DFA: Combine 40 times questions?

[akhhorus]

Link (http://draftacademy.blogspot.com/2007/03/40-times-at-combine-questions.html)

From Guest blogger: Danny's Stogie.

Baa On!

[AliBabba]

Link (http://draftacademy.blogspot.com/2007/03/40-times-at-combine-questions.html)

From Guest blogger: Danny's Stogie.

Baa On!
ummm didn't you post this last week?

EDIT: I read it again, just as good, better, than the first time :)

[akhhorus]

ummm didn't you post this last week?

That was a draft, posted by accident.

[AliBabba]

That was a draft, posted by accident.
that explains why its 1000% percent better

[danny's stogie]

that explains why its 1000% percent better

Yeah, the data is actually there this time, lol.

[AliBabba]

Yeah, the data is actually there this time, lol.
Nice job ... I agree that those numbers looked more than a little fishy. Not to mention who the hell would take a risk like that, running without notice or shoes, unless they knew there was something up?

[danny's stogie]

Nice job ... I agree that those numbers looked more than a little fishy. Not to mention who the hell would take a risk like that, running without notice or shoes, unless they knew there was something up?

My crapdetector was on high alert when I heard that. A player isn't so much as allowed to say a word out of turn if it isn't approved by his agent, let alone drop his lunch and run a 40.

[danny's stogie]

I'm also including the data:


http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/8565/combine40timesxd2.th.png (http://img100.imageshack.us/my.php?image=combine40timesxd2.png)


http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/1369/combineanalysisresultsli5.th.png (http://img62.imageshack.us/my.php?image=combineanalysisresultsli5.png)

[redskin_rich]

One more time, let me quote the best ever in sports radio in the DC area, Ken Beatrice. When a scout said a certain player ran ____ time in the 40, Ken said "forget about him, get me the guy who timed him. He will make my whole team faster!"

:)

[danny's stogie]

One more time, let me quote the best ever in sports radio in the DC area, Ken Beatrice. When a scout said a certain player ran ____ time in the 40, Ken said "forget about him, get me the guy who timed him. He will make my whole team faster!"

:)

You just gave away your age, Rich, by quoting Ken Beatrice, lol. Anyways, I think the NFL has tremendous incentive to, not necessarily rig the combine, but ensure that good times are posted. The combine has gone from relative obscurity to one of the most highly scrutinized events in sports. It's the perfect time to get people excited about the league's future stars and the league wants its fans to be wowed. Smoak pointed out in the CJ thread that after several DBs posted poor times they sped up the timer. If this is true it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

Honestly, I think the vast majority of the times (most probably all of them) are crap..they should be takien in consideration on a relative basis, not an absolute one..

[fent]

Honestly, I think the vast majority of the times (most probably all of them) are crap..they should be takien in consideration on a relative basis, not an absolute one..

honestly, if i'm a team with a top 10 pick i make the guy run a 40 in a private workout on a different track.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

honestly, if i'm a team with a top 10 pick i make the guy run a 40 in a private workout on a different track.
Wouldn't he probably refuse?

[fent]

Wouldn't he probably refuse?

probably...which tells me all i need to know.

[BurgundyNGold]

Did they do any work to the track or something or is the premise that the timing mechanism itself accounts for the faster times?

Great read, BTW.

[BurgundyNGold]

You just gave away your age, Rich, by quoting Ken Beatrice, lol. Anyways, I think the NFL has tremendous incentive to, not necessarily rig the combine, but ensure that good times are posted. The combine has gone from relative obscurity to one of the most highly scrutinized events in sports. It's the perfect time to get people excited about the league's future stars and the league wants its fans to be wowed. Smoak pointed out in the CJ thread that after several DBs posted poor times they sped up the timer. If this is true it wouldn't surprise me in the least.
The sad thing is, when I read Rich's post, I actually heard KB saying the words, lol.

"Yep!"

:D

[fent]

Did they do any work to the track or something or is the premise that the timing mechanism itself accounts for the faster times?

Great read, BTW.

they seem to work on the track every year

[SpicyMcHaggis]

Did they do any work to the track or something or is the premise that the timing mechanism itself accounts for the faster times?

Great read, BTW.
Yeah..they built it downhill this year.

[dj_stouty]

Is four one-hundredths of a second really that much of a difference when it comes to running?

I could see how that makes a difference in autoracing when the speeds are upwards of 200mph, but foot running?

Was there any decrease/increase in the speeds between 05 and 06?

[Redskin4Life]

Yeah, the data is actually there this time, lol.
Great stuff, DS. I do have a question though... didn't Peterson, Landry, Branch and others also run on the same surface? How did their position numbers compare to last year? Couldn't it be argued that those guys aren't as fast as advertised either???

I guess that's three questions...

[skinfanatic]

stupid. people can run faster because theyre faster. would you say that it was a slow track if we had slow wrs this year? why did he run? because hes stupid and got caught up in the moment.

[danny's stogie]

Is four one-hundredths of a second really that much of a difference when it comes to running?

I could see how that makes a difference in autoracing when the speeds are upwards of 200mph, but foot running?

Was there any decrease/increase in the speeds between 05 and 06?

It honestly probably isn't that much of a difference, but when we sit around and judge prospects there's a huge difference in fan perception between say anything above and below a 4.4 or above and below a 4.5, numbers that are easily influenced by a .035 difference. Calvin Johnson is being hoisted above the competition because of his 4.35. Well, in actuality, he probably isn't all that different from a lot of other top WR prospects of past years.

I couldn't find a good, complete list of 40 times from any season before 2006. If anyone has them I would be happy to update my results relative to 2006 and 2007. It's entirely possible that 2006 was an abnormally slow track and not that 2007 was the fast one, but I feel pretty confident in all the anecdotal evidence pointing towards this year being the fast track.

Also, the sample size of 30 runners in both years is pretty good for determining the efficiency of the estimates. You have two options in evaluating the statistical results: either the track and stop watch was simply faster, or every runner from top to bottom was better in 07. I tend to believe that the results would even out over a sample size of 30, that if say those 8 4.3 runners in 2007 were the anomaly, then we would see similar numbers across the two classes farther down the board.


The sad thing is, when I read Rich's post, I actually heard KB saying the words, lol.

"Yep!"


I never touch the fries.

Yeah..they built it downhill this year.

...and on a conveyor belt.

honestly, if i'm a team with a top 10 pick i make the guy run a 40 in a private workout on a different track.

As long as you evaluate the results relative to 2007 and not to past seasons a team is fine using these 40 times. But if you sit there and say CJ ran a 4.35, holy crap!, Braylon only ran in a 4.45, then you're looking at the evaluation process all wrong.


Did they do any work to the track or something or is the premise that the timing mechanism itself accounts for the faster times?

Great read, BTW.

They mess with the track every year and there were rumors about them making it faster because the top players were scared to run there. Also, smoak hinted that they amped up the timer after a few DBs ran disappointing times. But now that the combine is so closely followed by the fanbase the NFL has huge incentive to have its prospects run good times.

I think the anecdotal evidence really points in the direction of a faster track + timer. Name a player that hurt their draft stock with a bad 40 time. Only one really shot the load and he was an Olineman. There were legit concerns whether Leon Hall could even break a 4.5 and now he runs a 4.39. Same with Landry; he was considered around a 4.4 and now he's a 4.35.

[danny's stogie]

stupid. people can run faster because theyre faster. would you say that it was a slow track if we had slow wrs this year? why did he run? because hes stupid and got caught up in the moment.

Did you even bother to read it? It's not that CJ was faster than advertised, it was that EVERYONE was faster, from the fastest of the fast, down the slowest runners.


Great stuff, DS. I do have a question though... didn't Peterson, Landry, Branch and others also run on the same surface? How did their position numbers compare to last year? Couldn't it be argued that those guys aren't as fast as advertised either???

I guess that's three questions...

I thought pretty hard about using other positions as a control, but I decided against it for several reasons: the wide receiver position is the most uniform of all positions being tested in the 40, i.e. their primary objective is speed. RBs on the other hand need to strike a balance between speed and other attributes and they're times are mixed between traditional tailbacks and fullbacks. One or two extra fullbacks in either class could skew the results drastically. DBs are measured as a whole and they have the problem that some are safeties and some are corners. They'll have pretty significant differences between the two. But other than WRs they're the other group that has the most to gain or lose by their 40 times so out of curiosity I averaged their times and 2007, 4.427, 2006, 4.471, corroborating the fast track theory.

Also, I felt like, given the large sample size of WRs, it was fair to just measure the two classes against each other. Given the speculation that they amped up the timer when a few people ran poor times I don't feel comfortable comparing the entire stock of runners across years. If I knew when the clock was juiced I'd compare before and after times and then against 2006, but I don't know when they supposedly screwed with the clock. Hence, why I thought it best to just compare a single position.

[BurgundyNGold]

For the benefit of the laymen, why isn't the most likely reason for the marginally faster WR times this year the fact that this year's class is just a faster bunch than last year's class? Why should the casual observer dismiss that more likely possibility, especially given that the DB class this year was actually SLOWER than their counterparts from a year ago?

[danny's stogie]

For the benefit of the laymen, why isn't the most likely reason for the marginally faster WR times this year the fact that this year's class is just a faster bunch than last year's class? Why should the casual observer dismiss that more likely possibility, especially given that the DB class this year was actually SLOWER than their counterparts from a year ago?

I think you read it wrong, the DB class in 07 was a little more than .04 seconds faster.

You can assume that it's simply a faster class and it's impossible for me to disprove that theory. But, the two classes have nearly identical variance, basically a measure of the spread of their distribution. I wish I could draw a picture of how this works, but I'll do my best to describe it visually. Suppose the 2006 draft class is a steep, completely smooth, two dimensional hill. The peak of the hill is centered directly over the average. The total area under the hill down to the natural, flat surface is equal to 1. The variance measures how far from the average a certain percentage of the values lie and essentially determines the steepness of that hill. The fastest runners lie in the right tail of the hill and the slowest lie in the bottom. Now, if the two classes have nearly identical variance and their steepness is the same, going from the 2006 to 2007 classes is like taking that 2006 hill positioned at 4.493 and simply picking the hill up and moving it from the 2006 position up to the 2007 position, 4.457. So basically it's up to your best judgment to determine whether from top to bottom the 2007 class is simply faster or if there was some reason that everyone who ran, from top to bottom is faster than everyone in 2006 from top to bottom. I tend to believe that it would even out over the course of 30 runners and that any upward effect those 8 receivers who ran 4.3s had on the average would be shown by a higher variance.

[BurgundyNGold]

I think you read it wrong, the DB class in 07 was a little more than .04 seconds faster.
Sorry, I guess I misread this...

Smoak pointed out in the CJ thread that after several DBs posted poor times they sped up the timer. If this is true it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

You can assume that it's simply a faster class and it's impossible for me to disprove that theory. But, the two classes have nearly identical variance, basically a measure of the spread of their distribution. I wish I could draw a picture of how this works, but I'll do my best to describe it visually. Suppose the 2006 draft class is a steep, completely smooth, two dimensional hill. The peak of the hill is centered directly over the average. The total area under the hill down to the natural, flat surface is equal to 1. The variance measures how far from the average a certain percentage of the values lie and essentially determines the steepness of that hill. The fastest runners lie in the right tail of the hill and the slowest lie in the bottom. Now, if the two classes have nearly identical variance and their steepness is the same, going from the 2006 to 2007 classes is like taking that 2006 hill positioned at 4.493 and simply picking the hill up and moving it from the 2006 position up to the 2007 position, 4.457. So basically it's up to your best judgment to determine whether from top to bottom the 2007 class is simply faster or if there was some reason that everyone who ran, from top to bottom is faster than everyone in 2006 from top to bottom. I tend to believe that it would even out over the course of 30 runners and that any upward effect those 8 receivers who ran 4.3s had on the average would be shown by a higher variance.
Excel does those charts. I think it would help others understand what you're talking about if you posted an image with that.

