Incog's Trade Value Chart

[incognito_man]

Inspired by @beekay414, I set off this evening to construct a trade value chart to mimic reality. So, I thought "what better way to determine a player's value than their career earnings" and then "what better way to compare a player to his peers than their career earnings?" It accounts naturally for real-life positional comparison (and thus, a worthy mapping for a draft class).

Methodology:

(1) Normalize the top "x" number of career earners for each draft class. I wanted to see each draft class individually compared to itself. I assigned a value of 1000 to the top earner. The second highest earner would then get a value proportional to their career earnings compared to the top guy. If he earned 75% as much, he would get 750. I repeated this process for the data I had (roughly 60-80 guys per class). 

(2) Plot the data and the median value of each slot to find a trendline. It turns out, a logarithmic curve through the first 3 rounds is a really damn good fit (R^2 of 0.995). It's a much better representation than exponential.

(3) Use the trendline equation to set a baseline model.

(4) Examine the range from across the classes. For example, the highest #2 earner recently is Dak Prescott earning 95.1% as much as highest earner Jared Goff from 2016. The lowest #2 earner is Clay Matthews III earning 31.4% as much as highest earner from 2009 Matthew Stafford. Thus the "Number Two Pick" has a range from 314 to 951 'points'. With the lower values representing a top-heavy (shallow) earners pool and higher values representing a more concentrated, less top-heavy earners class.

Here's the 3-round TVC the numbers worked out to be using data from the 2006-2016 draft classes (grey = trendline based on median values, red = lowest relative earner, green = highest relative earner):

Round 1				Round 2				Round 3
Pick	Points	-STDEV	+STDEV	Pick	Points	-STDEV	+STDEV	Pick	Points	-STDEV	+STDEV
1	1000	1000	1000	33	279	217	342	65	138	101	174
2	865	743	987	34	273	211	335	66	134	97	172
3	780	634	927	35	267	205	329	67	131	94	168
4	720	580	860	36	261	200	322	68	128	92	164
5	674	549	798	37	255	195	316	69	125	90	160
6	636	514	757	38	250	191	309	70	122	87	157
7	603	486	721	39	244	186	303	71	119	86	152
8	575	458	693	40	239	181	297	72	116	83	149
9	551	440	662	41	234	176	292	73	113	81	146
10	529	424	633	42	229	172	286	74	110	79	142
11	509	402	616	43	224	169	279	75	108	85	131
12	491	384	597	44	219	165	273	76	105	82	128
13	474	372	576	45	214	167	262	77	102	79	126
14	458	360	557	46	210	163	257	78	99	74	125
15	444	349	540	47	205	160	251	79	97	71	123
16	431	337	524	48	201	156	246	80	94	69	119
17	418	328	507	49	197	153	240	81	92	66	117
18	406	318	494	50	192	148	236	82	89	63	115
19	395	307	482	51	188	145	232	83	86	61	112
20	384	298	470	52	184	141	228	84	84	58	110
21	374	290	457	53	180	137	223	85	81	55	108
22	364	281	447	54	176	133	219	86	79	48	110
23	355	275	435	55	172	130	215	87	77	50	103
24	346	266	425	56	169	128	209	88	74	51	98
25	337	258	417	57	165	125	205	89	72	49	95
26	329	254	404	58	161	122	201	90	70	46	93
27	321	247	395	59	158	119	197	91	67	44	91
28	314	241	387	60	154	116	193	92	65	42	88
29	306	237	376	61	151	113	189	93	63	39	86
30	299	230	368	62	147	111	184	94	60	37	84
31	292	226	358	63	144	108	180	95	58	35	82
32	286	222	349	64	141	104	177	96	56	33	79

So, depending on the class, Picks 42 and 43 can be worth anywhere from pick 9 (deep class) to pick 27 (shallow class).

Admittedly, this is a wider range than I expected. Another way to judge depth is to see what the first sequential earners whose sum equals the top earners is. For example, the 2015 draft class top earner is Amari Cooper at $119 million. #27 (Eric Kendricks) and #28 (Mitch Morse) have earned a combined $120 million (thus suggesting picks 27 and 28 were of equivalent value as pick #1 in 2015). On the other extreme, 2009's top earner is Matthew Stafford at $420 million. The next top 2 earners (Clay Matthews, Alex Mack) and #42 earner Josh Freeman  combined to earn $421 million, thus suggesting the 2009 top pick was worth picks 2, 3 and 42 combined. Every other class fell between these two extremes.

Graphically:

Edited March 24, 2023 by incognito_man

[gopackgo972]

[pgwingman]

Bravo, this is great work.

I do wonder though, do you think you could tighten up your ranges by eliminating the QBs from each class? Do their career earnings create large disparities in the data? I guess you do have a trendline for each class, so that probably takes it out.

