinions and their emotions simply cannot make.
They will pick specific moments to that satisfy their narrative to "prove" that the idea is wrong.
Part of what is so hard for them is that they believe that there is a perfect formula, or perhaps a set of formulas that definitively lead to wins. Describe a formula in probabilistic terms, and say that it accounts for variations and statistical outliers, it just defines those situations a lower probability, their act like you have killed their dog.
yes this is mostly true. though there is something to the notion that rbs have been so utterly dismissed by the staffing and financial behaviors of nfl teams that there could be an opportunity to capitalize on that devaluation. But spending a #2 on Barkley is not the way to do it. Obviously
The trend is still going down...
The analysis of those, 7 million plays suggests that the added value of an elite back over a replacement level back is virtually 0.
Oh boy, now I've done it... The BBI bullies are going to be all over me again for posting that.
is that unless you are really willing to open your mind to understanding what 25 years worth of data, on over 7 million plays is showing you, then the idea is anti-intuitive.
Its a paradigm shift that people who rely entirely on their senses, their judgement, their opinions and their emotions simply cannot make.
They will pick specific moments to that satisfy their narrative to "prove" that the idea is wrong.
Part of what is so hard for them is that they believe that there is a perfect formula, or perhaps a set of formulas that definitively lead to wins. Describe a formula in probabilistic terms, and say that it accounts for variations and statistical outliers, it just defines those situations a lower probability, their act like you have killed their dog.
yes this is mostly true. though there is something to the notion that rbs have been so utterly dismissed by the staffing and financial behaviors of nfl teams that there could be an opportunity to capitalize on that devaluation. But spending a #2 on Barkley is not the way to do it. Obviously
The trend is still going down...
The analysis of those, 7 million plays suggests that the added value of an elite back over a replacement level back is virtually 0.
Oh boy, now I've done it... The BBI bullies are going to be all over me again for posting that.
i feel your pain .. unleash the hounds of hell.. you dared to say their favorite madden player is actually not as valuable as Alex Smith.
In particular it is the Subjective Theory of Value that applies here.
Quote:
Subjective theory of value
Further information: Subjective theory of value
The subjective theory of value is a Theory of Value that believes that an item’s value depends on the consumer. This theory states that an item’s value is not dependent on the labor that goes into a good, or any inherent property of the good. Instead, the subjective theory of value believes that a good’s value depends on the consumers wants and needs.[7] The consumer places a value on an item by determining the marginal utility, or additional satisfaction of one additional good,[8] of that item and deciding what that means to them.[9]
The modern subjective theory of value was created by William Stanley Jevons, Léon Walras, and Carl Menger in the late 19th century.[10] The subjective theory contradicted Karl Marx’s Labour Theory which stated an items value depends on the labour that goes into production and not the ability to satisfy the consumer.[11]
The subjective theory of value helped answer the “Diamond-Water Paradox,” which many believed to be unsolvable. The diamond-water paradox questions why diamonds are so much more valuable than water when water is necessary for life. This paradox was answered by the subjective theory of value by realizing that water, in total, is more valuable than diamonds because the first few units are necessary for life. The key difference between water and diamonds is that water is more plentiful and diamonds are rare. Because of the availability, one additional unit of diamonds exceeds the value of one additional unit of water.[11]
Marginalism
Marginalism refers to the study of marginal theories and studies within economics. The topics included in marginalism are marginal utility, marginal gain, marginal rates of substitution, and opportunity costs.[12] Marginalism can be applied to the subjective theory of value because the subjective theory takes into account the marginal utility of an item in order to put a value on it.
Think of "marginal rates of substitution" as the cost for a league average player. And "marginal gain" is the additional impact the player has over the league average player.
You should to do statistical and market analysis to determine these values. Where people often go wrong is trusting their instincts in determining value.
Then you apply supply and demand, more statistical and market analysis.
Overall size of the market (overall cap), inflation (rate of the cap increasing), and opportunity cost (most statistical and market analysis)
After doing all that you can arrive a price model. Its a hell of a lot of work!
Colleges are not producing NFL caliber offensive linemen at anywhere near the rate required to supply the demand of the NFL. Thus there is a shortage of guards and other OL, and the price goes up.
Give me Justin Pugh over Todd Gurley any day of the week, right? Fuck those RBs. They don't contribute shit to a team.
Why would anyone take an oft injured middle of the road Guard in Pugh over argubly the best back in football? You should have went with Zack Martin over Gurley.. and in that case I just may go with Martin
It's sarcasm. I was poking fun at the whole topic question since it's a silly way to compare things. But yeah, Pugh makes a whole lot of money now. Doesn't mean much. I'd take a number of RBs over a highly paid guard like Pugh.
in the past 15 to 20 years teams have started employing economist and mathematicians to crunch these numbers. Their behavior suggests as such.
The trends are slower because people have a hard time believing in what the numbers say (it is anti-intuitive). So they still go with instincts at times.
However the trend is to believe in the numbers more and more over time.
Regarding Pugh... Risk of injury should factor into the calculation of marginal gain... And it should have driven his price down. I suspect Arizona assumed a league average probability of injury and Gettleman and the Giants looked at him and assumed a much higher probability. Furthermore, the Cards may view Pugh as a Tackle...
Give me Justin Pugh over Todd Gurley any day of the week, right? Fuck those RBs. They don't contribute shit to a team.
Why would anyone take an oft injured middle of the road Guard in Pugh over argubly the best back in football? You should have went with Zack Martin over Gurley.. and in that case I just may go with Martin
It's sarcasm. I was poking fun at the whole topic question since it's a silly way to compare things. But yeah, Pugh makes a whole lot of money now. Doesn't mean much. I'd take a number of RBs over a highly paid guard like Pugh.
We realized it was sarcasm...
Despite that, huygens and I were trying to explain the disparity in your perception vs. the NFL.