I also think that only having 2 classes compared could not possibly give a clear picture. You're basically comparing two data points -- 2006 and 2007. You should add in at least 3 more years and see if your theory holds up. That would be more scientific and would lend more credence to the argument.

It may turn out that you're right but, in the absence of hard proof to the contrary, I think it is safer to assume the most likely scenario. Especially given the fact that there are so many variables that have not been accounted for here.

[dj_stouty]

0.035 seconds is about the time in which a hummingbird flaps his wings once.

Am I the only one not seeing this as being such a big deal?

Now I've heard of some surfaces being "fast" and adding up to a 10th of a second to times. If that was the case in Indy, I'd raise my eyebrow.

[danny's stogie]

Sorry, I guess I misread this...




Excel does those charts. I think it would help others understand what you're talking about if you posted an image with that.

I also think that only having 2 classes compared could not possibly give a clear picture. You're basically comparing two data points -- 2006 and 2007. You should add in at least 3 more years and see if your theory holds up. That would be more scientific and would lend more credence to the argument.

It may turn out that you're right but, in the absence of hard proof to the contrary, I think it is safer to assume the most likely scenario. Especially given the fact that there are so many variables that have not been accounted for here.

If I had good accurate data for previous classes I would have included them because I do agree that it would lend more credence to the argument. But I think 30 times per year is a pretty strong, reliable sample size to draw from.

I'll see what I can do on excel in a little while, but I've never graphed a normal distribution on it before so it'll take a sec for me to figure it out.

Which do you find the more likely scenerio, that every single WR from 2007 was faster than in 2006, not just the fastest being faster than the fastest, but the slowest being faster than 2006's slowest also, or that 2007 had a faster track and stopwatch?

[BurgundyNGold]

If I had good accurate data for previous classes I would have included them because I do agree that it would lend more credence to the argument. But I think 30 times per year is a pretty strong, reliable sample size to draw from.

I'll see what I can do on excel in a little while, but I've never graphed a normal distribution on it before so it'll take a sec for me to figure it out.

Which do you find the more likely scenerio, that every single WR from 2007 was faster than in 2006, not just the fastest being faster than the fastest, but the slowest being faster than 2006's slowest also, or that 2007 had a faster track and stopwatch?
I don't think it can be accounted for so simply as to say that the track was faster and the clock was too. Especially since I haven't seen any evidence for it.

If the same guy ran a 4.4 last year and then ran a 4.35 this year, that would be an apples to apples comparison Well, almost. There are other variables. Heck, differences in humidity in the dome could account for different times. Admittedly that's not likely, but it's as supported by fact as a rogue stopwatch operator at this point.

Most importantly, we're talking about different people. Maybe this class focused on the 40 times more in their training than last year's class. Maybe they're just faster. I don't know, I'm just saying that I don't think we can just look at marginally faster times between 2006 and 2007 and attribute them undeniably to the condition of the track or the quick finger of the stopwatch operator.

[AliBabba]

I don't think it can be accounted for so simply as to say that the track was faster and the clock was too. Especially since I haven't seen any evidence for it.

If the same guy ran a 4.4 last year and then ran a 4.35 this year, that would be an apples to apples comparison Well, almost. There are other variables. Heck, differences in humidity in the dome could account for different times. Admittedly that's not likely, but it's as supported by fact as a rogue stopwatch operator at this point.

Most importantly, we're talking about different people. Maybe this class focused on the 40 times more in their training than last year's class. Maybe they're just faster. I don't know, I'm just saying that I don't think we can just look at marginally faster times between 2006 and 2007 and attribute them undeniably to the condition of the track or the quick finger of the stopwatch operator.

I don't think that explains why the guy decides to run without his own shoes and after previously saying he would not. I mean he's been looking forward to this day for years. I can't see why he'd make a decision on the spur of the moment like that.

Plus as stated before, what do you think an agent would say to that?

[BurgundyNGold]

I don't think that explains why the guy decides to run without his own shoes and after previously saying he would not. I mean he's been looking forward to this day for years. I can't see why he'd make a decision on the spur of the moment like that.
Maybe he was getting ribbed about it by his peers? Maybe he just decided to run? Who knows, but whatever the reason is, I'm fairly certain that it is more probable than word being sent down that he'd receive a fast time becase of temporal chicanery.

Plus as stated before, what do you think an agent would say to that?
The agent isn't the one who has to run.

[AliBabba]

Maybe he was getting ribbed about it by his peers? Maybe he just decided to run? Who knows, but whatever the reason is, I'm fairly certain that it is more probable than word being sent down that he'd receive a fast time becase of temporal chicanery.

Getting ribbed by peers would be a terrible reason to run, especially with borrowed shoes. Second, these guys know their times, when everyone starts saying "man i am fast today" or "that's my best time ever", that can make you change your mind.

The agent isn't the one who has to run.

Yeh, but the agents know their clients times and they speak and I'm sure word about the fast times/clock got around quickly.

[BurgundyNGold]

Getting ribbed by peers would be a terrible reason to run, especially with borrowed shoes. Second, these guys know their times, when everyone starts saying "man i am fast today" or "that's my best time ever", that can make you change your mind.
Every reason to run in borrowed shoes is a bad reason to run. Unless he intended to run the whole time and trained for it, there is no good reason to change your mind at the last minute -- fast times for other people or not. None of this supports the "rogue stopwatch operator in the grassy knoll" theory.

Yeh, but the agents know their clients times and they speak and I'm sure word about the fast times/clock got around quickly.
So, the agent would hurry his unprepared client into a pair of borrowed shoes to run for a *possible* 3/100 of a second bump to his time? That is not only implausible, it is reckless and unprofessional. Especially considering that the agent can set up and control ALL of the variables to favor his client in a private workout in some other setting. This argument doesn't pass muster either.

[danny's stogie]

0.035 seconds is about the time in which a hummingbird flaps his wings once.

Am I the only one not seeing this as being such a big deal?

Now I've heard of some surfaces being "fast" and adding up to a 10th of a second to times. If that was the case in Indy, I'd raise my eyebrow.

If WRs run between 4.3 and 4.7 and anything above 4.60 is considered less than adequate for an NFL WR, I would say that yes, .035 is pretty significant.

[AliBabba]

Every reason to run in borrowed shoes is a bad reason to run. Unless he intended to run the whole time and trained for it, there is no good reason to change your mind at the last minute -- fast times for other people or not. None of this supports the "rogue stopwatch operator in the grassy knoll" theory.

:lol1:

So, the agent would hurry his unprepared client into a pair of borrowed shoes to run for a *possible* 3/100 of a second bump to his time? That is not only implausible, it is reckless and unprofessional. Especially considering that the agent can set up and control ALL of the variables to favor his client in a private workout in some other setting. This argument doesn't pass muster either.

My current stance has been rendered untenable. :)

New Theory: the whole "I'm not running, wait I will, let me see those shoes" was a crafty hoax the agent constructed to create buzz around CJ and increase his visibility, popularity, and ulitmately draft status?

[BurgundyNGold]

:lol1:



My current stance has been rendered untenable.

New Theory: the whole "I'm not running, wait I will, let me see those shoes" was a crafty hoax the agent constructed to create buzz around CJ and increase his visibility, popularity, and ulitmately draft status?
Now THAT'S plenty plausible, lol. :awesomewo

[skinfanatic]

im sticking with stupid. you cant compare the average times of different groups / people. you have to compare the same peoples times in the combine and out of the combine under the same circumstances. you cant compare different groups with each other. apples to pears. some people are faster than others. its more likely that this is a faster group than the track was "fast." as for johnson, nfl players arent vary smarted. he prob got caught up in the moment. he coulve run a 5.2 and people wouldve said, oh, it was the shoes. hes still a top 10.

[fent]

im sticking with stupid. you cant compare the average times of different groups / people. you have to compare the same peoples times in the combine and out of the combine under the same circumstances. you cant compare different groups with each other. apples to pears. some people are faster than others. its more likely that this is a faster group than the track was "fast." as for johnson, nfl players arent vary smarted. he prob got caught up in the moment. he coulve run a 5.2 and people wouldve said, oh, it was the shoes. hes still a top 10.

you can very easily compare the times of players of different "groups" ESPECIALLY when people are going gaga over a kid as the best WR prospect to come out in years and using his speed as the proverbial nail in the coffin when comparing him to the big names from the last several years.

there's an entire subculture of baseball fans that run numbers through formulas to determine how players from different eras compare. we do it in government and economics all the time when comparing prices to check for inflation. calling it "stupid" just means that you either don't understand or don't agree.

[BurgundyNGold]

im sticking with stupid. you cant compare the average times of different groups / people. you have to compare the same peoples times in the combine and out of the combine under the same circumstances. you cant compare different groups with each other. apples to pears. some people are faster than others. its more likely that this is a faster group than the track was "fast." as for johnson, nfl players arent vary smarted. he prob got caught up in the moment. he coulve run a 5.2 and people wouldve said, oh, it was the shoes. hes still a top 10.
That has to be the funniest thing you've ever posted. :D

[SpicyMcHaggis]

im sticking with stupid. you cant compare the average times of different groups / people. you have to compare the same peoples times in the combine and out of the combine under the same circumstances. you cant compare different groups with each other. apples to pears. some people are faster than others. its more likely that this is a faster group than the track was "fast." as for johnson, nfl players arent vary smarted. he prob got caught up in the moment. he coulve run a 5.2 and people wouldve said, oh, it was the shoes. hes still a top 10.
I hope that was sarcastic...

[SpicyMcHaggis]

That has to be the funniest thing you've ever posted. :D
:D

[AliBabba]

I hope that was sarcastic...

http://www.labormaus69.de/weblog/images/uploads/sarcastic.jpg

[PHWbc]

I'm not really sure if this is a reliable source or not, but I found 'unofficial' 40 times for 2005 WR's

Larry Brackins - 4.58
Mark Bradley - 4.47
Craig Bragg - ???
Reggie Brown - 4.45
Mark Clayton - 4.40
Airese Currie - 4.49
Josh Davis - 4.52
Braylon Edwards - ???
Charles Frederick - 4.78
Fred Gibson - 4.55
Howard Gilmore - 4.71
Reggie Harrell - 4.58
Chris Henry - 4.50
Efrem Hill - 4.58
Vincent Jackson - 4.46
Brandon Jones - 4.42
Chase Lyman - 4.50
Tony Madison - 4.52
Tommy Manus - 4.55
Rasheed Marshall - 4.52
Jerome Mathis - 4.28
Leron McCoy - 4.40
Terrence Murphy - 4.39
Chad Owens - 4.62
Roscoe Parrish - 4.37
Tab Perry - 4.46
Jamaica Rector - 4.47
Dante Ridgeway - 4.57
Courtney Roby - 4.41
JR Russell - 4.56
Steve Savoy - 4.62
Dan Sheldon - 4.43
Chauncey Stovall - 4.62
Paris Warren - 4.71
Isaace West - 4.54
Roddy White - ??
Mike Williams - 4.56
Troy Williamson - 4.32

http://www.thehogs.net/Draft/combine/2005_Combine.html
http://www.thehogs.net/Draft/combine/2005_Combine2.html
http://www.thehogs.net/Draft/combine/2005_Combine3.html

But yeah, http://www.sportznutz.com/nfl/draft/2005_archives/2005_nfl_combine_wr.htm Didn't have a complete list, but there times don't agree.

And Williamson I know ran a 4.38 (my dad is a Vikings fan) officially and I think Mathis was around 4.31.

