OT: 538 NFL QB success prediction model
Interesting article, according to the CPOE (completion percentage over expected) is the best predictor of YPA and therefore success in the NFL. They believe Kyler Murray has a good chance of success at the next level despite his subpar physical measurables.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-nfl-is-drafting-quarterbacks-all-wrong/amp/
February 27th, 2019 at 10:55 PM ^
Murray was arguably the greatest high school football player in the history of Texas, and had one of the greatest seasons in the history of college football.
He is very short, but with the landscape of the NFL right now in terms of offense, I think he has a great shot to be a very good QB. I would take him #1, but there's no way a team will take him if Haskins is on the board. Taking Haskins and him failing won't get you fired, but taking Murray and him failing will get you fired.
February 28th, 2019 at 8:16 AM ^
Correct. Maslow was right-safety is our greatest psychological need. Here, folks love the status quo...even though it only gets you mediocrity.
February 28th, 2019 at 11:07 AM ^
That's not what Maslow said.
February 28th, 2019 at 11:15 AM ^
If I were Murray, I'd see better longevity (dramatic reduction in CTE risk) in baseball. I don't know if his trajectory would be similar though as I have never seen him play baseball. Baseball is just less risky all around for him; unless he gets a top-10 grade and the money is just ridiculous - and even then I'd be leary.
February 28th, 2019 at 1:21 PM ^
The flip side of that argument is that baseball has a much higher washout rate than football. Football has a higher probability for short term financial opportunity to earn life changing money if you are an early round pick. There are far more first through third round picks in baseball who never even see major league action than first through third round picks in football who earn a good contract for at least a couple years.
February 28th, 2019 at 1:28 PM ^
Yes, it makes much more sense economically for Kyler to choose football.
February 28th, 2019 at 11:45 AM ^
"I would take him #1, but there's no way a team will take him if Haskins is on the board."
Not sure I agree. You never know what can happen. Cardinals could even take Kyler at #1 and trade Rosen. If a GM wants an electric QB, I could easily see them taking Murray over Haskins. Both these guys should go top 6-7 IMO.
February 28th, 2019 at 1:27 PM ^
I think Arizona is the most likely because of Kliff. But at the same time, that is such a bold move for a rookie head coach. He'd basically be betting his entire NFL reputation on Kyler, and I'm not sure if he wants to do that.
February 28th, 2019 at 2:42 PM ^
Murray will go over Haskins if the Cardinals keep their #1 pick and want a QB.
Kliff Kingsbury and Kyler Murray in the NFL together would be VERY interesting TV
February 27th, 2019 at 11:01 PM ^
Do the models take the quality of the QB's own team into account? It opponent adjusts, but does it recognize that Murray had an elite OL and outstanding WRs? I didn't see it mentioned
February 28th, 2019 at 8:21 AM ^
There are two sides to this coin and, after the 2017 season, Michigan fans should be all too familiar with this. How about the just as/more important fact that Murray made the job of OL blocking and WR catching much easier!!!!
February 27th, 2019 at 11:08 PM ^
Arizona is probably taking Murray. Theres no way they are letting Rosen run Kingbury's offense.
February 27th, 2019 at 11:19 PM ^
I kinda like the measurables of your QB, Adrian...
February 28th, 2019 at 5:03 PM ^
I'm a little concerned with the throwing motion though. Looks a bit wonky.
February 27th, 2019 at 11:32 PM ^
538 used to be awesome, now its basically a political rag site that occasionally talks about sports.
February 28th, 2019 at 12:13 AM ^
You realize the name of the blog refers to the 538 electoral votes that are up for grabs during presidential elections, right? It's literally always been a political blog that does sports on the side.
February 28th, 2019 at 12:44 AM ^
Ok, maybe I should restate. It used to be a very analytical political website that didn't choose sides. Now it is a Liberal rag site that sometimes covers sports.
February 28th, 2019 at 1:24 AM ^
Statistics are left-leaning. it's a bias world in favor of evidence.
February 28th, 2019 at 1:46 AM ^
Statistics are easily manipulated, like people.
February 28th, 2019 at 2:13 AM ^
Someone ban this joker Attikus. Statistics are left leaning ? SMH
February 28th, 2019 at 9:00 AM ^
I don’t know you GM, but it looks you may have experience (and probable expertise) in saying a few things that lean one way or the other.
February 28th, 2019 at 8:41 AM ^
This take is dumb. Statistics are not left, or right, leaning - they are merely numbers. But numbers can be shaped however you want them shaped. Taking a poll in a certain area will yield results biased towards the lean of that area, and said poll will not be reflective of any larger geographic region. Basing a poll across a wide swath of geographic and/or political areas will (usually - based on the wording of the questions involved) yield a less-biased result more prone to popular general opinion. Soliciting results sporadically across a wide area, but locally targeted to specific leans, will produce a greatly biased result that wrongly points to a wide general opinion that may not actually be true.
One needs to look under the covers and pay attention to the where and how any poll is constructed and executed to determine how reliable results are against what the creators publicize them to be.
