I-ROK wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2020 7:42 am
I edited my post to include this on Pittman:
I don’t like his chances being a non-early declare. Saw this in a thread here:
https://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/f ... receivers/
6.7% have a WR1 season
18.6% have a WR2 season
Rookie picks are hard enough to hit without handicapping myself by taking a profile that doesn’t hit often.
I have a few problems with that study though;
That's a small sample size. Only 10 years back and if you then have to give the players time to break out (let's say 3 years minimum) it's really only a sample of 7-8 years at best. He even says so himself that if he made the sample size go back further it would have skewed the numbers more towards the players who didn't declare early.
When doing research for my RB report I can tell you the types of talent entering the league at a given position can vary greatly, and can either be great or be lacking for periods of many years at a time. When you do studies now going back 5 years you'd say well RB talent is great, but 5 years ago you had articles popularizing 0 RB because the talent entering the league was so bad.
He also groups them rounds 1-3, but i find a stark difference between rounds 2 and 3 when it comes to the bigger/taller WRs. The only good tall WR drafted in round 3 in recent years was Golladay back in 2017. You can't find another WR similar to that until you get to Keenan Allen back in 2013, and before that Eric Decker in 2010. So are we really grouping Pittman in with a slew of round 3 players that historically almost never pan out? 3 in the last 10 years? That just doesn't make sense to me.
edit: Kupp too
edit edit: I did a little quick research and 3rd round picks hit around 26% while 2nd round picks hit almost double that, 45%. So just the one thing of noting that Pittman is a 2nd round pick and not a 3rd increases his hit rate by 20%. This is why I am saddened by this article.
He's sorting them by early-declare but little else. What about differentiating each group by athleticism, production, among other things? He says in the article the percentages rise when factoring in breakout age (which Pittman checks). He also says 7 of the non-early declare group never broke out but he doesn't say what the hit rate on them was. Assuming it's very low, again we can adjust Pittman's percentage. He says the percentages rise again if they hit a certain production threshold (which Pittman checks). So what is Pittmans true percentage? Well, unfortunately the article never tells us exactly what it is, but we know it's higher than what is in the little chart he made for the players selected in draft rounds 1-3.
I'm sure it's valid that early-declares are better, but I don't know if that article is the most accurate portrayal of the percentages.
Acquisition cost is everything.