Atleast its a start..

[danny's stogie]

I don't think it can be accounted for so simply as to say that the track was faster and the clock was too. Especially since I haven't seen any evidence for it.

Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier, it's been a busy day and I didn't have time for the longer answer it deserves.

I probably shouldn't imply some sort of causation because there's no way I can prove if it's simply a faster track or a juiced stopwatch. All I know is that they have nearly identical distributions and the average increases from 2006 to 2007.


If the same guy ran a 4.4 last year and then ran a 4.35 this year, that would be an apples to apples comparison Well, almost. There are other variables. Heck, differences in humidity in the dome could account for different times. Admittedly that's not likely, but it's as supported by fact as a rogue stopwatch operator at this point.

You do want to make some sort of reasonable assumptions as to why the times were faster. A quicker surface, a juiced watch, more emphasis placed by prospects on 40 times relative to other physical attributes, they're all plausible.

Most importantly, we're talking about different people. Maybe this class focused on the 40 times more in their training than last year's class. Maybe they're just faster. I don't know, I'm just saying that I don't think we can just look at marginally faster times between 2006 and 2007 and attribute them undeniably to the condition of the track or the quick finger of the stopwatch operator.

What sells me is the distribution. The data falls nearly identically around their respective means in both years. One would assume that you'd have a few people in the 4.3s a lot bunched in the 4.4s and 4.5s and a few players that fall below. If it were simply a faster class I'd reasonably assume that you'd have a higher portion of players in the 4.3s and that their presence would simply widen the distribution. However, you see that not only are there more players with 4.3s, but everyone is faster. The 30th fastest runner in 2007 is .035 faster than the 30th fastest in 2006, the 29th in 2007 is faster than the 29th fastest, all the players in the center of the distribution, those centering closely around the mean, are faster than the middle of the distribution in 2006. If it weren't such a uniform shift of times I wouldn't think much of the results, but I think it's clear that something pushed not one, but all of them up.

After that its only a matter of speculation to determine why the results are as such and there is pretty strong anecdotal evidence pointing in the direction of a faster track -- players, like Leon Hall, with questions about their speed running great times, no players besides an Olineman really hurting their stock with a poor time, even just a visual comparison of players across years, like for example, I don't buy for a second that CJ would handily beat Sinorice Moss, who ran a 4.38 in 2006, in any sprint, but that's just my observation having seen the two players play several times.

[danny's stogie]

Maybe he was getting ribbed about it by his peers? Maybe he just decided to run? Who knows, but whatever the reason is, I'm fairly certain that it is more probable than word being sent down that he'd receive a fast time becase of temporal chicanery.


The agent isn't the one who has to run.

I would be suspicious of pure tampering with times and some cloaked NFL figure telling him to run, but it wouldn't be implausible to think that he had a good idea of how he'd run relative to other players who ran before him.

[danny's stogie]

I'm not really sure if this is a reliable source or not, but I found 'unofficial' 40 times for 2005 WR's


http://www.thehogs.net/Draft/combine/2005_Combine.html
http://www.thehogs.net/Draft/combine/2005_Combine2.html
http://www.thehogs.net/Draft/combine/2005_Combine3.html

But yeah, http://www.sportznutz.com/nfl/draft/2005_archives/2005_nfl_combine_wr.htm Didn't have a complete list, but there times don't agree.

And Williamson I know ran a 4.38 (my dad is a Vikings fan) officially and I think Mathis was around 4.31.

Atleast its a start..

Yeah, I don't really trust those times. Some I remember as being accurate, like Brown, Clayton, and Stovall, but I think some of the others are off. Anyways, assuming they are accurate, I have a mean of 4.512. I'll calculate the variance when I get to work tomorrow.

Btw, thanks a ton for trying to help, I really appreciate it. I thought Hogs.net would have years earlier than 2006, but when I checked before I couldn't find them.

[danny's stogie]

im sticking with stupid. you cant compare the average times of different groups / people. you have to compare the same peoples times in the combine and out of the combine under the same circumstances. you cant compare different groups with each other. apples to pears. some people are faster than others. its more likely that this is a faster group than the track was "fast."

I find it highly improbable that ALL 30 WRs who ran were simply "faster" in 2007 than in 2006. I mean seriously, click on the data link I gave and line up the times. Removing the player names, you could pretty much subtract .035 from the 2006 times to arrive at the exact 2007 times. Correlation like that doesn't happen by accident for a relatively large sample like this.

as for johnson, nfl players arent vary smarted. he prob got caught up in the moment. he coulve run a 5.2 and people wouldve said, oh, it was the shoes. hes still a top 10.

4.39, 4.35, CJ is still a top ten pick, no doubt. I think he'll be a good receiver in the NFL, he seems to have the right mental makeup to succeed in the pros. But the cautionary tale of drafting a WR in the top 10 has to apply to him as well because he has not differentiated himself from others that have been drafted before.

It would be greatly appreciated if you could form complete sentences and try to define your thoughts a little more. It's just general common courtesy towards everyone that reads the board.

[BurgundyNGold]

Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier, it's been a busy day and I didn't have time for the longer answer it deserves.

I probably shouldn't imply some sort of causation because there's no way I can prove if it's simply a faster track or a juiced stopwatch. All I know is that they have nearly identical distributions and the average increases from 2006 to 2007.



You do want to make some sort of reasonable assumptions as to why the times were faster. A quicker surface, a juiced watch, more emphasis placed by prospects on 40 times relative to other physical attributes, they're all plausible.



What sells me is the distribution. The data falls nearly identically around their respective means in both years. One would assume that you'd have a few people in the 4.3s a lot bunched in the 4.4s and 4.5s and a few players that fall below. If it were simply a faster class I'd reasonably assume that you'd have a higher portion of players in the 4.3s and that their presence would simply widen the distribution. However, you see that not only are there more players with 4.3s, but everyone is faster. The 30th fastest runner in 2007 is .035 faster than the 30th fastest in 2006, the 29th in 2007 is faster than the 29th fastest, all the players in the center of the distribution, those centering closely around the mean, are faster than the middle of the distribution in 2006. If it weren't such a uniform shift of times I wouldn't think much of the results, but I think it's clear that something pushed not one, but all of them up.

After that its only a matter of speculation to determine why the results are as such and there is pretty strong anecdotal evidence pointing in the direction of a faster track -- players, like Leon Hall, with questions about their speed running great times, no players besides an Olineman really hurting their stock with a poor time, even just a visual comparison of players across years, like for example, I don't buy for a second that CJ would handily beat Sinorice Moss, who ran a 4.38 in 2006, in any sprint, but that's just my observation having seen the two players play several times.
You know, a couple of bubble diagrams showing the 2006 and 2007 distributions in two series would probably show pretty well. It would be insane if we could add a few more years on the front of it. Yo'd get the whole picture that way and it would show your distribution.

[danny's stogie]

You know, a couple of bubble diagrams showing the 2006 and 2007 distributions in two series would probably show pretty well. It would be insane if we could add a few more years on the front of it. Yo'd get the whole picture that way and it would show your distribution.

Yeah, busy day, I'll try to get to it tomorrow. What I posted in response to skinsfanatic should also give a good visual. Line up the two years side-by-side, from fastest to slowest, subtract .035 from every observation and you wind up with a very close copy of the 2007 times.

[BurgundyNGold]

I would be suspicious of pure tampering with times and some cloaked NFL figure telling him to run, but it wouldn't be implausible to think that he had a good idea of how he'd run relative to other players who ran before him.
It would still be a HUGE gamble, IMO. He could run his client anywhere in the world and have better control over the variables then he would at the combine, even if they made the surface out of superball.

[BurgundyNGold]

Yeah, busy day, I'll try to get to it tomorrow. What I posted in response to skinsfanatic should also give a good visual. Line up the two years side-by-side, from fastest to slowest, subtract .035 from every observation and you wind up with a very close copy of the 2007 times.
I'm supposedly a visual person (according to my probation officer) so I know exactly what you're saying. That's how I know that it would present much better in that format than as sheer numbers alone.

[redskin_rich]

I still don't know that any conclusion can be drawn out of any of this. It is not smart to compare this year's draft class to last years or any others. All you can do is compare the athletes that were at the combine this year, to each other.

[danny's stogie]

It would still be a HUGE gamble, IMO. He could run his client anywhere in the world and have better control over the variables then he would at the combine, even if they made the surface out of superball.

It was a huge gamble and it's what sparked my interest in the topic. I thought that prospects weren't so much as allowed to speak out of turn, let alone borrow a pair of shoes and risk millions with a poor time. I do find the orchestrated stunt a distinct possibility, but something like that is hard to keep under wraps and he'd look like a fool if people found out he was planning this all along.

Then after that I started seeing players like Meachem, Hall, Thomas, Peterson, and Landry run times that were way faster than what I, and I think a lot of other people expected. And I know we're belittling the significance of .035, but that's enough to comfortable push a player that would have run a 4.42 into the 4.3s. We've seen dozens of players in the past several years boost their draft stock drastically by dropping into the magical 4.3s.

I still don't know that any conclusion can be drawn out of any of this. It is not smart to compare this year's draft class to last years or any others. All you can do is compare the athletes that were at the combine this year, to each other.

The only conclusion you or anyone can draw is that 2007's class was uniformly faster than 2006's. How it got that way is up for speculation. And the reason that DFA asked me to do a write up and elaborate on the points I made in the CJ thread is because people are trying to compare CJ to other top pick WRs from past seasons and elevate him above them. The real overriding theme is that, yes, he's a great talent, 4th fastest runner in 2007, but using his 4.35 time to put him on a pedestal above others from past draft classes may not be accurate.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

Any way you put it, I think DS has a very good point. Personally, I don't see why it's more probable that a WHOLE class of receivers ran uniformly faster than the previous year's one rather than just one element (or variable, or however you wanna call it) changing and thus changing the result for everybody.

[BurgundyNGold]

Any way you put it, I think DS has a very good point. Personally, I don't see why it's more probable that a WHOLE class of receivers ran uniformly faster than the previous year's one rather than just one element (or variable, or however you wanna call it) changing and thus changing the result for everybody.
True, but why? What's missing, and perhaps impossible to determine for sure, is proof as to why.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

True, but why? What's missing, and perhaps impossible to determine for sure, is proof as to why.
Faith,man....have faith..and one day everything will be clear...

[BurgundyNGold]

Faith,man....have faith..and one day everything will be clear...
But I want it now.

:cry:

[PHWbc]

Btw, thanks a ton for trying to help, I really appreciate it. I thought Hogs.net would have years earlier than 2006, but when I checked before I couldn't find them.

Yeah, not a problem.. I googled '2005 Combine'. The combine2 page came up, and from there I just guessed Combine and Combine3.

All of this stat stuff is interesting, seeing that in changing majors I'll be pretty close to a stats minor.. speaking of which, the University has a license for both MiniTab and SPSS.. so if you ever want to run some huge multiple regression analysis..

[akhhorus]

True, but why? What's missing, and perhaps impossible to determine for sure, is proof as to why.

Personally, I don't think the why is as important as the what. We can guess at the why till the cows come home, but its pretty clear that the combine track was faster than usual(certainly faster than last year) and we shouldn't be gaga over the 40 times. I know DS did WRs, but other positions had unusually fast 40 times also.

[dj_stouty]

The real overriding theme is that, yes, he's a great talent, 4th fastest runner in 2007, but using his 4.35 time to put him on a pedestal above others from past draft classes may not be accurate.

I'm curious...Exactly "who" is putting him on the pedestal?

The media? Well they have been enamored with him since the season started last season. Even if his time was .035 too fast, he still fell under your 4.4 criteria.

