Jump to content
AlNFL19

Tight End Statistical Projections

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, BleedTheClock said:

Very interesting and looks like you spent a lot of time on this. Kudos!

 

That being said, this game is incredibly dependant on mental capacity and that isn't measured in any of these analytical things. I think analytics are kind of dumb, but it doesn't mean it's not a cool tool to use. I would literally never use it to skew my thoughts on a prospect though.

Thanks. I get where you’re coming from, but I’m (obviously) still in the “analytics are (a little) important” camp. After all, a lot of analytical tools have better track records than NFL scouts (at least, better than draft position alone - this tool is correlated to AV at 0.54 to draft position’s -0.31, as an example). I think you need a mix of both, somewhat. A guy can be a stud athlete and put up huge college numbers, but if he’s dumb as rocks he’s not going anywhere. I think the inverse is also, to a degree, true. 

Plus, I have a lot of down time, and these kinds of things are a way to use it up I guess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

"t is correlated to NFL AV at 0.54, which is mediocre but better than draft position (-0.33). It also includes a Bust Chance (<5.0 AV) and Pro Bowl Chance (10.0+)"

 

You probably already have, and I'm being too lazy to look, but is there any chance you can go into detail on what the above is? I'd quite like to give sport analytic a go in my free time but wouldn't know where to start. 

 

@AlNFL19

Edited by Hunter2_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Hunter2_1 said:

"t is correlated to NFL AV at 0.54, which is mediocre but better than draft position (-0.33). It also includes a Bust Chance (<5.0 AV) and Pro Bowl Chance (10.0+)"

 

You probably already have, and I'm being too lazy to look, but is there any chance you can go into detail on what the above is? I'd quite like to give sport analytic a go in my free time but wouldn't know where to start. 

 

@AlNFL19

Correlation coefficient is a measure of the relationship between two variables, and is a number between -1 and 1. If the correlation coefficient is -1, the variables have a perfect negative relationship (as one moves up, the other moves down) and a correlation of 1 is a perfect positive relationship. A correlation coefficient of 0 means there is no correlation, so the closer to 0, the weaker the correlation.  

0.54 isn’t considered a terribly strong correlation, but it’s far and away better than -0.31 (negative because as draft pick increases from 1 to 256, AV decreases).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/17/2019 at 5:18 PM, deathstar said:

This is very interesting, I appreciate you posting this. It's interesting that you have J. Finley and Sternberger in the v. high risk group because they're both 3rd round picks of the Packers. I think Finley isn't the worst comp for Sternberger, too. 

Sternberger reminded me of Kelce when I watched his tape. I haven't seen Finley plays in years so I'll have to re-watch his tape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I saw something about TE's in the first 3 rounds but I am very interested to see what this works out for Foster Moreau. He was drafted in the 4th round by Oakland and is a guy that I was very high on pre-draft. There isn't a ton in the TE room for the Raiders, he's more athletic than he was given credit for and is known to be a solid blocker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm impressed you received so many replies here. I didn't see this thread until checking the wide receiver one first. That was virtually ignored. 

If I were you I would contact the CommonManFootball guy on YouTube...Jim Cobern. Similarly he has very advanced and intriguing numbers-oriented stuff but doesn't receive nearly as much attention as seemingly warranted. Maybe you guys can compare notes. He might be intrigued by your stuff. 

Otherwise just keep tinkering. But don't fall into the trap of ridiculously adjusting your model simply to exclude a known bust. Many people fall prey to that type of thing. They'll see something in the numbers that applied to let's say Jamarcus Russell, and then stick that in their model to artificially bump the percentages and bragging rights, even if that criteria was basically meaningless and probably wouldn't show up again in a sample of five hundred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Karnage84 said:

I think I saw something about TE's in the first 3 rounds but I am very interested to see what this works out for Foster Moreau. He was drafted in the 4th round by Oakland and is a guy that I was very high on pre-draft. There isn't a ton in the TE room for the Raiders, he's more athletic than he was given credit for and is known to be a solid blocker.

F. Moreau, TE, LSU
Statistic Figure
Projected AV 3.01
Bust Chance 84.25%
PB Chance 3.01%

There you go. Moreau was rather unremarkable all-around from a numbers perspective: 272 yards, 2 touchdowns, 7.16 3-cone, etc. His 4.66 40 was pretty good but his draft position did enough to knock it down more. His projection falls right between Drew Sample and 2015 Miami tight end Clive Walford.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, AlNFL19 said:

 

F. Moreau, TE, LSU
Statistic Figure
Projected AV 3.01
Bust Chance 84.25%
PB Chance 3.01%

There you go. Moreau was rather unremarkable all-around from a numbers perspective: 272 yards, 2 touchdowns, 7.16 3-cone, etc. His 4.66 40 was pretty good but his draft position did enough to knock it down more. His projection falls right between Drew Sample and 2015 Miami tight end Clive Walford.

Thanks for putting this together.. That's interesting because he performed better in a number of areas. His 36.5 Vertical was in the 80% percentile and his 4.11 Short Shuttle was in the 95% percentile. He doesn't have the production but his workout numbers aren't too far off from TJ Hockenson's.

It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think my favorite part of these analysis is finding the most ridiculous "NFL AV" discrepancy.

Today I learned. Jordan Reed > Gronk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Danger said:

I think my favorite part of these analysis is finding the most ridiculous "NFL AV" discrepancy.

Today I learned. Jordan Reed > Gronk

I’m sorry it’s not perfect. Give it a rest, will you? I thought I already explained this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2019 at 12:41 AM, kingseanjohn said:

Sternberger reminded me of Kelce when I watched his tape.

I don't see that. Sternberger is really slight of frame and can't block a soul. Kelce is a true in-line TE that can block and body guys out. Sternberger is just a big WR that runs solid routes for a big guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, BleedTheClock said:

I don't see that. Sternberger is really slight of frame and can't block a soul. Kelce is a true in-line TE that can block and body guys out. Sternberger is just a big WR that runs solid routes for a big guy.

Kielce is a complete TE so the blocking part doesn’t fit.  

Play-style year Zach Ertz had the same critiques.  Ertz has more quickness to his game but otherwise that’s probably a better ceiling to look for as a true move TE.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2019 at 5:32 PM, AlNFL19 said:

To be fair, it weights measurables highly because they have a high historical correlation to success at TE. That obviously isn’t true for all positions - my WR model, for example, doesn’t include any measurables because the track record there is spotty at best and nothing truly correlates highly. 

Answering the Hockenson / Fant thing, I think using market share statistics tells you a lot about things like how reliant a team was on a player. Players that can shoulder a bigger load of the offense in college are more likely to be good as pros. Plus, college coaches are obviously good judges of talent, so if they see a player as worth a big target share, there’s a reason why. But you’re right, it’s hard to gauge those things overall.

As a side note, Jim Cobern (CommonManFootball) does a lot with market share statistics and thresholds and whatnot on YouTube. I’d recommend checking his stuff out if you like that kind of analysis.  

I would imagine this is due to (1) elite athleticism largely being table stakes for NFL WR and (2) a diversity of athletic profiles that can be successful.  On #2, yes you have the occasional Calvin Johnson or Julio Jones, but the athletic profiles of a Hollywood Brown vs. an Alshon Jeffrey is going to give a linear model fits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×