MHR 2010 Draft Pick Trade-Value Resource
This chart is pretty straightforward, though I would like to note that it is in NO WAY an 'official' chart in use by the NFL. This chart does, however, make a good starting off point for evaluating pick-for-pick trade values. I do believe that NFL teams are moving away from this model of pick valuation, especially in the last year, as this model has historically rated mid-round picks far less valuable than the contributions gained from individuals chosen at those spots, though it is closer to being accurate when the production from those spots is averaged. Until the NFL teams start talking about newer ways of ranking draft slots, however, this chart will serve us well.
| # | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 1 | 30001 | 58033 | 26565 | 11297 | 43129 | 27161 | 14.2193 |
| 2 | 26002 | 56034 | 26066 | 10898 | 42130 | 26.6162 | 13.8194 |
| 3 | 22003 | 55035 | 25567 | 10499 | 41131 | 26.2163 | 13.4195 |
| 4 | 18004 | 54036 | 25068 | 100100 | 40132 | 25.8164 | 13196 |
| 5 | 17005 | 53037 | 24569 | 96101 | 39.5133 | 25.4165 | 12.6197 |
| 6 | 16006 | 52038 | 24070 | 92102 | 39134 | 25166 | 12.2198 |
| 7 | 15007 | 51039 | 23571 | 88103 | 38.5135 | 24.6167 | 11.8199 |
| 8 | 14008 | 50040 | 23072 | 86104 | 38136 | 24.2168 | 11.4200 |
| 9 | 13509 | 49041 | 22573 | 84105 | 37.5137 | 23.8169 | 11201 |
| 10 | 130010 | 48042 | 22074 | 82106 | 37138 | 23.4170 | 10.6202 |
| 11 | 125011 | 47043 | 21575 | 80107 | 36.5139 | 23171 | 10.2203 |
| 12 | 120012 | 46044 | 21076 | 78108 | 36140 | 22.6172 | 9.8204 |
| 13 | 115013 | 45045 | 20577 | 76109 | 35.5141 | 22.2173 | 9.4205 |
| 14 | 110014 | 44046 | 20078 | 74110 | 35142 | 21.8174 | 9206 |
| 15 | 105015 | 43047 | 19579 | 72111 | 34.5143 | 21.4175 | 8.6207 |
| 16 | 100016 | 42048 | 19080 | 70112 | 34144 | 21176 | 8.2208 |
| 17 | 95017 | 41049 | 18581 | 68113 | 33.5145 | 20.6177 | 7.8209 |
| 18 | 90018 | 40050 | 18082 | 66114 | 33146 | 20.2178 | 7.4210 |
| 19 | 87519 | 39051 | 17583 | 64115 | 32.6147 | 19.8179 | 7.0211 |
| 20 | 85020 | 38052 | 17084 | 62116 | 32.2148 | 19.4180 | 6.6212 |
| 21 | 80021 | 37053 | 16585 | 60117 | 31.8149 | 19181 | 6.2213 |
| 22 | 78022 | 36054 | 16086 | 58118 | 31.4150 | 18.6182 | 5.8214 |
| 23 | 76023 | 35055 | 15587 | 56119 | 31151 | 18.2183 | 5.4215 |
| 24 | 74024 | 34056 | 15088 | 54120 | 30.6152 | 17.8184 | 5216 |
| 25 | 72025 | 33057 | 14589 | 52121 | 30.2153 | 17.4185 | 4.6217 |
| 26 | 70026 | 32058 | 14090 | 50122 | 29.8154 | 17186 | 4.2218 |
| 27 | 68027 | 31059 | 13691 | 49123 | 29.4155 | 16.6187 | 3.8219 |
| 28 | 66028 | 30060 | 13292 | 48124 | 29156 | 16.2188 | 3.4220 |
| 29 | 64029 | 29261 | 12893 | 47125 | 28.6157 | 15.8189 | 3221 |
| 30 | 62030 | 28462 | 12494 | 46126 | 28.2158 | 15.4190 | 2.6222 |
| 31 | 60031 | 27663 | 12095 | 45127 | 27.8159 | 15191 | 2.3223 |
| 32 | 59032 | 27064 | 11696 | 44128 | 27.4160 | 14.6192 | 2224 |
Other Links of note:
Thaler Massey Study: The Loser's Curse: Overconfidence and Market Efficiency in the NFL Draft.
Walter Football Re-evaluated TVC:
1. There is no such thing as a perfect TVC. Ultimately, every TVC can be criticized. You are assigning a point value next to a pick. "How do you go about giving a pick a certain value?" This is something that must be accepted because it is what the TVC is. How did Jimmy Johnson determine how much each pick is worth? I am doing the exact same thing, except I am solving the problem of not handcuffing the top five picks to their teams.
All I am saying is, if you are going to criticize my TVC, then just realize we can find faults with every TVC. The bottom line is we need to find a better solution to how we go about determining pick value. My TVC is absolutely open to criticism, but instead of complaining about it, make your own TVC and try to improve it.
2. While it is important to have fluidity at the top of the NFL Draft, it is also important teams are well compensated for their high picks. It does no good to put together a TVC that is not top-heavy, if the teams at the top of the NFL Draft are still getting ripped off in their deal.
For example, Scouts Inc. in ESPN the Magazine put out their own TVC. To move up from No. 2 to No. 1, it merely cost a team their seventh-round pick. Seventh-round picks never really pan out, often used as camp fodder. The top picks need to have some value, or it is better more for the teams trading up than the teams trading down. The idea here is to find a balance.
4 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Great work Jeremy!
Many thanks.
Character may be manifested in the great moments but it is made in the small ones -- Philip Brooks
Mind boggle
Verbose in style, dispersion of thought, procrastination in life.
The guy formerly known as ZAPPA
simple method
Seems one could calculate this every year given the history of the draft. Fine tune it each year. I’d be tempted to try it just by checking the data on all drafted players:
1) how many seasons they played
2) what slot they were drafted
3) if they were an all-pro (not pro bowl).
Just refigure every year. If they were all-pro, count it as another year. Smooth out the data so it’s a consistent curve that best fits that scatter plot, normalize the values to 3000 since that’s apparently a popular number. :)
Anyone have a free data source of all drafts and all players and all-pro history?
Sounds epic...
the NFL.com site has a pretty good draft database. To be REALLY thorough, and to include all-pro data (and possibly other valuable considerations it might be worth it to download every teams Media Guide form their home site…. those guides are invaluable sources for individual team history, and are bound to be more accurate then any other leaguewide coverage resources….
Precision in thought, concision in style, decision in life.
"That's MR.Styg..."
by Jeremy Bolander on Feb 6, 2010 8:37 PM MST up reply actions

by 



