The scouts? Well, even if it is a fast track, they are more aware of it than you and I...and will take that into account. Case in point: When scouts go to pro days and deduct fraction of seconds from the times taken on faster tracks.

The Fans? If that is the case, then I can live with it. Fans have a history of putting a slew of guys on pedestals and putting blind faith into their opinions on them. Everyone is all-of-a-sudden an expert because they can watch the combines on the NFLE.

So which group is your data trying to debunk?

[fent]

So which group is your data trying to debunk?

the posters here who are all over his junk and proclaiming him the best receiver prospect in the last 10 years? and it's not just applied to CJ, but the class as a whole. there are borderline players that ran "amazing" times that jumped because of those times and now they need to at least be scrutinized a little closer.

[ChiefPowhatan17]

It could all come down to the conditions in the dome. The turf might have been a bit more pressed down, then last year. So if the turf is a year older and they had more usage on the field. That could create a slightly faster time too.

[dj_stouty]

the posters here who are all over his junk and proclaiming him the best receiver prospect in the last 10 years? and it's not just applied to CJ, but the class as a whole. there are borderline players that ran "amazing" times that jumped because of those times and now they need to at least be scrutinized a little closer.

I have no problem with that. I've noticed many posters here or other fans around the country who think they could be NFL scouts because they watch a few hours of the combine on the NFL Network. But to be honest, DS' arguments seem to be directed to something bigger than just HR members or fans.

I personally don't look at a 40 time and grade it on face value. I'd prefer to look at a particular WRs ranking versus other WRs...and even better, comparing his 40 time to other WRs of his build. Calvin Johnson is virtually the tallest and heaviest WR of the top tier WRs in this class, yet he still managed to notch the 4th fastest time. That has nothing to do with the track. That impresses me...but of course, we all know that 40 times don't automatically translate to great wide receivers.

[danny's stogie]

Yeah, not a problem.. I googled '2005 Combine'. The combine2 page came up, and from there I just guessed Combine and Combine3.

All of this stat stuff is interesting, seeing that in changing majors I'll be pretty close to a stats minor.. speaking of which, the University has a license for both MiniTab and SPSS.. so if you ever want to run some huge multiple regression analysis..

I use Stata pretty frequently, SPSS is good, but the future is R my friend. How far have you gone in stats? I could use a little help brainstorming another project for DFA; I'm having a tough time figuring out the correct model to use, but I don't think I'd trust OLS. I'm thinking about maybe using a partial adjustment model with GLS estimation.

[danny's stogie]

I have no problem with that. I've noticed many posters here or other fans around the country who think they could be NFL scouts because they watch a few hours of the combine on the NFL Network. But to be honest, DS' arguments seem to be directed to something bigger than just HR members or fans.

The thought that the NFL, now that the combine is televised and highly scrutinized, has incentive to create additional buzz about the combine is intriguing to me. Also, it wasn't directed towards just HR. If it were I would probably have tossed in a few inside jokes and made it Skins oriented.

I personally don't look at a 40 time and grade it on face value. I'd prefer to look at a particular WRs ranking versus other WRs...and even better, comparing his 40 time to other WRs of his build. Calvin Johnson is virtually the tallest and heaviest WR of the top tier WRs in this class, yet he still managed to notch the 4th fastest time. That has nothing to do with the track. That impresses me...but of course, we all know that 40 times don't automatically translate to great wide receivers.

Right, he's still best in class, 4th fastest receiver with the biggest body, but the problem is that I don't think he should be held in such high regard as to ignore the normal: drafting a WR in the top 10 is a real risk, more so a risk than most other positions. That 4.35 time was used to cement his status above a group of top 10 WRs like Rodgers, Andre, etc. and that CJ's 40 time was good enough to ignore the cautionary tale.

[danny's stogie]

True, but why? What's missing, and perhaps impossible to determine for sure, is proof as to why.

I have no right to try and draw a causal link when I have no structural evidence between faster times and a faster track or a juiced clock. My mistake, but I don't think I'm off base bringing up the most likely assumptions.

[dj_stouty]

Right, he's still best in class, 4th fastest receiver with the biggest body, but the problem is that I don't think he should be held in such high regard as to ignore the normal: drafting a WR in the top 10 is a real risk, more so a risk than most other positions. That 4.35 time was used to cement his status above a group of top 10 WRs like Rodgers, Andre, etc. and that CJ's 40 time was good enough to ignore the cautionary tale.

Well..Rogers and Andre both ran times around 4.41 and 4.43. So even if you add 0.035 to CJ's time (to 4.385) he can easily be seen as faster than both of them. You yourself said 0.035 was significant...so being more than 0.28 seconds should be astounding, correct? Not to mention that CJ has 3 inches on both of them...

[danny's stogie]

Well..Rogers and Andre both ran times around 4.41 and 4.43. So even if you add 0.035 to CJ's time (to 4.385) he can easily be seen as faster than both of them. You yourself said 0.035 was significant...so being more than 0.28 seconds should be astounding, correct? Not to mention that CJ has 3 inches on both of them...

I don't remember Andre's exact time, somewhere in the 4.3s, but no chance in heck CJ is faster than him. Andre was a UM track and field champion. He was running 60 and 100 meter dashes that weren't too far behind world record paces.

[PHWbc]

I use Stata pretty frequently, SPSS is good, but the future is R my friend. How far have you gone in stats? I could use a little help brainstorming another project for DFA; I'm having a tough time figuring out the correct model to use, but I don't think I'd trust OLS. I'm thinking about maybe using a partial adjustment model with GLS estimation.

Yeah, I've a fairly basic understanding (ANOVA, Chi-Square, p-values, R^2). Intro to Stat Methods (requirement for Psych), Quantative Data Analysis (requirement for Soc, that I'm no longer majoring), and Stats for Strategy in Business ('upper' level requirement for any BBA)

OLS and GLS (I could probably understand), however, have no formal training on, but man can I interpret a null/alternative hypothesis/confidence intervals for you.. :rolleyes:

[dj_stouty]

I don't remember Andre's exact time, somewhere in the 4.3s, but no chance in heck CJ is faster than him. Andre was a UM track and field champion. He was running 60 and 100 meter dashes that weren't too far behind world record paces.

Well I double checked and Andre Johnson never ran the 40 at the combine so I guess we can't really compare. His pro day at the U resulted in "mid 4.3's" (who knows that that really means)....but we all know how fast those pro day tracks are. But even if we adjust CJ's time (assuming the track was 0.035 fast) to increase to 3.385; it is phenominal for a guy of his size. I'd love to know if anyone his size and weight have come close to that. I did know that Matt Jones put up a 3.37 and 3.39 at the combines....so CJ is in freakish territory, even after adjusting his 40 time.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

Well I double checked and Andre Johnson never ran the 40 at the combine so I guess we can't really compare. His pro day at the U resulted in "mid 4.3's" (who knows that that really means)....but we all know how fast those pro day tracks are. But even if we adjust CJ's time (assuming the track was 0.035 fast) to increase to 3.385; it is phenominal for a guy of his size. I'd love to know if anyone his size and weight have come close to that. I did know that Matt Jones put up a 3.37 and 3.39 at the combines....so CJ is in freakish territory, even after adjusting his 40 time.
http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/6736/roadrunnertl8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[akhhorus]

Well I double checked and Andre Johnson never ran the 40 at the combine so I guess we can't really compare. His pro day at the U resulted in "mid 4.3's" (who knows that that really means)....but we all know how fast those pro day tracks are. But even if we adjust CJ's time (assuming the track was 0.035 fast) to increase to 3.385; it is phenominal for a guy of his size. I'd love to know if anyone his size and weight have come close to that. I did know that Matt Jones put up a 3.37 and 3.39 at the combines....so CJ is in freakish territory, even after adjusting his 40 time.

No players run under 4.00 btw.

Johnson, according to NFL.com (http://www.nfl.com/draft/profiles/johnson_andre), ran a 4.3 flat at 230 lbs. Matt Jones did run those 4.3ishs at the combine and is a freak, but he plays MUCH slower in the NFL(4.45-4.5ish). Johnson's numbers at the combine were good, even assuming it wasn't a fast track(which I don't concede), but nothing freakish-even accounting for his size.

[dj_stouty]

No players run under 4.00 btw.

Johnson, according to NFL.com (http://www.nfl.com/draft/profiles/johnson_andre), ran a 4.3 flat at 230 lbs. Matt Jones did run those 4.3ishs at the combine and is a freak, but he plays MUCH slower in the NFL(4.45-4.5ish). Johnson's numbers at the combine were good, even assuming it wasn't a fast track(which I don't concede), but nothing freakish-even accounting for his size.

Sorry. My error. I meant to put 4.37 and 4.39 for Jones. My eyes are shot looking up these stupid 40 times. ;)

As far as NFL.Com goes, I would feel more comfortable with that number had they added a zero after it. (4.30) From everything I read about the U Pro Day...he timed at "mid 4.3".

I personally believe being 6'5" and 239 lbs and running a 4.35 is pretty freakish.

[danny's stogie]

Well I double checked and Andre Johnson never ran the 40 at the combine so I guess we can't really compare. His pro day at the U resulted in "mid 4.3's" (who knows that that really means)....but we all know how fast those pro day tracks are. But even if we adjust CJ's time (assuming the track was 0.035 fast) to increase to 3.385; it is phenominal for a guy of his size. I'd love to know if anyone his size and weight have come close to that. I did know that Matt Jones put up a 3.37 and 3.39 at the combines....so CJ is in freakish territory, even after adjusting his 40 time.

It is very good speed, but is it far enough away from the pack for us to say he bears no comparison to other top draft pick WRs, a group that hasn't performed up to its hype? That's subjective, but I hope that at the very least I've instilled some caution when judging him.

And for the record, in response to your previous post, when it comes to football ability .035 probably doesn't mean too much especially considering that 40 times alone aren't a very good indicator of NFL success for a WR. But, that difference is very large when it comes to fan perception of a prospect.

Yeah, I've a fairly basic understanding (ANOVA, Chi-Square, p-values, R^2). Intro to Stat Methods (requirement for Psych), Quantative Data Analysis (requirement for Soc, that I'm no longer majoring), and Stats for Strategy in Business ('upper' level requirement for any BBA)

OLS and GLS (I could probably understand), however, have no formal training on, but man can I interpret a null/alternative hypothesis/confidence intervals for you..

Ok, well I'll keep you posted. I think that their project is going to have autoregressive error and it's going to destroy any useful prediction from OLS.

[SpicyMcHaggis]

It is very good speed, but is it far enough away from the pack for us to say he bears no comparison to other top draft pick WRs, a group that hasn't performed up to its hype? That's subjective, but I hope that at the very least I've instilled some caution when judging him.

This is the key point. So far it been pretty much proved that drafting a WR extremely high is a huge risk that is more often than not rewarded with a bust, and even the times the WR ends up being a Pro-Bowler, it still has no correlation to team success (see Johnson,Roy Williams, Fitzgerald among others). So in order to determine that CJ is worth taking in the top 5 (for example..I wouldn't even take him top 10), he has to prove that he is SO much better than anybody to come out in the past 10 years to be able to not only be a Pro-Bowl caliber palyer, but also a guy that can win games by himself. How exactly has he proved this so far? All I see is a fast 40 time, a great body, and production that is FAR too dependant on his QB's play.

[akhhorus]

Sorry. My error. I meant to put 4.37 and 4.39 for Jones. My eyes are shot looking up these stupid 40 times. ;)

As far as NFL.Com goes, I would feel more comfortable with that number had they added a zero after it. (4.30) From everything I read about the U Pro Day...he timed at "mid 4.3".

Unless there's another digit after it, the 4.3 assumes 4.30.

I personally believe being 6'5" and 239 lbs and running a 4.35 is pretty freakish.

