Joe Burrow may force his way out of the Cincinnati Bengals

[ET80]

6 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

http://harvardsportsanalysis.org/2016/12/which-sports-league-has-the-most-parity/

It's an interesting read, and I'm still pouring through it - but he's using preseason title odds in his calculations vs actual W/L? 

I don't know if I can really wrap my head around the logic. I'll keep reading, but that's a red flag right out the gates, IMO.

[Soko]

3 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

I would argue that I haven't seen proof that the NFL draft increases parity.

Well sure, the league has been drafting well beyond our lifetimes (I assume). 

But with that said, the idea of the draft at least backs up parity, right? If we could assume that at minimum, how does the idea of a FA-rookie pool at least keep the status quo in regards to parity when the overlying hope is that some players may choose to sign with bad organizations or cheap teams? There’s nothing really to go off of with that, other than predictions. 

3 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

I would separately contend that the correlation between parity and a quality sports product is virtually non-existent, but that's a much tougher thing to quantitative. 

That’s for another time...although, I could get on board with it - sort of. 

[mse326]

Just now, ramssuperbowl99 said:

6 minutes ago, ET80 said:

Disagree, simply because most teams don't sign 7-8 "priority" free agents (but teams do draft and sign 1-7 round picks) along with 8-10 "non-priority" free agents (your UDFA classes). 

Volume is the difference between the two. Free agency doesn't see a significant amount of players being signed by a single team. Draft does.

I don't buy this as a distinction. At least not a meaningful one. There's 22 starting spots, plus like another 10 spots on each team that get meaningful playing time, otherwise it's just backups. Whether you're a draft pick or a free agent those are the spots that are meaningful, and that's going to dictate the volume of player turnover.

Yup. Also you need to remember that the reason there is so little impact FA is because teams can keep them because they are underpaying their star draft picks on their rookie deals. If there is no draft and they can command what they are worth then there would be more impact FA available.

[bzane]

56 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

He specifically started this because he couldn't sign Stan Kostka, a RB from Minnesota, who was wanted by every NFL team and held out in 1934. Eventually he signed and was the highest paid player in the league on his first deal. Immediately after that the draft was formed. 

Do the math man.

Gosh! We're all pretty much in the dark on this one, so-o-o, I did the only thing a man can do, and contacted Brutal at The Home in order to get all the facts!

Brutal tells me that Stan "Go-Go Gophers!" Kostka was from Fargo (and he may know what fence the money is hidden near in the snowbank), and was the star fullback at the U. Of Minnesota; and he did indeed cause the NFL draft. Kostka marketed himself to interested teams under the slogan "Kostka? It'll Cost Ya!", playing one owner against another until the Brooklyn Dodgers upped the ante to the unheard-of sum of $379, worth $40 billion in today's money, and won the bidding war. Kostka played but one season for the Dodgers and retired when it turned out he couldn't hit a curveball. He ran, or waddled, Brutal says, the 100-yard-dash in 16.47 seconds, which was at the time was a world record. Other nicknames for Kostka were "Biscuit Pants" and "Shuddup, Fat Boy!" Brutal thinks that after football Kostka started a chain of "one-a them big-box stores where they sell ever'thin' from Twinkies t' airplanes; wouldn't set foot in one t' save me life and won't put that lemonade they call gasoline in m' car!"

Brutal is doing well and sends a message to @Norm, "when ye goin' come see me, young fella me lad?? Miss playin' cribbage with ye, and all th' wranglin' we use-ter do over football!"
 

Stan Kostka

 

 

Edited February 19, 2020 by bzane

[mse326]

1 minute ago, Yin-Yang said:

But with that said, the idea of the draft at least backs up parity, right? If we could assume that at minimum, how does the idea of a FA-rookie pool at least keep the status quo in regards to parity when the overlying hope is that some players may choose to sign with bad organizations or cheap teams? There’s nothing really to go off of with that, other than predictions. 