Give me Justin Pugh over Todd Gurley any day of the week, right? Fuck those RBs. They don't contribute shit to a team.
If you’re asking:
Pugh & average rb
Or
gurley & average guard
Data will say to pick Pugh and avg rb has higher production—> win rate contribution
Precisely!
I would add that my hunch is that the NFL market valuation of players is sometimes efficient (OLs rightly make more money than RBs) but sometimes inefficient (elite tier QBs don't make enough more than lower tier QBs. That is the cost of speculation I guess and maybe cap restrictions. I would suggest that elite QBs have a talent that lower tier QBs don't possess, namely having one allows the team to meet the threshold of championship contender. Simply put elite QBs win championships. There are outliers, like Foles. But if you look at the AFC championship QBs from the last 15 years it is remarkable. Brady, Peyton, Ben and Flacco have won them all. In an efficient market the truly elite QBs would be worth more than just 10 or 20% more.
Give me Justin Pugh over Todd Gurley any day of the week, right? Fuck those RBs. They don't contribute shit to a team.
If you’re asking:
Pugh & average rb
Or
gurley & average guard
Data will say to pick Pugh and avg rb has higher production—> win rate contribution
Precisely!
I would add that my hunch is that the NFL market valuation of players is sometimes efficient (OLs rightly make more money than RBs) but sometimes inefficient (elite tier QBs don't make enough more than lower tier QBs. That is the cost of speculation I guess and maybe cap restrictions. I would suggest that elite QBs have a talent that lower tier QBs don't possess, namely having one allows the team to meet the threshold of championship contender. Simply put elite QBs win championships. There are outliers, like Foles. But if you look at the AFC championship QBs from the last 15 years it is remarkable. Brady, Peyton, Ben and Flacco have won them all. In an efficient market the truly elite QBs would be worth more than just 10 or 20% more.
Excellent point about QBs. You are probably correct in your guess as to the reason for lack of disparity. QBs are often paid based on potential rather than demonstrated value.
Mcl...I agree with your logic....but disagree with your conclusion Â
2003 there were people in the industry (and I supported them) that were sounding the alarm about mis-pricing mortgage backs, credit default swaps and the over leveraged position of many investment managers.
I understand your point. We do hail those who buck trends as "geniuses". I'm not sure that there were anything more than extraordinarily lucky.
Seattle's championship was based on hitting the lotto with a QB drafted in the third round.
Sometimes its better to be lucky than good.
I will go with the highest probability bet every time though.
It's all timing...if you bet against mortgage back in 2003....you lost your shirt...unless you had massive conviction and deep pockets.
my life...is being lucky then good.
One can say....the Giants last 3 super bowls were that...86 was only one that they were the best team.
2008 is a perfect example of being good and unlucky...plax!
What would really be the irony to end all ironies....if Webb turns out to be a the real deal. Reese's only 3rd Rd pick that actually turns into anything.
It's all timing...if you bet against mortgage back in 2003....you lost your shirt...unless you had massive conviction and deep pockets.
At least for us, it was so much about taking a bet against mortgage backs. Its was about the fact that the securities were misrepresented and subsequently mispriced, causing folks to unkowingly take positions that had high probability of failure over the duration of the investment.
[/quote]
What would really be the irony to end all ironies....if Webb turns out to be a the real deal. Reese's only 3rd Rd pick that actually turns into anything. [/quote]
5th round pick Alex Collins got cut from the Seahawks this year, joined Ravens practice squad and then became their #1 back a week later, and he was playing at a Pro-Bowl level for much of the season. How many other positions does this happen with?
Equals .McL is = to firedbytheboss and they are both = to someone a lot of us know better than we wish. Having a conversation by yourself pretending to be two different people isn't a hard thing to see through. It points to his ego which is massive and his hubris which is his downfall. Sure he could have help but given that he used to have a PC and a laptop in his office with separate IP addresses this reeks of someone familiar.
Trade down and draft Nelson over staying out an selecting Barkley.
Is this accurate?
I don't think the point was (or at least the point shouldn't be) to substitute one fundamentally inefficient choice with another slightly less inefficient choice. Taking a G in the top ten sets you up to be paying him OLT money by his 5th season. There's no upside there - he has to be every bit as good as projected just to be worth it and there's almost no opportunity for his value to ever exceed his contract/cap hit.
5th round pick Alex Collins got cut from the Seahawks this year, joined Ravens practice squad and then became their #1 back a week later, and he was playing at a Pro-Bowl level for much of the season. How many other positions does this happen with?
This.
The skill set needed by a guard is much more difficult to acquire than that of a RB. In this draft you will be able to get a good RB on day 3. Hitting on a guard on day three is a little more difficult.
There are many running backs to choose from , while there are very few 300 -pound men who are not slow slobs who move like the Adirondack mountains. Couple points:
The Eagles and Patriots played between them about six backs in the Super Bowl. And, although the Giants were 3-13, the play of their running backs did not factor at all in that ignominious record .
This is not an eighth grade science experiment. No one disputes that the offensive line must be adequate to win in the NFL. But the leap to "so therefore Ereck Flowers is a better draft pick than Todd Gurley" is ludicrous. And the idea that Michel is just as good as Barkley but Wynn or Hernandez are not capable of being just as good as Nelson is also silly. Every argument that states that "better value exists later in the draft" can be used for every player - including quarterback. Look for third round pick Lauletta to be a starter in this league before one or more of the top four.
And the fact that guys like Pugh make more than RBs only makes the case that RBs are the best pure "value position" now in the NFL. Leveon Bell making more than ten million dollars less per year than Kirk Cousins is the most ridiculous concept in NFL history... Vikings will suffer for decades for believing in this silliness... The low cost of RBs only supports the concept that RBs are a much better value play than any position in football!
Take Barkley or trade the pick for a haul of value... It is not complicated.
of course that is the rational way to look at it. There are countless ways to build a team and history will show that either having a HoF coach, excellent talent, or a combination of both brings wins.
