Misconception of BPA

[eoxyod]

So I'm bored and want to write things I enjoy talking about. Even if this is all obvious talk read it anyways because I'm fabulous. So I believe my least favorite phrasing regarding the draft is the concept of "best player available" and the misuse of the term. I am now dubbing it "Most valuable player." Now of course that phrase has a dumb connotation because people always think of it being the best player around on the best team regarding the award. But people never really use the word value correctly.

Flashback to the 2012 draft. The Bengals draft Devon Still in the 2nd round. Despite the pick not working out it was considered a major steal and he would be great in rotation with Atkins, Peko, and Sims. Everyone is excited for our DT rotation. Then comes the end of the 3rd round from the pick we gathered because of the trade down for Zeitler. Brandon Thompson is selected. People are more excited (Me included) because we picked the BPA based on most expert's boards. But it wasn't a BPA pick. It was just a value pick. Of course those seem like similar concepts but let's make it a different position.

The Bengals draft someone considered the best kicker coming out of college. People are iffy on drafting a kicker but excited because he has been able to hit 50+ yarders on a consistent basis, which the Bengals haven't hit in about 15 years. Then comes the 7th round. We draft another kicker who is considered solid and might be as good as Shayne Graham in his better days. Well wait, what the hell? Why did we waste another pick on a kicker? We sure as hell don't need one now with the holy kicker coming to us. Who the hell cares if he was the highest rated player on the board?

Why the change in attitude? Of course kickers are different than a lot of positions but when teams are drafting, Bengals included of course, value is always the key word. There are 2 values and 1 other part still in consideration that people really hate to hear.
Value 1 is of course the ability of the player. How good is he really? On a scale when comparing just the traits he brings to his position, where does he rank against those within his position and outside of it?
Value 2 is positional value. This varies heavily for teams due to scheme and other factors. The #1 highest positional value for all teams is always QB. After that you may get DL or OL, then you may get CB, then maybe WR, or TE. As for the Bengals, I believe it is this: QB>OL>CB>DL>WR>S>LB>TE>RB>ST specialists. Which, based on investment, seems about right.
The 3rd factor is the word everyone hates - need. Need HAS to be applied when building a team and that's just facts. If need weren't a factor teams wouldn't invest tons just to get a QB. Need fills in the holes that allow your team to be functional, when taking the other factors into account.
As simple as it seems it's basically a matter of positional value (Depending on how you split up positions, it would be about a 1-10 to 15ish scale) times player ability (numbered grade) times need (on whatever scale but we'll use 1-10). Obviously this isn't in a mathematical sense when drafting, because teams aren't super into analytics yet and the formula I put up is 5th grade level. But this is the mental scenario gone through.

So scenario time - You have a RB that is considered a HoF level talent by your scouting department, and your RBs have been pretty bad for a while. However, there is a CB on the board who is also considered a very good player. That said, you have a couple of CBs who are good but not great. The RB is ranked about an 7.6 by your scouting department (IIRC, 8 is about the max on scouting grade scales). The CB is ranked a 6.9 which is still fantastic. Using the crappy math I provided from the previous amount, the RB would be valued at [7.6 (grade)x 2 (pos value) x 8 (need)]. That's 121.6. The CB is valued at [6.9 (grade) x 8 (positional value) x 2 (need)]. That's 110.4. Congratulations, you just draft Ezekiel Elliot over Jalen Ramsey.

I'm not going to waste time writing out a vice versa scenario because I think you all get it. And I'd like to remind you all again that the formula isn't a real formula but something I put together to help visualize it. Thanks for reading my obviousness of the night

[Bengalzona]

Oh snap!

I thought this was a thread about Bisphenol A!

What position does he play anyway?

[HarleyDog]

[rezolve11]

I read it because you said you were fabulous. I enjoyed it and I understand the misconception and anger of fans over some picks. Thanks for writing!

[eoxyod]

(03-21-2017, 11:53 AM)rezolve11 Wrote: I read it because you said you were fabulous. I enjoyed it and I understand the misconception and anger of fans over some picks. Thanks for writing!

Thanks boo

[Hammerstripes]

Interesting read.

I will say that I truly don't think the Bengals add any positional value to their board (or really need for that matter)

There have been so many times that they have passed over a player at a need position to draft a guy that they feel is a much better player.

[eoxyod]

(03-22-2017, 02:39 PM)Hammerstripes Wrote: Interesting read.

I will say that I truly don't think the Bengals add any positional value to their board (or really need for that matter)

There have been so many times that they have passed over a player at a need position to draft a guy that they feel is a much better player.