And thats where the questions about the track speed come in. 4.35 is borderline freaky, 4.39-4.41 isn't. Matt Jones was 6-6 242 and ran a 4.37. Thats a freak, and he's been a so-so NFL player. He should be a cautionary tale about WRs with "freakish" ability.

[dj_stouty]

It is very good speed, but is it far enough away from the pack for us to say he bears no comparison to other top draft pick WRs, a group that hasn't performed up to its hype? That's subjective, but I hope that at the very least I've instilled some caution when judging him.


Caution noted. But as I mentioned, I personally don't put too much stock into 40 times; although I do take note when a big/tall guy outperforms smaller guys in the same draft class.

I think past WRs drafted in the top 10 picks have been just as much of a hit-or-miss than any other position. For every Rogers or Mike Williams...there is a Roy Williams or Larry Fitzgerald who do live up to the hype. CJ seems to have similar to better 40 times than any of them, yet I guess we can only find out how that stacks up once he hits the field.

So anyway, I'm pretty much done on this subject. I think a 6'5" guy with almost 240 lbs on his frame running under 4.4 is pretty damn good. I also don't think there isn't any conspiracy to create a fast track at the combine and I am puzzled why the NFL would want to do it in the first place. I dont' see what they can gain from this, other than every single scout recognizing that speeds are slightly 1% faster over the previous year. Was the cone drill done on a similarly fast track? Was the surface for the vertical jump spongier than in year's past? Now THAT would make for a good story...!

Anyway...NASCAR practice at the Las Vegas track starts in 15 minutes, so I'm going to really see 0.035 seconds make a difference in something. ;)

[danny's stogie]

Caution noted. But as I mentioned, I personally don't put too much stock into 40 times; although I do take note when a big/tall guy outperforms smaller guys in the same draft class.

I think past WRs drafted in the top 10 picks have been just as much of a hit-or-miss than any other position. For every Rogers or Mike Williams...there is a Roy Williams or Larry Fitzgerald who do live up to the hype. CJ seems to have similar to better 40 times than any of them, yet I guess we can only find out how that stacks up once he hits the field.

So anyway, I'm pretty much done on this subject. I think a 6'5" guy with almost 240 lbs on his frame running under 4.4 is pretty damn good. I also don't think there isn't any conspiracy to create a fast track at the combine and I am puzzled why the NFL would want to do it in the first place. I dont' see what they can gain from this, other than every single scout recognizing that speeds are slightly 1% faster over the previous year. Was the cone drill done on a similarly fast track? Was the surface for the vertical jump spongier than in year's past? Now THAT would make for a good story...!

Anyway...NASCAR practice at the Las Vegas track starts in 15 minutes, so I'm going to really see 0.035 seconds make a difference in something. ;)

It's a very small % in nominal terms, but depending on the realistic parameters that you'd expect a WR prospect to run between -- 4.3-4.7, 4.35-4.6, whatever -- it's anywhere between a 10-20 % change in times.

[danny's stogie]

OK, BNG, here you go, the normal distribution. Your basic bell curve. The area underneath each point on the curve is representative of the frequency of each observation and is equal in total to one (one being representative of one full sample). The rare times like the low 4.3s are in the right hand tail, the low, 4.7 times are in the left hand tail. The mass of observations center around the mean, all the 4.4s, 4.5s. The variance determines the steepness of the distribution.

The first picture is what I would have expected if it were simply a bunch of fast runners causing the 2007 average to rise. The distribution would go from 2006, to the way it looks in 2007, flatter and skewed towards the fast times. Conversely, it could also have been that it was simply a group of slower receivers in 2006 pushing the mean to the left (I'll let you visualize this on your own, it's essentially the opposite of this picture).

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/24/expecteddistributionwj2.th.png (http://img223.imageshack.us/my.php?image=expecteddistributionwj2.png)


However, because of equal variance across the two samples, what we actually end up seeing in the data is a complete jump of the distribution from the 2006 mean to 2007 mean, not a skewing or flatenning as would be casued by a group of fast or slow runners influencing the average.

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/4047/actualdistributional7.th.png (http://img213.imageshack.us/my.php?image=actualdistributional7.png)

I don't think I'm that great of a teacher, so if I didn't do a good job explaining how this works, feel free to ask. Also, this is all representative; I can't find a way to get excel to graph their distribution.

[BurgundyNGold]

OK, BNG, here you go, the normal distribution. Your basic bell curve. The area underneath each point on the curve is representative of the frequency of each observation and is equal in total to one (one being representative of one full sample). The rare times like the low 4.3s are in the right hand tail, the low, 4.7 times are in the left hand tail. The mass of observations center around the mean, all the 4.4s, 4.5s. The variance determines the steepness of the distribution.

The first picture is what I would have expected if it were simply a bunch of fast runners causing the 2007 average to rise. The distribution would go from 2006, to the way it looks in 2007, flatter and skewed towards the fast times. Conversely, it could also have been that it was simply a group of slower receivers in 2006 pushing the mean to the left (I'll let you visualize this on your own, it's essentially the opposite of this picture).

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/24/expecteddistributionwj2.th.png (http://img223.imageshack.us/my.php?image=expecteddistributionwj2.png)


However, because of equal variance across the two samples, what we actually end up seeing in the data is a complete jump of the distribution from the 2006 mean to 2007 mean, not a skewing or flatenning as would be casued by a group of fast or slow runners influencing the average.

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/4047/actualdistributional7.th.png (http://img213.imageshack.us/my.php?image=actualdistributional7.png)

I don't think I'm that great of a teacher, so if I didn't do a good job explaining how this works, feel free to ask. Also, this is all representative; I can't find a way to get excel to graph their distribution.
I understand what you're saying but I'm glad you explained this for some of the other folks up here. And you did a pretty good job. I still think that when showing distribution a scatter or bubble-scatter might better illustrate the grouping and dispersal.

[danny's stogie]

I understand what you're saying but I'm glad you explained this for some of the other folks up here. And you did a pretty good job. I still think that when showing distribution a scatter or bubble-scatter might better illustrate the grouping and dispersal.

Do you have a program that can graph the distribution using my data?

[BurgundyNGold]

Do you have a program that can graph the distribution using my data?
Probably, at the office. If I can take your data series and load them into a DataSet object, I can bind them to a scatter chart. Your stuff is in Excel, no? That would be sweet.

[danny's stogie]

Probably, at the office. If I can take your data series and load them into a DataSet object, I can bind them to a scatter chart. Your stuff is in Excel, no? That would be sweet.

It's in your box.

[redskin_rich]

You guys with your stats and charts, lol. They don't prove a thing until after the fact and even then only selectively. There could be a lot of factors that make a player a bust and a generous 40 time won't likely be one of them.
Didn't Jerome Mathis run a 4.26, two years ago on a supposedly slower track?
What did Anquan Boldin run a few years back, like a 4.8? (Which is what I ran in high school on a track that I am sure was uphill)
Bottom line is I don't think these faster times changed a whole lot, as far as where players will be drafted. If they did, then there are a lot of scouts that shouldn't have jobs.

[BurgundyNGold]

You guys with your stats and charts, lol. They don't prove a thing until after the fact and even then only selectively. There could be a lot of factors that make a player a bust and a generous 40 time won't likely be one of them.
Didn't Jerome Mathis run a 4.26, two years ago on a supposedly slower track?
What did Anquan Boldin run a few years back, like a 4.8? (Which is what I ran in high school on a track that I am sure was uphill)
Bottom line is I don't think these faster times changed a whole lot, as far as where players will be drafted. If they did, then there are a lot of scouts that shouldn't have jobs.
I am not defending the premise. I'll leave that to DS, Alkh and Fent. I'm just trying to help it be presented. ;)

[BurgundyNGold]

Here is a year on year scatter comparison. I used the 40 times for 2006 and 2007 for the two Y axes and a shared comparative (height) as the X axis. The cool thing about this that you can see folks 40 times spread out versus the height of the guy who ran the time.

http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/3346/yearonyearchartor3.th.png (http://img61.imageshack.us/my.php?image=yearonyearchartor3.png)

DS, I made changes to your spreadsheet. I will bounce a copy back to you.

[redskin_rich]

I am not defending the premise. I'll leave that to DS, Alkh and Fent. I'm just trying to help it be presented. ;)
I'm not attacking their premise either, unless they are stating that these measurements are some kind of foolproof guide to evaluating talent. I don't think that is their intent at all but by trying to debunk the 40 times this year, they are giving that measurable more credence than it deserves.
Players do need to fall in the expected speed thresholds of the position they play but once they do, there are more important tangibles than being the fastest. Every year there is a player that shoots up the charts after their combine results and it seems that they are always a bust. Meanwhile, players that showed their abilities on the field but have a poor combine, fall down the draft and end up being studs.

[dj_stouty]

http://www.zonagardens.com/images/weekends/hummingbird.jpg

[akhhorus]

I'm not attacking their premise either, unless they are stating that these measurements are some kind of foolproof guide to evaluating talent. I don't think that is their intent at all but by trying to debunk the 40 times this year, they are giving that measurable more credence than it deserves.
Players do need to fall in the expected speed thresholds of the position they play but once they do, there are more important tangibles than being the fastest. Every year there is a player that shoots up the charts after their combine results and it seems that they are always a bust. Meanwhile, players that showed their abilities on the field but have a poor combine, fall down the draft and end up being studs.

No one is making any point that 40 times are a foolproof guide of success in the NFL. One of the points of this article is to serve to warn that not only should you be careful about falling in love with measurables, but to further state that the numbers themselves are extremely unreliable(one of the reasons I brought up Matt Jones: he ran an jaw dropping 40 time, yet plays much much slower on the field) and subject to outside influence, even at an official event like the combine. Its easy enough to sit here and go through 40 times and find a ton of losers who ran great 40 times, but having DS do a statistical analysis of the times is more interesting and keeping in the spirit of the kind of content we want to bring you from DFA.

[BurgundyNGold]

http://www.zonagardens.com/images/weekends/hummingbird.jpg
:lol1:

[danny's stogie]

http://www.zonagardens.com/images/weekends/hummingbird.jpg

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, dj. No one is saying that .035 is going to make or break a prospect, but it is a big difference in terms of how a lot of fans and draft-nicks judge and rate prospects. I think you're missing my point that using 40 times as a definitive benchmark to rate prospects is a flawed way of going about judging prospects.

[danny's stogie]

Here is a year on year scatter comparison. I used the 40 times for 2006 and 2007 for the two Y axes and a shared comparative (height) as the X axis. The cool thing about this that you can see folks 40 times spread out versus the height of the guy who ran the time.

http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/3346/yearonyearchartor3.th.png (http://img61.imageshack.us/my.php?image=yearonyearchartor3.png)

DS, I made changes to your spreadsheet. I will bounce a copy back to you.

Interesting. You'd expect to see a negative partial effect of height on time, but there really isn't any strong correlation. Sucks to be a prospect that's 5-11 and only runs a 4.6.

[Poindexter]

Paul Brown came up with the 40 inorder to see how fast someone can cover on kickoff coverage. The short shuttle is a great drill to use as assessment. It test foot quickness, change of direction and explosiveness. However, I think if someone runs in the 4.2s then they are the real deal. Bailey ran 4.28 and that speed really transfers to the field

[dj_stouty]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, dj. No one is saying that .035 is going to make or break a prospect, but it is a big difference in terms of how a lot of fans and draft-nicks judge and rate prospects. I think you're missing my point that using 40 times as a definitive benchmark to rate prospects is a flawed way of going about judging prospects.

I've been agreeing with you on the bolded portion for 6 pages of this thread now. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole point of your article that the speeds were fast...the track was fast...and that there was a possible conspiracy with the NFL to have fast times? That CJ was aware of this "fast track" and that is why he jumped at the chance to run?

