Miami 2nd best drafting team...

Most post-draft analysis is rooted strictly in subjectivity, simply because it’s difficult to measure how well a team drafts without being affected by individual biases or perception. So, with this in mind, Draftmetrics’ Tony Villiotti created a statistical index in order to attempt to measure how well NFL teams draft, and in turn, whether the data matches with our perceptions. In other words, if there’s a consensus that a team drafts well — teams like Green Bay or Baltimore come to mind — is it an automatic validation of its draft record? After Villiotti crunched the numbers — both over a 10-year (2003-12) and a five-year period (2008-12) — the Dolphins ranked as the second-most effective drafting team in the last five years. So, how exactly did Villiotti arrive there? “The biggest obstacle in doing an objective analysis is to select the metrics that do the best job of measuring performances,” Villiotti writes. “DRAFTMETRICS decided to use a weighted combination of four measures to measure each team’s draft success.” The four metrics that he used to create the index: (1) total games started; (2) number of players active for the 2012 season; (3) average share of annual starts (calculated by finding what percentage of total annual starts a team’s draft class accounted for and then averaging that out over time; (4) Pro Bowl selections. Those metrics can be affected by a combination of draft position and other factors, of course, but Villiotti also created a formula to try to determine what a team’s “expected rank” would be based on position and total number of picks. In the five past years — which also coincides with General Manager Jeff Ireland’s tenure in Miami — the Dolphins outperformed their expected rank (eight) by six spots. With five picks in the first three rounds of this April’s draft, the Dolphins will look to add to their mostly homegrown core. Please Note: The opinions, analysis and/or speculation expressed by The Finsiders Blog represent those of individual writers, and unless quoted or clearly labeled as such, do not represent the opinions, policies or desires of the Miami Dolphins organization, front office, coaches and executives. Writers' views are formulated independently from any inside information and/or conversation with Dolphins officials, including the coaches and scouts, unless otherwise noted.

Congrats Igguy you found an article that made my head explode lol.


Research and attempting to conceptualize abstract concepts is great, heck I often try to do that from time to time on here, but here's the thing, you start with a hypothesis and formula, but there are often times where the cause and correlation don't match, there are many times I've thought I'm on to something only to find the results don't make sense, and you throw it away.......This seems to be something Tony Villioti should have thrown away.
No lie, if you devise this formula and the results show Miami is the 2nd best drafting team you probably shouldn't bother posting it.  seriously something should go off in your head that says, maybe these results are not significant. 

And I say that knowing my views on the FO (thinking Ireland's drafts border on awful) is one extreme.  I happen to think I'm right, but even if I acknowledge that may not be the case, I don't even think those on here that still support Ireland would actually believe the Dolphins have been one of the better drafting teams.  There are many on here that may not think it's been as bad as I do, but does anyone think they are 2nd best in the league?

It makes very little sense.
Even when looking at the process.  We know in Ireland's tenure Jake Long and Jake Long alone accounts for drafted Pro-Bowlers.  We know a high number of Ireland's picks are not on the active roster - Virtually no one left from 08-09', and heck even last year Kaddu and Cunningham were cut, Egnew was inactive most of the year (probably forgetting at least someone else). 
Which means what skewed this in the Dolphins favor is the "starts".  While home-grown talent starting is important, it also can be extremely arbitrary in this context.  Think about it - When Nolan Carroll is forced to start for Miami that holds the same weight as Von Miller starting for the Broncos.  John Jerry starting all year at Guard is as good of a pick as Navarro Bowman or Jimmy Graham (both taken later in that same 2010 3rd round). That's what this theory would lead you to believe.

I agree that post-draft analysis is very subjective - Really who knows, and how could you know if a draft is great right after it occurs.
But 3 or so years in I don;t believe it is subjective........This study focuses on a 10 and 5 year period which you actually can look back and judge drafts based on player and team performance......And looking at team and player performance I don't see how you can view Miami as a success much less the second most successful drafting team in the league.

 “DRAFTMETRICS decided to use a weighted combination of four measures to measure each team’s draft success.” The four metrics that he used to create the index: (1) total games started; (2) number of players active for the 2012 season; (3) average share of annual starts (calculated by finding what percentage of total annual starts a team’s draft class accounted for and then averaging that out over time; (4) Pro Bowl selections. Those metrics can be affected by a combination of draft position and other factors, of course, but Villiotti also created a formula to try to determine what a team’s “expected rank” would be based on position and total number of picks. In the five past years — which also coincides with General Manager Jeff Ireland’s tenure in Miami — the Dolphins outperformed their expected rank (eight) by six spots. 

That's a typical reason people say stats can be manipulated. Miami has been a poor team over the last 5 years, meaning more opportunity for rookies to get playing time. Outside of Jake Long who is obvious how many drafted players were named starters in a Pro-Bowl? Answer = None.

http://www.draftmetrics.com/files/T
HE%20BEST%20JOB%20OF%20DRAFTING.pdf


There is their data. Notice the top 5 teams.

