hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on Mar 4, 2018 16:13:43 GMT -5
Just wanted to update this with the ALL BE and Freshman rankings. I would say rankings still proved to be pretty good indicators. The biggest outliers are our own Blair who was definitely under ranked but is all freshman more because of opportunity and not actual play. As for the all BE teams Khyri Thomas is the biggest outlier. He did a year of prep which kind of screws with things but I'm sure he is the one the "rankings don't matter" portion of the board will point too. The two honorable mentions are also outliers but Rowsey is 23.5 years old so that plays a huge part.
1st teams Kelan Martin SR. 140 Shamorie Ponds SO. 45 Jalen Brunson JR. 22 Marcus Foster RS SR. 178 Mikal Bridges RS JR 81 Trevon Bluiett SR. 39
2nd team Khyri Thomas JR. 326 Markus Howard SO. 68 Marcus Derrickson JR. 80 Angel Delgado SR. 47
HM Andrew Rowsey RS. SR. NR Kyron Cartwright SR. 270
1st year team Naji Marshall 58 Mitch Ballock 94 Omari Spellman 20 Nate Watson 100 Jamorko Pickett 76 Jahvon Blair 238
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Mar 4, 2018 16:42:56 GMT -5
Just wanted to update this with the ALL BE and Freshman rankings. I would say rankings still proved to be pretty good indicators. The biggest outliers are our own Blair who was definitely under ranked but is all freshman more because of opportunity and not actual play. As for the all BE teams Khyri Thomas is the biggest outlier. He did a year of prep which kind of screws with things but I'm sure he is the one the "rankings don't matter" portion of the board will point too. The two honorable mentions are also outliers but Rowsey is 23.5 years old so that plays a huge part. 1st teams Kelan Martin SR. 140 Shamorie Ponds SO. 45 Jalen Brunson JR. 22 Marcus Foster RS SR. 178 Mikal Bridges RS JR 81 Trevon Bluiett SR. 39 2nd team Khyri Thomas JR. 326 Markus Howard SO. 68 Marcus Derrickson JR. 80 Angel Delgado SR. 47 HM Andrew Rowsey RS. SR. NR Kyron Cartwright SR. 270 1st year team Naji Marshall 58 Mitch Ballock 94 Omari Spellman 20 Nate Watson 100 Jamorko Pickett 76 Jahvon Blair 238 Agree the rankings are pretty good but I think you're reaching on qualifying the outliers. Trevon Blueitt and Andrew Rowsey are 5 months apart in age. Jahvon Blair got opportunity, sure, but he also had to do way more than Mitch Ballock for example and did it just about as well in volume. Bottom line, high ranking recruits are more likely to be good players. That's unquestionable. But this is pretty consistent that around a third of these teams are experienced players outside the top 100. That's pretty much as expected. Nobody can project every player at 22-23 from 18 especially when the difference between #50 and #250 is noticeable but really small.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Mar 5, 2018 0:12:11 GMT -5
Another year, another All-BE first team with 2 guys outside of the Top 100 ... and three more guys in the next six well outside of it.
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Mar 5, 2018 0:54:42 GMT -5
Another year, another All-BE first team with 2 guys outside of the Top 100 ... and three more guys in the next six well outside of it. Yes but look at the percentage of top 100 guys playing in the BE who made All-BE. Rankings matter. A lot. Way more in basketball than any other sport.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Mar 5, 2018 1:00:29 GMT -5
I agree with your notion but my problem is not with 30 or 60 or 60 or 90 its with 100 or 250. Our 8 most recent recruits (including 2018) average to 190 and only 2 were < 150. A portion of the fans (reason i did this) were clamoring for a kid ranked 200 and saying that rankings don't matter for future kids. You can t keep loading up on these kids and expect to succeed with limited scholarships available. If this is your thesis, I think you effectively disputed it with what you posted. I don't think the argument is really that "rankings don't matter" - the argument is that outside of some range (top 75? top 50?) rankings become a lot less correlated with success. If you graphed ranking vs. success, I'd expect that you'd see a curve that is pretty steep in the 1-75 range, but that flattens outside of that. Guys like Whittington (213) and Benimon (316) ended up being a lot better basketball-wise than the average player in the 75-150 range. The argument you are making is that the curve would be somehow steep between 100 and 200 and I don't think it would really look like that at all - my guess is that on average there isn't a ton of difference between a guy at 110 and a guy at 190.
