77.8% chance one of these players drafted

[flamingrey]

To all the mathematicians in here, realize that a 77.8% chance does not equate to a guarantee.

 

[ckhokie]

To all the mathematicians in here, realize that a 77.8% chance does not equate to a guarantee.

Sarcasm fail.

Believe it or not, some of us on the Bengals board went to college.

 

[flamingrey]

So then you do realize that just because the Bengals first pick didn't fit the bill, it doesn't make the theory any less valid?

 

[vancelot23]

I think it's a silly theory. I'm guessing almost anybody could pick out 7 guys that they think will be taken and hit about 75% of the time. If you throw out the odd stuff, like Irvin, that theory applies to almost every slot.

 

[ckhokie]

I think it's a silly theory. I'm guessing almost anybody could pick out 7 guys that they think will be taken and hit about 75% of the time. If you throw out the odd stuff, like Irvin, that theory applies to almost every slot.

Exactly, aside from Irvin, if you give 7 guesses at who each team would take, I don't think many of us would have missed a single first round pick. I would like to see this 'theory' used in rounds 3-6 or something and see how accurate it is then.

 

[flamingrey]

You can argue whether the theory carries any merit or not all you want. Personally, I don't care for it either. But it doesn't matter what me, you, or anyone else thinks of it. The FACT of the matter is, our first pick not falling in line does NOT disprove it.

 

[ckhokie]

The FACT of the matter is, our first pick not falling in line does NOT disprove it.

It working in the first round, which is almost totally scripted as is, does not prove it, though.

 

[flamingrey]

My response was only directed at those saying the theory "didn't work" or that "it's not valid". Neither of those statements are true.

Obviously though, since we're now down to 70% from the 77.8% yesterday, it's less valid today than yesterday, but outside of that, I don't really care to get into how much weight or value it actually carries.

 

[cincygrad]

Is this really that complex? August made a post that used past probabilities, based on easy to acquire information, to offer a guess as to who would be selected in the first round.

When an 82% foul shooter misses a free throw, do you guys get pissed at his free throw percentage?

 

[vancelot23]

I do. A free throw is a gimme.

 

[augustisback003]

LOL @ him. You were wrong, dude.

I cleary said I was. So what's your point?

excerpt~

As for the 17th pick I was wrong.

 

[augustisback003]

I think it's a silly theory. I'm guessing almost anybody could pick out 7 guys that they think will be taken and hit about 75% of the time. If you throw out the odd stuff, like Irvin, that theory applies to almost every slot.

You do realize you just contradicted yourself right? How can you mock it by stating it's, "a silly theory" yet also believe, "anybody could pick out 7 guys that they think will be taken and hit about 75% of the time [...] that theory applies to almost every slot." And it not just any 7 guys. You take the Bengals pick as the mean and apply the normal distribution rule. Its all about odds and probability.

 

[kramer1]

I cleary said I was. So what's your point?

excerpt~

As for the 17th pick I was wrong.

I'm just breaking your balls.

 

[augustisback003]

I'm just breaking your balls.

I know man, its cool . No foul, no harm.

 

[cincygrad]

You do realize you just contradicted yourself right? How can you mock it by stating it's, "a silly theory" yet also believe, "anybody could pick out 7 guys that they think will be taken and hit about 75% of the time [...] that theory applies to almost every slot." And it not just any 7 guys. You take the Bengals pick as the mean and apply the normal distribution rule. Its all about odds and probability.

It has nothing to do with the normal distribution rule. Players aren't normally distributed. There is no mean and there are no standard deviations. It's a simple arbitrary window that historically has returned at ~77%.

If you try to apply the rules of a normal distribution (with regards to probability), you would have to assign a mean and standard deviation. Let's say you did that by assigning the Bengals draft pick as the mean (therefore the player ranked at that position would be the mean - So 17 would be the mean of the first pick). You would then assign each player as a standard deviation - Therefore the player ranked 18th would be one standard deviation from the mean, the player ranked 19th would be two, etc. Under this "admittedly forced" scenario, you could then assign probabilities to the picks. There would be a 68% shot that the 16-18th ranked prospect would be selected first, a 95% chance that the prospect would fall between 15-19, etc.....

 

[cincygrad]

But I still think it's a useful statistic!

 

[kramer1]

But I still think it's a useful statistic!

Dick!

 

[augustisback003]

It has nothing to do with the normal distribution rule. Players aren't normally distributed. There is no mean and there are no standard deviations. It's a simple arbitrary window that historically has returned at ~77%.

If you try to apply the rules of a normal distribution (with regards to probability), you would have to assign a mean and standard deviation. Let's say you did that by assigning the Bengals draft pick as the mean (therefore the player ranked at that position would be the mean - So 17 would be the mean of the first pick). You would then assign each player as a standard deviation - Therefore the player ranked 18th would be one standard deviation from the mean, the player ranked 19th would be two, etc. Under this "admittedly forced" scenario, you could then assign probabilities to the picks. There would be a 68% shot that the 16-18th ranked prospect would be selected first, a 95% chance that the prospect would fall between 15-19, etc.....

Is there a but in there? Because thats exactly what I did with the outliers being in 2004 when the Bengals traded back and missed out on Steven Jackson and 2007 when Leon Hall inexplicably fell to them at the 18th pick. In statistics, the empirical rule, states that for a normal distribution, nearly all values lie within 3 standard deviations of the mean. So I'm not "assigning" a st. deviation to the player. Their ranking is the "s". Even with such a small sample size the application of the rule is valid.

17th overall pick
Ranked 14th overall- 3 st. deviation 99.7%
Ranked 15th overall- 2 st. deviation 95%
Ranked 16th overall- 1 st. deviation 68%
Ranked 17th overall- mean
Ranked 18th overall- 1 st. deviation 68%
Ranked 19th overall- 2 st. deviation 95%
Ranked 20th overall- 3 st. deviation 99.7%

 

[flamingrey]

That's not accurate though since based on that "assignment", 3 standard deviations out both ways is only accurate now 70% of the time (7/10 drafts), not 99.7%.

 

[cincygrad]

That's not accurate though since based on that "assignment", 3 standard deviations out both ways is only accurate now 70% of the time (7/10 drafts), not 99.7%.

This.