What we are going to see in the coming months if this particular poster's MO holds up is countless references to the "7 million plays" and this wealth of historical number crunching available to us that will provide for us the optimum way to construct a winning roster. It will be beaten into your head enough that the mere mention of "7 million plays" will start to give you a migraine. We're going to have threads with successive posts ad nauseum that will talk about the analytics and if you don't fully agree with the analytics, you'll get called a moron who can't comprehend history.
The bottom line is twofold:
1) We'll be bombarded with the assertion that RB's have no distinction - that an excellent RB will not provide any value over a mediocre or poor one (by the way - things like all-purpose yards and separating receiving attributes from just rushing capability will be glossed over because it screws up the narrative)
2) When 100% of the board doesn't buy into the analysis fully, there will be an epic meltdown and threads about how we all can't comprehend the greatness of the analytical mind in our presence.
It will be quite a sad thing to witness, but the annoyance that will precede the meltdown will likely keep you from feeling any remorse.
of course that is the rational way to look at it. There are countless ways to build a team and history will show that either having a HoF coach, excellent talent, or a combination of both brings wins.
What we are going to see in the coming months if this particular poster's MO holds up is countless references to the "7 million plays" and this wealth of historical number crunching available to us that will provide for us the optimum way to construct a winning roster. It will be beaten into your head enough that the mere mention of "7 million plays" will start to give you a migraine. We're going to have threads with successive posts ad nauseum that will talk about the analytics and if you don't fully agree with the analytics, you'll get called a moron who can't comprehend history.
The bottom line is twofold:
1) We'll be bombarded with the assertion that RB's have no distinction - that an excellent RB will not provide any value over a mediocre or poor one (by the way - things like all-purpose yards and separating receiving attributes from just rushing capability will be glossed over because it screws up the narrative)
2) When 100% of the board doesn't buy into the analysis fully, there will be an epic meltdown and threads about how we all can't comprehend the greatness of the analytical mind in our presence.
It will be quite a sad thing to witness, but the annoyance that will precede the meltdown will likely keep you from feeling any remorse.
1 in the top 5, 3 in the top 10 were 1st rounders. The highest undrafted which I previously posted.
I’m sick of the dime a dozen bit which is bullshit. Teams will go through tons of garbage to hit one a RB that way. I’m not even suggesting that you have to take a RB high, but scoffing at it and saying we can just get one anywhere is ridiculous. And that’s not even a top RB, we’d be lucky to get decent production that way.
1 in the top 5, 3 in the top 10 were 1st rounders. The highest undrafted which I previously posted.
I’m sick of the dime a dozen bit which is bullshit. Teams will go through tons of garbage to hit one a RB that way. I’m not even suggesting that you have to take a RB high, but scoffing at it and saying we can just get one anywhere is ridiculous. And that’s not even a top RB, we’d be lucky to get decent production that way.
The ‘dime a dozen’ mantra is something I’ve echoed through the years, right or wrong. That said, if this is the next POTENTIAL Marshall Faulk, you RUN to the podium and take SB, providing of course there are weak convictions on the present crop of “top” QBs by the Giants.
has been wasted primarily due to shitty OL play. The Giants investments along the line failed miserably for numerous reasons. I get the love for Barkley. Someone will draft him and he will be a huge star in the league. And he sure would look good in Giants Blue next to OBJ. But I just feel the Giants need to solidify the QB position and spots along the line of scrimmage before worrying about the RB position.
I've been a fan a long time...seen the Giants win 4 Superbowls. They won ALL those games in large part due to the ability to control what was happening along the line of scrimmage. The games has changed...but unless your QB has time and the OL can create holes...your not winning very much.
1 in the top 5, 3 in the top 10 were 1st rounders. The highest undrafted which I previously posted.
I’m sick of the dime a dozen bit which is bullshit. Teams will go through tons of garbage to hit one a RB that way. I’m not even suggesting that you have to take a RB high, but scoffing at it and saying we can just get one anywhere is ridiculous. And that’s not even a top RB, we’d be lucky to get decent production that way.
The ‘dime a dozen’ mantra is something I’ve echoed through the years, right or wrong. That said, if this is the next POTENTIAL Marshall Faulk, you RUN to the podium and take SB, providing of course there are weak convictions on the present crop of “top” QBs by the Giants.
Exactly, and hats all I’m saying. I’m not trying to be “right”, just dispelling this myth that a RB can be had anywhere. Well yeah, but how good will they be and how many will you go though getting there? And you can apply the same logic to Guards and have the top paid one in the NFL going undrafted.
has been wasted primarily due to shitty OL play. The Giants investments along the line failed miserably for numerous reasons. I get the love for Barkley. Someone will draft him and he will be a huge star in the league. And he sure would look good in Giants Blue next to OBJ. But I just feel the Giants need to solidify the QB position and spots along the line of scrimmage before worrying about the RB position.
I've been a fan a long time...seen the Giants win 4 Superbowls. They won ALL those games in large part due to the ability to control what was happening along the line of scrimmage. The games has changed...but unless your QB has time and the OL can create holes...your not winning very much.
No argument here. But the #2 pick in the draft isn’t he only way to achieve what you are describing.
I am amused you think we are the same person. And flattered that you think my layman-esque musings on economics and player valuations are as insightful as McL's clear knowledge and insight. I think McL either works in finance or has some training or education that gives him real authority in these matters. My personal expertise is in another field entirely.
Having said that, on the matter of draft and player equity we do agree. Though on another thread I see McL seems to favor the trade down scenario and I think taking a QB at #2 is an imperative for the Giants, and my point all along has been that I think the Giants know this and it is exactly what they are going to do.
But thanks for thinking enough of my dumb posts to research the theory. While I spend a lot of idle time on the internet, I don't actually have enough time to develop a second (or third) life on BBI.
I think McL either works in finance or has some training or education that gives him real authority in these matters. My personal expertise is in another field entirely.