I dont think an average increase of 0.035 seconds is considered a fast track. A 10th of a second? Sure, as that will probably be the increase during the Pro Day times. But that has been the case for years, and scouts automatically subtract the difference anyway.

[danny's stogie]

Paul Brown came up with the 40 inorder to see how fast someone can cover on kickoff coverage. The short shuttle is a great drill to use as assessment. It test foot quickness, change of direction and explosiveness. However, I think if someone runs in the 4.2s then they are the real deal. Bailey ran 4.28 and that speed really transfers to the field

I agree. I don't understand why more people don't use the short shuttle as a stronger measurement of prospects. Might not be sexy enough, but timing a player from point A to B to C is much more NFL relevant than measuring them from A to B.

[dj_stouty]

I agree. I don't understand why more people don't use the short shuttle as a stronger measurement of prospects. Might not be sexy enough, but timing a player from point A to B to C is much more NFL relevant than measuring them from A to B.

Or even better...time them doing an out route with cones leading their path. I'd rather see a guy who can cut direction fast than a guy who can run in a straight line fast.

[danny's stogie]

I've been agreeing with you on the bolded portion for 6 pages of this thread now. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole point of your article that the speeds were fast...the track was fast...and that there was a possible conspiracy with the NFL to have fast times? That CJ was aware of this "fast track" and that is why he jumped at the chance to run?

If you agree with it then I'm the one who doesn't understand what type of point your trying to make with the hummingbird pic.

I never said the bolded portion in the article, only in the thread when I thought about possible reasons for the times being faster. It's too wild of speculation to put on the record, but I still can see why the NFL would have incentive to get the fans excited about players that just ran fast times.


I dont think an average increase of 0.035 seconds is considered a fast track. A 10th of a second? Sure, as that will probably be the increase during the Pro Day times. But that has been the case for years, and scouts automatically subtract the difference anyway.

But the draft-nicks and the message board fans that fawn over receivers every year don't subtract anything. 4.35 is 4.35 in their minds just as a 4.39 is 4.39. I'm trying to instill doubt in the veracity of combine results, something that year after year is used to deify workout warrior prospects.

[akhhorus]

But the draft-nicks and the message board fans that fawn over receivers every year don't subtract anything. 4.35 is 4.35 in their minds just as a 4.39 is 4.39. I'm trying to instill doubt in the veracity of combine results, something that year after year is used to deify workout warrior prospects.


Not just WRs, but every position. WRs are juts easier to see as the example since there is such obsession over the times.

[dj_stouty]

If you agree with it then I'm the one who doesn't understand what type of point your trying to make with the hummingbird pic.

The pic of the hummingbird was posted as a reminder of exactly how quick 0.035 seconds is. I don't see much need for charts and graphs on comparing two different draft classes that differ by the speed of a hummingbird's wing speed.

[danny's stogie]

I don't want to hijack threads.

They could use you on the global warming panels. I hear the Baltimore Oriole will be extinct by August if we keep up the current warming trend, lol. I bring global warming up because, in my experience the easiest way to have your argument marginalized is to overstate your position. That's what they have done for years with global warming and, to an extent, that's what you're doing here.

I don't overstate anything. I give the numbers and suggest what I consider to be the most likely conclusions. You don't have to agree with my conclusions and that's fine, it's your prerogative, but the way the distribution falls between the two classes is what it is.


With a sampling with lower and upper bounds of 4.3-4.7 the difference is 8.75%, which is not betweenthe 10-15% you have been advertising. Secondly, you should tell people that the 8.75% figure is not a straight percentage, but rather one that is derived by the effective bounds.

Your calculator is busted. .4, the difference between 4.3 and 4.7 (the realistic range in which a WR would run) divided by .035 is 11.4. I would go so far as to restrict the sample further because players running below a 4.35 and above a 4.65 are statistical outliers.

As for bounding the sample, why would I do otherwise? The human body can't run a 1 second 40 time so why would I compare these times to that? If I were to compare average temperatures in San Diego vs. Montana I could do it in Kelvin or fahrenheit. If I did it in Kelvin it wouldn't look like much of a difference because zero is absolute zero, but I would never realistically expect a temperature of absolute zero. If I measured them in fahrenheit it better represents the difference between the two climates.

As others have said before, 8.75% isn't that much of a difference, esecially when calculating it the way that you have chosen to. Proclaiming that the track was so much fastrer when a host of variables could contribute to faster or slower speeds with only two years of data (maybe the track was just slow in 2006?) doesn't really hold up. And stating that you don't have the numbers to include 40 time data from 2003-2005 to provide some depth to your argument seems disingenuous when a poster in another thread gave you links to them that included 2004 and 2005 numbers from the same site that you pulled some of the 2006/2007 numbers from.

Regardless of what variables caused them to run faster the basic premise that shouldn't compare times across different years, only against the others that ran on the same track, stands. Also, you're blatantly ignoring that I did include his numbers later in the thread even though we both knew that some of the times listed were wrong. The average of the 2005 class was much closer to the 2006 class than to the 2007 class. And Like I said before, if I had a good, reliable list of past numbers going back to whenever I would have included them, but you can't analyze numbers that you don't have, that you can't get, and in the case of the 2005 numbers, that you know are inaccurate.

While I like the project, I don't see how anyone can realistically be expected to just blindly accept your findings with such a dearth of data points and such a selectively presented argument.

What's selective about my argument?

[BurgundyNGold]

I don't want to hijack threads.
Good idea to move this over here.

I don't overstate anything. I give the numbers and suggest what I consider to be the most likely conclusions. You don't have to agree with my conclusions and that's fine, it's your prerogative, but the way the distribution falls between the two classes is what it is.
I don't think two years is enough data to draw a conclusion. You need at least 5 years to gain any real trend data.

Your calculator is busted. .4, the difference between 4.3 and 4.7 (the realistic range in which a WR would run) divided by .035 is 11.4. I would go so far as to restrict the sample further because players running below a 4.35 and above a 4.65 are statistical outliers.
You did your math wrong, lol.

According to Excel, if you divide the average difference in times (0.035 second) by the difference between relevant bounds (0.4 second) and multiply to get a percentage (100) you get 8.75%.

For the folks following along at home, that's...

(0.035/0.40)*100 = 8.75

If you don't like the outcome, take it up with Bill Gates.

As for bounding the sample, why would I do otherwise? The human body can't run a 1 second 40 time so why would I compare these times to that? If I were to compare average temperatures in San Diego vs. Montana I could do it in Kelvin or fahrenheit. If I did it in Kelvin it wouldn't look like much of a difference because zero is absolute zero, but I would never realistically expect a temperature of absolute zero. If I measured them in fahrenheit it better represents the difference between the two climates.
I don't question what you did by selecting relevant bounds, but you have to understand that when the average person hears "10-15% difference" they think 10-15% of 4.4 or 4.7 -- and they are correct to do so. If you don't tell them that you're only running your percentages against an acceptable range, you're leaving out part of the story which is the same as misleading them. That's why I think that you (and the global warming crowd for that matter) would do better to just be up front to begin with as to how you came up with your percentages.

Regardless of what variables caused them to run faster the basic premise that shouldn't compare times across different years, only against the others that ran on the same track, stands. Also, you're blatantly ignoring that I did include his numbers later in the thread even though we both knew that some of the times listed were wrong. The average of the 2005 class was much closer to the 2006 class than to the 2007 class. And Like I said before, if I had a good, reliable list of past numbers going back to whenever I would have included them, but you can't analyze numbers that you don't have, that you can't get, and in the case of the 2005 numbers, that you know are inaccurate.
I have not seen your new numbers but I am interested to do so. I still don't think that 3 samplings is enough to draw a solid conclusion but by adding that third data point, I have to think it would be better.
You make it sound like you can't find these numbers. Didn't the poster give you 2004, as well? Why didn't you add those? And what's the definition of "reliable" numbers?

So, was the 2005 class faster or slower that the 2006 class? What's the average difference between the 2005 times and the 2007 times? Is it more or less than 0.035 second?

What's selective about my argument?
You attempted to represent two data points as a trend and were not as forthcoming as you should have been in presenting the fact that your 10-15% numbers (which are apparently wrong) were taken against relevant upper and lower bounds.

[danny's stogie]

Good idea to move this over here.


I don't think two years is enough data to draw a conclusion. You need at least 5 years to gain any real trend data.

That's a valid critique and I would be glad to include more data if I had it. I do reach the same conclusion from the imperfect 05 data that I have and the 06, 07 DB comparison. But they're both flawed data samples so I'm not going to cite them into evidence.

You did your math wrong, lol.

According to Excel, if you divide the average difference in times (0.035 second) by the difference between relevant bounds (0.4 second) and multiply to get a percentage (100) you get 8.75%.

For the folks following along at home, that's...

(0.035/0.40)*100 = 8.75

If you don't like the outcome, take it up with Bill Gates.

You're trying to calculate a percentage change which would actually be (X-4.493)/X, but you don't have a preexisting difference (X) between 05 and 06 to compare that to. All you can do with this data is compare the difference between the two classes and how that relates to the possible range of which .035 is roughly 10-15% of the realistic range that a WR could run.


I don't question what you did by selecting relevant bounds, but you have to understand that when the average person hears "10-15% difference" they think 10-15% of 4.4 or 4.7 -- and they are correct to do so. If you don't tell them that you're only running your percentages against an acceptable range, you're leaving out part of the story which is the same as misleading them. That's why I think that you (and the global warming crowd for that matter) would do better to just be up front to begin with as to how you came up with your percentages.

Take up your complaints with Al Gore or in the political forum. I don't reference a 10-15% change in the article, only this thread, and I was upfront about restricting the range to a realistic range for a 40 time.


You make it sound like you can't find these numbers. Didn't the poster give you 2004, as well? Why didn't you add those? And what's the definition of "reliable" numbers?

So, was the 2005 class faster or slower that the 2006 class? What's the average difference between the 2005 times and the 2007 times? Is it more or less than 0.035 second?

I couldn't find the 05 numbers before, I searched the Hog.net also, but I still couldn't find them. He did find them, I averaged them. The results are several pages ago.


You attempted to represent two data points as a trend and were not as forthcoming as you should have been in presenting the fact that your 10-15% numbers (which are apparently wrong) were taken against relevant upper and lower bounds.

I did reference the bounds in the thread and I never cited these numbers in the article.

[BurgundyNGold]

You're trying to calculate a percentage change which would actually be (X-4.493)/X, but you don't have a preexisting difference (X) between 05 and 06 to compare that to. All you can do with this data is compare the difference between the two classes and how that relates to the possible range of which .035 is roughly 10-15% of the realistic range that a WR could run.
What are you, some kind of savant or something? You can spout off about linear regression but you can't bring it strong with the 6th grade math?

Tommy, Joe and Nick want to buy a football that costs $30. Tommy gives $12, Joe adds $7 and Nick kicks in the final $11 to buy the football. What percentage of the total cost of the football did Nick contribute?

$11 (Nick's contribution) / $30 (total cost of the football) * 100 (percentage multiplier) = 36.67%

You calculated your math wrong. Now you're adjusting the very variables you misplaced in your calculations to try and dig yourself out? Stop tap dancing and admit that your 10-15% number is incorrect so we can move on to getting more data for you.

Take up your complaints with Al Gore or in the political forum. I don't reference a 10-15% change in the article, only this thread, and I was upfront about restricting the range to a realistic range for a 40 time.
You still referenced it. I suppose that since you didn't say it in the article that you *didn't* say it in the thread to bolster your argument? And it doesn't help that the 10-15% figure it still wrong.

I couldn't find the 05 numbers before, I searched the Hog.net also, but I still couldn't find them. He did find them, I averaged them. The results are several pages ago.
I'll look them over and get back to you on this thread.

