Quote
zn
Quote
I know it's a deep draft but odds are odds.
One disagreement. In a draft this deep the odds are different.
Odds are of course averages. Averages don't mean anything in this case if this draft is that much deeper than most (which reportedly, according to virtually everyone, it is--at least at several positions it is).
So the averages taken from previous less deep drafts don't really tell us the odds in this much deeper draft.
...
Valid point to a certain extent.
I stated that because the averages are taken over a number of years. That means it's likely that some of those years had very deep drafts too. The averages were likely taken from previous less deep drafts and previous deep drafts. Continuing with the logic, it's likely that there were more starters obtained in the 4th round of a deep draft that affects the averages. In that sense, I agree with your point.
I was trying to make a much more general one. Odds show that there is a steep decline in finding starters as you move later in the draft. The 4th round has been said to produce starters at a 10-15% rate vs. 45-55% in the 2nd round. That's a steep decline.
In a deep draft, maybe the odds are that high 15% rate; maybe it's even bumped up to 20%. But that's still really low compared to the odds of the 2nd and 3rd rounds. Also remember in a deep draft, the odds of being successful in the 2nd and 3rd rounds would have a similar increase in percentages. IOW, the ratio is probably the same.
So my general points stand. (1) If you really want a starter, earlier is much better. Even the 4th round is suspect. (2) Even the high end of 4th round averages is low. Even if you factor in the deepness of the draft and bump that number to 20%, it's still low odds.