Do you mean a limited pool of money for them as well? Or just that the rookie's are FA? If the latter the answer is the money each team has available. Better teams should have less money. If you are a bad team with little money that is your fault.

[seriously27]

2 hours ago, SmittyBacall said:

Why do you sound like Liam Neeson from “Taken”?

He WILL find you. And then he'll throw a football in your general area. 

[ET80]

@ramssuperbowl99 - remember that time I "jokingly" admitted to deleting random posts?

That last Kostka post is a candidate for random.

[ramssuperbowl99]

3 minutes ago, ET80 said:

It's an interesting read, and I'm still pouring through it - but he's using preseason title odds in his calculations vs actual W/L? 

I don't know if I can really wrap my head around the logic. I'll keep reading, but that's a red flag right out the gates, IMO.

You want to use preseason title odds to control for the offseason impact on expected team performance.

[ramssuperbowl99]

6 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

Well sure, the league has been drafting well beyond our lifetimes (I assume). 

But with that said, the idea of the draft at least backs up parity, right? If we could assume that at minimum, how does the idea of a FA-rookie pool at least keep the status quo in regards to parity when the overlying hope is that some players may choose to sign with bad organizations or cheap teams? There’s nothing really to go off of with that, other than predictions. 

The idea of a draft may or may not back up parity, depending on how you think about it. 

On one hand, giving the worst team first rights to the best players seems like it would bring everyone to the middle. But on the other hand, this could promote tanking. I wouldn't think the 2012 Colts or 2019 Dolphins are what people have in mind when they say "parity".

Or, and I think this is more what you end up seeing, you end up with the single worst team consistently taking QBs (the majority of whom won't pan out) without good supporting casts and having them get hurt or underperform, then get churned out while teams with established QBs consistently pick in the 20-32 range. And the QB is the most obvious example, but this applies all over the field. When the Rams take Greg Robinson really high, they have so much sunk cost that its human nature to play him even though he's terrible because he's a high draft pick, whereas other teams could find better production by going to the free agent market. I'm not pretending that the positive scenario of that doesn't exist - Nick Bosa was a huge reason the 9ers made the SB this year and they got him because they were bad. 

[ET80]

12 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

You want to use preseason title odds to control for the offseason impact on expected team performance.

But we're dealing with existing seasons here - do you really need expected team performance when you can actually measure team performance for that season?

[Shanedorf]

NFL players have both an agent AND a union to represent their interests - that's pretty effing awesome
There really is no aggrieved party here.

IF any part of the current NFL system isn't to your liking, you certainly have other options available. But none of those options are likley to offer a lifetime scholarship in exchange for the heinous requirement of spending a few years living high on the hog...in a city that wasn't your first choice

 

 

[ramssuperbowl99]

Just now, ET80 said:

But we're dealing with existing seasons here - do you really need expected team performance when you can actually measure team performance for that season?

There are 2 ways you could do this:

1. Compare 2018 records versus 2019 records. 
2. Compare 2019 records versus 2019 preseason odds

Number 2 more isolates the randomness element (which we call parity) because offseasons can dramatically impact the records. If Tom Brady leaves the Patriots and they win 5 games next year, that isn't "parity", that's a predictable change because the GOAT was there and now he's gone.

If you want the player turnover included, that's fine. But I think this metric is the best because it most accurately quantifies the "any given Sunday" mantra that is synonymous with NFL parity.

[Norm]

24 minutes ago, bzane said:

Gosh! We're all pretty much in the dark on this one, so-o-o, I did the only thing a man can do, and contacted Brutal at The Home in order to get all the facts!