I think McL has the profile of a former Professor of Mathematics at a Northeast College who was fired for being terrible at his job. Since he had a forced absence, he undertook the task of analyzing data from 7 million plays to make a triumphant thesis and now will tell BBI in thread after laborious thread how ignorant we are for not recognizing this great, exhaustive work.
But that's just me spitballing based at staying at a Holiday Inn Express. I don't know if we've had any posters fired from positions like professoring...
I think McL either works in finance or has some training or education that gives him real authority in these matters. My personal expertise is in another field entirely.
I think McL has the profile of a former Professor of Mathematics at a Northeast College who was fired for being terrible at his job. Since he had a forced absence, he undertook the task of analyzing data from 7 million plays to make a triumphant thesis and now will tell BBI in thread after laborious thread how ignorant we are for not recognizing this great, exhaustive work.
But that's just me spitballing based at staying at a Holiday Inn Express. I don't know if we've had any posters fired from positions like professoring...
well starting tomorrow, and until the day before the draft, my IP address will indicate I am posting from Turks and Caicos, if and when I am able to get wifi on the beach.
The premise of the thread was why are guards paid more than RB's Â
It's because a good guard is harder to find than a RB. If there is any position in the NFL that you can find a guy late...it's at RB. That is where the value is.
If the Giants think they can roll with Manning for 3 more years, sign OBJ and protect them with the OL they have (or will be able to draft late)...then go for it. Draft Barkley if he is everything people claim he can be. But they better be confident in passing on a QB or a guy that can transform the OL from blah to very good. Cause even if Barkley is the second coming...if no one is making holes for him and Eli has 2.5 seconds to throw the ball, the opportunity to use him effectively will have been wasted.
Look at OBJ...imagine if Eli actually had time to get the ball to him on anything other than a slant. OBJ's time on his rookie contract was largely wasted because of the Giants inability to protect Manning.
Fuck Jerry Reese and the Giants shitty injury luck.
there’s a lot of shit mixed in on the supply which is my point with Pugh. We are approaching paying $7-$8 million+ for Guards that simply aren’t worth anything close to that. At RB, that’s what you get for a top player.
So many other factors so this isn’t some rule I’m trying to push but an observation on why we need to be careful about the OLine market. Not even drafting one high is a guarantee, and also comes with a heavy price later in the contract.
It's because a good guard is harder to find than a RB. If there is any position in the NFL that you can find a guy late...it's at RB. That is where the value is.
If you look at starters by draft round, I think there are a higher percentage of DL, S, CB and LB who were drafted in the third round or later. If you look at the top producers, I think the % is even more pronounced.
Players entering the NFL are cost-controlled for 4-5 years. The perception - and I think facts largely bear it out - is that you get most of a running back's best years in those initial, rookie-capped seasons.
Offensive linemen take longer to learn their craft, and are often just entering their prime when their first contracts expire. That career arc can set up a UDFA like Andrew Norwell to get seriously rich at 26, with lots of guaranteed money.
By contrast, Le'Veon Bell - a star from Day One in Pittsburgh - goes from year to year with the franchise tag.
that's an excellent point. I've brought up the cost controlled aspect of a RB several times in the past few weeks because there are so many arguments out there focusing on second contracts.
I think a GM who follows a specific formula for all occasions would be wrong in doing so, but if there's one thing I'd highly support is not to sign a RB to a second contract. If he's a high draft pick - trade him for compensation. If he's another team's vet - don't shell out the $$.
That's a part that gets lost in these breakdowns discussing positional strength and the cost that goes with it. I want a RB to play for his first 3-5 years. Or at the opposite end of the spectrum when he's over 30 and can be signed for the vet minimum.
Barkley could last as long as MF (12-13years?) given the type of back he is and how he’ll be used. And, smartly avoids unnecessary Earl Campbell like hits
Joey, I have been here since the mid 90s, used to be just McL (not dots). But my son was born 5 years ago and I stopped posting for a while and lost access to my account. I have never had another account. Don't believe me, ask Eric. Last time I was active was when we drafted Linval Joseph. Eric had issues finding a photo of him, I provided one to him.
UConn, your stunning lack of understanding of basic economic principles makes you look like an ignorant fool You keep confusing quality with value. And you really have no idea how supply and demand works.
FMiC, you said on the other thread that my perception of you is based on the fact that I focus on the posts where you spew your vitriol. The reality is that a very very long time ago, I realized that your posts were generally unpleasant and provided me with little value. I decided to not waste my time with them. The reason I am aware that you still revel in posting hate, is as I scan down threads I see just how many posters you piss off. I will say this, at least you had the common sense to stop refuting the basic economics of the situation, instead you just turned to personal attacks, which is your MO.
The current trends of positional pay started shortly after various sites started tracking plays, storing the information in a database, and making that database available.
We know for a fact that NFL teams uses that data.
Since that data has become available, pay at every other position has gone up, while pay for RBs has gone down. The trend for continuing to pay RBs less is continuing. It has not yet reached bottom. I happen to find this fascinating since I work int he financial industry. Whenever people in finance see this they ask 2 questions. Why is this happening? Where is the bottom (or top if its going the other way)?
To me its an interesting debate to figure out where the bottom is. I do not have access to the data, so I cannot personally crunch the numbers. But there are 100s of authors out there who do have access and have done some crunching and published their findings.
Without a doubt NFL teams are doing this as well. They would be foolish not to.
Like most NFL things trends ebb and flow. With the recent influx of RB talent making their impact on teams, I think the belief that RB's are a dime a dozen is changing. Fournette, Gurley, Zeke, Bell, and even Dalvin Cook are changing that.
Like most NFL things trends ebb and flow. With the recent influx of RB talent making their impact on teams, I think the belief that RB's are a dime a dozen is changing. Fournette, Gurley, Zeke, Bell, and even Dalvin Cook are changing that.
