Bengals Draft Better Than We Give Them Credit For?

Via C Trent's Thinking Out Loud post, the answer is yes.  Hmmmm.  Confusing.  If we draft well then why are we so bad?  I investigated further.

Mr Rosecrans directs us to a link (it's pretty far down) to Advanced NFL Stats, where the author attempts to quantify the draft success of NFL teams since 1996.  To quantify success, the author uses the following two stats:

1. Years the draft pick was the primary player at his position (years as a starter)
2. Number of pro bowl selections of that draft pick

They do this for all draft picks since 1996.  Based on these stats, they find that the Bengals rank very highly (6th overall) on the number of years the draft pick played as the starter and in the top half (14th overall) on pro bowls.

Right now, many of you will rightly cry, "But Sleeping With Bieniemy, that does not take into account where teams picked in the draft.  We should measure well because we always have high picks on account of us sucking in the past."

Indeed, clever readers, that is correct.  And the guys at Advanced NFL Stats are no dummies either, so they controlled for that too.  They provide another nifty table that shows the Bengals rank 12th overall after adjusting for their draft position.  Again, they get high marks for the length of time their draftees play as the primary starter but lose out when it comes to pro bowl appearances.

Okay, so the Bengals do okay drafting according to science.  So should we stop complaining about the lack of scouts already?

Not so fast (I'm sure you didn't see that coming).  I have a few things to say about this breakdown.

First, obviously numbers can't capture everything.  The particular stats used as a proxy for the difficult to measure "draft success" have issues themselves.  For example, I have a problem with the "years as a starter" measure because it's doesn't capture whether or not that player could be considered good in the first place.  See Smith, Justin.  Of course, the pro bowl stat they use in combination should help to offset this flaw.  But the problem with that stat is if you draft a fantastic player he may make multiple pro bowls so a few players can juice the draft stats when the rest of the roster might be terrible (or below average).  Let's call this phenomenon "the plight of Corey Dillon and Willie Anderson."

Second, one thing that is undeniable is that the Bengals are strong with their 2nd round selections.  Recent 2nd round picks of success that come to mind are Chad Johnson, Eric Steinbach and Andrew Whitworth.  And I am hopeful this will continue with Rey Maualuga.  Our first round selections however...

Last, our division features one of the best statistical drafters and one of the worst.  Baltimore ranks in the top 3 and Cleveland ranks in the bottom 3 no matter how you sort the tables in the post.  But Pittsburgh ranks similarly to the Bengals. 

And that's probably all you need to know about the ability of these measures to capture draft success:  they claim the Steelers are no better than the Bengals.  I think we can all agree, no matter how much I f-ing hate it, that the Steelers braintrust is superior to the Bengals.

Comments

[Brian]

interesting. but it doesn't change the fact that we blow every year. this is just an "ESPN" statistic, and it really means nothing. the only stats that should matter to us are the ones listed over to our right.

[n8]

Does this take into account that they also were playing on the Bengals. Just because they started at their position doesn't mean they would have for another NFL team.

[Keith]

There havve been many recent articles that try to link games started with draft success, even in the Wall Steet Journal a few weeks ago. The big thing I believe is missing is the quality of the starter, not just the fact that he started. While the Pro Bowl factor helps, it really is a small percentage of the overall players in the league and can't really begin the adjust for differences in a team's scouting ability. I believe the stat needs to figure in or weight either a player's statistial rank at a position (a measure of indiviidial quality based on whatever stats are important at that player's position) or the team's overall success on offense or defense or in win/loss record for the games started (a measure of the players contribution success). All starts are not created equal. Obviously, over the past several years, a start for the Bengals is not equal in value to a start for the Steelers or Patriots (at most positions)...so there needs to be a way to differentiate in the statistical analysis that goes a little deeper than just Pro Bowl appearances.

[Ejm1]

Reinard Wilson, Akili Amith, Peter Warrick,Chris Perry, David Pollack these should bring the grade down.Nothing out of 5 first rounders. I don't get how we scored so well on this test?