|
|
Bigs"R"Us
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,642
|
Post by Bigs"R"Us on Mar 5, 2018 6:51:21 GMT -5
You would think we could eventually land 1 or 2 kids each year in the top 100.
|
|
SaxaCD
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,401
|
Post by SaxaCD on Mar 5, 2018 7:16:41 GMT -5
You would think we could eventually land 1 or 2 kids each year in the top 100. Pickett last year, Leblanc this year. Pat is doing OK so far, now needs to ramp it up!
|
|
|
Post by glidehoyas (Inactive) on Mar 5, 2018 8:06:40 GMT -5
No Jessie Govan.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Mar 5, 2018 9:06:13 GMT -5
I've sorted this out with ranking and final year NCAA WS, which I think is a good estimation of what a player eventually became. I think I'm going to have to correct what I said above, which was that there'd be sort of a flat line of value between 75-400. There's not. The sub-180 players were worth substantially more than the 80-180 players, which I think can be explained in a number of ways - they represent rankings misses, because the system is not completely efficient. Senior year of HS Whittington should not have been ranked low as 213 - that's just a plain scouting miss because rankings do miss players, it doesn't represent Whittington improving and becoming a much better player throughout his college career. Name / Ranking / Final Year WSMonroe 8 5.5 Freeman 9 4.7 J. Smith 17 3.6 Copeland 24 3.9 Sims 30 3.9 Porter 31 7.1 DSR 36 4.2 Wright 44 3.1 Lubick 44 2.1 Clark 46 4.8 Govan 46 4.2 Thompson 54 4.5 White 55 2.5 Domingo 59 0.6 Peak 65 3.9 Adams 71 0 Starks 79 3.8 Derrickson 80 3.7 Cameron 91 0.2 Hopkins 100 1.3 Agau 105 0.8 Campbell 107 0.3 Vaughn 118 2.3 Ayegba 122 0.8 Trawick 137 1.6 Bowen 141 0.5 Bolden 164 0.2 Johnson 180 2.4 Whittington 213 1.7 Sanford 222 2.3 Mescherikov 295 0.6 Benimon 316 6.5 Wattad 366 1.8 Pryor 400 3.9 Hayes 400 1.8
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
|
Post by EtomicB on Mar 5, 2018 9:26:52 GMT -5
I've sorted this out with ranking and final year NCAA WS, which I think is a good estimation of what a player eventually became. I think I'm going to have to correct what I said above, which was that there'd be sort of a flat line of value between 75-400. There's not. The sub-180 players were worth substantially more than the 80-180 players, which I think can be explained in a number of ways - they represent rankings misses, because the system is not completely efficient. Senior year of HS Whittington should not have been ranked low as 213 - that's just a plain scouting miss because rankings do miss players, it doesn't represent Whittington improving and becoming a much better player throughout his college career. Name . Ranking Final Year WS Monroe 8 5.5 Freeman 9 4.7 J. Smith 17 3.6 Copeland 24 3.9 Sims 30 3.9 Porter 31 7.1 DSR 36 4.2 Wright 44 3.1 Lubick 44 2.1 Clark 46 4.8 Govan 46 4.2 Thompson 54 4.5 White 55 2.5 Domingo 59 0.6 Peak 65 3.9 Adams 71 0 Starks 79 3.8 Derrickson 80 3.7 Cameron 91 0.2 Hopkins 100 1.3 Agau 105 0.8 Campbell 107 0.3 Vaughn 118 2.3 Ayegba 122 0.8 Trawick 137 1.6 Bowen 141 0.5 Bolden 164 0.2 Johnson 180 2.4 Whittington 213 1.7 Sanford 222 2.3 Mescherikov 295 0.6 Benimon 316 6.5 Wattad 366 1.8 Pryor 400 3.9 Hayes 400 1.8 I think you have to remove Pryor & Benninmon from the graph.. There wasn't any scouting for Pryor and Benimon got his numbers on a much lower level.. Also wouldn't a graph favor the sub 180 group because there's more of them?
