I've been arguing with a few parrots online about the future of the various QBs in this seasons draft. Naturally, the two points of conflict are Tebow and Clausen. Most draft experts declare a bright future for Clausen and seriously doubt the future for Tebow. As you know, I am contrarian on this subject. I am not a contrarian on all subjects, but I am the contrarian here.
Some of the parrots online have been stunned at the facts and the figures I have thrown in their faces regarding these two quarterbacks. Most thought Tebow couldn't pass at all. They didn't know he had a career pass efficiency rating of 176 against SEC defenses (that's a QB rating of 121 in NFL terms). Many of these parrots did not know that (a) Clausen is a true junior, and (b) true junior QBs go bust at a rate of 90% in the NFL. They did not realize the risk was so high. Neither did they know that drafting any QB in the 1st round carries a 66% risk of going bust.
Of all the astonishing things I saw on the NFL Network during the combine, the #1 thing was this: Our color commentators steadfastly refused to deal with the actuarial tables which state that Clausen has a 90% chance of going bust based on class status and his draft position. They never even mentioned it. They just steadfastly chatted him up as the #2 QB in the draft. This borders on criminal negligence.
The second most astonishing thing is the staunch refusal to acknowledge how seldom the talent scouts get it right about the QB position. A profession that has been historically wrong about 66% of their QB assessments should be carefully when making statements about QBs. You should preface every statement with the disclaimer "Scouts are wrong 66% in assigning 1st round grades to QBs, but..." This would be the correct way to preface any comment about a purported 1st round QB.
Back in the year 1992, I took a graduate course in statistics called "The Value of Information". The entire course revolved around assessing the statistical success rates of predictions, and assigning a dollar value to the source method. How accurate does a barometer have to be before it is worth paying money for the information it produces? The answers depends on the price of the information and how much you are betting on the accuracy. It can also be impacted by the availability of cheap and free sources of good info.
It has been 18 years, so my memory fails on the exact sequence of statistical ops we used to evaluate prediction rates of success vs. cost of failure and return on success, but there was a hardcore methodology to it. I remember being impressed by the scientific reason of it all.
One of the funny and counter-intuitive points we (and all other classes cohorts) discovered is this: If you can find a really bad oracle who gets it wrong most of the time, you should pay good money for his predictions. If his error rate is strong enough, he becomes a valuable reverse barometer. You buy his prediction and you bet the other way. Show me a man who has mis-predicted the outcome of all 44 Super Bowls (choosing the loser to win) and I will tell you I should pay money for his next pick. I am going to take his pick next year and bet the other way.
You show me a man who mis-predicts the up/down movements of the DJIA 90% of the time, and I will show you a very rich man. All the traders in the world will buy his predictions and go the other way on him.
Given the fact that only 22 out 66 QBs drafted in the first round became good franchise QBs between 1979 and 2007, we can say that NFL Talent scouts have a success rate of 33% in picking QBs. We can say that they have an error rate of 66%. This means you are wrong more often than you are correct. You are wrong in 2 out of 3 cases. I remember enough about my graduate course on the value of information to know that you are painfully close to becoming a valuable reverse barometer. It almost pays me to buy your opinion so I can bet the other way on you.
Hence we have explained the life and times of Mel Kiper Jr.
If you understand these principles and concepts then understand this: The scouts have a great chance of being wrong about Tebow, and a far greater chance of being wrong about Clausen. You go ahead and bet millions of dollars in the direction a valuable reverse barometer tells you to, and you stand a very great chance of losing a hell of a lot of money.