[Hofbraunow]

Also, I would like to know, with all these 'decent' draft picks this time around, i.e. *again*,
and with the economy being how it is, how are they affording to pay these guys? Are they going to sell all the team helmets, and just wear striped leather 'helmets' next year? Or will that not work, since the antiques are worth more than their state-of the-(f)art models (i.e. the ones with "Bike" or "Riddel" scrawled on them with Crayon)?

[Hofbraunow]

I think I mispelled "Riddel"...wait, nope; that's how they scrawled it on there

[whymikeywhy]

Keith seems to have it right to me. While I think the stats are meaningful, you also have to take into consideration the quality of those starters. Akili Smith was a starter for awhile, so just the fact that you were at one time the starter doesn't mean you mattered. I think a better stat would only count how many players actually maintain their role as starter after their initial rookie contracts. Teams invest a lot in the young players, but then give up their support when one isn't worth it. With the stats done this way, players like Akili and Warrick wouldn't actually inflate the numbers.

[Sleeping With Bieniemy]

n8 and Keith - you hit upon the key shortfall in the "years started" stat. it doesn't capture if the player a good starter.

And Keith is right, the pro bowl stat doesn't do a good job of addressing the lack of quality measurement since pro bowl selections are very limited and sometimes can be a popularity contest.

Ejm1 - also, good point, it would be nice to have a category that counted draft failures (this analysis counts draft success, but just ignores failures) as this might more accurately measure how little the bengals have been able to improve via the draft

[Leo deTrotskyo]

Further proof that the Bengals must start whoever they draft due to a lack of ability to attract quality FAs.

[LeeRoy Jenkins]

Another issue is that "scouting" is important for more than the draft. When you decide to sign a player, or keep a player, you need to "scout" to determine how good the player is relative to others. The Bengals fail at this. All the time.

[TigerJ@w]

Bengals draft picks are judged on their overall record and that is all. Also, if they draft so well, than is it the Coaches who suck? I would say, yes, MFB and ML and all the other past HCs pick their buddies instead of real football coaches.

[Whit]

The Bengals players start so long becuase they are unwilling to admit the player sucks and then stick with him. Justin Smith, Peter Warrick, and even Ki-Jana Carter stayed around longer than he should have. I think the Bengals biggest personnell problem is they are afraid to cut a player who makes any money. They become a double edged sword because they could sign an average player who produces with the little extra cap space rather than let a fat non producing player continue to get paid. This also takes away any motivation because once a plyer signs her they know they are going to get paid.

[pass to set up the run]

you all have a lot of ammunition, but pw's isn't a part of it. dude played well, and the dude got hurt. got hurt playing tough for us. i even take issue with you saying ki-jana was a bust (the trade should have been made with n.o., but just cause a good player gets hurt in a freak accident - pollack included - doesn't mean the pick was a bust that you can pin on scouts, owners, or coaches. that shit just happens.

and the dude who's worried about paying all these good picks money - do you not get how the draft and football work? 2nd rounders get paid like 2nd rounders. 3rds like 3rds and so on. every team is in that boat. or did i miss interpret your whine and cheese party?

[Whit]

I can see your injury point with David Pollack but Ki'Jana was never going to be good because if it wasn't the knee it was the wrist. Peter Warrick had a lot of receptions but no yards. Playing tough and being good are different things. justin Smith played hard and was never really injured, yet he just wasn't that good and should never been franchised. Another example how the bengals spend money where they shouldn't. Is there a worse team when it comes to franchise players?

[Legs]

I may be nuckin futs but im pretty excited for next season

[Joemama]

Im ucked fup too cuz no matter their problems(possible starting rookie 4th round pick center, hope that Michael and Tank Johnson can provide a pass rush, the fact that they have sucked King Kongs dick every year that i have watched them with 2005 being the exception)I always end up drinking the Kool-aid. Its only a matter of time, this year being late April. I am a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE DOUCHEBAG!!!

[Grunzfelter]

I bet Mikey Boy is patting himself on the back about not having an indoor facility with the Cowboys catastrophe over the weekend.
Anyone think he'll use this isolated incident as another excuse to not pursue indoor training facilities?

[Robinsgr]

The only way the Bengals get an indoor practice facility is if MFB finds a way to make the city pay for it.