I did reference the bounds in the thread and I never cited these numbers in the article.
As I recall, you didn't introduce the bounds until people started questioning your 10-15% numbers, but I could be wrong. In any case, you should still refer to the 8.75% factor with two caveats whenever you mention. First, that figure is corrected to only account for relevant range, Secondly, it compares only two years of data. Without those two rather considerable facts, people are being misled.

[RedskinRyan]

all these math calculations is making my head hurt

[BurgundyNGold]

I couldn't find the 05 numbers before, I searched the Hog.net also, but I still couldn't find them. He did find them, I averaged them. The results are several pages ago.
I couldn't find where you updated your numbers to include anything from 2005. I say one of your posts (http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showpost.php?p=925937&postcount=46) where you mentioned the mean from 2005 (4.512 seconds) but in it you said you would get back with the statistical analysis. I couldn't find it, so I'm guessing that we're only dealing with two sets of data points for 2006 and 2007?

[danny's stogie]

I couldn't find where you updated your numbers to include anything from 2005. I say one of your posts where you mentioned the mean from 2005 (4.512 seconds) but in it you said you would get back with the statistical analysis. I couldn't find it, so I'm guessing that we're only dealing with two sets of data points for 2006 and 2007?

Re-read the posts around that one...those times are inaccurate.

What are you, some kind of savant or something? You can spout off about linear regression but you can't bring it strong with the 6th grade math?

$11 (Nick's contribution) / $30 (total cost of the football) * 100 (percentage multiplier) = 36.67%

You calculated your math wrong. Now you're adjusting the very variables you misplaced in your calculations to try and dig yourself out? Stop tap dancing and admit that your 10-15% number is incorrect so we can move on to getting more data for you.

My bad, I was originally doing the math in my head when I was thinking about the difference between the more typical times of 4.35-4.65 in which .035 is roughly 1/9th of the difference, after that I wasn't really paying attention because I had already referred to this stuff when the article was originally discussed.

You still referenced it. I suppose that since you didn't say it in the article that you *didn't* say it in the thread to bolster your argument? And it doesn't help that the 10-15% figure it still wrong.

I'll look them over and get back to you on this thread.


As I recall, you didn't introduce the bounds until people started questioning your 10-15% numbers, but I could be wrong. In any case, you should still refer to the 8.75% factor with two caveats whenever you mention. First, that figure is corrected to only account for relevant range, Secondly, it compares only two years of data. Without those two rather considerable facts, people are being misled.

I originally discussed the bounds when dj commented on how large .035 really is. http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showpost.php?p=925567&postcount=34. I never mention it in the article because I thought it was blatantly obvious that .035 is rather large when evaluating it in the context of a typical WRs' times. I never expected anyone to evaluate the difference in times relative to anything but a reasonable range of times. Taking the difference out of context and measuring it against something like how fast a bird flies is ridiculous, frankly. A person could live 120 years and we'd consider that a long time, but then I could compare it to the age of the universe and it's equivalent to a second. But why would I take a person's age measurement out of context like that and measure it against anything against typical lifespan?

If you find that unacceptable and still think I was trying to mislead about evaluating within a set of reasonable bounds, this quote from the article implies that seemingly small time differences when evaluated within reasonable parameters can be extremely significant, "...and literally millions of dollars can be decided by just a few fractions of a second in the 40-yard dash".

[BurgundyNGold]

My bad, I was originally doing the math in my head when I was thinking about the difference between the more typical times of 4.35-4.65 in which .035 is roughly 1/9th of the difference, after that I wasn't really paying attention because I had already referred to this stuff when the article was originally discussed.
You took a big step today. I think you're going to be al-right. :D

I originally discussed the bounds when dj commented on how large .035 really is. http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showpost.php?p=925567&postcount=34. I never mention it in the article because I thought it was blatantly obvious that .035 is rather large when evaluating it in the context of a typical WRs' times. I never expected anyone to evaluate the difference in times relative to anything but a reasonable range of times. Taking the difference out of context and measuring it against something like how fast a bird flies is ridiculous, frankly. A person could live 120 years and we'd consider that a long time, but then I could compare it to the age of the universe and it's equivalent to a second. But why would I take a person's age measurement out of context like that and measure it against anything against typical lifespan?

If you find that unacceptable and still think I was trying to mislead about evaluating within a set of reasonable bounds, this quote from the article implies that seemingly small time differences when evaluated within reasonable parameters can be extremely significant, "...and literally millions of dollars can be decided by just a few fractions of a second in the 40-yard dash".
Again, I'm not debating your premise, only how it was presented. For what they're worth, consider my comments as constructive criticism that you can take or leave for your next article.

[danny's stogie]

You took a big step today. I think you're going to be al-right. :D



I'm sure there's a comma or two in the article that needs fixing as well.

[BurgundyNGold]

I'm sure there's a comma or two in the article that needs fixing as well.
There's no need to be sarcastic. I've had plenty of chance to be a real prick here and I haven't been. Then I backed out as graciously as I could out of respect for you admitting that you were wrong for once. Take note of that and try not to be a jerk.

[danny's stogie]

There's no need to be sarcastic. I've had plenty of chance to be a real prick here and I haven't been. Then I backed out as graciously as I could out of respect for you admitting that you were wrong for once. Take note of that and try not to be a jerk.

"You took a big step today. I think you're going to be al-right. "

That's a pretty smart alecky comment.

[BurgundyNGold]

"You took a big step today. I think you're going to be al-right. "

That's a pretty smart alecky comment.
Yeah, it was. I probably shouldn't have said it, but I was trying to make a light comment about the fact that (mixed in a parapgraph with about 3 reasons why you made the mistake) you admitted you were wrong about something. And as far as I know, that's the first time you admitted to being wrong about anything, ever to anybody up here. That IS a big step. It's beyond arrogant to think that you'll never be wrong about anything. Being able to admit it amongst friends should be a non-issue.

[akhhorus]

Brie cheese to wardrobe, Brie cheese to wardrobe.

[BurgundyNGold]

Brie cheese to wardrobe, Brie cheese to wardrobe.
You should read the tone of the posts. They're nothing if not concillatory. Mine are, at least.

[danny's stogie]

Yeah, it was. I probably shouldn't have said it, but I was trying to make a light comment about the fact that (mixed in a parapgraph with about 3 reasons why you made the mistake) you admitted you were wrong about something. And as far as I know, that's the first time you admitted to being wrong about anything, ever to anybody up here. That IS a big step. It's beyond arrogant to think that you'll never be wrong about anything. Being able to admit it amongst friends should be a non-issue.

Since you've been following my every move I'm surprised you missed this one just from today.

http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=40306

[BIGSEF3]

all these math calculations is making my head hurt

my sentiments exactly. kudos to both of you for applying your grey matter to this. all i know is CJ is one fast son of a gun.

[BurgundyNGold]

Since you've been following my every move I'm surprised you missed this one just from today.

http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=40306
I'm not familiar with any thread or debate about the Michigan thing, but I'll take your word for it.

And I don't follow your every move any more than I follow those of Spicy, Keino, Spence or anyone else. However, I do read your posts just like I do theirs. It's common knowledge that you don't admit you're wrong even when you are. If the post in here today and the link in the other thread are the beginnings of a new philosophy, I'm guessing that there will be less occasion for conflict on some of the more heated debates. I, for one, welcome that.

[danny's stogie]

my sentiments exactly. kudos to both of you for applying your grey matter to this. all i know is CJ is one fast son of a gun.

Thanks Sef, it wasn't much work really, especially because the data that was available was easily obtained. Yeah, CJ is fast, 4th fastest in the 07 class amongst those that ran at the combine.

[BurgundyNGold]

Thanks Sef, it wasn't much work really, especially because the data that was available was easily obtained. Yeah, CJ is fast, 4th fastest in the 07 class amongst those that ran at the combine.
What is hot is when you look at that scatter diagram and see that one lonely blue dot that slips right and down out of the main sequence. That's CJ.

Then again, Troy Williamson ran a 4.32 if I'm not mistaken. ;)

[danny's stogie]

I'm not familiar with any thread or debate about the Michigan thing, but I'll take your word for it.

And I don't follow your every move any more than I follow those of Spicy, Keino, Spence or anyone else. However, I do read your posts just like I do theirs. It's common knowledge that you don't admit you're wrong even when you are. If the post in here today and the link in the other thread are the beginnings of a new philosophy, I'm guessing that there will be less occasion for conflict on some of the more heated debates. I, for one, welcome that.

The long standing debate between akh about Michigan WRs and if there was actually anything systemic causing them to suck in the NFL or if it was merely chance.

Why is it "common knowledge", BNG? Because I disagreed with you about something? There have been dozens of times when I've admitted I was wrong about something, but I'm not going to stand down and say I was wrong just to assuage someone when my opinions are based on sound reasoning and backed up with evidence. I'm more apt to walk away and not look back when an impasse is reached because continuing is pointless, something that I think you could stand to do yourself.

[BurgundyNGold]

The long standing debate between akh about Michigan WRs and if there was actually anything systemic causing them to suck in the NFL or if it was merely chance.
Thanks. Out of curiosity, do you think that this changes your odds to win "the Braylon bet"?

Why is it "common knowledge", BNG? Because I disagreed with you about something? There have been dozens of times when I've admitted I was wrong about something, but I'm not going to stand down and say I was wrong just to assuage someone when my opinions are based on sound reasoning and backed up with evidence. I'm more apt to walk away and not look back when an impasse is reached because continuing is pointless, something that I think you could stand to do yourself.
I'm not talking about our disagreements. I'm quite comfortable with where I left that thread, which is still open and waiting for you to deliver.

And rather than escalating this about the "common knowledge" thing, check your PMs.

[danny's stogie]

Thanks. Out of curiosity, do you think that this changes your odds to win "the Braylon bet"?

I wouldn't want to tip my hand about the Braylon bet, lol.

I'm not talking about our disagreements. I'm quite comfortable with where I left that thread, which is still open and waiting for you to deliver.

In the words of David Freedman, "The argument is often used to shift the burden of proof from the proponent of a theory to the critic".

I do the best I can to defend this 40 time argument. I can't provide additional data that I don't have and I readily admitted that it would be a more thorough study to include values previous to 06 and 07. I also lack the means to make conclusions about any causal link between the track conditions and why the 40 times were higher. These are problems that I don't deny, but I don't shift the focus of the debate onto the shoulders of others.

[BIGSEF3]

Thanks. Out of curiosity, do you think that this changes your odds to win "the Braylon bet"?


I'm not talking about our disagreements. I'm quite comfortable with where I left that thread, which is still open and waiting for you to deliver.

And rather than escalating this about the "common knowledge" thing, check your PMs.

did you mean to capitalize the "s"? :lol1:

Ok, it wasnt that funny and i'm not critizing you danny, but i couldnt resist. i saw the three letters there and i HAD to say something. If i had akhs link handy, i would give myself crickets.

seriously, i think both of you guys have raised good arguments for your interpretation of the data. I would really like to see an actual scatterplot. Theres a program I used to toy around with at work to find correlations between different customer servicing behaviors and customer feedback scores. if it werent for the glass of pinot noir in my hand i would remember its name.

[BurgundyNGold]

In the words of David Freedman, "The argument is often used to shift the burden of proof from the proponent of a theory to the critic".