Either way, this is great.

[incognito_man]

8 minutes ago, pgwingman said:

Bravo, this is great work.

I do wonder though, do you think you could tighten up your ranges by eliminating the QBs from each class? Do their career earnings create large disparities in the data? I guess you do have a trendline for each class, so that probably takes it out.

Either way, this is great.

I think it's important to leave QBs in. I know I saw that Ben Baldwin removes them as well, but I don't understand why. I think having that disparity is important. It emphasizes how important those very top picks are.

[packfanfb]

I hated stats class. 

[Packer_ESP]

This is awesome work, thanks Incog.

9 hours ago, incognito_man said:

Admittedly, this is a wider range than I expected.

I think the specific values will vary greatly from year to year, and probably even team to team. We always hear about how certain teams have X prospects at roughly the same level and then there's a big jump to the next level and stuff like that. That kind of thing is probably the reason why, while most trades roughly approximate some of the existing value charts, some others seem outlandish. If your board has one remaining top prospect and you don't think the depth this year is great (taking into account your player preferences, the system you play, your current roster, etc.) then you're probably willing to "overpay" for that last pick because, in your own value chart, you will end up winning.

This makes me wonder if teams actually update their value charts for each draft so they can quickly work out trades under time pressure while the draft is going. Ideally this value chart would be updated as selections are made - if your top tier has 10 players the top 10 picks will have much greater value, but if team #5 drafts a non-top 10 pick (say the Lions drafting a Tight End) then pick #11 jumps in value for you. Wouldn't be technically hard to set up, you can do this even with spreadsheets, so I tend to think they probably have something like this.

Thanks again for the effort and the quality post.

[VegasDan]

Wow!  That was a lot of work.  Very interesting. Seems that positional pay disparity skews the results. But maybe it will even out as QBs are drafted at every draft slot over time. Going to have to think about that.  But great work!

[incognito_man]

15 minutes ago, Packer_ESP said:

This is awesome work, thanks Incog.

I think the specific values will vary greatly from year to year, and probably even team to team. We always hear about how certain teams have X prospects at roughly the same level and then there's a big jump to the next level and stuff like that. That kind of thing is probably the reason why, while most trades roughly approximate some of the existing value charts, some others seem outlandish. If your board has one remaining top prospect and you don't think the depth this year is great (taking into account your player preferences, the system you play, your current roster, etc.) then you're probably willing to "overpay" for that last pick because, in your own value chart, you will end up winning.

This makes me wonder if teams actually update their value charts for each draft so they can quickly work out trades under time pressure while the draft is going. Ideally this value chart would be updated as selections are made - if your top tier has 10 players the top 10 picks will have much greater value, but if team #5 drafts a non-top 10 pick (say the Lions drafting a Tight End) then pick #11 jumps in value for you. Wouldn't be technically hard to set up, you can do this even with spreadsheets, so I tend to think they probably have something like this.

Thanks again for the effort and the quality post.

I agree with this and think a dynamic TVC is a great idea. It popped in my head as I was doing this as well.

This is certainly just a crude approximation. I want to develop it more and try to smooth out data bit across draft classes (players are competing for dollars among their own class as well as classes before and after them).

[beekay414]

27 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

I agree with this and think a dynamic TVC is a great idea.

Yes indeed. I have no idea how to make it happen, as you may be able to figure out and math, but this is basically what I talked about yesterday. Free flowing data, not stagnant. That's what it's all about. 

Great work.

[squire12]

how does the pre/post rookie wage scale affect this?

[MacReady]

Nerd.

[incognito_man]

7 minutes ago, squire12 said:

how does the pre/post rookie wage scale affect this?

The post rookie wage scale (2011 and after) seem to cluster ABOVE the trend line. 

2008 and 2009 are definite outliers (two lowest graphs)

[incognito_man]

6 minutes ago, Outpost31 said:

Nerd.

I'm adding some data and functionality. You'll be pleased to know that off-ball LB and RB are the two least valued positions among active players.

[MacReady]

Just now, incognito_man said:

I'm adding some data and functionality. You'll be pleased to know that off-ball LB and RB are the two least valued positions among active players.

Only because running back doesn’t sell jerseys the way they used to.

Running 80 yards for a TD is now less exciting than catching a 30 yard TD pass.

WR has significantly more value because they put butts in the seat.

[squire12]

3 minutes ago, incognito_man said:

The post rookie wage scale (2011 and after) seem to cluster ABOVE the trend line. 

2008 and 2009 are definite outliers (two lowest graphs)

Pre rookie wage scale seems like it would inflate the early 1st round picks and potentially dampen the later picks as there would be less cap space overall to distribute to other players.  

would the rising cap space over time have an impact on things?  More money in later years might give a boost in the recent years as players come off the rookie contract