Chiefs, Dolphins, Cardinals, Browns, and Eagles. None are better then average NFL teams. The way they manipulate the data is not representitive of good drafting in my opinion, but rather a greater opportunity to play.

Sorry, Rym. I was typing that and had to step away. You since posted something quite similar.

Chiefs, Dolphins, Cardinals, Browns, and Eagles. None are better then average NFL teams. The way they manipulate the data is not representitive of good drafting in my opinion, but rather a greater opportunity to play.

I didn't find the whole article (whole list of teams) before typing what I did.
My guess that it was heavily influenced due to the "starts" was looking at it in context of Miami's roster, now seeing the top 5 teams certainly seems to confirm that.

Though off the top of my head KC has done a decent job in the draft......Or at least I can think of a handful of impact players they have hit on.
Anyone else notice that the Chiefs had 6 Pro-Bowlers this year?  Pretty bizarre when you think about how awful that team was.

I agree re: KC. And, I do look forward to seeing how this years Miami's class develops. It has the possibility of being a very good class. It also has the possibility of going the other way. At least we saw flashes from Tannehill, Martin, and Miller. and the rest other then Cunningham are still around. Time will tell. 

The same website agrees that better stability, ie; less injuries, should equate to wins. Could the reason be we're starting less quality players overall?

The Dolphins had overall very good stability indicators but didn’t have a record to match
o They were second only to the 49ers in players with 13 or more starts
o They were tied for the league lead in players with more than 1000 starts
o These favorable stability metrics did not translate into on the field success

http://www.draftmetrics.com/files/S
tability%20and%20Success.pdf

^
So basically the Dolphins are a huge aberration or the Dolphins don't have as much talent as their other draft measures would lead you to indicate.
Staying healthy is extremely important, but marginal starters starting 16 games does not equate to a Super Bowl run,

To me it's pretty simple - The 2012 roster had the talent of about a 6 win team heading into the season.  Maybe a few more if everything broke right, certainly capable of less if there were injuries and other issues arose.
Looking at where the team was September 1st - I still see the end result of 7 wins as very respectable. 
Looking at talent - They were right about where they should be.....And I'd imagine most here would agree, as I recall predictions ranging from 4-9 wins, if I recall correctly the majority in the 6-8 range.

DolphinFarmer is vindicated!!!!!!!

Not really. Have to agree with what has been said here. That formula isn't very good at analyzing draft success.

But thanks for posting Igguy. Interesting read.

Staying healthy is extremely important, but marginal starters starting 16 games does not equate to a Super Bowl run,

To me it's pretty simple - The 2012 roster had the talent of about a 6 win team heading into the season.  Maybe a few more if everything broke right, certainly capable of less if there were injuries and other issues arose.
Looking at where the team was September 1st - I still see the end result of 7 wins as very respectable.  
Looking at talent - They were right about where they should be.....And I'd imagine most here would agree, as I recall predictions ranging from 4-9 wins, if I recall correctly the majority in the 6-8 range.

Yup

 But thanks for posting Igguy. Interesting read.

Absolutely.

 

Thinking about it some more the logic of what that writer was trying to do does make some sense.  Trying to quantify what makes for a "good" draft can be difficult....if I was trying to do that I'd probably use the same information he did use.

Again though, if you use those numbers and come up with those teams as your Top 5 it shuld be an indication that it's not a useful formula. 
And I did have a guess why - #1 + #3 are essentially the same thing.  If you are using "total games started" as an indicator of success I'm not sure why then "percentage of annual starts" would be included as well (or vice versa).
Looking at the Dolphins high grade - it seems it was skewed by the number of drafted players who have started (some good, some bad). and this could be the reason why - I'm not sure how he weighted things, but in terms of what is used - 50% is pretty much based on players starting.

I have a feeling if you cut one of those out - Leaving it with Pro-Bowls, Total (or percentage) of starts, and active players on the roster, which are al good qualifiers for quality drafting, you would see different and potentially more accurate results. 
I'd love to see what the list looked like if that was done.

Not totally sure, I believe the total number of annual starts helps determine the strength of the draft class?? They list the CON as it being a geeky stat. Without seeing exactly how it breaks down compared to actual players drafted, and their contributions to the league it is hard to tell if the stat in and of itself is of any true value compared to #1.

I prefer the much simplier method of looking back a few years later. If the team acquired 3 or more starters it was a very good draft class. If one was a pro-bowler, a great class. Anything less....not good enough. That is pretty much how Shula judged them, and that's good enough for me. 

Regardless of what formula you like wins is what ultimately tells the tale. An area everyone can agree we've fallen short.

Mr Villiotti should get his brain analysed (Period). IMO

I thought the same thing all of you guys are saying. I just couldnt help but laugh