DiasporaBuck's picture


Member since 09 September 2013 | Blog

Lurker since TatGate in 2010 and then finally signed up for an account a few years later. I post rarely, but read the site several times a day even when football and basketball are in the offseason.

Recent Activity

Comment 08 Jul 2016

I'm good with this, unless it would have been possible for both teams to lose while playing each other.

Comment 06 Jul 2016

Fellow 703'er here.  Yes, in Columbus it seemed that people would pull moves they shouldn't, but not be very skilled at actually pulling them off.  Whereas drivers here in the greater DC area have perfected the art of the dick move.  When I have to venture over to the Washington-Baltimore Parkway, my life feels more endangered than in any country I've ever been.  The fastest drivers on there easily double the speed of the slowest drivers every time I've been on it.  The funny thing is that the fastest drivers feel the illusion of control when they're actually letting the road control their mood.

I'm really glad that my recent move eliminated a section of my commute that took 20 minutes to go a half mile (on the highway) every single morning.

Comment 27 May 2016

B.10.b on page 14:
"Saunders arranged for [redacted], [redacted], and [redacted] to take the June 2010 ACT exam at Wayne County and arranged for the then ACT testing supervisor at Wayne County to complete and/or alter their exam answer sheets in such a manner that they received fraudulent exam scores."

Wow, that's just blatant.

Comment 25 May 2016

Do tv rights for bowl games work differently than in-conference games?  e.g. Does BTN have to pay BW3's to show *ichigan games?

Comment 20 Apr 2016

The charts suggest that the overall trade value heavily favors the Browns.  The only way that it doesn't is either:

1.  If we rely on the old Jimmy Johnson trade chart and discount picks in future years by the traditional one round per year.  In my opinion, this doesn't sound like the way to go.  First, the Jimmy Johnson chart is based on qualitative guesstimates of value in the early 1990s rather than any systematic evaluation of post-draft performance, making it poor for determining actual value although potentially advantageous (from a game theory perspective) for bargaining for the best possible deal, since it overvalues the #2 pick.  Second, since the Browns are in "win later" mode rather than "win now" mode, it probably doesn't make sense for us to discount future picks. 

2.  If we are convinced that the Browns would have used the #2 pick to draft a star at the game's most important position and won't net any stars with the picks they got in return.  This is pretty subjective and everyone will have a different opinion--even career football professionals--especially before any of the picks have played a down or even been selected.  Which is why it hinges on #1 for me.

Obviously, trade value isn't the same as outcome though.  So now it'll be up to the Browns to translate overall draft value into wins.  Which unfortunately would be a new thing for us.

For reference, here are some different valuations that I calculated (quickly, so I can't promise they're error-free)

  • Eagles +20%: Using the old Jimmy Johnson trade value chart, discounting future picks, and placing both teams in the middle of the draft order for future years.
  • Browns +17%: Jimmy Johnson chart without discounting future picks.  The rough symmetry between these first two valuations suggests that the Jimmy Johnson chart might have been used as a baseline for the trade terms, with the Eagles choosing the valuation that discounts the future and the Browns taking the one that doesn't.  If we'd somehow managed to game the Eagles into making a trade at perfectly even terms under the discounted valuation however, it would have been epic, considering that it would have made the Browns' advantage using every other valuation even larger.
  • Browns +52%: Using this chart that Kevin Meers (now the Browns' Director of Football Research) created in 2011 based on the value that players at each draft spot demonstrated in their actual careers (i.e. a much stronger empirical basis than the Jimmy Johnson chart.)  This valuation also discounts future years using the same method above.
  • Browns +80%: Using the Kevin Meers chart without discounting future years.
  • Browns +45%: Using this chart by Chase Stuart at the Foosball Perspective website, discounting future years.
  • Browns +74%: Using the Chase Stuart chart without discounting future years.
Comment 20 Apr 2016

"What can the Browns do for Hue" is what I thought when reading your first post.  Although not all that witty either and probably not even original.  Still, it made me titter.

Comment 20 Apr 2016

Instead I think we should aim to get every pick in this year's 7th round.  Including the compensatory picks at the end o' the 6th round, because the stats show that this is the best way to get players like Tom Brady and Arian Foster.  (I keed, I keed.  I actually love sports and non-sports analytics, as microsoft excel has helped me make my fantasy football leagues completely uncompetitive and even put me three years ahead of my office at work.  Both of which have upsides and downsides....)

The inspiration for this strategy comes from my brother, who used to acquire all the $1 bills in Monopoly so that any time you had to make small change you had to negotiate through him.

Comment 20 Apr 2016

I was hoping they'd find a way to stay in the top 6 because that's where the dropoff seems to be this year, but SoBe it.

Comment 20 Apr 2016

The analytics must have told DePodesta that the Browns are bad at drafting.

Pure gold

Comment 20 Apr 2016

Regression to the mean would probably mean multiple Super Bowl wins for the Browns