Positional value they will definitely target. They've been public about how much they want multiple DEs this draft

[phil413]

You're throwing some good concepts out there, I think it's hard to really quantify what BPA really means, but you're doing a good job of showing how it's flawed to a certain extent. In the DL scenario, consider that there is a LONG list of players the media and us fans have dubbed as "steals" for the Bengals.

The team's ability or ineptness in grooming a player should be addressed by ownership in a perfect world. At one time the Bengals had a fearsome DL, but the next class hasn't panned out for various reasons. If you think about it, they've done it in waves. Still and Thompson were thought to have descent "floors" out of college, but that was before Thompson's injuries and Still's unimaginable situation. They then tried to hit a HR with beastly frames in Hunt and Clarke (who may still pan out) but if they aren't developing you have to ask how realistic it was to take the "talent" you valued if you couldn't convert it to production? You can a take an elite speed and strength guy, but they don't have the technique or don't appear as teachable then how much value was in that pick really?

So in putting together a draft board, you have your Ramsey vs Elliott scenario that gets the ball rolling on this year's selection for Cincy. This board's mock includes a scenario where Safety Jamal Adams is there at 9. He'd likely be the highest rated player on many boards, but then you have to weigh different factors. This team considers safety similar to guard in that we just saw the team finally take one by the end of the 1st round and groom him to be to pricey at a position they don't "value". They also don't take safetys high or pay them big contracts. His instincts would be welcomed in having a nose for the play and roaming around to clean up, but this team also believes in its undeveloped youth too much at times in that it blocks the right pick sometimes. So, Adams may be BPA, but this team may pass. Personally, I'd toy with the idea of running more 3 safety packages out there with the amount of teams that gear toward the pass and with the way of the pass catching TE and rules that free up receivers. It may be cutting edge thinking if you can justify using the player right. Same goes for the OJ Howard scenario. They may have him slated as ONE OF the BPA's with say a guy like Barnett, but then you start thinking to yourself how deep the crop is at DE vs TE and if using TE heavy packages actually "helps" the young tackles. I mean, a talented WR getting open quick can help a faulty OL so you have to ask yourself it things like Eifert's impending FA and injuries as well as valuing Howard's ability to extend the field vs where he actually is as a blocker and where he can be.

So there are a lot of factors, not even touching fit really that you have to weigh, and you're correct that the BPA idea is flawed. I start to think that there is a Matrix scenario playing out throughout the world, where the same convo template happens over and over like the people walking by every day and the cat crossing the same path.....

Person A: Gives data right or wrong on a player
Person B: "Just take the best player available, that's what ______ always does"
A: Responds with some extreme like taking a kicker (ahem) or high potential RB when you already have 2
B: Declares that if he's the best player that's how you win championships, without giving examples
A: Reasons the conversation back to putting a value on positions like QB
B: Throws out the Brady exception to the rule in saying you can get a QB in the 6th round
A: Has mentally checked out of the convo, but continues because they don't have enough buddies that talk about it

So there are a lot of things to consider, and another important thing to look at is trying not to compare though we do it all the time. Just about every draft site has an NFL comparison that makes for lazy scouting. "Oh yeah that dude, yea I guess he's the next Alex Mack." Now every time I watch him, I'm defending his flaws more because I'm seeing him on his way to becoming Alex Mack rather than what he is. Having too much faith in a strategy may be just as doomed. Though you were using loose numbers, I believe that some teams are to bent on getting with the analytics curve that you start to put faith into that data a little more each year. The black and white of the Elliott vs Ramsey scenario could hinder seeing what the player is and where your team comes together to believe they can get them there, and how likely the player is to work. You can sware up and down that because you were terribly patient with Dre Kirkpatrick and his heavy hand usage, you turned him into a solid starting corner so Dennard "if healthy" can become the same or better.....but at the end of the day they're two different people. All you can do is work on giving data to support or challenge player interviews and the higher ups in the room. Scary that all this discussion and it only takes one guy to have a feeling like the Browns did with Johnny Football. In terms of the Bengals, we deserve what we have when it comes to "BPA". We were used to hearing about the Bengals reaching or ruining guys, now we're hearing about patience working out and value falling to them...we just need to see better results.

[eoxyod]

(03-23-2017, 02:00 AM)phil413 Wrote: You're throwing some good concepts out there, I think it's hard to really quantify what BPA really means, but you're doing a good job of showing how it's flawed to a certain extent. In the DL scenario, consider that there is a LONG list of players the media and us fans have dubbed as "steals" for the Bengals.  

