Draft Picks and Early Results
Q: Does the player position of first round draft picks for a team have any significance as to its early results against the spread?
A: Well, let's go find out! We will use data from 1991-2000 (eg ten years) and see what effect a particular position has on a team's results in weeks one to four --
| Position |
Spread Wins |
Spread Losses |
Cover % |
| Quarterback |
35 |
38 |
48% |
| Running Back |
65 |
52 |
55% |
| Wide Receiver |
62 |
60 |
51% |
| Tight End |
15 |
22 |
41% |
| Offensive Line |
102 |
86 |
54% |
| Defensive Line |
116 |
115 |
50% |
| Linebacker |
49 |
63 |
43% |
| Defensive Back |
89 |
88 |
50% |
ANALYSIS: On a certain level it's easy to maintain that none of the above really matters since the samples sizes are so small and the particulars are probably so important -- eg when the Colts drafted Peyton Manning a lot of people probably reacted by thinking they would be much improved...actual spread results in the first four weeks for the '98 Colts: 0-4! On the other hand when the Jets drafted Chad Pennington at the tail end of the 2000 draft, everyone knew he wouldn't be playing much at all for a long time, and so the Jets 3-1 spread record would hardly reflect on Chad's "QB" status even though it shows up in the numbers above. Still, Running Backs and Offensive Linemen seem to help the most, while Linebackers and Tight Ends hurt!
The next step is to break out the positions by the type of team (and here we'll use data from 1992-2000): those squads coming off a poor season (6 wins or less), the middle-of-the-road types (7 to 9 wins), and the teams coming off good years (10+ wins):
| Position |
0-6 Wins W-L |
7-9 Wins W-L |
10+ Wins W-L |
| Quarterback |
20-27 |
4-3 |
6-5 |
| Running Back |
22-18 |
23-11 |
16-15 |
| Wide Receiver |
16-19 |
21-19 |
15-16 |
| Tight End |
1-3 |
9-13 |
5-6 |
| Offensive Line |
23-23 |
39-34 |
31-23 |
| Defensive Line |
36-37 |
37-39 |
32-30 |
| Linebacker |
15-20 |
21-20 |
10-18 |
| Defensive Back |
18-19 |
27-29 |
35-26 |
ANALYSIS: Here there are a couple of interesting/promising areas -- bad teams with new QB's seem to struggle, RB's for 7 to 9 win teams have made a difference, Offensive Linemen keep good clubs rolling, and Linebackers haven't been beneficial early for the 10+ win teams. For the 2002 season this would mean you upgrade Cleveland and Atlanta (mid-teams with RB), Chicago and Pittsburgh (good teams with O-line picks), while downgrading Detroit (QB), and St.Louis and Oakland (LB). Again though, this all seems based on a trivial sample and a little cloudy until we break it out by only looking at top 10 picks (e.g. the true hype college players)
| Top 10 Pick |
W-L |
Cover % |
| Quarterback |
18-29 |
38% |
| Running Back |
25-19 |
57% |
| Wide Receiver |
20-28 |
42% |
| Tight End |
2-6 |
33% |
| Offensive Line |
25-26 |
49% |
| Defensive Line |
42-38 |
53% |
| Linebacker |
15-21 |
43% |
| Defensive Back |
28-25 |
53% |
ANALYSIS: Overall teams with a top ten pick have gone 169-181 (48%) in the first four weeks of the season, while teams with a top 5 pick have been 83-93 (47%). Teams with the #1 pick in the draft have been a poor 15-24 (38%) through the first four weeks of action, and a horrendous 5-15 (25%) with a skill position player (QB, WR, RB, TE). Teams with two top ten picks in a single draft have been 6-12, although the Ravens managed to go 2-1-1 in 2000. Clearly top ten QB's, WR's, and TE's haven't helped their teams much in the early part of the season, at least in terms of a good spread record. Logically this makes sense for us since it's with the skill positions that people are prone to over-reacting.
|
