NFl Draft Economics - Part 1 - Introduction

Here I will begin a series of posts discussing the economics of the NFL Draft.  The NFL Draft puzzles me.  Every year.  There are many economists (those who are both smarter and more qualified than I am) who've tried to explain it, and I'll cover their analyses in the posts to come. 

Naturally, this is a rather difficult topic to address in one simple post, so I'll do it over a few.  It's a very broad topic - it covers the evolution of the game, identifying and measuring talent, economics, labor issues, psychology, and human behavior, among others.  I won't go into all these topics, but will address some of them either directly or indirectly.  

Through all of this, the fundamental question I'll be trying to answer is why did the Detroit Lions take Matthew Stafford as the 1st pick in 2009 Draft, and pay him $78 million (actually, he has the potential to earn as much as $78 million over six years, and about $42 million is "guaranteed" - the reason the "guarantee" is in quotes is that while that is the quoted number in the press, his actual true guaranteed money is about $17 million).

And why did they do this after they took Joey Harrington with the 3rd pick overall in 2002?  And why did they do that after they took Andre Ware with the 7th overall pick in 1990?  And why did they do that after they took Chuck Long with the 12th overall pick in 1986?  That is the set of questions I'll attempt to answer.  There must be a reason why.  All the evidence suggests that they shouldn't have done this.  So why did they do this?

Quarterbacks and the NFL Draft - Part 3

OK, so we have taken a look at those QBs that were taken first overall over the past 30 years. There have been 13 of them. And we've discussed how they've done, compared to each other. Of course, there have been many quarterbacks taken since 1979 - a total of 340 quarterbacks drafted by NFL teams, not including the 8 quarterbacks that have been taken in supplemental drafts. In this and subsequent posts that follow, we'll take a look at these quarterbacks, and we'll try to answer some questions. Questions such as:

> Do quarterbacks drafted earlier do better than quarterbacks drafted later in a draft?
> Who have been the biggest surprises (performance relative to draft position)?
> Who have been the biggest busts?
> Does it pay to draft a quarterback #1?

Some of these questions are easier to answer than others. In the course of trying to answer these questions, we will encounter some themes we will have to address along the way. Themes such as:

> The economics of the draft
> The goal(s) of a team owner
> The importance of winning

Let's start with a picture of where quarterbacks have been generally drafted over the years.

Selection QBs Taken % of Total 1 13 4% 2-5 15 4% 6-15 18 5% 16-25 13 4% 26-50 25 7% 51-75 22 6% 76-100 40 12% 101-125 26 8% 126-150 25 7% 151-175 31 9% 176-200 27 8% 201-225 31 9% 226-250 24 7% 251-300 19 6% 301-350 11 3% Total 340 100%

Determining whether quarterbacks drafted earlier perform better than quarterbacks drafted later is a little tricky. Here's how I will go about trying to answer this question. First, I will look at how many of these quarterbacks that got drafted "played" in the NFL. I define "played", as the number of seasons a quarterback threw a sufficient amount of passers to have qualified statistically. The statistic that I use (and have used in the past) is the standard deviation relative to the mean as measured by CMI. Next, I will look at how many years, did these quarterbacks play? Certainly, length of playing career could be construed as a measure of success. Third, I will look at the average standard deviation of CMI for these quarterbacks. The higher the average standard deviation, the better the performance.

Let's take a look at the first measure - the likelihood of "playing". Some definitions: "Play" = # of years qualifying as a quarterback. Likelihood of playing is defined as # of players qualifying in at least 1 year relative to # of players drafted.

Here's the data:

Selection QBs Taken QBs "Played" %  "Playing" 1 13 13 100% 2-5 15 14 93% 6-15 18 15 83% 16-25 13 10 77% 26-50 25 15 60% 51-75 22 12 55% 76-100 40 16 40% 101-125 26 8 31% 126-150 25 10 40% 151-175 31 5 16% 176-200 27 8 30% 201-225 31 9 29% 226-250 24 5 21% 251-300 19 2 11% 301-350 11   0% Total 340 142 42%

At least according to just this measure, the evidence is fairly compelling. The results in this table show that players drafted in the earlier rounds are more likely to see significant playing time. It could suggest that the players drafted earlier are in fact more talented, or, if you are skeptical, it might suggest that team management influences coaches to give more playing time to the players drafted earlier to justify their investment (I find this latter suggestion a little hard to believe).

OK, so they are more likely to see more playing time. But what happens when they do play? How do these players perform on the field? I will look at two measures. The first, is the number of years that they play in the NFL. Presumably, the better you are, the longer you get to play (all else being equal). I have actually shown this to be true in previous posts (see here and here). So, if the players drafted earlier are in fact better players, we should see the length of their careers exceeding those of players drafted later. Let's see what the data shows:

Selection QBs Taken QBs "Played" Yrs "Played" 1 13 13 7.2 2-5 15 14 4.7 6-15 18 15 4.2 16-25 13 10 2.6 26-50 25 15 6.9 51-75 22 12 2.8 76-100 40 16 4.0 101-125 26 8 3.1 126-150 25 10 2.5 151-175 31 5 4.6 176-200 27 8 3.3 201-225 31 9 2.7 226-250 24 5 2.6 251-300 19 2 3.0 301-350 11     Total 340 142 4.2

Other than the quarterbacks taken first overall, there does not appear to be a appreciable difference in the # of years played by draft position. I am not suggesting that there isn't. There is. It's just not as much as I would have thought prior to looking at the data.

