WSU Cougar Sports and Commentary

WSU Cougar Sports and Commentary

Main Menu

Home

WSU Cougars Links

Web Links
Coug News

Login

Sign in to post comments, connect with other Cougs, and view exclusive content available only to registered users. Relax, it's free.





Forgot login?
Thanks for the reasoned response Rainier!
Written by Westward   
Saturday, 12 December 2009 09:12
. At least there is something to debate in what you've written. I did not use yards as my success metric. In fact, I grounded much of my thinking in a 2007 study conducted by an ESPN analyst that accounts for a combination of things. Take a look here: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=kluck/quarterbacks/070425 As you can see, if you conduct the analysis properly you see that the number are VASTLY different than Millen's. In fact, the failure or success rate for a first round QB is 50%. I researched all those QB's between 1990 and 2005 to see if there was a difference for early entry or Seniors. There is virtually NONE. Bottom line is that there is no definitive evidence that can tell you the correct decision in this case. The only way you get there is if you alter the sample by taking QB's from 1981 and the supplemental draft and then force an artificial stop point on the data. I totally understand Millen's thinking in valuing the second contract. The problem is that the logic is very poorly formed. You see in the study and just about any way you look at 1st round QB's that the failure rate is really HIGH. It sits at about 50%. So, given that....doesn't it make the most sense to try and maximize your first contract? It might be your last. As great as Locker might be, I'm sure Akili Smith, Alex Smith, Tim Couch and Kyle
Boller were all convinced that they would max their second contracts as well. You need to evaluate what your first contract value is going to be and that means considering the potential for a new CBA after this season. In the article, I've also laid out what the differences in contract values were for NBA rookies when a cap was imposed. The last uncapped rookie contract was for a guaranteed 10 years and 68 million dollars. The most recent contract? It was for four years at 18 million and the last two years are a club option! Now seriously, if you were Locker wouldn't you at least make this part of your consideration set? Millen skips to the second contract and then actually indirectly claims that Locker will be "all about the money" if he leaves early. Trying to plan around your second contract is like saving for your third kids college tuition when you are still in high school. Hugh is not presenting facts. He's presenting his opinion and backing it up with data that he's analyzed himself. You accept that Hugh is biased and yet you accept his analysis as fact. Would he have "analyzed" the numbers the same way if it was Mark Sanchez last year? At any rate, I totally see what you are trying to say. I hope at least you can see a point of view that hasn't been Millen doctored. A true analysis of data tells us one thing. The success or failure is so dependent on each situation for each individual that it's nearly impossible to make a blanket statement. The irony here is that I agree with Millen that Locker's SPECIFIC situation probably indicates the need to return for another year (something I also state in the article) but trying to present some sort of analysis that states opinion as hard fact is biased at best and unethical at worst. Thanks again for your opinion. It's fun to debate this sort of thing.


AddThis Social Bookmark Button External link
Inline article positioning by Inline Module.
 
This is a comment on "Hugh Millen is either a poor analyst or a pathetic human being"