Where NFL GMs Should Spend Money, F1 and Golf Architecture, Down 14, and the Perfect Analogy

Aug 23, 2021

Positional Value in the NFL

At which positions should NFL teams spend the most money?

NFL teams are subject to a hard salary cap, meaning teams’ payrolls cannot exceed the salary cap. Therefore, paying a player $5M when he is worth $8M is helpful for a General Manager (GM) because the $3M of savings can be allocated to another position. To build a successful team in the NFL, a GM must understand which players provide the most bang for the buck. Sure, ideally the front office wants to be confident in the ability of every player on the field, but which positions should be prioritized?

I took a stab at answering the question, and though my analysis has short-comings, it yields interesting results. To start, I pulled every available player contract between 2010 and 2023 from OverTheCap.com and multiplied each contract by a scale factor since salaries increase over time.

At this point, I could have run a correlation between contract value by position and team success, but I elected to take a slightly different approach. Since NFL players start their careers on rookie contracts, which are much cheaper than their subsequent contracts, the correlation would have produced a misleading result.

For example, Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes will earn $47M in 2023 and he earned just $3.7M in 2018. In running the analysis for 2018, I did not want to represent the Chiefs’ quarterback spending as $3.7M, as it understates Mahomes’ value to the team. Instead, I found the difference between a player’s maximum contract and his contract for the respective year. So for 2018, I represented Mahomes’ contract as $43.3M ($47M - $3.7M).

Mahomes on a $3.7M contract is incredibly valuable, and my methodology reflects the value of his contract in 2018. Essentially, I am answering “Where is it most valuable to save money on a player’s contract relative to his true market value (his maximum contract)?”

Here are the results:

Using contracts as the foundation of the analysis has its drawbacks. As one example, some GMs have signed players to bad, expensive contracts (like quarterback Jimmy Garoppolo), so quarterbacks end up lower in the correlation ranking than they should: Quarterbacks are clearly the most important position in football.

But generally, the texture of the table above contains information about what drives success in the NFL.

So here are my two biggest takeaways:

GMs might overvalue the left side of the offensive line. I always assumed that the left side of an offensive line is more important than the right side because it protects a quarterback’s blind side. Some data support this theory as well. In fact, linemen on the left side are paid more than linemen on the right side.
My suspicion is that the market may overvalue Left Guards and Left Tackles. If the consensus is that left offensive linemen are worth significantly more than right offensive linemen while in reality they are only marginally more important than the right side, then the table above is accurately signaling that linemen on the right side are undervalued.
Passing is really important.
Over the past couple decades, the NFL has trended towards passing the football much more often than running it, which aligns with research that passing plays are typically more productive than running plays. So I was not surprised to see quarterbacks, wide receivers, and tight ends near the top of the correlation table.
However, I was surprised to see linebackers, edge rushers, and cornerbacks atop the list. Versatile linebackers who can cover receivers are clearly valuable.
Here’s some data from my analysis that support the value of linebackers. Note: In this table, spending represents actual spending, not savings like in the table above.
As a sample interpretation for the top row, 25% of teams spent between $0 and $8 million on linebackers between 2013 and 2018. Those teams averaged 7.37 wins.
Other positions (like left tackle) do not demonstrate the clean relationship between Spending and Success like linebacker does.

Front offices conduct analysis like I have done, except that with the inclusion of proprietary data, their inputs and conclusions are much better. Every data point I pulled is publicly available on Pro Football Reference and OverTheCap.com.

Also with my analysis in mind (or not in mind), you can check out your favorite team’s positional strengths and weaknesses for the upcoming season here.

Formula 1 and Golf Course Architecture

A close friend of mine has become increasingly interested in Formula 1. In discussing the sport, it’s become apparent that F1 is…a lot like golf. F1 is much faster-paced than golf, and I don’t think there’s an abysmal F1 point system used to crown the winner at the end of the season, but I promise there are similarities.

To me, the most striking similarity between F1 and golf is the overlap in architectural principles. Venues matter, and the characteristics of a track/golf course enable competitors to showcase their skill sets.

So what is the evaluation criteria to determine the quality of an F1 track?

Based on my reading, proper F1 architecture integrates the route seamlessly with the natural terrain of its setting. The track Spa-Francorchamps hosts the F1 race this upcoming weekend (Aug. 29th). Located in Belgium, Spa-Francorchamps often is regarded as the best track in Formula 1.

From an article about Spa-Francorchamps,

But Spa is a European track of the old school - like the Circuit de la Sarthe or the Nürburgring - and Spa is pretty. Really very pretty indeed. Even the flow of the track is aesthetically pleasing, but it nudges up against coniferous forests and sweeps off into natural beauty like the road is meant to be there.

Sounds like golf course architecture! Well-designed golf courses are routed thoughtfully and make effective use of natural features. If the landscape of a golf course feels contrived, that is usually an indictment on the architecture.

Another similarity lies in the criticism of popular architects. Hermann Tilke is the most well-known F1 architect, and many F1 fans object to his designs. Critics of his designs contend that his tracks lack variety and are not conducive to excitement. Specifically, critics argue that Tilke’s layouts do not allow for overtaking, which is when a car has the opportunity to pass another car. The criticism does not stop with the track itself. F1 enthusiasts find fault with Tilke’s propensity for building opulent amenities at the expense of prioritizing the layout of the track.

