Credit is owed where credit is due. I heard this first today from Malcolm Gladwell on a podcast (I don't recall which one, either his or Tim Ferris') and I feel like it was a great point he made. And want to expand on it. Maybe controversial, but hear me out.
So I'm going to focus on American sport drafts, mainly basketball, hockey and football. The work was done by a world famous sociologist who I do not remember the name of, but I wish I did to credit him. Basically he ran a study of the value of the first overall draft pick in football and shared his findings with team owners, who disregarded his findings after meeting with this researcher. I mean they're still filthy rich, but they are missing out on "free wins" each season due to their old habits. But let's talk about some background before getting to that.
Scenario:
If I had the first overall pick in hockey this year, (I'll talk about hockey since I know most about that relative to the others, but the same concepts apply) who is considered the best eligible player in the world to be drafted, I feel like I'm at a pretty great advantage, right? I mean, majority of the time, that player turns out to be an all star, which is huge value for a team. But is that value, well, overvalued? Sometimes no, take Sydney Crosby for example. Great player, better with great teammates, but as a single person will greatly increase the team's value. But for someone who isn't the best (second best?) player of all time, this no longer holds true. Taylor Hall, who I think went first overall a while back is a great player. But surely did not increase the value of his team as much as Crosby did for Pittsburgh (assuming the teams they played on were equal in all aspects).
Notice that for this concept to be easily understood, we have to assume many things. That assumption being the majority of outside factors like injury, leadership, hot streaks, coaching etc. are equal. As my economics book would put it, "other things equal...".
Anyway, what if I told you that the first pick's value is worth 5 second round picks? Do you think it would be beneficial to trade your first overall pick for 5 second round picks? Think of it as trading the #1 overall player for the #33-#38 overall players. Well, that is exactly what the study I mentioned earlier was about, and turns out, based on this logical exchange, teams would win more games! There is a benefit to be had by taking 5 slightly less talented players and giving away the most talented player in that draft year. I think this makes sense because of the over-valuing of the number 1 pick. At a certain point, it would no longer be valuable, say if that #1 pick is worth only 3 second rounders. It's a hard metric to determine. But one player, no matter how great, at a certain point cannot influence an entire game. These are still team sports, meaning working as a team is the number 1 priority.
What I think causes team owners to ignore this is the fact that for decades, the number 1 pick in the draft was and still is sought out as sacred. The ideology that that one single player will change the direction of the team for the better, which usually isn't the case, blinds them from the facts. They don't see the bigger picture because they never had to before. They trust their guts instead of numbers. This is the way the world (or at least that world) works, and until those in charge take the leap of faith and make a move like trading their #1 pick for 5 second round picks, they will never see the benefits. I used hockey as the example, but this easily applies to other sports which use the american draft model.
As a disclaimer, there are so many more factors at play then strictly draft pick value, and this all was overly simplified to explain a simple concept. So maybe take this as a grain of salt.
Maybe my next blog will be about phrases that I don't get but still use.. like the grain of salt.
Thanks for reading!
J
So I'm going to focus on American sport drafts, mainly basketball, hockey and football. The work was done by a world famous sociologist who I do not remember the name of, but I wish I did to credit him. Basically he ran a study of the value of the first overall draft pick in football and shared his findings with team owners, who disregarded his findings after meeting with this researcher. I mean they're still filthy rich, but they are missing out on "free wins" each season due to their old habits. But let's talk about some background before getting to that.
Scenario:
If I had the first overall pick in hockey this year, (I'll talk about hockey since I know most about that relative to the others, but the same concepts apply) who is considered the best eligible player in the world to be drafted, I feel like I'm at a pretty great advantage, right? I mean, majority of the time, that player turns out to be an all star, which is huge value for a team. But is that value, well, overvalued? Sometimes no, take Sydney Crosby for example. Great player, better with great teammates, but as a single person will greatly increase the team's value. But for someone who isn't the best (second best?) player of all time, this no longer holds true. Taylor Hall, who I think went first overall a while back is a great player. But surely did not increase the value of his team as much as Crosby did for Pittsburgh (assuming the teams they played on were equal in all aspects).
Notice that for this concept to be easily understood, we have to assume many things. That assumption being the majority of outside factors like injury, leadership, hot streaks, coaching etc. are equal. As my economics book would put it, "other things equal...".
Anyway, what if I told you that the first pick's value is worth 5 second round picks? Do you think it would be beneficial to trade your first overall pick for 5 second round picks? Think of it as trading the #1 overall player for the #33-#38 overall players. Well, that is exactly what the study I mentioned earlier was about, and turns out, based on this logical exchange, teams would win more games! There is a benefit to be had by taking 5 slightly less talented players and giving away the most talented player in that draft year. I think this makes sense because of the over-valuing of the number 1 pick. At a certain point, it would no longer be valuable, say if that #1 pick is worth only 3 second rounders. It's a hard metric to determine. But one player, no matter how great, at a certain point cannot influence an entire game. These are still team sports, meaning working as a team is the number 1 priority.
What I think causes team owners to ignore this is the fact that for decades, the number 1 pick in the draft was and still is sought out as sacred. The ideology that that one single player will change the direction of the team for the better, which usually isn't the case, blinds them from the facts. They don't see the bigger picture because they never had to before. They trust their guts instead of numbers. This is the way the world (or at least that world) works, and until those in charge take the leap of faith and make a move like trading their #1 pick for 5 second round picks, they will never see the benefits. I used hockey as the example, but this easily applies to other sports which use the american draft model.
As a disclaimer, there are so many more factors at play then strictly draft pick value, and this all was overly simplified to explain a simple concept. So maybe take this as a grain of salt.
Maybe my next blog will be about phrases that I don't get but still use.. like the grain of salt.
Thanks for reading!
J
"The work was done by a world famous sociologist who I do not remember the name of"
ReplyDeletehe must be really world famous