Fair enough, let me revise what I said. The trend through 2017 was still down. Looking at it the way a financial analyst would, the trend doesn't show any indicators that it has reached a bottom, but that may be due to liquidity. We don't have the data points for 2018 yet.
Why is it asinine to pick a RB at #2?
Its a paradigm shift that people who rely entirely on their senses, their judgement, their opinions and their emotions simply cannot make.
They will pick specific moments to that satisfy their narrative to "prove" that the idea is wrong.
Part of what is so hard for them is that they believe that there is a perfect formula, or perhaps a set of formulas that definitively lead to wins. Describe a formula in probabilistic terms, and say that it accounts for variations and statistical outliers, it just defines those situations a lower probability, their act like you have killed their dog.
Why would anyone take an oft injured middle of the road Guard in Pugh over argubly the best back in football? You should have went with Zack Martin over Gurley.. and in that case I just may go with Martin
Its a paradigm shift that people who rely entirely on their senses, their judgement, their opinions and their emotions simply cannot make.
They will pick specific moments to that satisfy their narrative to "prove" that the idea is wrong.
Part of what is so hard for them is that they believe that there is a perfect formula, or perhaps a set of formulas that definitively lead to wins. Describe a formula in probabilistic terms, and say that it accounts for variations and statistical outliers, it just defines those situations a lower probability, their act like you have killed their dog.
yes this is mostly true. though there is something to the notion that rbs have been so utterly dismissed by the staffing and financial behaviors of nfl teams that there could be an opportunity to capitalize on that devaluation. But spending a #2 on Barkley is not the way to do it. Obviously
Quote:
Give me Justin Pugh over Todd Gurley any day of the week, right? Fuck those RBs. They don't contribute shit to a team.
Why would anyone take an oft injured middle of the road Guard in Pugh over argubly the best back in football? You should have went with Zack Martin over Gurley.. and in that case I just may go with Martin
though, just fyi, Pugh the SEVENTH highest paid RIGHT GUARD in the NFL makes more money per year than EVERY RB IN THE NFL except one.
Quote:
is that unless you are really willing to open your mind to understanding what 25 years worth of data, on over 7 million plays is showing you, then the idea is anti-intuitive.
Its a paradigm shift that people who rely entirely on their senses, their judgement, their opinions and their emotions simply cannot make.
They will pick specific moments to that satisfy their narrative to "prove" that the idea is wrong.
Part of what is so hard for them is that they believe that there is a perfect formula, or perhaps a set of formulas that definitively lead to wins. Describe a formula in probabilistic terms, and say that it accounts for variations and statistical outliers, it just defines those situations a lower probability, their act like you have killed their dog.
yes this is mostly true. though there is something to the notion that rbs have been so utterly dismissed by the staffing and financial behaviors of nfl teams that there could be an opportunity to capitalize on that devaluation. But spending a #2 on Barkley is not the way to do it. Obviously
The trend is still going down...
The analysis of those, 7 million plays suggests that the added value of an elite back over a replacement level back is virtually 0.
Oh boy, now I've done it... The BBI bullies are going to be all over me again for posting that.
Quote:
In comment 13919829 .McL. said:
Quote:
is that unless you are really willing to open your mind to understanding what 25 years worth of data, on over 7 million plays is showing you, then the idea is anti-intuitive.
Its a paradigm shift that people who rely entirely on their senses, their judgement, their opinions and their emotions simply cannot make.
They will pick specific moments to that satisfy their narrative to "prove" that the idea is wrong.
Part of what is so hard for them is that they believe that there is a perfect formula, or perhaps a set of formulas that definitively lead to wins. Describe a formula in probabilistic terms, and say that it accounts for variations and statistical outliers, it just defines those situations a lower probability, their act like you have killed their dog.
yes this is mostly true. though there is something to the notion that rbs have been so utterly dismissed by the staffing and financial behaviors of nfl teams that there could be an opportunity to capitalize on that devaluation. But spending a #2 on Barkley is not the way to do it. Obviously
The trend is still going down...
The analysis of those, 7 million plays suggests that the added value of an elite back over a replacement level back is virtually 0.
Oh boy, now I've done it... The BBI bullies are going to be all over me again for posting that.
i feel your pain .. unleash the hounds of hell.. you dared to say their favorite madden player is actually not as valuable as Alex Smith.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_value_(economics)
In particular it is the Subjective Theory of Value that applies here.
Subjective theory of value
Further information: Subjective theory of value
The subjective theory of value is a Theory of Value that believes that an item’s value depends on the consumer. This theory states that an item’s value is not dependent on the labor that goes into a good, or any inherent property of the good. Instead, the subjective theory of value believes that a good’s value depends on the consumers wants and needs.[7] The consumer places a value on an item by determining the marginal utility, or additional satisfaction of one additional good,[8] of that item and deciding what that means to them.[9]
The modern subjective theory of value was created by William Stanley Jevons, Léon Walras, and Carl Menger in the late 19th century.[10] The subjective theory contradicted Karl Marx’s Labour Theory which stated an items value depends on the labour that goes into production and not the ability to satisfy the consumer.[11]
The subjective theory of value helped answer the “Diamond-Water Paradox,” which many believed to be unsolvable. The diamond-water paradox questions why diamonds are so much more valuable than water when water is necessary for life. This paradox was answered by the subjective theory of value by realizing that water, in total, is more valuable than diamonds because the first few units are necessary for life. The key difference between water and diamonds is that water is more plentiful and diamonds are rare. Because of the availability, one additional unit of diamonds exceeds the value of one additional unit of water.[11]
Marginalism
Marginalism refers to the study of marginal theories and studies within economics. The topics included in marginalism are marginal utility, marginal gain, marginal rates of substitution, and opportunity costs.[12] Marginalism can be applied to the subjective theory of value because the subjective theory takes into account the marginal utility of an item in order to put a value on it.