I do the best I can to defend this 40 time argument. I can't provide additional data that I don't have and I readily admitted that it would be a more thorough study to include values previous to 06 and 07. I also lack the means to make conclusions about any causal link between the track conditions and why the 40 times were higher. These are problems that I don't deny, but I don't shift the focus of the debate onto the shoulders of others.
In the words of akkhorus, "It is not my job to disprove your assertions. I have made my case. It is up to you to disprove me." Or something like that. ;)

[BurgundyNGold]

did you mean to capitalize the "s"? :lol1:

Ok, it wasnt that funny and i'm not critizing you danny, but i couldnt resist. i saw the three letters there and i HAD to say something. If i had akhs link handy, i would give myself crickets.

seriously, i think both of you guys have raised good arguments for your interpretation of the data. I would really like to see an actual scatterplot. Theres a program I used to toy around with at work to find correlations between different customer servicing behaviors and customer feedback scores. if it werent for the glass of pinot noir in my hand i would remember its name.
I did a scatter on Page 3 or 4 of this thread, I think.

[BIGSEF3]

I did a scatter on Page 3 or 4 of this thread, I think.

ill go back. i started on page 5 or 6 and didnt think i had missed anything. i i swear someone on page 5 or 6 said something about how you should do a scatter and thats actually what got me thinking. DOT! :banghead:

EDIT: Very nice, but i'd like to see a regression line to see exactly how closely they correlate. did you get a p-value when you did your scatterplot?

[BurgundyNGold]

ill go back. i started on page 5 or 6 and didnt think i had missed anything. i i swear someone on page 5 or 6 said something about how you should do a scatter and thats actually what got me thinking. DOT! :banghead:

EDIT: Very nice, but i'd like to see a regression line to see exactly how closely they correlate. did you get a p-value when you did your scatterplot?
It was in Excel and I had to rig it to get it to work at all, lol. What can I say, I'm lazy. ;)

[BIGSEF3]

It was in Excel and I had to rig it to get it to work at all, lol. What can I say, I'm lazy. ;)

haha oh well, good work nontheless. you rivaled akh in your data collection and presentation/persuasive argument skills.

[BurgundyNGold]

haha oh well, good work nontheless. you rivaled akh in your data collection and presentation/persuasive argument skills.
It was DS who advanced the argument. I just helped with some simple plots. I think he might be onto something, but I an skeptical because he only has 2 years of data. If he had a larger data set that said the same thing, I would be convinced. Actually, a cursory look at the 2005 numbers show they are a little slower than 2006, so there is a little bit of a trend there. If we had even slower times in either 2003 or 2004 I would probably be swayed.

[danny's stogie]

It was DS who advanced the argument. I just helped with some simple plots. I think he might be onto something, but I an skeptical because he only has 2 years of data. If he had a larger data set that said the same thing, I would be convinced. Actually, a cursory look at the 2005 numbers show they are a little slower than 2006, so there is a little bit of a trend there. If we had even slower times in either 2003 or 2004 I would probably be swayed.

I found this great long post on another message board while looking for additional past 40 times by a chiefs fan about there being no standarization of how the times are calculated. I'm trying to find it now, but I'm having no luck, although I might have bookmarked it on my office comp. Akh, did you save a link to it?

Anyways, I remember one thing being that they've changed the timing mechanism form that starts when the gun goes off to one that automatically calculates a runner's natural reaction time upon hearing the gun and subtracting that from the overall time.

[BIGSEF3]

It was DS who advanced the argument. I just helped with some simple plots. I think he might be onto something, but I an skeptical because he only has 2 years of data. If he had a larger data set that said the same thing, I would be convinced. Actually, a cursory look at the 2005 numbers show they are a little slower than 2006, so there is a little bit of a trend there. If we had even slower times in either 2003 or 2004 I would probably be swayed.

i seem to remember reading somewhere that if you have atleast 32 points of data, your comparisons should be accurate if you are willing to accept 4% error, which is an acceptable defect for most studies.


I found this great long post on another message board while looking for additional past 40 times by a chiefs fan about there being no standarization of how the times are calculated. I'm trying to find it now, but I'm having no luck, although I might have bookmarked it on my office comp. Akh, did you save a link to it?

Anyways, I remember one thing being that they've changed the timing mechanism form that starts when the gun goes off to one that automatically calculates a runner's natural reaction time upon hearing the gun and subtracting that from the overall time.

do you mean they changed it between the 2006 and 2007 season which you guys have been using for your data?

[danny's stogie]

do you mean they changed it between the 2006 and 2007 season which you guys have been using for your data?

No, it wasn't this year, but I can't remember exactly when it was, I think it was in the mid to late 90s that they did this. The only thing about this year is that there seems to have been some grumbling about them trying to quicken the track so that the top prospects weren't so afraid to run in Indy and just wait until their private workouts. Also, smoak mentioned something about them quickening the timer when a few DBs poster poor times.

[danny's stogie]

i seem to remember reading somewhere that if you have atleast 32 points of data, your comparisons should be accurate if you are willing to accept 4% error, which is an acceptable defect for most studies.



It depends on the type of data set you're dealing with. If you have time series you literally need 1000s to eliminate bias and produce asymptotically efficient results that center over the true mean. With cross-sectional analysis like this, sampling a single year, you don't need nearly as much data.

For this, it would be a lot better to have several more years to compare 07 to, but within a given year 30 is a pretty strong number to determine a mean in a given year and how it's distribution lies.

[BurgundyNGold]

i seem to remember reading somewhere that if you have atleast 32 points of data, your comparisons should be accurate if you are willing to accept 4% error, which is an acceptable defect for most studies.
That cannot be correct. The margin of error must be applied based on what is being evaluated.

The 32 points of data might be something that can be applied to get a reasonable mean for the year. But I don't think this applies to year on year comparisons like DS has done.

[danny's stogie]

Link to the post about 40 times. Interesting stuff.

http://www.nflfans.com/x/showthread.php?p=111798&mode=linear#post111798

[BurgundyNGold]

Link to the post about 40 times. Interesting stuff.

http://www.nflfans.com/x/showthread.php?p=111798&mode=linear#post111798
Darrell Green was a fast man, lol. But I have to say that the times at 4.06 (Ted Ginn Jr.) have got to be fake. No way that any of these guys are running on that fast, fast track or not.

[BurgundyNGold]

I found this great long post on another message board while looking for additional past 40 times by a chiefs fan about there being no standarization of how the times are calculated. I'm trying to find it now, but I'm having no luck, although I might have bookmarked it on my office comp. Akh, did you save a link to it?

Anyways, I remember one thing being that they've changed the timing mechanism form that starts when the gun goes off to one that automatically calculates a runner's natural reaction time upon hearing the gun and subtracting that from the overall time.
That's bunk, man. They shouldn't do that. Reaction times can be different. They should just go with whatever the guy runs. Sheesh.

[danny's stogie]

That's bunk, man. They shouldn't do that. Reaction times can be different. They should just go with whatever the guy runs. Sheesh.

...and I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the whole thing with pro days is that they use hand timers and they run on legit track and field surfaces rather than a fast indoor turf like they have in Indy. Scouts usually add a little bit to times in these cases, but what we as fans hear about are just the raw numbers, no discussion at all about the discrepencies between the surfaces and timing devices used. Considering this and the fact that the combine is now a relatively large, televised event I see no reason why the NFL wouldn't have incentive to bulk up the times a bit for the viewing audience and in order to give the top talent a reason to run at Indy.

[BurgundyNGold]

...and I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the whole thing with pro days is that they use hand timers and they run on legit track and field surfaces rather than a fast indoor turf like they have in Indy. Scouts usually add a little bit to times in these cases, but what we as fans hear about are just the raw numbers, no discussion at all about the discrepencies between the surfaces and timing devices used. Considering this and the fact that the combine is now a relatively large, televised event I see no reason why the NFL wouldn't have incentive to bulk up the times a bit for the viewing audience and in order to give the top talent a reason to run at Indy.
Adding the 2005 median to the 2006 and 2007 medians, and it starts to look like a speeding trend....

4.508 (2005)
4.493 (2006)
4.457 (2007)

It's getting faster. Not much faster, but faster nonetheless.

[danny's stogie]

Adding the 2005 median to the 2006 and 2007 medians, and it starts to look like a speeding trend....

4.508 (2005)
4.493 (2006)
4.457 (2007)

It's getting faster. Not much faster, but faster nonetheless.

I don't know, a .05 difference is huge. That equates to roughly 5 or 6 players running in the 4.3s that wouldn't have otherwise done so.

[BurgundyNGold]

I don't know, a .05 difference is huge. That equates to roughly 5 or 6 players running in the 4.3s that wouldn't have otherwise done so.
True. I meant that year to year it doesn't seem like much, but you're correct about the fact that the cumulative value of 0.051 is starting to be pretty significant. The difference between a 4.36 and a 4.41 could be a couple of slots or a couple of rounds in the draft.

[danny's stogie]

True. I meant that year to year it doesn't seem like much, but you're correct about the fact that the cumulative value of 0.051 is starting to be pretty significant. The difference between a 4.36 and a 4.41 could be a couple of slots or a couple of rounds in the draft.

It could be especially considering that WRs are the position (other than DBs) that are most subject to the scrutiny of 40 times. But I also think that scouts do some correction and normalization of results, but the real problem here is with fan perception and the mistake we make not taking these things into consideration when comparing times across years or even simply a different set of circumstances.

[danny's stogie]

Adding the 2005 median to the 2006 and 2007 medians, and it starts to look like a speeding trend....

4.508 (2005)
4.493 (2006)
4.457 (2007)

It's getting faster. Not much faster, but faster nonetheless.

Hey, I double checked my results for 2005 and I still get 4.512. I double checked the count and I'm good, I tab-delineated cut and paste direct from that post so it shouldn't have been a data entry problem. Do you want to give your numbers another run?

[dj_stouty]

I originally discussed the bounds when dj commented on how large .035 really is. http://hailredskins.com/vbforum/showpost.php?p=925567&postcount=34. I never mention it in the article because I thought it was blatantly obvious that .035 is rather large when evaluating it in the context of a typical WRs' times. I never expected anyone to evaluate the difference in times relative to anything but a reasonable range of times. Taking the difference out of context and measuring it against something like how fast a bird flies is ridiculous, frankly.

Sorry if I'm ridiculous. Us "layman" aren't very good with big numbers and big thoughts.:rolleyes:

Seriously...when you tell me the average mean time increased 0.035 seconds over '06, I'm not blocking out subjective ranges and running it through the flux capacitor. I see it for what it is; A a very small difference that is probably the same increase or decrease in 40 times over the past decade.

Let me ask you. Exactly how much time on average do you think NFL scouts deduct from Pro Day 40 times due to a "fast track"?

[danny's stogie]

Sorry if I'm ridiculous. Us "layman" aren't very good with big numbers and big thoughts.:rolleyes:

Seriously...when you tell me the average mean time increased 0.035 seconds over '06, I'm not blocking out subjective ranges and running it through the flux capacitor. I see it for what it is; A a very small difference that is probably the same increase or decrease in 40 times over the past decade.

Let me ask you. Exactly how much time on average do you think NFL scouts deduct from Pro Day 40 times due to a "fast track"?

My apologies for offending. It's not about laymen or big thoughts, it's that not that I didn't think you understand, it's that I thought you were taking it out of context and posting pics of birds solely to mock the article.

I've read anything from .025 to .050 added on for hand timed runs.

[BurgundyNGold]

Hey, I double checked my results for 2005 and I still get 4.512. I double checked the count and I'm good, I tab-delineated cut and paste direct from that post so it shouldn't have been a data entry problem. Do you want to give your numbers another run?
Here's what I got:

http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/9239/2005wr40timesrl7.png

[danny's stogie]

Here's what I got:



I think you're missing 2 observations. I have 35 times and you have 33.

[BurgundyNGold]

I think you're missing 2 observations. I have 35 times and you have 33.
Which ones am I missing?

[danny's stogie]

Which ones am I missing?

Madison and Marshall, it looks like. If not them two of the other Ms.