Post by grizz299 on Jan 29, 2018 7:24:28 GMT -5
There's another thread here that maybe this properly belongs on, but something is startling is emerging and seems to warrant its own slice of realestate.
. I had put up a post that suggested that a college completion percentage of less than 60% negatively influenced a prospects chance for success at the next level while a completion ratio of 58% or less literally dooms it.
A poster named Greenxxx was kind enough to augment the thread with this chunk of information on the correlation...
Player College Draft Starts Comp.%
Kyle Boller Cal 2003 31 48%
Ryan Leaf Wash. St. 1998 24 53%
Cade McNown UCLA 1999 42 55%
Joey Harrington Oregon 2002 26 55%
Mike Vick VT 2001 21 56%
JP Losman Tulane 2004 29 57%
Jay Cutler Vanderbilt 2006 43 57%
Akili Smith Oregon 1999 11 58%
Carson Palmer USC 2003 45 59%
That's mindboggling and the correlation is so strong that it's almost eerie...
I took the two biggest busts I could think of (they had to be top five picks) and looked up their college numbers.
Jeff George ....58%
J. Russell.......53%
A positive (higher than 60% completion rate) might not translate into a guarantee for success but it looks like lower than 60% is, in fact, a reliable predictor for failure. With one caveat, pending research - that I'm not going to do - that there aren't a host of productive NFL stars who made it in spite of a low completion rate. I'm going to assume - perhaps inaccurately - that no such data base exists and that the rule is close to immutable.
And that's where it gets eerie and somewhat analogous to the two scientists a few years back who claimed they got nuclear fusion to work in their kitchen sink. And smart people around the world were ready to believe them and the papers they issued.
Scouting departments that spend millions on player evaluations apparently aren't aware of this Law and are looking at Josh Allen and a 53% completion ratio. Now maybe he can make it, but the odds look so long that he's clearly not worth a high pick - at least not until someone shows me that list of QB's that overcame this statistical anomaly and had a good pro career in spite of it. Until that's disproven, we're stuck with something strange and unaccountable as top professional player evaluation departments seem to ignore a universal law that's easy to obtain and, in fact, right in front of them and that, indeed, we stumbled across in the kitchen sink.
That can't be and that's where 'eerie" and "unaccountable" comes into play. There has to be something I'm missing.
.
And it puts another face on the effort some players have made and opinions we've formed...Cutler, Russell, George, Ryan Leaf etc. have been portrayed as dunderheads and lazy shirkers who didn't develop their god given talent. In fact, they might have been hard workers betrayed by their talent, because a rifle arm is no guarantee for accuracy and accuracy appears inherent, non coachable, and influenced by neither dedication nor commitment. They were simply doomed and staying with their progressions didn't have a damn thing to do with it. There's a pathos emerging in the almost savage way the world has of turning on and condemning people who had, in fact, no real talent and no chance. Perhaps men like Cutler, Leaf, Russell and George were hard workers and all that they could be, in spite of severe handicaps. Yet we vilified them , condemned them and maybe even influenced their internal dialogue and self esteem.
Ahh well, if there's a brilliant sportswriter hovering over Stoney's threads, there's a bad poet lingering over mine.
. I had put up a post that suggested that a college completion percentage of less than 60% negatively influenced a prospects chance for success at the next level while a completion ratio of 58% or less literally dooms it.
A poster named Greenxxx was kind enough to augment the thread with this chunk of information on the correlation...
Player College Draft Starts Comp.%
Kyle Boller Cal 2003 31 48%
Ryan Leaf Wash. St. 1998 24 53%
Cade McNown UCLA 1999 42 55%
Joey Harrington Oregon 2002 26 55%
Mike Vick VT 2001 21 56%
JP Losman Tulane 2004 29 57%
Jay Cutler Vanderbilt 2006 43 57%
Akili Smith Oregon 1999 11 58%
Carson Palmer USC 2003 45 59%
That's mindboggling and the correlation is so strong that it's almost eerie...
I took the two biggest busts I could think of (they had to be top five picks) and looked up their college numbers.
Jeff George ....58%
J. Russell.......53%
A positive (higher than 60% completion rate) might not translate into a guarantee for success but it looks like lower than 60% is, in fact, a reliable predictor for failure. With one caveat, pending research - that I'm not going to do - that there aren't a host of productive NFL stars who made it in spite of a low completion rate. I'm going to assume - perhaps inaccurately - that no such data base exists and that the rule is close to immutable.
And that's where it gets eerie and somewhat analogous to the two scientists a few years back who claimed they got nuclear fusion to work in their kitchen sink. And smart people around the world were ready to believe them and the papers they issued.
Scouting departments that spend millions on player evaluations apparently aren't aware of this Law and are looking at Josh Allen and a 53% completion ratio. Now maybe he can make it, but the odds look so long that he's clearly not worth a high pick - at least not until someone shows me that list of QB's that overcame this statistical anomaly and had a good pro career in spite of it. Until that's disproven, we're stuck with something strange and unaccountable as top professional player evaluation departments seem to ignore a universal law that's easy to obtain and, in fact, right in front of them and that, indeed, we stumbled across in the kitchen sink.
That can't be and that's where 'eerie" and "unaccountable" comes into play. There has to be something I'm missing.
.
And it puts another face on the effort some players have made and opinions we've formed...Cutler, Russell, George, Ryan Leaf etc. have been portrayed as dunderheads and lazy shirkers who didn't develop their god given talent. In fact, they might have been hard workers betrayed by their talent, because a rifle arm is no guarantee for accuracy and accuracy appears inherent, non coachable, and influenced by neither dedication nor commitment. They were simply doomed and staying with their progressions didn't have a damn thing to do with it. There's a pathos emerging in the almost savage way the world has of turning on and condemning people who had, in fact, no real talent and no chance. Perhaps men like Cutler, Leaf, Russell and George were hard workers and all that they could be, in spite of severe handicaps. Yet we vilified them , condemned them and maybe even influenced their internal dialogue and self esteem.
Ahh well, if there's a brilliant sportswriter hovering over Stoney's threads, there's a bad poet lingering over mine.