Think of "marginal rates of substitution" as the cost for a league average player. And "marginal gain" is the additional impact the player has over the league average player.
You should to do statistical and market analysis to determine these values. Where people often go wrong is trusting their instincts in determining value.
Then you apply supply and demand, more statistical and market analysis.
Overall size of the market (overall cap), inflation (rate of the cap increasing), and opportunity cost (most statistical and market analysis)
After doing all that you can arrive a price model. Its a hell of a lot of work!
If you’re asking:
Pugh & average rb
Or
gurley & average guard
Data will say to pick Pugh and avg rb has higher production—> win rate contribution
Quote:
Give me Justin Pugh over Todd Gurley any day of the week, right? Fuck those RBs. They don't contribute shit to a team.
If you’re asking:
Pugh & average rb
Or
gurley & average guard
Data will say to pick Pugh and avg rb has higher production—> win rate contribution
Precisely!
Quote:
Give me Justin Pugh over Todd Gurley any day of the week, right? Fuck those RBs. They don't contribute shit to a team.
Why would anyone take an oft injured middle of the road Guard in Pugh over argubly the best back in football? You should have went with Zack Martin over Gurley.. and in that case I just may go with Martin
It's sarcasm. I was poking fun at the whole topic question since it's a silly way to compare things. But yeah, Pugh makes a whole lot of money now. Doesn't mean much. I'd take a number of RBs over a highly paid guard like Pugh.
The trends are slower because people have a hard time believing in what the numbers say (it is anti-intuitive). So they still go with instincts at times.
However the trend is to believe in the numbers more and more over time.
Regarding Pugh... Risk of injury should factor into the calculation of marginal gain... And it should have driven his price down. I suspect Arizona assumed a league average probability of injury and Gettleman and the Giants looked at him and assumed a much higher probability. Furthermore, the Cards may view Pugh as a Tackle...
Quote:
In comment 13919826 illmatic said:
Quote:
Give me Justin Pugh over Todd Gurley any day of the week, right? Fuck those RBs. They don't contribute shit to a team.
Why would anyone take an oft injured middle of the road Guard in Pugh over argubly the best back in football? You should have went with Zack Martin over Gurley.. and in that case I just may go with Martin
It's sarcasm. I was poking fun at the whole topic question since it's a silly way to compare things. But yeah, Pugh makes a whole lot of money now. Doesn't mean much. I'd take a number of RBs over a highly paid guard like Pugh.
We realized it was sarcasm...
Despite that, huygens and I were trying to explain the disparity in your perception vs. the NFL.
That said, I think Arizona paid too much.
Quote:
In comment 13919826 illmatic said:
Quote:
Give me Justin Pugh over Todd Gurley any day of the week, right? Fuck those RBs. They don't contribute shit to a team.
If you’re asking:
Pugh & average rb
Or
gurley & average guard
Data will say to pick Pugh and avg rb has higher production—> win rate contribution
Precisely!
I would add that my hunch is that the NFL market valuation of players is sometimes efficient (OLs rightly make more money than RBs) but sometimes inefficient (elite tier QBs don't make enough more than lower tier QBs. That is the cost of speculation I guess and maybe cap restrictions. I would suggest that elite QBs have a talent that lower tier QBs don't possess, namely having one allows the team to meet the threshold of championship contender. Simply put elite QBs win championships. There are outliers, like Foles. But if you look at the AFC championship QBs from the last 15 years it is remarkable. Brady, Peyton, Ben and Flacco have won them all. In an efficient market the truly elite QBs would be worth more than just 10 or 20% more.
Quote:
In comment 13919867 huygens20 said:
Quote:
In comment 13919826 illmatic said:
Quote:
Give me Justin Pugh over Todd Gurley any day of the week, right? Fuck those RBs. They don't contribute shit to a team.
If you’re asking:
Pugh & average rb
Or
gurley & average guard
Data will say to pick Pugh and avg rb has higher production—> win rate contribution
Precisely!
I would add that my hunch is that the NFL market valuation of players is sometimes efficient (OLs rightly make more money than RBs) but sometimes inefficient (elite tier QBs don't make enough more than lower tier QBs. That is the cost of speculation I guess and maybe cap restrictions. I would suggest that elite QBs have a talent that lower tier QBs don't possess, namely having one allows the team to meet the threshold of championship contender. Simply put elite QBs win championships. There are outliers, like Foles. But if you look at the AFC championship QBs from the last 15 years it is remarkable. Brady, Peyton, Ben and Flacco have won them all. In an efficient market the truly elite QBs would be worth more than just 10 or 20% more.
Excellent point about QBs. You are probably correct in your guess as to the reason for lack of disparity. QBs are often paid based on potential rather than demonstrated value.
Sometimes....you need to say wtf...and go for it. Buck the trend....and if you hit it....you are a genius.
In 2003, Apple traded for 6 bucks and all indication had them going out business.....how did that turn out?
In 2006, mortgage back securities were the safest investment around....Bear Stern's....tough break.
I understand your point. We do hail those who buck trends as "geniuses". I'm not sure that there were anything more than extraordinarily lucky.
Seattle's championship was based on hitting the lotto with a QB drafted in the third round.
Sometimes its better to be lucky than good.
I will go with the highest probability bet every time though.
my life...is being lucky then good.
One can say....the Giants last 3 super bowls were that...86 was only one that they were the best team.
2008 is a perfect example of being good and unlucky...plax!
What would really be the irony to end all ironies....if Webb turns out to be a the real deal. Reese's only 3rd Rd pick that actually turns into anything.
Lazy is more like it, certainly asleep at the wheel.
He paid for it. Lost over a billion dollars.
At least for us, it was so much about taking a bet against mortgage backs. Its was about the fact that the securities were misrepresented and subsequently mispriced, causing folks to unkowingly take positions that had high probability of failure over the duration of the investment.
