2009 Active Roster Undrafted Percentage

by PJ on February 27, 2010

in Batting Average,Undrafted

Last week, as part of the Around the Draft series, we posted break downs for each of the AFC East teams. In those profiles we not only referenced the active roster draft batting averages, but a calculated active roster undrafted percentage, which is another element to the way in which we hope to find an answer to the question ‘do teams that draft better perform better’.

In our search we started by examining how much ‘homegrown’ talent was on team rosters, which netted us the draft batting averages. However, since there are a number of ways to build a roster, we next investigated how many players made NFL rosters without ever having been drafted.

To date we have only examined the 2009 data, so we are not attempting to draw any conclusions from our analysis. If anything, we are hoping to lay the foundation for a metric that will hopefully shed some light on the correlation between success in the draft and success on the field.

As you will see from the figures presented below, we could argue that there is no discernible connection between the number of undrafted players on the team’s active roster and wins. Based on 2009 roster information alone, half of the 2009 playoff teams had more than the league average of 15 undrafted players on their rosters, including both Super Bowl XLIV participants.

With 22 players the 1-15 St. Louis Rams led the league with the most undrafted players on its roster. However, Indianapolis was second with 20, which only reinforces the notion that it is much to early to draw any conclusions.

UMAV39ECZNMZ

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Related Posts with Thumbnails

Tagged as: AFC East, Indianapolis Colts, National Football League, NFL, Sport, St Louis Rams, Super Bowl, Super Bowl XLIV

  • Sam

    Interesting info. for sure, but I do have some feedback that you may find
    useful.  Regarding “Batting Average”, I’m not so sure that the best way to
    measure a team’s success in drafting is to look at the percentage of players on
    their roster who they drafted (i.e. homegrown talent).  If you only look at
    rounds 1 thru 4, the early and middle picks, then I think it might be
    legitimate.  But when you include the later picks (5-7) and undrafted players,
    here is the problem.  A really good team with a talented, deep roster, is
    propably more likely to cut marginal players from the later rounds and UDFA’s
    (undrafted free agents).  Conversely, those marginal players have a better
    chance of making a poor team that is in rebuilding mode.  So on paper, it looks
    the poor team does better in drafting because it retains more drafted players,
    but in reality many/most of those players would have been cut from the superior
    team.  How best to resolve this?  I have a few ideas.  First off, I would only
    be interested in the starting lineups, not the entire roster, since having a
    high percentage of players you drafted on the bench is meaningless.  Another
    thing to consider is looking at how teams did drafting players from rounds 1
    thru 4, and not rounds 5 thru 7.  Certainly, there are some players here and
    there in the later rounds that end up doing well, but for the most part the
    players who make the biggest impact are drafted in the early and middle rounds
    (1 thru 4).  See chart below for longevity in league by round of draft, for the
    2001 draft year.  “Still Active” means that those players are still in the
    league after 10 years.  Notice the huge drop at rounds 5 thru 7. 

     

                        2001
    Draft

    Round Still Active % Cut by 2002% 1                 58%              
     0% 2                 32%                3% 3                 24%      
             0% 4                 25%                6% 5                  
    3%               22% 6                   3%               27% 7        
              4%               35%
     

  • Sam

    Regarding the analysis on UDFA’s, I think it’s pretty
    accurate but there is one flaw.  You need to look at the opening day roster and
    not the roster by the end of the season.  Here’s what happens.  As the season
    goes on and starters go on injured reserve, they are often replaced by practice
    squad players, many of whom are undrafted.  Many/most of these players are
    marginal and will be out of the league in a year or two.  When I looked at the
    Redskins roster, a team I am familiar with, it was more like 12 players and not
    15 who would have been on the roster at opening day.  Overall though, I think
    28% isnt too far off, but its probably more like 20% for opening day rosters. 
    What would also be interesting is if you looked at the percent of UFDA’s on
    starting lineups for opening day.

Previous post:

Next post: