Redskins trade for Jason Taylor (updated)

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Sorry, but you're wrong here.

I also think you need to be more careful when you read (or maybe I need to be more careful when I write). The team could have just plugged in Evans, but they felt that was a worst case scenario (so they went out and got Taylor). I'm only questioning their logic that Evans would have been a worst case scenario.

It's going to cost us games in the future because we're old. The idea is that if we use the 2nd round pick wisely, we could improve the team in the long run, which we can't do now. 2-3 wins in a 3 year span isn't a big deal, I don't think, but it's still sort of mortgaging the future.

Also, good work assuming that every 2nd and 6th round pick will net talent the equivalent of Taylor Jacobs and Nemo. That's pretty pessimistic of you.

It read as if we were forfeiting the season by trading for Taylor so my mistake if it was misinterpreted. I don't know that they felt that putting Evans in there was a worst case scenario, it was just obvious that Taylor was a better case scenario! Look, it's not like they traded 1st, 2nd and 3rd round picks for a scrub. Right player, right situation, right price. It's a winning deal.

I wasn't assuming that every 2nd and 6th pick equates to Jacobs or Nemo, just pointing out that it's not a guarantee that they will pan out, reflecting your 2-3 win argument.

Yes building thru the draft is ideal, but in a scenario where you can get one of the top players at his position in the game to fill an immediate need for a reasonable price, you do it, every time.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

I wasn't assuming that every 2nd and 6th pick equates to Jacobs or Nemo, just pointing out that it's not a guarantee that they will pan out, reflecting your 2-3 win argument.

Well, the average production of a 2nd round pick tends to give a team between 2 and 3 wins over the life of his rookie contract, which is what I was referencing. A star in the making is obviously going to produce much more, and a bust will produce near nothing.

I don't want to make it seem like the team is incapable of picking a bust, but they've done a good job with the draft thus far in the last 5 years.

I don't think Taylor is going to be here and productive long enough to give us value on our 2nd round pick. I really, really would love to be proven wrong here, of course. It's just that I've seen this episode before, and I'm less than impressed at the sequel.

Taylor is still a pass rushing force, which should give the team an extra 7-8 sacks over what they would have gotten with Evans. Next year, Evans and Daniels will probably move on, and we'll have to replace them with the draft. That's when it would have been really nice to have a 2nd round pick to do so with.

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Well, the average production of a 2nd round pick tends to give a team between 2 and 3 wins over the life of his rookie contract, which is what I was referencing. A star in the making is obviously going to produce much more, and a bust will produce near nothing.

I don't want to make it seem like the team is incapable of picking a bust, but they've done a good job with the draft thus far in the last 5 years.

I don't think Taylor is going to be here and productive long enough to give us value on our 2nd round pick. I really, really would love to be proven wrong here, of course. It's just that I've seen this episode before, and I'm less than impressed at the sequel.

Taylor is still a pass rushing force, which should give the team an extra 7-8 sacks over what they would have gotten with Evans. Next year, Evans and Daniels will probably move on, and we'll have to replace them with the draft. That's when it would have been really nice to have a 2nd round pick to do so with.

One thing I will point out is that Vinny Cerrato is confident that Jason Taylor will not only play out the contract, but probably even extended in Washington. If that happens, how will your opinion change?

NOTE: I do disagree with you on this issue, but this post is not an attack. I find your use of metric intriguing and would like to know your answer on this subject.

As an aside: are you a baseball fan at all? Just wondering because metrics are used heavily in player evaluation in baseball.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by jdlea

One thing I will point out is that Vinny Cerrato is confident that Jason Taylor will not only play out the contract, but probably even extended in Washington. If that happens, how will your opinion change?

NOTE: I do disagree with you on this issue, but this post is not an attack. I find your use of metric intriguing and would like to know your answer on this subject.

As an aside: are you a baseball fan at all? Just wondering because metrics are used heavily in player evaluation in baseball.

Yeah, I'm a baseball fan. I'm very familiar with baseball metrics, and use them often, though I find that I don't learn from them in baseball nearly as much as football. Things tend to be more obvious in baseball.

I think we might be best off with Taylor retiring in a year or two. He's playing at a high level right now, but we don't want him to be playing that twilight stage of his career year, I'd rather see him go out at the top of his game, whenever that may be.

The only thing we are guaranteed is this season. Vinny seems pretty confident that Taylor will come back in 2009, but a lot can change between now and then.

IMO, keeping him beyond 2009 is a separate issue from trading for him. As long as he's producing, I'd like to see him stay, but when he stops producing, the team needs to cut it's losses and move on quickly.

I feel confident that he'll give us a good year this season. After that, I'm really not so sure. Steve McNair gave the Ravens only one good season, but the difference is that they didn't trade a second rounder for him (they gave up a 4th, i think).

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Yeah, I'm a baseball fan. I'm very familiar with baseball metrics, and use them often, though I find that I don't learn from them in baseball nearly as much as football. Things tend to be more obvious in baseball.

I think we might be best off with Taylor retiring in a year or two. He's playing at a high level right now, but we don't want him to be playing that twilight stage of his career year, I'd rather see him go out at the top of his game, whenever that may be.

The only thing we are guaranteed is this season. Vinny seems pretty confident that Taylor will come back in 2009, but a lot can change between now and then.

IMO, keeping him beyond 2009 is a separate issue from trading for him. As long as he's producing, I'd like to see him stay, but when he stops producing, the team needs to cut it's losses and move on quickly.

I feel confident that he'll give us a good year this season. After that, I'm really not so sure. Steve McNair gave the Ravens only one good season, but the difference is that they didn't trade a second rounder for him (they gave up a 4th, i think).

I see what you're saying, I was mostly just interested in getting your opinion.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Well, the average production of a 2nd round pick tends to give a team between 2 and 3 wins over the life of his rookie contract, which is what I was referencing. A star in the making is obviously going to produce much more, and a bust will produce near nothing

Where does this metric come from? I don't see how you can accurately predicit that a single 2nd round pick gives a team 2-3 wins over his rookie contract? Way too many variables to factor in. Maybe at QB, but it don't see how you could do this at any other position. This is not baseball or basketball. Football is the ultimate team sport and one player can't win games almost single-handed (outside of a Brady/Manning type QB or dominant pass rusher like LT or Reggie White).

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Where does this metric come from? I don't see how you can accurately predicit that a single 2nd round pick gives a team 2-3 wins over his rookie contract? Way too many variables to factor in. Maybe at QB, but it don't see how you could do this at any other position. This is not baseball or basketball. Football is the ultimate team sport and one player can't win games almost single-handed (outside of a Brady/Manning type QB or dominant pass rusher like LT or Reggie White).

Well, the exact win total is based on some work I've been doing to convert value to team into a win estimate.

For example, if we consider Jon Kitna to be the standard for a starting QB, with most teams having better options, (I just picked a guy who's got a readily available skill set, and doesn't do too much to hurt his team), we can estimate that Tom Brady was worth about 5 wins more than Kitna-level last year alone. Essentially saying that the Patriots, with the same schedule, same team, but Jon Kitna at QB, would have been an 11-5 team.

The value metrics are readily available at places like footballoutsiders.com, profootballreference.com's blog, KC Joyner's articles on ESPN.com, and Brian Burke's Advanced Football Stats blog.

There's always going to be slight disagreement among the systems about certain players value, but generally these four sources paint me a pretty good picture of just how valuable a player is.

Anyway, I'm most concerned with how valuable a rookies' first 4 years in the league are for a few reasons: 1) it's a good indicator of how good he will be, and 2) that's how long in which his draft position will determine how much he exceeds his value by.

For a second rounder, in his 2nd-4th years in the league, we know that he's likely to be better than a replacement level player, and a key contributor on this team. Everything I've done says that a second round pick who doesn't bust out of the league, but also fails to become a superstar will be worth not quite a win per season on his rookie deal.

So I'm estimating over a large sample when I say the average second rounder is worth 2-3 wins over his rookie deal. About a third of the second round selections will be less than that, and a third will be more than that. But that's the expectation for a second round selection, and expectation is really the only thing we are dealing with here.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

For example, if we consider Jon Kitna to be the standard for a starting QB, with most teams having better options, (I just picked a guy who's got a readily available skill set, and doesn't do too much to hurt his team), we can estimate that Tom Brady was worth about 5 wins more than Kitna-level last year alone. Essentially saying that the Patriots, with the same schedule, same team, but Jon Kitna at QB, would have been an 11-5 team.

The value metrics are readily available at places like footballoutsiders.com, profootballreference.com's blog, KC Joyner's articles on ESPN.com, and Brian Burke's Advanced Football Stats blog.

There's always going to be slight disagreement among the systems about certain players value, but generally these four sources paint me a pretty good picture of just how valuable a player is.

Anyway, I'm most concerned with how valuable a rookies' first 4 years in the league are for a few reasons: 1) it's a good indicator of how good he will be, and 2) that's how long in which his draft position will determine how much he exceeds his value by.

For a second rounder, in his 2nd-4th years in the league, we know that he's likely to be better than a replacement level player, and a key contributor on this team. Everything I've done says that a second round pick who doesn't bust out of the league, but also fails to become a superstar will be worth not quite a win per season on his rookie deal.

So I'm estimating over a large sample when I say the average second rounder is worth 2-3 wins over his rookie deal. About a third of the second round selections will be less than that, and a third will be more than that. But that's the expectation for a second round selection, and expectation is really the only thing we are dealing with here.

IMO these numbers are pretty much a wild approximation or SWAG and not useful at all, but you're quoting them like they're well accepted throughout the media and sports world. The QB rating formula is less complicated and tells you a lot more than this stuff. These ratings give little account to the DL & OL because most of what they do doesn't show on stats.

Stats are important, but the interpretations and extrapolations made from these stats tells a FO guy, GM, or coach next to nothing that they don't already know. T. Brady is better than Kitna....my 15 yr. old could tell you that. Hell, the computer programmers at EA know that. How do you account for a QB or WR who plays on a team with a bad OL, how about a good CB with a bad DL. Would Archie Manning have been a Peyton Manning if he wasn't on bad teams? Who knows? Stats are important but IMO these are taking the interpretation too far.

Bottom line is; we gave up the equivalent of probably the # 50 overall pick in the draft, under duress, for a Pro Bowl caliber player at DE. If JT is productive for two seasons, not only is he helping the pass defense, but he's given us some flexibilty in when/how we address needs at CB, DE, DT and LB in the 2009 & 2010 off-seasons.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Well, the exact win total is based on some work I've been doing to convert value to team into a win estimate.

For example, if we consider Jon Kitna to be the standard for a starting QB, with most teams having better options, (I just picked a guy who's got a readily available skill set, and doesn't do too much to hurt his team), we can estimate that Tom Brady was worth about 5 wins more than Kitna-level last year alone. Essentially saying that the Patriots, with the same schedule, same team, but Jon Kitna at QB, would have been an 11-5 team.

The value metrics are readily available at places like footballoutsiders.com, profootballreference.com's blog, KC Joyner's articles on ESPN.com, and Brian Burke's Advanced Football Stats blog.

There's always going to be slight disagreement among the systems about certain players value, but generally these four sources paint me a pretty good picture of just how valuable a player is.

Anyway, I'm most concerned with how valuable a rookies' first 4 years in the league are for a few reasons: 1) it's a good indicator of how good he will be, and 2) that's how long in which his draft position will determine how much he exceeds his value by.

For a second rounder, in his 2nd-4th years in the league, we know that he's likely to be better than a replacement level player, and a key contributor on this team. Everything I've done says that a second round pick who doesn't bust out of the league, but also fails to become a superstar will be worth not quite a win per season on his rookie deal.

So I'm estimating over a large sample when I say the average second rounder is worth 2-3 wins over his rookie deal. About a third of the second round selections will be less than that, and a third will be more than that. But that's the expectation for a second round selection, and expectation is really the only thing we are dealing with here.

I'd be interested to hear what kind of analysis you're doing to strip out the covariances involved with the multiple variables driving team performance. That's the big reason sabermetrics has not caught on in football. With baseball, you can normalize your data set rather easily because in the end, it largely boils down to a pitcher vs hitter matchup, with a few variables like day vs night, score, and situation to adjust for. But in football, the QB's performance depend's upon the line's ability to block the defense, the WRs' ability to get open, the effectiveness of the running game, the score, the quarter, etcetera. It's hard enough to quantify some of these variables, and even harder to mathematically formulate the covariance quotients to effectively tease them out and normalize your data. Have you done anything on this front?

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I'd be interested to hear what kind of analysis you're doing to strip out the covariances involved with the multiple variables driving team performance. That's the big reason sabermetrics has not caught on in football. With baseball, you can normalize your data set rather easily because in the end, it largely boils down to a pitcher vs hitter matchup, with a few variables like day vs night, score, and situation to adjust for. But in football, the QB's performance depend's upon the line's ability to block the defense, the WRs' ability to get open, the effectiveness of the running game, the score, the quarter, etcetera. It's hard enough to quantify some of these variables, and even harder to mathematically formulate the covariance quotients to effectively tease them out and normalize your data. Have you done anything on this front?

yeah, i watch the game.




but i did make a neat equation if you're interested:
good players = win more games.

yay!

[jdlea]

Originally Posted by That Guy

good players = win more games.

That is some funny sh#t!

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by That Guy

yeah, i watch the game.




but i did make a neat equation if you're interested:
good players = win more games.

yay!

This was basically the point of my post. Sabermetrics is relatively useless in football because nobody's been able to do any of the things I mentioned.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I'd be interested to hear what kind of analysis you're doing to strip out the covariances involved with the multiple variables driving team performance. That's the big reason sabermetrics has not caught on in football. With baseball, you can normalize your data set rather easily because in the end, it largely boils down to a pitcher vs hitter matchup, with a few variables like day vs night, score, and situation to adjust for. But in football, the QB's performance depend's upon the line's ability to block the defense, the WRs' ability to get open, the effectiveness of the running game, the score, the quarter, etcetera. It's hard enough to quantify some of these variables, and even harder to mathematically formulate the covariance quotients to effectively tease them out and normalize your data. Have you done anything on this front?

This paragraph drips nerd. =)

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I'd be interested to hear what kind of analysis you're doing to strip out the covariances involved with the multiple variables driving team performance. That's the big reason sabermetrics has not caught on in football. With baseball, you can normalize your data set rather easily because in the end, it largely boils down to a pitcher vs hitter matchup, with a few variables like day vs night, score, and situation to adjust for. But in football, the QB's performance depend's upon the line's ability to block the defense, the WRs' ability to get open, the effectiveness of the running game, the score, the quarter, etcetera. It's hard enough to quantify some of these variables, and even harder to mathematically formulate the covariance quotients to effectively tease them out and normalize your data. Have you done anything on this front?

The other big issue is sample size: one football game provides about two weeks of equivalent data in baseball.

To an extent, you have to leave the team oriented variables in there often. One of the biggest allies of statistical analysis in football is roster turnover: parts come and go, and production changes accordingly, so over multiple years, you can see which positions and players are more valuable, and exactly what the numbers are showing.

As far as the normalizing of the data, I'm not really working on the frontlines there. There are people out there who are much better than I am working with correlations and statistical significance, and that type of work (such as FO's DVOA metric or Doug Drinen's Approximate Value metric).

A lot of the work I do is simply taking the results that other systems churn out, and trying to work through team and coaching variables to better translate those numbers into wins and losses. Basically, I'm best when working with the statistical defenses of roster moves (or lack thereof).

Like I said earlier, my current project is trying to find out how many wins Jason Taylor adds over Phillip Daniels. Once I figure this out, I'll know just how long Jason Taylor has to play at a high level to be worth a second round draft pick.