[/quote]
What would really be the irony to end all ironies....if Webb turns out to be a the real deal. Reese's only 3rd Rd pick that actually turns into anything. [/quote]
That would be ironic.
Lazy is more like it, certainly asleep at the wheel.
He paid for it. Lost over a billion dollars.
Lost over a billion dollars of his own money
Why is it asinine to pick a RB at #2?
Is this accurate?
Is this accurate?
I don't think the point was (or at least the point shouldn't be) to substitute one fundamentally inefficient choice with another slightly less inefficient choice. Taking a G in the top ten sets you up to be paying him OLT money by his 5th season. There's no upside there - he has to be every bit as good as projected just to be worth it and there's almost no opportunity for his value to ever exceed his contract/cap hit.
This.
The skill set needed by a guard is much more difficult to acquire than that of a RB. In this draft you will be able to get a good RB on day 3. Hitting on a guard on day three is a little more difficult.
Wake me up when Alex Collins puts together a few good seasons in a row. We’ve seen starts like his before (Thomas Rawls, for example).
The Eagles and Patriots played between them about six backs in the Super Bowl. And, although the Giants were 3-13, the play of their running backs did not factor at all in that ignominious record .
And the fact that guys like Pugh make more than RBs only makes the case that RBs are the best pure "value position" now in the NFL. Leveon Bell making more than ten million dollars less per year than Kirk Cousins is the most ridiculous concept in NFL history... Vikings will suffer for decades for believing in this silliness... The low cost of RBs only supports the concept that RBs are a much better value play than any position in football!
Take Barkley or trade the pick for a haul of value... It is not complicated.
What we are going to see in the coming months if this particular poster's MO holds up is countless references to the "7 million plays" and this wealth of historical number crunching available to us that will provide for us the optimum way to construct a winning roster. It will be beaten into your head enough that the mere mention of "7 million plays" will start to give you a migraine. We're going to have threads with successive posts ad nauseum that will talk about the analytics and if you don't fully agree with the analytics, you'll get called a moron who can't comprehend history.
The bottom line is twofold:
1) We'll be bombarded with the assertion that RB's have no distinction - that an excellent RB will not provide any value over a mediocre or poor one (by the way - things like all-purpose yards and separating receiving attributes from just rushing capability will be glossed over because it screws up the narrative)
2) When 100% of the board doesn't buy into the analysis fully, there will be an epic meltdown and threads about how we all can't comprehend the greatness of the analytical mind in our presence.
It will be quite a sad thing to witness, but the annoyance that will precede the meltdown will likely keep you from feeling any remorse.
What we are going to see in the coming months if this particular poster's MO holds up is countless references to the "7 million plays" and this wealth of historical number crunching available to us that will provide for us the optimum way to construct a winning roster. It will be beaten into your head enough that the mere mention of "7 million plays" will start to give you a migraine. We're going to have threads with successive posts ad nauseum that will talk about the analytics and if you don't fully agree with the analytics, you'll get called a moron who can't comprehend history.
The bottom line is twofold:
1) We'll be bombarded with the assertion that RB's have no distinction - that an excellent RB will not provide any value over a mediocre or poor one (by the way - things like all-purpose yards and separating receiving attributes from just rushing capability will be glossed over because it screws up the narrative)
2) When 100% of the board doesn't buy into the analysis fully, there will be an epic meltdown and threads about how we all can't comprehend the greatness of the analytical mind in our presence.
It will be quite a sad thing to witness, but the annoyance that will precede the meltdown will likely keep you from feeling any remorse.
Did you steal that from the Fort Mills Times?
You are posting Bullshit then. Highest 15 paid Guards and where the were drafted (or not)
Norwell - Undrafted
Zeitler - 1
Osemele - 2
Turner - 3
Jackson - 3
DeCastro - 2
Long - 1
Lang - 4
Pugh - 1
Leary - Undrafted
Bilanio - 2
Tardiff - 6
Brook - 3
Iupati - 1
only 2 drafted after the 3rd round and two undrafted FA.
The bottom line is decent guards are much harder to find than RB's.
I’m sick of the dime a dozen bit which is bullshit. Teams will go through tons of garbage to hit one a RB that way. I’m not even suggesting that you have to take a RB high, but scoffing at it and saying we can just get one anywhere is ridiculous. And that’s not even a top RB, we’d be lucky to get decent production that way.
I’m sick of the dime a dozen bit which is bullshit. Teams will go through tons of garbage to hit one a RB that way. I’m not even suggesting that you have to take a RB high, but scoffing at it and saying we can just get one anywhere is ridiculous. And that’s not even a top RB, we’d be lucky to get decent production that way.
The ‘dime a dozen’ mantra is something I’ve echoed through the years, right or wrong. That said, if this is the next POTENTIAL Marshall Faulk, you RUN to the podium and take SB, providing of course there are weak convictions on the present crop of “top” QBs by the Giants.
I've been a fan a long time...seen the Giants win 4 Superbowls. They won ALL those games in large part due to the ability to control what was happening along the line of scrimmage. The games has changed...but unless your QB has time and the OL can create holes...your not winning very much.
Quote:
1 in the top 5, 3 in the top 10 were 1st rounders. The highest undrafted which I previously posted.
I’m sick of the dime a dozen bit which is bullshit. Teams will go through tons of garbage to hit one a RB that way. I’m not even suggesting that you have to take a RB high, but scoffing at it and saying we can just get one anywhere is ridiculous. And that’s not even a top RB, we’d be lucky to get decent production that way.
The ‘dime a dozen’ mantra is something I’ve echoed through the years, right or wrong. That said, if this is the next POTENTIAL Marshall Faulk, you RUN to the podium and take SB, providing of course there are weak convictions on the present crop of “top” QBs by the Giants.
Exactly, and hats all I’m saying. I’m not trying to be “right”, just dispelling this myth that a RB can be had anywhere. Well yeah, but how good will they be and how many will you go though getting there? And you can apply the same logic to Guards and have the top paid one in the NFL going undrafted.
