Posts tagged Football Scouting

A Game of Inches: The Talent Gap By the Numbers

0 Comments read 2014 NFL Draft, Matt Waldman, RSP Publication

Based on these numbers, less than 1 percent of the seniors playing college football will ever earn a second contract in the NFL.

Greg Linton, an NFL agent, shared this on Twitter this morning. There’s another salient point embedded in this data that goes beyond the message of “get your education.” It’s how data displays the differences in execution. It is a great way to see the differences between “good” college football and “good” NFL football.

Only the top 6.5 percent of all high school players compete at the college level. It means they are in the 93.5 percentile of all high school players. Likewise, only the top 1.6 percent of all college players enter the NFL–the 98.4 percentile. And that second NFL contract–the seal of approval that you’re a good NFL player–is reserved for less than one percent of all college players; the 99.06 percentile.

Viewing the numbers in this fashion, it doesn’t look like a big difference between the 93.5 percentile, the 98.4 percentile, and the 99.06 percentile. You’d be mistaken.

This may be a stretch for some–and it certainly isn’t scientific–but for the sake of entertainment, let’s presume that these percentiles were a reflection of a player’s success rate executing plays on a per snap basis. I understand this is not exact, but I think there’s enough to this idea to suspend disbelief long enough to make an overall point that is worthwhile.

The table below shows the amount of errors–or bad plays–that a player would commit over the course of a million plays based these percentiles that represent their standing as a college (93.5 percentile), NFL prospect (98.4 percentile), or NFL vet earning a second contract (99.07 percentile).

Plays Percentile Good Plays Errors/Bad
1,000,000 0.935 935,000 65,000
1,000,000 0.984 98,4000 16,000
1,000,000 0.9906 99,0600 9,400

The difference between 65,000 errors and 16,000 errors is massive and that’s just the gap between a college player and NFL prospect who might last three years in the league. The NFL vet who earns a second deal commits 42.3 percent fewer errors than the prospect ad 86.6 fewer errors than the college player. And I’m talking about the average player on a team, which includes the best and the worst players on each squad–forget about the stars!

Even these numbers are a little harder to grasp, because we’re looking at a million plays. We won’t see any player execute that many over the course of a career–as hard as Brett Favre, George Blanda and Bruce Matthews tried.

So let’s break it down to plays in a season. Let’s estimate a player sees 40 plays a game for 16 games. I know this isn’t completely accurate for the college game or certain players in the NFL. However, it’s a more understandable sample size of plays for a season that equates to 640 plays.

Now look at the differences in errors/bad plays–it’s a lot easier to grasp.

Player Plays Percentile Good Plays Errors
College 640 0.935 598.4 41.6
NFL Prospect 640 0.984 629.76 10.24
NFL Vet 640 0.9906 633.984 6.016

The difference between 10 and 6 egregious errors per season per player is staggering–and that’s the difference between a young NFL player and a veteran. Those 41.6 errors per season for the average college player just doesn’t cut it for the pro game. This chart hints at why NFL athleticism is a difference maker in the college game even if the NFL skill and understanding of football isn’t always present.

In contrast, the gap between a prospect and vet is much smaller from an athletic standpoint, but the differences in errors is still large based on knowledge of technique, strategy, and consistency of execution. Again, this is hypothesizing that we’re discussing the average player at each level.

Now think about the top four players on each team–Pro-Bowl caliber players–that’s 128 players in the NFL. These players are in the 99.88 percentile in all of football–high school, college, and NFL. Using a sample of 640 plays in a 16-game season they would commit .75 egregious errors.

This seems hard to believe. In fact, you can see where this theory begins to crack at the seams because even All-Pros make mistakes multiple times in a season. However, how many of them are solely their fault and not something that can be explained by the error of a teammate? Not as many as you might think.

I wouldn’t throw out this examination because the numbers aren’t exactly right. The point is still a good one: The gap in talent is about consistency of execution and it requires knowledge, skill, and focus as the gap in athleticism narrows.

