I often read how people are complaining about Keim’s draft, and the lack of impact players he has found, so I decided to do a little study on the subject to get a better perspective. I always think it’s a very good idea to compare a decision maker to equals around the league to get a fair assessment basis. We all want 100% success rate from Keim, the coaches and everyone else, but that’s not realistic, and I think the criticism can become a bit unfair and hysterical without basing in on other things than your own wish.
For the analysis I made some statistic which I have attached in a Google Sheet where I hope you can see it if you like, and potentially use it for whatever you like. (Link to statistic)
Before getting into the analysis I just want to say that I am not very good at making and using statistics, so I will probably make mistakes. Please bear with me.
First some ground rules:
- The analysis includes every first- and second round draft pick in the NFL since (and including) 2013 where Keim became the general manager. I decided to not include picks from other rounds as well because, honestly, I often get the impression that many people don’t care that much about round three through seven.
- I have not included the 2018 draft picks in the analysis, because I deemed it would give a bit skewed result based on various other factors than the level of play (did the coaches’ preferences towards rookie play a part?)
- Obviously, some teams have changed general managers in the period, and their preferences and view on drafting is not identical. This presented a problem. I decided that the solution was to include all the former general managers as well and separate their draft selections from each other in the statistics. For example, the Bears drafted 10 first- and second round players (from now on just described as “players”) in the five drafts, but by two different general managers. In the analysis I have divided that into two drafts. This has the effect that sometimes there will be more than 32 parts in the equation and sometimes there will be fewer than 32, but I do believe it will also give a more fair result. Another effect is that the analysis will revolve around the general managers as baseline as opposed to the teams. I will note what elements goes into a certain result.
- The players are divided into three categories: “core players”, “backups” and “gone.” Core players are the players who played at least 12 games this season and at least 60% of the overall snaps in those games. Backups are anyone else. Gone are probably a self-explanatory category. Now, some of the players in the backup-category might actually be productive parts of a bigger rotation, but I had to make the cut somewhere.
- If a player has been injured this season, and thus doesn’t live up to the criteria for being in the core player-category, he must have played in at least eight of the games this season and at least 70% of the snaps in six of them to be in the core player-category. Otherwise I deem him unavailable, and thus a backup.
- If a player has sustained a season ending injury but played more than 60% of the snaps in the last five games the season before, and I can pretty much guarantee he would have played a lot this season as well (Travis Frederick, Keanu Neal and so on) they are a part of the core member-category. Le’Veon Bell with the Steelers is a unique case in this analysis (he has not been injured, but he hold out the entire season), and I have placed him in the core player-category, simply because he fulfills the criteria.
- Remember, my basic premise is the status of the player this season. He might have been a very good player for the team for four seasons, or anything in between, yet still doesn’t have the same role now. My counterargument is that if the draft pick was good enough, the player would be a core player right now.
---------------------
· As you can see, the Cardinals have used nine draft picks in the period. Three of them are now core players, three of them are backups and three of them are gone.
· The league average in the period has been 9.81 draft selections with 3.88 core players, 2.56 backups and 3.78 gone coming out of the picks.
· Four teams has had less picks than the Cardinals. Together they made 7.25 selections. Of those, the average core players picked were 3, the average backups picked were 0.75 and gone are 3.25 players.
· 23 teams had one or more picks than the Cardinals (eight of them had two or more picks more). Of those teams, the average of core players picked were 3.86 players, 2.5 of backups were picked and an average of four players are gone.
· Obviously Steve Keim has made all nine Cardinals picks. 15 other teams has had one general manager make all of their picks as well. Together those 15 teams had made 146 picks which is an average of 9.73 picks. Of those, 2.47 are core players, 4.56 are backups and 2.65 are gone.
· There are 10 teams where a general manager has been making the picks for four year. Those teams has made 98 picks. 3.6 of them has become core players. 2.6 are backups. 3.7 are gone.
· In all, seven teams has drafted less core players than the Cardinals in the period. Four teams has drafted the same amount. 20 teams has drafted more core players than the Cardinals. Of those teams, 14 had one more pick than the Cardinals, and six of them had two or more picks more than the Cardinals.
· To sum up, in the period, the Cardinals has had almost one pick less than the league average. They have selected almost one less core player, more backup players and almost one less players who are gone now. The average when looking at teams with the same amount of picks, and the same general manager making them, are more or less the same.
Now, let’s try to accept the premise that the game has changed over the, let’s say, last two years (which makes it the last three years in reality). This obviously comes with the big caveat that teams has had less time to decide whether they should part ways with any of their selections, and thus the result are probably a bit skewed.
· In the period, the Cardinals made three picks. Two of them are now core players while one is a backup.
· 24 other teams has had the same general manager make all the picks in this period. They made a total of 96 picks which is an average of four picks per team. Of those picks the average of core players are 2.2, the average of backups are 2.3 and the average of players gone are 0.45.
· 18 of the teams had one or more picks more than the Cardinals (three of them had more than one). Three teams had the same amount. Two teams had less. Of the three teams with the same amount, one of them has one starter and two backups, one of them has two starters and one backup, one of them has three backups.
-----------
As I said, I am absolutely sure that there are members on this board (and a lot of them) who are much better at deciphering statistic than I am, but to me, it looks like Steve Keim has done about average of all the general managers in the NFL – just like I and others have been saying multiple times. This is true no matter if you look at Keim’s entire tenure or just the last couple of years. I hope this exercise will show people, who constantly complain about Keim’s ability to draft, that the truth is another than their view, and maybe people can bring up this analysis as a help each time someone wrongly criticizes Keim.