I've been a fan a long time...seen the Giants win 4 Superbowls. They won ALL those games in large part due to the ability to control what was happening along the line of scrimmage. The games has changed...but unless your QB has time and the OL can create holes...your not winning very much.
No argument here. But the #2 pick in the draft isn’t he only way to achieve what you are describing.
haha..
I am amused you think we are the same person. And flattered that you think my layman-esque musings on economics and player valuations are as insightful as McL's clear knowledge and insight. I think McL either works in finance or has some training or education that gives him real authority in these matters. My personal expertise is in another field entirely.
Having said that, on the matter of draft and player equity we do agree. Though on another thread I see McL seems to favor the trade down scenario and I think taking a QB at #2 is an imperative for the Giants, and my point all along has been that I think the Giants know this and it is exactly what they are going to do.
But thanks for thinking enough of my dumb posts to research the theory. While I spend a lot of idle time on the internet, I don't actually have enough time to develop a second (or third) life on BBI.
I think McL has the profile of a former Professor of Mathematics at a Northeast College who was fired for being terrible at his job. Since he had a forced absence, he undertook the task of analyzing data from 7 million plays to make a triumphant thesis and now will tell BBI in thread after laborious thread how ignorant we are for not recognizing this great, exhaustive work.
But that's just me spitballing based at staying at a Holiday Inn Express. I don't know if we've had any posters fired from positions like professoring...
Quote:
I think McL either works in finance or has some training or education that gives him real authority in these matters. My personal expertise is in another field entirely.
I think McL has the profile of a former Professor of Mathematics at a Northeast College who was fired for being terrible at his job. Since he had a forced absence, he undertook the task of analyzing data from 7 million plays to make a triumphant thesis and now will tell BBI in thread after laborious thread how ignorant we are for not recognizing this great, exhaustive work.
But that's just me spitballing based at staying at a Holiday Inn Express. I don't know if we've had any posters fired from positions like professoring...
well starting tomorrow, and until the day before the draft, my IP address will indicate I am posting from Turks and Caicos, if and when I am able to get wifi on the beach.
If the Giants think they can roll with Manning for 3 more years, sign OBJ and protect them with the OL they have (or will be able to draft late)...then go for it. Draft Barkley if he is everything people claim he can be. But they better be confident in passing on a QB or a guy that can transform the OL from blah to very good. Cause even if Barkley is the second coming...if no one is making holes for him and Eli has 2.5 seconds to throw the ball, the opportunity to use him effectively will have been wasted.
Look at OBJ...imagine if Eli actually had time to get the ball to him on anything other than a slant. OBJ's time on his rookie contract was largely wasted because of the Giants inability to protect Manning.
Fuck Jerry Reese and the Giants shitty injury luck.
So many other factors so this isn’t some rule I’m trying to push but an observation on why we need to be careful about the OLine market. Not even drafting one high is a guarantee, and also comes with a heavy price later in the contract.
If you look at starters by draft round, I think there are a higher percentage of DL, S, CB and LB who were drafted in the third round or later. If you look at the top producers, I think the % is even more pronounced.
Elliott: 1st round (4th pick)
Bell: 2nd Round
McCoy: 2nd round
Gordon: 1st Round
Gurley: 1st Round
Howard: 5th round
Hunt: 3rd round
Fournette: 1st round
Gore: 3rd round
Ingram: 1st round
Offensive linemen take longer to learn their craft, and are often just entering their prime when their first contracts expire. That career arc can set up a UDFA like Andrew Norwell to get seriously rich at 26, with lots of guaranteed money.
By contrast, Le'Veon Bell - a star from Day One in Pittsburgh - goes from year to year with the franchise tag.
I think a GM who follows a specific formula for all occasions would be wrong in doing so, but if there's one thing I'd highly support is not to sign a RB to a second contract. If he's a high draft pick - trade him for compensation. If he's another team's vet - don't shell out the $$.
That's a part that gets lost in these breakdowns discussing positional strength and the cost that goes with it. I want a RB to play for his first 3-5 years. Or at the opposite end of the spectrum when he's over 30 and can be signed for the vet minimum.
Running backs just block for quarterbacks.
Joey, I have been here since the mid 90s, used to be just McL (not dots). But my son was born 5 years ago and I stopped posting for a while and lost access to my account. I have never had another account. Don't believe me, ask Eric. Last time I was active was when we drafted Linval Joseph. Eric had issues finding a photo of him, I provided one to him.
UConn, your stunning lack of understanding of basic economic principles makes you look like an ignorant fool You keep confusing quality with value. And you really have no idea how supply and demand works.
FMiC, you said on the other thread that my perception of you is based on the fact that I focus on the posts where you spew your vitriol. The reality is that a very very long time ago, I realized that your posts were generally unpleasant and provided me with little value. I decided to not waste my time with them. The reason I am aware that you still revel in posting hate, is as I scan down threads I see just how many posters you piss off. I will say this, at least you had the common sense to stop refuting the basic economics of the situation, instead you just turned to personal attacks, which is your MO.
We know for a fact that NFL teams uses that data.
Since that data has become available, pay at every other position has gone up, while pay for RBs has gone down. The trend for continuing to pay RBs less is continuing. It has not yet reached bottom. I happen to find this fascinating since I work int he financial industry. Whenever people in finance see this they ask 2 questions. Why is this happening? Where is the bottom (or top if its going the other way)?
To me its an interesting debate to figure out where the bottom is. I do not have access to the data, so I cannot personally crunch the numbers. But there are 100s of authors out there who do have access and have done some crunching and published their findings.
Without a doubt NFL teams are doing this as well. They would be foolish not to.
Fair enough, let me revise what I said. The trend through 2017 was still down. Looking at it the way a financial analyst would, the trend doesn't show any indicators that it has reached a bottom, but that may be due to liquidity. We don't have the data points for 2018 yet.