For analysis of skill players in this year’s draft class, download the 2014 Rookie Scouting Portfolio. Better yet, if you’re a fantasy owner the 56-page Post-Draft Add-on comes with the 2012 – 2014 RSPs at no additional charge and available for download within a week after the NFL Draft. Best, yet, 10 percent of every sale is donated to Darkness to Light to combat sexual abuse. You can purchase past editions of the Rookie Scouting Portfolio for just $9.95 apiece.

Embracing The Craft of Player Evaluation

0 Comments read 2014 NFL Draft
Tony Romo is a perfect Rhorsach for football fans. Photo by Football Schedule.
Tony Romo is a perfect Rorschach for football fans. Photo by Football Schedule.

Player evaluation is an imperfect endeavor. Understanding one’s limitations is a huge step towards getting better at it.

The most compelling thing about the NFL Draft is that no matter how hard it tries, it cannot escape its humanity. It’s this human element that makes player evaluation – and evaluating what good evaluation is – so difficult. 

Evaluating human behavior is a craft. It’s not science. It’s not intuition. It’s not history. And it’s not life experience.

It’s all of these things layered with perspective and applied with doses of humility, pride, and appreciation of the perfection of imperfections. It’s limitations and imperfections that are the root of character.

Maurice Jones-Drew and Ray Rice weren’t deemed big enough to carry the load. They are two of the toughest backs in football and proven bell cows.

Larry Fitzgerald, Anquan Boldin, and Brandon Lloyd are too slow to play wide receiver if looking solely at the speed data. However, what they do to catch a football despite these limitations is like a gorgeous birthmark on a model’s face.

Frank Gore is a former physical freak-turned-mortal whose sight, decision-making, and patience make fans wonder “what could have been” if he didn’t suffer two knee injuries that took away his immortality. Tony Romo and Brett Favre have embodied the sum of human failings, but often supplied its most inspiring heights.

I joke that Romo and Favre are often the dividing line among fans who embrace humanity and fans who think we’re better off eliminating humanity and evolving into androids.

Self-loathing aside, it’s the humanity in these players’ games that shine the brightest to fans – the production despite imperfection and the feats that for a briefest moment stretch beyond limitation. Likewise, player analysis is a willingness to both embrace and stretch beyond the humanity inherent in the process.

Every human being has characteristics of their personality that, depending on the situation, will have positive or negative expression. If one looks hard enough, this is true of scouts, writers, and draftniks when they evaluate prospects.

We all have several of these traits, but there is often a few predominant traits that are easier to notice. One of mine is persistence-stubbornness.

A positive side of its expression in my work is that I’m often thorough and steadfast with my analysis. A negative side in my work appears when I’m stubborn about process to the point that I can miss the forest while examining the trees.

I am also drawn to the underdog or the troubled soul. It’s part of my personality imprint.

I’m less likely to judge players with checkered pasts. Before I developed more life experience and caution, I was more likely to give trouble a second or third chance to the detriment of my analysis.

I’m not alone. There are scouts, writers, and draftniks drawn to players that I call bright and shiny objects –  players who possess eye-popping physical skills, but lack the refined play of a consistent,  reliable starter.

These folks see potential and have the vision to see how it will blossom in a positive way. But they are sometimes to their detriment a slave to it the way Bill in Kill Bill had a thing for blondes.

Other people latch onto one thing about a player. It might be the overriding characteristic that makes a player successful despite flaws in his game that others nitpicked to death.

At the same time, these people are also famous for spotting a potential flaw that is not the overriding factor for success or failure and it derails their analysis. They turn into the nitpicker.

Then there are the data guys who often generate insights, who at their best, provide a fresh, clear-eyed perspective of players and the game that re-frame the questions we should be asking.  At their worst, they think any process that involves data is objective while dismissing information that they cannot yet figure out how to analyze with their tools.

I’m not talking about best analytics practitioners that I know who are working behind the scenes in the NFL. These individuals are often the first to tell you that the intuitive and the “subjective” have a place in analysis. These individuals studying the film as much as they study the data.

We all want a silver bullet – an attribute, a stat, or a measurement that will override the imperfection of craft. But player analysis is a craft.

You may not like it. I may not like it. It doesn’t matter.