So Much For McCloughan

[ehb5]

Interesting article. Does Scotty really know what he's doing?

No Team Can Beat the Draft | FiveThirtyEight

 

[redskinsfan]

Interesting article. Does Scotty really know what he's doing?

No Team Can Beat the Draft | FiveThirtyEight

I have the greatest respect for Nate Silver and the rigorous analyses he applies to an assortment of various amorphous phenomenon like politics and the draft. He does do a bang-up job in terms of trying to quantify a battery of factors that play into how a draft should be judged. But, while his bamboozling regression analysis imparts some facade of scientific certainty in assessing draft performance, it's in fact it's riddled with a vast array of subjective judgment calls he artfully conceals from his readers.

For instance, he doesn't weigh the types of hits and misses that occur during the draft process. If, for instance, you strike it big with a Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers, that can make up for a series of misses on other draft picks, especially where those occur in later rounds. Yet, Silver ascribes some qualitative significance to each hit and miss a GM makes and, in the process, fails to explain why certain picks should be weighted completely different from others. While assignment of some equivalence as to some selections made during a draft does hold some merit, he fails to explain why it should apply prophylactically to every draft pick a GM makes. And guess what? He wouldn't be able to make a case that it should.

His point about people like Polian getting fired is baffling. GMs, like any other employees, get fired for reasons that sometimes have no bearing on the quality of the work they offer their employer. McCloughan himself was a shining example of that. His past struggles with alcohol and substance abuse made the juice far less worth the squeeze for his two prior clubs. But, as we all know, he wasn't let go or forced to resign for any shortcomings in his talent evaluation prowess. Indeed, his record speaks for itself; under his watch, three teams rose to prominence, all of which either participated in or won Super Bowls in recent years.

On the flip side, we don't need Nate Silver to tell us how bad someone like Vinny Cerrato or Bruce Allen was. Their track record and maddening returns on investment are all too well known to us.

In all, while Silver's analysis may prove to be useful on some levels, it clearly isn't for someone like Scotty. We know who he is and was. Until we've got evidence to prove otherwise, he's still the mastermind that everyone's chalked him up to be. And so, far he's done well to vindicate that well-deserved reputation.

So, umm, Nate, here's something for you to consider: In Scot We Trust.

 

[ehb5]

I have the greatest respect for Nate Silver and the rigorous analyses he applies to an assortment of various amorphous phenomenon like politics and the draft. He does do a bang-up job in terms of trying to quantify a battery of factors that play into how a draft should be judged. But, while his bamboozling regression analysis imparts some facade of scientific certainty in assessing draft performance, it's in fact it's riddled with a vast array of subjective judgment calls he artfully conceals from his readers.

For instance, he doesn't weigh the types of hits and misses that occur during the draft process. If, for instance, you strike it big with a Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers, that can make up for a series of misses on other draft picks, especially where those occur in later rounds. Yet, Silver ascribes some qualitative significance to each hit and miss a GM makes and, in the process, fails to explain why certain picks should be weighted completely different from others. While assignment of some equivalence as to some selections made during a draft does hold some merit, he fails to explain why it should apply prophylactically to every draft pick a GM makes. And guess what? He wouldn't be able to make a case that it should.

His point about people like Polian getting fired is baffling. GMs, like any other employees, get fired for reasons that sometimes have no bearing on the quality of the work they offer their employer. McCloughan himself was a shining example of that. His past struggles with alcohol and substance abuse made the juice far less worth the squeeze for his two prior clubs. But, as we all know, he wasn't let go or forced to resign for any shortcomings in his talent evaluation prowess. Indeed, his record speaks for itself; under his watch, three teams rose to prominence, all of which either participated in or won Super Bowls in recent years.

On the flip side, we don't need Nate Silver to tell us how bad someone like Vinny Cerrato or Bruce Allen was. Their track record and maddening returns on investment are all too well known to us.

In all, while Silver's analysis may prove to be useful on some levels, it clearly isn't for someone like Scotty. We know who he is and was. Until we've got evidence to prove otherwise, he's still the mastermind that everyone's chalked him up to be. And so, far he's done well to vindicate that well-deserved reputation.

So, umm, Nate, here's something for you to consider: In Scot We Trust.

I would tend to agree with you that in reality Scot does know what he is doing. At the least he is a football mind with a plan, unlike Allen and Cerrato. However, I think there is some truth to this. If you look at McCloughan drafts there are still plenty of misses. The Polian point I think is noteworthy. What was once a great GM started missing on picks. Maybe his luck just ran out.

So I think it is a mix of luck and skill to be a successful GM. I think the truth is McCloughan knows how to build a team and knows more about the sport than Cerrato and Allen (obviously) but at the same time, that doesn't guarantee success. There isn't a formula for finding the best football players. If there was, every team could do it. In reality, McCloughan could be completely wrong on Scherff, while Cerrato sits at home thinking Leonard Williams was the right pick. And hypothetical Cerrato could be right.

