jdavidbakr
08-22-2008, 12:07 PM
I'm working on an update to Conscriptor that will do a mock draft and allow for scout picks automatically based on the relative roster strengths. I'm using the best future value of each position (using the higher position types like G, T, DE, ILB, rather than LG, RG, etc) subtracted from 100 to gauge the need at each position. So if a team has a 55/85 qb, their need for QB would be 15, while if their best guard was 33/33, their need for guard would be 67. I am taking this value along with the adjusted grade for the players in the draft to create a priority list for each pick in the mock draft or the scout pick. Here is the formula I have come up with that seems to generate a good balance between team need and adjusted grade:
score=(adjusted_grade^2)*team_need
Nice and simple, and yet seems to give a nice weight to the adjusted grade without overwhelming it. For my test draft I'm using the vNFL draft data, the first pick goes to CIN. This is the result of the sorting:
<table>
<tr>
<th>Team Need</th>
<th>Adjusted Grade of Player</th>
<th>Score</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>61</td>
<td>7.70</td>
<td>3616.68</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>45</td>
<td>8.80</td>
<td>3484.80</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>48</td>
<td>7.40</td>
<td>2628.48</td>
</tr>
</table>
The 8.80 player was a very good-looking QB, who was actually taken by CIN the draft. But notice that his need for a QB was only 45 compared to his need for a RB at 61 (which is what the 7.70 player is), which is why this algorithm selected the RB over the QB in this situation.
So my question for you guys is, does this look like an acceptable formula, or should it be adjusted any? Anyone who works with numbers like these more than I do could probably tell me if I'm close at all to having a good algorithm.
FWIW, CIN didn't have a K on their roster, so the need came in at 100. The top adjusted score for a kicker is 3.7, which gave a score of 1369, placing it as #13 on the list, so it's unlikely that a team will draft a kicker in an early round with this formula. But it did take the kicker at #13 before a 5.00 FB (#14), their need was 49 for a FB (which means the future value of their FB is 51, so probably a kicker would have been a good choice before a FB anyway). #15 was a 5.9 DT with their need at 26, followed by the final spot at #16 as the punter (3.2, need = 52)
score=(adjusted_grade^2)*team_need
Nice and simple, and yet seems to give a nice weight to the adjusted grade without overwhelming it. For my test draft I'm using the vNFL draft data, the first pick goes to CIN. This is the result of the sorting:
<table>
<tr>
<th>Team Need</th>
<th>Adjusted Grade of Player</th>
<th>Score</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>61</td>
<td>7.70</td>
<td>3616.68</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>45</td>
<td>8.80</td>
<td>3484.80</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>48</td>
<td>7.40</td>
<td>2628.48</td>
</tr>
</table>
The 8.80 player was a very good-looking QB, who was actually taken by CIN the draft. But notice that his need for a QB was only 45 compared to his need for a RB at 61 (which is what the 7.70 player is), which is why this algorithm selected the RB over the QB in this situation.
So my question for you guys is, does this look like an acceptable formula, or should it be adjusted any? Anyone who works with numbers like these more than I do could probably tell me if I'm close at all to having a good algorithm.
FWIW, CIN didn't have a K on their roster, so the need came in at 100. The top adjusted score for a kicker is 3.7, which gave a score of 1369, placing it as #13 on the list, so it's unlikely that a team will draft a kicker in an early round with this formula. But it did take the kicker at #13 before a 5.00 FB (#14), their need was 49 for a FB (which means the future value of their FB is 51, so probably a kicker would have been a good choice before a FB anyway). #15 was a 5.9 DT with their need at 26, followed by the final spot at #16 as the punter (3.2, need = 52)