These same critiques abound in the golf community. High-quality golf course architecture embraces variety and offers strategic options to golfers who hope to separate themselves from the competition. Additionally, many within the golf community lament the construction of opulent clubhouses at the expense of focusing on the quality and affordability of the golf course itself. Projects like Sweetens Cove, which uses a small shed for a clubhouse, highlight the notion that there is room for minimalism within the golf world.

My favorite criticism of Hermann Tilke is that when he is hired to renovate historic, classic tracks, he inadvertently makes them worse. Now if Rees Jones is hired to give a Monaco a facelift, I suppose the inter-sport similarities will have truly come full circle.

Down 14

Analytics folks love to yell (or tweet) when NFL coaches make a suboptimal decision. The following scenario is a crowd favorite and you will hear it discussed on NFL broadcasts this season:

Suppose you have the ball and you are down by 14 points at the very end of the game. You score a touchdown. Should you kick an extra point to decrease the deficit to seven points or should you attempt a two-point conversion to bring the deficit to six points?

The consensus within the analytics community is the latter, and the mathematical explanation is pretty simple. You can read the full explanation here, but I’ll offer a condensed version.

Before providing the punchline, let’s lay out the assumptions. We’re going to assume that your team will score a touchdown again and that your opponent will not score another point. These are important and responsible assumptions. Why? No other scenario matters. If you do not score again or if your opponent scores again, you lose the game. The scenario that we’re describing takes place at the very end of the game, so if your opponent scores again, you will not have enough time to recover.

Alright, so we are down by 14 points and we score a touchdown. We’re going to attempt a two-point conversion. The rationale is that it is more likely we convert the two-point conversion on our first attempt than the likelihood that we fail the conversion on this attempt and on the attempt following our next touchdown. Basically, if we fail the first time, we’ll be down by eight, so we’ll still have an opportunity to tie the game when we score again. But if we succeed the first time, we’ll be down by six, and we’ll simply have to kick an extra point to win the game when we score again.

Big Cat and PFT Commenter, hosts of the #1 sports podcast in the world, interviewed Coach Ron Rivera last week on Pardon My Take. Their shtick is that they purport to be idiots who represent the common fan. In addition to being funny, their shtick produces unique interviews with interesting answers. Here’s a snippet from Coach Rivera:

PFTCommenter @PFTCommenter

Analytical Ron gives us his breakdown on wether or not you go for two if youre down 14 and about to score a TD. Actually a trick question because with our defense we wont be losing by that much probably ever

Do you see the issue with Coach Rivera’s response? It does not matter if you are playing against one of the best offenses in the league and fear that you will never get the ball back. If you never get the ball back, ok fine, you lose. If your opponent scores again, ok fine, you lose. The only relevant scenario is when your opponent does not score, you do get the ball back, and you score again. All other outcomes produce a loss, and magnitude of loss is irrelevant.

To be fair to Coach Rivera, he was not expecting an analytics question during a Pardon My Take interview. But across the league, teams are hiring analytical experts to help with in-game situations because coaches are not always adept at decision-making on the fly. Anything to find an edge!

FedEx Cup Playoffs Analogy

My first Finding the Edge newsletter spotlighted the issues with the PGA Tour’s methodology for awarding FedEx Cup points. For those who are unfamiliar, FedEx Cup points represent a player’s season long standing among his peers on the PGA Tour. Players with the most points are rewarded with status for the next season as well as entry into the Playoffs for the current season.

The problem is that the points system fails to account for the strength of the participants in each event appropriately. Also the points system is top heavy, meaning that a finish in the top 1-3 spots reaps a hefty reward. If my goal is to maximize my FedEx Cup points, I would play the weakest possible tournaments. Winning a tournament is a lot harder when the best golfers in the world tee it up alongside you.

Well, the first Playoff event, the northern trust, began this past weekend. As I watched golfer Robert Streb ascend the leaderboard, I was curious how he’d gained entry into the event because I could not remember him being relevant in PGA Tour events this season.

Here’s how he made it into the Playoffs. Robert Streb won The RSM Classic at the beginning of the PGA Tour season last November. It’s a tournament with a weak field. Streb played in 25 other events during the 2020-21 season and finished in the Top 10…zero other times.

A loyal reader messaged me the following analogy:

“It’s like taking hard classes in college to be challenged, but all anybody cares about is your GPA. Much rather take easy classes and get a 3.5 than hard classes and get a 3.0”

The perfect analogy. It is as if Robert Streb aced Intro to Oceanography. You know the PGA Tour adage: “A rising tide lifts all boats, especially if you keep Korn Ferry Tour players down where they belong.”

Honestly, I cannot be too critical; I took two semesters of Oceanography.

Next Week

I will probably not release a Finding the Edge next week as I have golf work to get through. In the meantime, feel free to send me stories about relevant topics or feedback on any newsletters to date.

Feedback/Contact

Email: Joseph.LaMagnaGolf@gmail.com

Twitter: @JosephLaMagna

Finding the Edge