 

[redskinsfan]

I would tend to agree with you that in reality Scot does know what he is doing. At the least he is a football mind with a plan, unlike Allen and Cerrato. However, I think there is some truth to this. If you look at McCloughan drafts there are still plenty of misses. The Polian point I think is noteworthy. What was once a great GM started missing on picks. Maybe his luck just ran out.

So I think it is a mix of luck and skill to be a successful GM. I think the truth is McCloughan knows how to build a team and knows more about the sport than Cerrato and Allen (obviously) but at the same time, that doesn't guarantee success. There isn't a formula for finding the best football players. If there was, every team could do it. In reality, McCloughan could be completely wrong on Scherff, while Cerrato sits at home thinking Leonard Williams was the right pick. And hypothetical Cerrato could be right.

That GMs miss on picks is much a truism as the adage that teaches us that no one's perfect. The reason why Silver misses the mark here is because he fails take into account they types of hits and misses GMs make and their relative impact on teams they manage. Failure to consider that in his calculus renders his analysis pretty much useless. In other words, why should a "hit" on a pick like Alfred Morris be equated to one like Tom Brady? Or how does explain a miss on someone like Heath Shuler being the same as a bust like Chris Nield?

 

[SoCalWizFan]

Redskinsfan - your pt about Rodgers & Brady is a good one. As I noted before - Brady was the only pick from the Pats 2000 draft that really had any impact on that team. That being the case - how exactly would you rate that draft? An objective person would rate it an overwhelming success. However - the cynical media & haters would rate it a failure.

The same would quite possibly true for a Vinny/Snyder draft. Let's say that they drafted Williams yet whiffed on just about every other pick (which was their MO). Unlike the Pats they would supplement this with a bunch of other shitty moves & ultimately produce a failure. Contrast this to SM & his track record. This certainly increases the likelihood that he will compile significantly more talent over say a 4-5 year period.

Is success guaranteed? Of course not. Is it likely? Absolutely. I also believe that is pretty dicey to perform statistical analysis towards the NFL when things change so rapidly & the rules quite often don't apply. This is kind of similar to these gambling related trends where favorites are based somewhat on results from many, many years ago that in no way apply to the current teams.

I will take this article with several grains of salt & in no way does this diminish my confidence in SM.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Redskinsfan - your pt about Rodgers & Brady is a good one. As I noted before - Brady was the only pick from the Pats 2000 draft that really had any impact on that team. That being the case - how exactly would you rate that draft? An objective person would rate it an overwhelming success. However - the cynical media & haters would rate it a failure.

The same would quite possibly true for a Vinny/Snyder draft. Let's say that they drafted Williams yet whiffed on just about every other pick (which was their MO). Unlike the Pats they would supplement this with a bunch of other shitty moves & ultimately produce a failure. Contrast this to SM & his track record. This certainly increases the likelihood that he will compile significantly more talent over say a 4-5 year period.

Is success guaranteed? Of course not. Is it likely? Absolutely. I also believe that is pretty dicey to perform statistical analysis towards the NFL when things change so rapidly & the rules quite often don't apply. This is kind of similar to these gambling related trends where favorites are based somewhat on results from many, many years ago that in no way apply to the current teams.

I will take this article with several grains of salt & in no way does this diminish my confidence in SM.

What he said

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

The formula for success is very simple:

1. Hire SM and get the Hell out of his way.
2. Allow him to hire his own scouting staff and say goodbye to the idiots who are still here.
3. Dominate
4. Profit.

 

[redskinsfan]

The formula for success is very simple:

1. Hire SM and get the Hell out of his way.
2. Allow him to hire his own scouting staff and say goodbye to the idiots who are still here.
3. Dominate
4. Profit.

 

[ehb5]

That GMs miss on picks is much a truism as the adage that teaches us that no one's perfect. The reason why Silver misses the mark here is because he fails take into account they types of hits and misses GMs make and their relative impact on teams they manage. Failure to consider that in his calculus renders his analysis pretty much useless. In other words, why should a "hit" on a pick like Alfred Morris be equated to one like Tom Brady? Or how does explain a miss on someone like Heath Shuler being the same as a bust like Chris Nield?

Are you saying that certain GMs get lucky with players like Brady and therefore look better than they should?

 

[redskinsfan]

Are you saying that certain GMs get lucky with players like Brady and therefore look better than they should?

Yes. But my point about Silver's analysis is that he doesn't take that and other factors into account.

 

[ehb5]

Yes. But my point about Silver's analysis is that he doesn't take that and other factors into account.

I suppose that's true to some extent but you could also argue that McCloughan has gotten lucky on picks like Sherman.

 

[redskinsfan]

I suppose that's true to some extent but you could also argue that McCloughan has gotten lucky on picks like Sherman.

If you're talking about one pick, maybe. But he's got many other picks and, more importantly, a track of record of picks that have been part of Superbowl teams. That's what makes him different and is why he was viewed as the top GM in the league.

