NFL Teams Discussion | Other Teams News

[21&500]

You see a particular BAL pick where there was a better UM player on the board in a position of need that they didn’t take? I believe in Occam’s razor - the simple explanation is usually the right one.

Better guess: The draft unfolded as it unfolded and their board never had a UM player at the top of the board when it was their time to pick.

So no....

[Topcat]

You see a particular BAL pick where there was a better UM player on the board in a position of need that they didn’t take? I believe in Occam’s razor - the simple explanation is usually the right one.

Better guess: The draft unfolded as it unfolded and their board never had a UM player at the top of the board when it was their time to pick.

Excellent point! So, to extrapolate Occam's Razor to the NFL Draft, GM's and HC's need to be careful NOT to make assumptions, such as ASSUMING that a player may be able to move to a different position; or to draft a Sammie Small Schooler and ASSUME he will be able to play at a high level. Now, he MAY, but the percentages are lower. However, much of this risk is mitigated if such a player is drafted in the later rounds (i.e. Vidal).

For the benefit of the forum here, a bit of background:

"In philosophy, Occam's razor (also spelled Ockham's razor or Ocham's razor; Latin: novacula Occami) is the problem-solving principle that recommends searching for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements. It is also known as the principle of parsimony or the law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae). Attributed to William of Ockham, a 14th-century English philosopher and theologian, it is frequently cited as Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, which translates as "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity",^[1][2] although Occam never used these exact words. Popularly, the principle is sometimes paraphrased as "The simplest explanation is usually the best one."^[3]

This philosophical razor advocates that when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction and both theories have equal explanatory power one should prefer the hypothesis that requires the fewest assumptions^[4] and that this is not meant to be a way of choosing between hypotheses that make different predictions."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor#See_also

[wu-dai clan]

NetFLix.

[dmac_bolt]

Excellent point! So, to extrapolate Occam's Razor to the NFL Draft, GM's and HC's need to be careful NOT to make assumptions, such as ASSUMING that a player may be able to move to a different position; or to draft a Sammie Small Schooler and ASSUME he will be able to play at a high level. Now, he MAY, but the percentages are lower. However, much of this risk is mitigated if such a player is drafted in the later rounds (i.e. Vidal).

For the benefit of the forum here, a bit of background:

"In philosophy, Occam's razor (also spelled Ockham's razor or Ocham's razor; Latin: novacula Occami) is the problem-solving principle that recommends searching for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements. It is also known as the principle of parsimony or the law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae). Attributed to William of Ockham, a 14th-century English philosopher and theologian, it is frequently cited as Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, which translates as "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity",^[1][2] although Occam never used these exact words. Popularly, the principle is sometimes paraphrased as "The simplest explanation is usually the best one."^[3]

This philosophical razor advocates that when presented with competing hypotheses about the same prediction and both theories have equal explanatory power one should prefer the hypothesis that requires the fewest assumptions^[4] and that this is not meant to be a way of choosing between hypotheses that make different predictions."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor#See_also

The greater the required projection of change, growth, improvement, etc.; the less certainty can be assigned. Hence greater risk. I would caution that not every position change is a giant projection, given a large available historic database of such draft/change events to draw on. But it definitely reduces "certainty". The informed astute player evaluation for a position change must consider not just the body of work of the player, but how that body of work, plus physical talents, abilities and skills correlate to the key requirements of the new position. Some GMs/Evaluators are obviously better at understanding this and then assessing it. It is not a linear projection, its two-dimensional so error can accumulate in multiple planes.

Sammy Small School players have a lower success rate for exactly your observation. A larger projection is required to predict their performance against the larger step-up in opponent ability that will be required for success. As you get to the late rounds, the draft choices narrow to SSS players who excelled against weaker competition and Bobby Big School BBS players who were merely average against the better competition. Both are forcing projections with greater uncertainty which translates to increased risk. The success rate of Rd6 and Rd7 players is very low, and I don't know there is a statistical difference between SSS vs BBS players - just never even looked at data.

[WindsorUK]

I feel smarter already!
Thanks for the posts Topcat and dMac👍🏼

Edit: My favourite acronym from University is KISS- keep it simple stupid. Obviously not as objective as Ockams razor but helps none the less.

[johnnywyoming]

Staley had multiple dimensions

I've wandered over to the 49ers website a couple of times lately and I find it very curious that although Staley is supposedly the assistant head coach, there is not any mention of him on their website coach's page. The page has been updated since he was hired. Find it kinda odd...