There are two possible explanations. The first is that, by the time the coaches and scouts have determined those worthy of getting playing time, there should only be minor differences in talent levels as it relates to the draft position. The previous table showed that there is a weeding out process that is more severe at the lower end of the draft, so the ones that do end up getting playing time, are probably on par with quarterbacks taken higher (i.e. pre-season training camp could be used as an additional, more rigorous screening process than merely watching college football games, and the NFL combine). The second reason is that again, there maybe a slight inherent bias to play the early draftees more, simply to give them more opportunities to continue to "prove" themselves.

We're still not done. I said earlier that we'll look at two measures. The first was the length of their careers. The second is their actual statistical performance, as measured by the standard deviation from the mean, using CMI as the measuring statistic. A number greater than zero indicating better than average performance, and a number less than zero indicating worse than average. Let's take a look.

Selection QBs Taken QBs "Played" Yrs "Played" Avg Dev 1 13 13 7.2 -0.06 2-5 15 14 4.7 -0.34 6-15 18 15 4.2 -0.15 16-25 13 10 2.6 0.36 26-50 25 15 6.9 -0.01 51-75 22 12 2.8 -0.32 76-100 40 16 4.0 0.16 101-125 26 8 3.1 -0.01 126-150 25 10 2.5 -0.70 151-175 31 5 4.6 -0.35 176-200 27 8 3.3 -0.16 201-225 31 9 2.7 -0.33 226-250 24 5 2.6 0.42 251-300 19 2 3.0 -0.32 301-350 11       Total 340 142 4.2 -0.11

Looking at this table, it's really difficult to see that the players drafted earlier, who actually ended up playing, have done better than those players drafted later. This suggests to me that once it is determined who actually plays, then the only difference that can be associated with draft order, if anything, is the number of years the player plays, and that probably is somewhat influenced by the team's investment in the players drafted earlier.

So what does this all mean for Matthew Stafford and the Detroit Lions, or, Mark Sanchez and the New York Jets. About the only thing we can be certain of at this point, is that they will play. They may end up playing 5 years, maybe more. As for their actual performance on the field, our best guess is that they'll be about average. Maybe I'm wrong on this. Maybe Matthew Stafford is the next Peyton Manning. Or, he could be the next Tim Couch. Or, he could be the next Eli Manning. Only time will tell.

Quarterbacks and the NFL Draft - Part 2

In my previous post, I pointed out the quarterbacks that have been taken first overall in the NFL draft.  With expectations sky-high for Matthew Stafford to lead the Lions out of the doldrums, let's take a look back and see how these previous #1 picks did.

A quarterback taken first overall is hardly a sure thing.  Of course, it is still too early to figure where the most recent #1 picks will end up, as they have a few years ahead of them.  2 of the 13 are in the Hall of Fame - John Elway and Troy Aikman.  Peyton Manning will be.  Although Elway was elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame, his statistics (as measured by standard deviation from the mean CMI) do not suggest that he was worthy (but that is for another discussion).  Without a doubt, both Manning (Peyton, not Eli), and Aikman have had outstanding careers, and, in looking back, fully deserving of being the #1 pick.  Of the rest, Carson Palmer appears the only quarterback currently justifying his lofty draft status.  Only time will tell if the others turn out to have great, or even good careers (I wouldn't bet on it).  

What does this all mean for Matthew Stafford and the Lions?  Well, it could mean absolutely nothing.  Or, if you believe in statistics, and you believe that NFL scouts' abilities to pick out talent isn't better today than it has been in the past, then the odds are against Stafford.  He is, in all likelihood, not going to be the savior that the Lions seek.  I will have more on this in the next few weeks.

Quarterbacks and the NFL Draft - Part 1

In this post, I want to take a trip back in time (back to 1979, specifically), to see which quarterbacks were picked first overall in the regular NFL Draft.  

Why 1979?  Two reasons.  First, it gives us exactly 30 years of data.  Second, it was the year where Joe Montana was drafted out of Notre Dame.  Since 1979, there have been 13 quarterbacks selected as the first overall pick in the regular NFL draft.  This does not include Steve Young, who was taken first overall in the 1984 Supplemental Draft.

A couple of observations.  In the 1980's, 3 quarterbacks were taken as the first overall pick.  In the 1990's there were 4.  In the 2000's, there have been 6 taken, through 2008, and, with the Detroit Lions taking Matthew Stafford first overall in 2009 , that would make 7.

Another way to look at it:  In the 19-year period from 1979 to 1997, there were 5 quarterbacks taken first overall.  Since then, 12 years if you include the 2009 draft, 9 quarterbacks have been taken first overall.  2000, 2006 and 2008 were the exceptions.

Here's the full list.