The team's ability or ineptness in grooming a player should be addressed by ownership in a perfect world.  At one time the Bengals had a fearsome DL, but the next class hasn't panned out for various reasons.  If you think about it, they've done it in waves.  Still and Thompson were thought to have descent "floors" out of college, but that was before Thompson's injuries and Still's unimaginable situation.  They then tried to hit a HR with beastly frames in Hunt and Clarke (who may still pan out) but if they aren't developing you have to ask how realistic it was to take the "talent" you valued if you couldn't convert it to production?  You can a take an elite speed and strength  guy, but they don't have the technique or don't appear as teachable then how much value was in that pick really?  

So in putting together a draft board, you have your Ramsey vs Elliott scenario that gets the ball rolling on this year's selection for Cincy.  This board's mock includes a scenario where Safety Jamal Adams is there at 9.  He'd likely be the highest rated player on many boards, but then you have to weigh different factors.  This team considers safety similar to guard in that we just saw the team finally take one by the end of the 1st round and groom him to be to pricey at a position they don't "value".  They also don't take safetys high or pay them big contracts.  His instincts would be welcomed in having a nose for the play and roaming around to clean up, but this team also believes in its undeveloped youth too much at times in that it blocks the right pick sometimes.  So, Adams may be BPA, but this team may pass.  Personally, I'd toy with the idea of running more 3 safety packages out there with the amount of teams that gear toward the pass and with the way of the pass catching TE and rules that free up receivers.  It may be cutting edge thinking if you can justify using the player right.  Same goes for the OJ Howard scenario.  They may have him slated as ONE OF the BPA's with say a guy like Barnett, but then you start thinking to yourself how deep the crop is at DE vs TE and if using TE heavy packages actually "helps" the young tackles.  I mean, a talented WR getting open quick can help a faulty OL so you have to ask yourself it things like Eifert's impending FA and injuries as well as valuing Howard's ability to extend the field vs where he actually is as a blocker and where he can be.  

So there are a lot of factors, not even touching fit really that you have to weigh, and you're correct that the BPA idea is flawed.  I start to think that there is a Matrix scenario playing out throughout the world, where the same convo template happens over and over like the people walking by every day and the cat crossing the same path.....

Person A: Gives data right or wrong on a player
Person B: "Just take the best player available, that's what ______ always does"
A: Responds with some extreme like taking a kicker (ahem) or high potential RB when you already have 2
B: Declares that if he's the best player that's how you win championships, without giving examples
A: Reasons the conversation back to putting a value on positions like QB
B: Throws out the Brady exception to the rule in saying you can get a QB in the 6th round
A: Has mentally checked out of the convo, but continues because they don't have enough buddies that talk about it

So there are a lot of things to consider, and another important thing to look at is trying not to compare though we do it all the time.  Just about every draft site has an NFL comparison that makes for lazy scouting.  "Oh yeah that dude, yea I guess he's the next Alex Mack."  Now every time I watch him, I'm defending his flaws more because I'm seeing him on his way to becoming Alex Mack rather than what he is.  Having too much faith in a strategy may be just as doomed.  Though you were using loose numbers, I believe that some teams are to bent on getting with the analytics curve that you start to put faith into that data a little more each year.  The black and white of the Elliott vs Ramsey scenario could hinder seeing what the player is and where your team comes together to believe they can get them there, and how likely the player is to work.  You can sware up and down that because you were terribly patient with Dre Kirkpatrick and his heavy hand usage, you turned him into a solid starting corner so Dennard "if healthy" can become the same or better.....but at the end of the day they're two different people.  All you can do is work on giving data to support or challenge player interviews and the higher ups in the room.  Scary that all this discussion and it only takes one guy to have a feeling like the Browns did with Johnny Football.  In terms of the Bengals, we deserve what we have when it comes to "BPA".  We were used to hearing about the Bengals reaching or ruining guys, now we're hearing about patience working out and value falling to them...we just need to see better results.

Sorry it's taken me a dick year to get back to this, but thank you for expanding on this more. Regarding a situation like Adams comes to another factor that also infuriates fans - financial commitment. As much as people don't want to address it the team has a finite amount of money to spread around. Putting a lot of money into 3 safeties might not be worth it even exploring 3 safety concepts (Personally I think Derron Smith would make a solid 3rd safety in passing only situations). It's not a simple concept and everyone wants to say what we have as value, but other teams have completely differing thoughts. The top player on the Bengals board won't even be the top board on the Saints board, or the Pats board, or the Browns board, etc. 

I know teams might overutilize data but the draft is overall a crapshoot, and you have to use every factor that you can. Data is the most consistent form of that besides film, and teams have to utilize both. For example, a DE that has been highly productive but has a very low SPARQ score still probably won't be successful. A DE that has a high SPARQ score but never did anything is probably just not an athelete