Brutal tells me that Stan "Go-Go Gophers!" Kostka was from Fargo (and he may know what fence the money is hidden near in the snowbank), and was the star fullback at the U. Of Minnesota; and he did indeed cause the NFL draft. Kostka marketed himself to interested teams under the slogan "Kostka? It'll Cost Ya!", playing one owner against another until the Brooklyn Dodgers upped the ante to the unheard-of sum of $379, worth $40 billion in today's money, and won the bidding war. Kostka played but one season for the Dodgers and retired when it turned out he couldn't hit a curveball. He ran, or waddled, Brutal says, the 100-yard-dash in 16.47 seconds, which was at the time was a world record. Other nicknames for Kostka were "Biscuit Pants" and "Shuddup, Fat Boy!" Brutal thinks that after football Kostka started a chain of "one-a them big-box stores where they sell ever'thin' from Twinkies t' airplanes; wouldn't set foot in one t' save me life and won't put that lemonade they call gasoline in m' car!"

Brutal is doing well and sends a message to @Norm, "when ye goin' come see me, young fella me lad?? Miss playin' cribbage with ye, and all th' wranglin' we use-ter do over football!"
 

Stan Kostka

 

 

Lol. ******* gold. Lost it after the money conversion

[ET80]

1 minute ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

There are 2 ways you could do this:

1. Compare 2018 records versus 2019 records. 
2. Compare 2019 records versus 2019 preseason odds

Number 2 more isolates the randomness element (which we call parity) because offseasons can dramatically impact the records. If Tom Brady leaves the Patriots and they win 5 games next year, that isn't "parity", that's a predictable change because the GOAT was there and now he's gone.

If you want the player turnover included, that's fine. But I think this metric is the best because it most accurately quantifies the "any given Sunday" mantra that is synonymous with NFL parity.

I think I'm starting to get it more now that I'm reading it and not multitasking. 

An immediate observation is that both MLB and NFL remain in that 40-50 Gini Coefficient - which tells me both are fairly down the middle in terms of parity.

Still reading, getting more thoughts.

[Soko]

22 minutes ago, mse326 said:

Do you mean a limited pool of money for them as well? Or just that the rookie's are FA? If the latter the answer is the money each team has available. Better teams should have less money. If you are a bad team with little money that is your fault.

Shrug, it wasn’t my idea to get rid of it. The idealistic parameters aren’t mine to set. 

Even in the example you give, there are lots of issues with that. Do the rookies make $ on a wage scale? Or if it’s truly open market, are they making money comparable to veterans? What would Burrow make in the open market? Lots of questions. 

 I think generally you can say good teams have less money, but that’s not necessarily the case (Bills, Texans, Seahawks, Patriots, and Titans have $40M+ in cap as of now). In this sense there are a ton of variables, which would again lead to the question, how is their any decent predictability on how this would keep the status quo or improve parity? 

9 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

The idea of a draft may or may not back up parity, depending on how you think about it. 

On one hand, giving the worst team first rights to the best players seems like it would bring everyone to the middle. But on the other hand, this could promote tanking. I wouldn't think the 2012 Colts or 2019 Dolphins are what people have in mind when they say "parity".

The Dolphins aren’t really an example of that. I’d be with you on the Colts - but I don’t really see that running rampant in the NFL. It occurs in basketball but that’s a very different sport where single players can massively overhaul a franchise. 

9 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said:

Or, and I think this is more what you end up seeing, you end up with the single worst team consistently taking QBs (the majority of whom won't pan out) without good supporting casts and having them get hurt or underperform, then get churned out while teams with established QBs consistently pick in the 20-32 range. And the QB is the most obvious example, but this applies all over the field. When the Rams take Greg Robinson really high, they have so much sunk cost that its human nature to play him even though he's terrible because he's a high draft pick, whereas other teams could find better production by going to the free agent market. I'm not pretending that the positive scenario of that doesn't exist - Nick Bosa was a huge reason the 9ers made the SB this year and they got him because they were bad. 

 Bad drafting happens. Poorly run organizations make bad choices and sometimes remain bad. I don’t think that is a parity issue. These will always occur in sports, you can force a horse to drink. You can only give these teams the opportunity, what they do with that is up to them. P