[Topcat]

The greater the required projection of change, growth, improvement, etc.; the less certainty can be assigned. Hence greater risk. I would caution that not every position change is a giant projection, given a large available historic database of such draft/change events to draw on. But it definitely reduces "certainty". The informed astute player evaluation for a position change must consider not just the body of work of the player, but how that body of work, plus physical talents, abilities and skills correlate to the key requirements of the new position. Some GMs/Evaluators are obviously better at understanding this and then assessing it. It is not a linear projection, its two-dimensional so error can accumulate in multiple planes.

Sammy Small School players have a lower success rate for exactly your observation. A larger projection is required to predict their performance against the larger step-up in opponent ability that will be required for success. As you get to the late rounds, the draft choices narrow to SSS players who excelled against weaker competition and Bobby Big School BBS players who were merely average against the better competition. Both are forcing projections with greater uncertainty which translates to increased risk. The success rate of Rd6 and Rd7 players is very low, and I don't know there is a statistical difference between SSS vs BBS players - just never even looked at data.

Wow, sounds like a doctoral thesis, Mac! But well said! Btw, here's an interesting take on draft success stats by round...so by their measure, Alt statistically has an excellent chance of success at 83%, especially being at the top of the OT class. Interesting that DL has fared the worst in round 1, statistically speaking, at only 58%. On the bright side, DL fares best in round 4 at 37%, which is RIGHT where we drafted Eboigbe. This is from a Chef website, but still interesting:

image.png

https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015/2/20/8072877/what-the-statistics-tell-us-about-the-draft-by-round

[Topcat]

I've wandered over to the 49ers website a couple of times lately and I find it very curious that although Staley is supposedly the assistant head coach, there is not any mention of him on their website coach's page. The page has been updated since he was hired. Find it kinda odd...

Someone is probably a bit embarrassed by the hire...and hiding him...maybe the Niners can use Staley for Birthday Boy announcements...and to pick up tossed helmets...

[Duck of Death]

The greater the required projection of change, growth, improvement, etc.; the less certainty can be assigned. Hence greater risk. I would caution that not every position change is a giant projection, given a large available historic database of such draft/change events to draw on. But it definitely reduces "certainty". The informed astute player evaluation for a position change must consider not just the body of work of the player, but how that body of work, plus physical talents, abilities and skills correlate to the key requirements of the new position. Some GMs/Evaluators are obviously better at understanding this and then assessing it. It is not a linear projection, its two-dimensional so error can accumulate in multiple planes.

Sammy Small School players have a lower success rate for exactly your observation. A larger projection is required to predict their performance against the larger step-up in opponent ability that will be required for success. As you get to the late rounds, the draft choices narrow to SSS players who excelled against weaker competition and Bobby Big School BBS players who were merely average against the better competition. Both are forcing projections with greater uncertainty which translates to increased risk. The success rate of Rd6 and Rd7 players is very low, and I don't know there is a statistical difference between SSS vs BBS players - just never even looked at data.

Sorry could you repeat the part after “The”?

[Bolt4Knob]

You see a particular BAL pick where there was a better UM player on the board in a position of need that they didn’t take? I believe in Occam’s razor- the simple explanation is usually the right one.

Better guess: The draft unfolded as it unfolded and their board never had a UM player at the top of the board when it was their time to pick.

any theory on Shroedingers cat?

[dmac_bolt]

Sorry could you repeat the part after “The”?

Sure, Bayes Theorem, aka Bayes Law, allows for the estimation of the probability of an event, often called conditional probability, as the subsequent probability of an event based on prior knowledge of conditions that might be related to the event. Bayes theorem allows repeated updates to our probability estimation as we gain more and more information or if we gain information that has more relevance to the outcome we are interested in estimating. With Bayesian probability interpretation, the theorem expresses how a degree of belief, expressed as a probability, should rationally change to account for the availability of related evidence.

We are attempting to assess the probability of success of SSS based on our prior knowledge of his college performance. However, the applicability of this experience is further removed from NFL performance because his opponents were further removed from NFL quality of play. Ergo, the future NFL success of SSS carries a higher uncertainty = higher risk of failure.

I could go on?

[dmac_bolt]

any theory on Shroedingers cat?

no, I'm allergic to cats. Pretty sure that cat is the single greatest reason most people hate quantum mechanics though