I have really worked on the phrasing, so I hope I have made it possible to understand.
For the analysis I made some statistic which I have attached in a Google Sheet where I hope you can see it if you like, and potentially use it for whatever you like. (Link to statistic)
Before getting into the analysis I just want to say that I am not very good at making and using statistics, so I will probably make mistakes. Please bear with me.
First some ground rules:
- The analysis includes every first- and second round draft pick in the NFL since (and including) 2013 where Keim became the general manager. I decided to not include picks from other rounds as well because, honestly, I often get the impression that many people don’t care that much about round three through seven.
- I have not included the 2018 draft picks in the analysis, because I deemed it would give a bit skewed result based on various other factors than the level of play (did the coaches’ preferences towards rookie play a part?)
- Obviously, some teams have changed general managers in the period, and their preferences and view on drafting is not identical. This presented a problem. I decided that the solution was to include all the former general managers as well and separate their draft selections from each other in the statistics. For example, the Bears drafted 10 first- and second round players (from now on just described as “players”) in the five drafts, but by two different general managers. In the analysis I have divided that into two drafts. This has the effect that sometimes there will be more than 32 parts in the equation and sometimes there will be fewer than 32, but I do believe it will also give a more fair result. Another effect is that the analysis will revolve around the general managers as baseline as opposed to the teams. I will note what elements goes into a certain result.
- The players are divided into three categories: “core players”, “backups” and “gone.” Core players are the players who played at least 12 games this season and at least 60% of the overall snaps in those games. Backups are anyone else. Gone are probably a self-explanatory category. Now, some of the players in the backup-category might actually be productive parts of a bigger rotation, but I had to make the cut somewhere.
- If a player has been injured this season, and thus doesn’t live up to the criteria for being in the core player-category, he must have played in at least eight of the games this season and at least 70% of the snaps in six of them to be in the core player-category. Otherwise I deem him unavailable, and thus a backup.
- If a player has sustained a season ending injury but played more than 60% of the snaps in the last five games the season before, and I can pretty much guarantee he would have played a lot this season as well (Travis Frederick, Keanu Neal and so on) they are a part of the core member-category. Le’Veon Bell with the Steelers is a unique case in this analysis (he has not been injured, but he hold out the entire season), and I have placed him in the core player-category, simply because he fulfills the criteria.
- Remember, my basic premise is the status of the player this season. He might have been a very good player for the team for four seasons, or anything in between, yet still doesn’t have the same role now. My counterargument is that if the draft pick was good enough, the player would be a core player right now.
---------------------
· As you can see, the Cardinals have used nine draft picks in the period. Three of them are now core players, three of them are backups and three of them are gone.
· The league average in the period has been 9.81 draft selections with 3.88 core players, 2.56 backups and 3.78 gone coming out of the picks.
· Four teams has had less picks than the Cardinals. Together they made 7.25 selections. Of those, the average core players picked were 3, the average backups picked were 0.75 and gone are 3.25 players.
· 23 teams had one or more picks than the Cardinals (eight of them had two or more picks more). Of those teams, the average of core players picked were 3.86 players, 2.5 of backups were picked and an average of four players are gone.
· Obviously Steve Keim has made all nine Cardinals picks. 15 other teams has had one general manager make all of their picks as well. Together those 15 teams had made 146 picks which is an average of 9.73 picks. Of those, 2.47 are core players, 4.56 are backups and 2.65 are gone.
· There are 10 teams where a general manager has been making the picks for four year. Those teams has made 98 picks. 3.6 of them has become core players. 2.6 are backups. 3.7 are gone.
· In all, seven teams has drafted less core players than the Cardinals in the period. Four teams has drafted the same amount. 20 teams has drafted more core players than the Cardinals. Of those teams, 14 had one more pick than the Cardinals, and six of them had two or more picks more than the Cardinals.
· To sum up, in the period, the Cardinals has had almost one pick less than the league average. They have selected almost one less core player, more backup players and almost one less players who are gone now. The average when looking at teams with the same amount of picks, and the same general manager making them, are more or less the same.
Now, let’s try to accept the premise that the game has changed over the, let’s say, last two years (which makes it the last three years in reality). This obviously comes with the big caveat that teams has had less time to decide whether they should part ways with any of their selections, and thus the result are probably a bit skewed.
· In the period, the Cardinals made three picks. Two of them are now core players while one is a backup.
· 24 other teams has had the same general manager make all the picks in this period. They made a total of 96 picks which is an average of four picks per team. Of those picks the average of core players are 2.2, the average of backups are 2.3 and the average of players gone are 0.45.
· 18 of the teams had one or more picks more than the Cardinals (three of them had more than one). Three teams had the same amount. Two teams had less. Of the three teams with the same amount, one of them has one starter and two backups, one of them has two starters and one backup, one of them has three backups.
-----------
As I said, I am absolutely sure that there are members on this board (and a lot of them) who are much better at deciphering statistic than I am, but to me, it looks like Steve Keim has done about average of all the general managers in the NFL – just like I and others have been saying multiple times. This is true no matter if you look at Keim’s entire tenure or just the last couple of years. I hope this exercise will show people, who constantly complain about Keim’s ability to draft, that the truth is another than their view, and maybe people can bring up this analysis as a help each time someone wrongly criticizes Keim.
I have really worked on the phrasing, so I hope I have made it possible to understand.