February 28th, 2019 at 9:39 AM ^
I’m pretty sure he’s just playin.
February 28th, 2019 at 11:27 AM ^
This take is myopic.
Statistics is a field of mathematics and math is the language of science. I don't know if you have noticed but there has been consistent and open attack on science from the right. They denounce settled science like global warming and placed lobbyists and lawyers in prominent scientific government posts.
While left is not completely innocent (I am looking at you anti-vaxxers and anti-GMO'ers), left has been far more supportive of science and incorporated fact-based evidence in decision making. And is also the reason why statistics and fact based organization like 538 is staffed with mostly left-leaning people.
As Colbert has famously said "It is well known that facts have a liberal bias"
February 28th, 2019 at 11:36 AM ^
I'd like to meet some antiGMO diabetics and ask them if they've stopped taking insulin. Or if they haven't, when they plan on killing themselves.
February 28th, 2019 at 4:33 PM ^
“Colbert said” is an emotional argument, not science. Did you know that the raw satellite data says that 2018 was cooler than 2017 which was cooler than 2016 which as the hottest year on record (we only have standard data for 40 years) is only .02 degrees Celsius more than 1998 which is 2nd hottest on record?
I have been watching this since I took Geology at UM in 1977.
February 28th, 2019 at 5:09 PM ^
538 was one of the few sites that correctly detected the huge swing towards Trump in the last days before the 2016 election. And prior to the election they took a TON of crap about it from the left. So say what you will about the personal politics of the people that run the site--their political content is mostly data-driven with the intent to give you a window into what is going to happen. And they tend to be pretty good at it.
If you don't like what they are saying (about upcoming elections), it probably means you don't like what the data is indicating.
February 28th, 2019 at 6:10 PM ^
I read the site daily leading up to the election. They basically said he couldn't win. They put his chances at like 20%. They got it wrong.
The night of the election they had him around 30% about the time that Vegas started naming Trump the favorite.
This is dead wrong. They relied heavily on polling. The polling was WAY off.
February 28th, 2019 at 8:42 PM ^
They gave him a 30% chance of winning, far higher than any other major media polling.
Trump won with 80k votes in three key swing states (Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania). You're acting like they predicted a landslide one way and it was a landslide the other. Their prediction was closer than anyone else's.
February 27th, 2019 at 11:52 PM ^
He'd look great on the Giants.
February 28th, 2019 at 12:05 AM ^
Little Giant?
February 27th, 2019 at 11:52 PM ^
He'd look great on the Giants.
February 28th, 2019 at 1:09 AM ^
Giant Russian??? Any short American can take out a giant Russian, Comrade. ...except maybe Apollo Creed.
February 28th, 2019 at 8:43 AM ^
How did Apollo ever win a belt? He friggen lost every fight!!
February 28th, 2019 at 12:16 PM ^
B1G referees
February 28th, 2019 at 8:15 AM ^
Will Grier is going to be a good player. He may not be a top 20 starter, but he's going to be a Ryan Fitzpatrick/ Nick Foles level backup that probably ends up starting for a season or two in Detroit.
February 28th, 2019 at 8:41 AM ^
I am almost sure that I wouldn't mind Will Grier somehow ending up in Detroit, but I say that as someone firmly in the camp of "tired of Matt Stafford". Others may disagree, of course. As I see it, the Lions have given him way too much for the little leadership that he actually provides, and it would be fun to see him in an actual competition for his own position.
February 28th, 2019 at 8:58 AM ^
I, personally, see this "competition" mantra being over-played in certain instances-in sports. There are, in my view, three positions in sports that are not enhanced by being competionally (new word?) embattled...quarterback, shortstop and point guard. It is good to have a competent back-up...not good to have an actual controversy.
February 28th, 2019 at 9:04 AM ^
I am a firm believer in a 7, at most 8, man rotation...the 9th is an emergency. That Michigan is reduced to 6 at this point in the season is on the coaches-plain and simple. Those freshmen sitting on the bench are Div 1 recruits-just sayin'.
February 28th, 2019 at 11:14 AM ^
Username something something
February 28th, 2019 at 10:29 AM ^
Where do Tom Brady and Carson Wentz and Eli fall in this model? If they are not at they top, I have a hedge fund for you all!
February 28th, 2019 at 11:03 AM ^
Brady, Brees and Manning played college football within a tight window. I think they should be comparable. I would like to see how they would be treated using this model from 538.
February 28th, 2019 at 1:51 PM ^
Joel Klatt said it best, people will pay to see Kyler Murray play because he is an electric playmaker that can get out of danger quickly. Haskins is the prototypical passer who can’t move much and needs time to develop.
February 28th, 2019 at 5:11 PM ^
I've always felt the NFL was absurdly caught up in physical measurables over actual football production. I would like to think Drew Brees has convinced people that you don't have to be 6' 4" to be a good NFL QB.
February 28th, 2019 at 6:57 PM ^