 

[ehb5]

Redskinsfan - your pt about Rodgers & Brady is a good one. As I noted before - Brady was the only pick from the Pats 2000 draft that really had any impact on that team. That being the case - how exactly would you rate that draft? An objective person would rate it an overwhelming success. However - the cynical media & haters would rate it a failure.

The same would quite possibly true for a Vinny/Snyder draft. Let's say that they drafted Williams yet whiffed on just about every other pick (which was their MO). Unlike the Pats they would supplement this with a bunch of other shitty moves & ultimately produce a failure. Contrast this to SM & his track record. This certainly increases the likelihood that he will compile significantly more talent over say a 4-5 year period.

Is success guaranteed? Of course not. Is it likely? Absolutely. I also believe that is pretty dicey to perform statistical analysis towards the NFL when things change so rapidly & the rules quite often don't apply. This is kind of similar to these gambling related trends where favorites are based somewhat on results from many, many years ago that in no way apply to the current teams.

I will take this article with several grains of salt & in no way does this diminish my confidence in SM.

I've never understood the skepticism of statistical analysis but I'm not sure if you just mean with broader things like this take on the draft or with more specific in game examples too.

 

[SoCalWizFan]

I suppose that's true to some extent but you could also argue that McCloughan has gotten lucky on picks like Sherman.

He had a major role in building two very successful NFL organizations and had a hand in helping to build another very successful team. Would you call that luck?

Selecting one superstar with a late pick (Brady, Sherman, etc) is one thing - building an entire team is quite another. What exactly is your pt with this thread? Are you suggesting that SM is simply hype & the Skins are no better off with him?

 

[SoCalWizFan]

The formula for success is very simple:

1. Hire SM and get the Hell out of his way.
2. Allow him to hire his own scouting staff and say goodbye to the idiots who are still here.
3. Dominate
4. Profit.

Could not have said it better. If Snyder abides by # 1 the Redskins should be in very good shape moving forward.

 

[redskinsfan]

I've never understood the skepticism of statistical analysis but I'm not sure if you just mean with broader things like this take on the draft or with more specific in game examples too.

Statistical analysis is limited to what it purports to prove. Regression analysis that shows a substantial correlation between two factors in one thing. For instance, if you wanted to show a relationship between house fires and a fire department showing up at the house fire, you'd probably get a pretty high correlation between the two. But if you try and use it to show that the fire department are the cause of the fires, that would be ridiculous. If you, however, wanted to show that a fire department did a good job at getting to house fires and putting them out, that analysis might be better for that.

And with all statistical analyses, there are judgment calls that are made in them or different conclusions you can draw from them. These demonstrate that while you can show somethings with these analyses, they are lacking in quite a few others.

 

[ehb5]

He had a major role in building two very successful NFL organizations and had a hand in helping to build another very successful team. Would you call that luck?

Selecting one superstar with a late pick (Brady, Sherman, etc) is one thing - building an entire team is quite another. What exactly is your pt with this thread? Are you suggesting that SM is simply hype & the Skins are no better off with him?

I think the point of the article is that at least part of that is luck. I just saw an interesting article that could lead to good discussion and shared it.

 

[ehb5]

Statistical analysis is limited to what it purports to prove. Regression analysis that shows a substantial correlation between two factors in one thing. For instance, if you wanted to show a relationship between house fires and a fire department showing up at the house fire, you'd probably get a pretty high correlation between the two. But if you try and use it to show that the fire department are the cause of the fires, that would be ridiculous. If you, however, wanted to show that a fire department did a good job at getting to house fires and putting them out, that analysis might be better for that.

And with all statistical analyses, there are judgment calls that are made in them or different conclusions you can draw from them. These demonstrate that while you can show somethings with these analyses, they are lacking in quite a few others.

This is true. Although sometimes what you can draw is really pretty indisputable. Not necessarily this case obviously.

 

[Caliskinsfan]

I think the point of the article is that at least part of that is luck. I just saw an interesting article that could lead to good discussion and shared it.

I think luck does play a role. Injury alone can define a career for a player with all the talent in the world.

 

[SoCalWizFan]

I think the point of the article is that at least part of that is luck. I just saw an interesting article that could lead to good discussion and shared it.

If that was all there was to it I would be fine with it. However - you took it a step further & asked "Does Scotty really know what he is doing?". A statement like that makes it sound like SM may be no better than any average Joe in running this team. That is ridiculous. Luck is always involved to some degree in success, but long term success requires much more than than & SM has been a part of long term success.

If a guy has not earned the reputation of being the most qualified to run a team by already doing it to some extent for three of the most successful teams in the NFL then I am not sure what would qualify someone to assume this role. God knows that as a Redskins fan we should know this. We have seen numerous unqualified GMs or pseudo-GMs attempt to run this team with little to no success (& you can't blame that all on Snyder).

I love how some of these writers who are not considered elite in their profession feel compelled to attack people who are much, much more successful in their profession.