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Mar 5, 2018 9:43:17 GMT -5
I think you have to remove Pryor & Benninmon from the graph.. There wasn't any scouting for Pryor and Benimon got his numbers on a much lower level.. Also wouldn't a graph favor the sub 180 group because there's more of them? "There wasn't any scouting for Pryor" - that's the point. Outside of a small sample at the top, rankings are pretty inefficient. If the ranking systems are completely missing guys who end up in the development league and who end up in the NBA, the argument that "you can't have too many sub-200 guys and compete" does not hold - you want that kind of talent. I'm fairly sure that if you added final year Benimon and Pryor to this team, they'd have made the tournament. "Benimon got his numbers on a much lower level", while true, completely begs the question of what was Benimon's value by his last year of college. Jerrelle Benimon ended up playing in the NBA - after Hollis Thompson's ranking, no other player ended up logging NBA minutes. You can make whatever argument you want about him playing at a lower level, but by his final year, Jerrelle Benimon was a very, very valuable player who put numbers up against majors - if you want to find a conference or SOS adjusted win share stat, great, but he's still a strong data point that the rankings are not an efficient system outside of a certain base ranking.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2018 10:01:34 GMT -5
85% of top 20 kids get drafted by the NBA. About 85% of the next 30 are usually safe bets to be good college players. After that, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Trust what you see vs trust the ratings imo.
Ratings are imperfect because it's impossible to see all of the kids in a class so they rely too heavily on what kids do in the summer circuits. If you don't play on a major circuit, you get missed (Bracey, Greg Whittington). If you have injuries during the summer and don't play up to level, you get missed. Get hot at the right time and you're ranking soars (Domingo).
You see a kid like Daxter Miles during the summer, he looks ok. You see him in an actual game setting you think, how is this kid ranked 350? The opposite was true for Domingo. It's also just a snapshot in time. Just like there's a lot of change in rankings from kids Sophomore season to their Senior season the same is true for Senior year in HS vs Soph in College.
Imo they're a good starting point, but if I were coaching I would trust me eyes more than the rankings. This is especially true once you get past the top 50 range...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2018 10:05:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Mar 5, 2018 10:18:29 GMT -5
Clearly, the better ranked you are, the better odds that you're going to succeed - but it's certainly no guarantee. JT3's problem was never getting well ranked recruits (except maybe the last few years). He got quite a few very highly ranked guys (Monroe, Wright, Freeman, Copeland), but also had a lot of other top 100 guys (Peak, White, Starks, Lubick, Adams, Hopkins).
The problem is that none of JT3's more recent top-ranked recruits performed at anything remotely resembling their rank, perhaps except for Peak. Some guys like Lubick really performed under the level you would expect, others struggled (Copeland, Hopkins), and the outlier in Adams who got hurt and simply couldn't play (which is nobody's fault, just bad luck).
That said, I still think in principle you want as many top 100 guys as you can get because the odds are still better that they will be contributors. That said, strong talent evaluation and the ability to pick out guys in the 200ish range who might be big contributors is really important too, but you cannot rely on the 200 types either. While it is certainly worth noting that some lower ranked guys end up over-performing their rank, there are also plenty of guys ranked in the 200ish range that don't.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Mar 5, 2018 10:40:35 GMT -5
1. Get talent who is the right fit for your program.
2. Have the ability to coach and develop said talent.
3. Have the ability to evolve with the game.
Recruiting rankings are for the media,fans, and to sell subscriptions.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
|
Post by EtomicB on Mar 5, 2018 10:46:59 GMT -5
I think you have to remove Pryor & Benninmon from the graph.. There wasn't any scouting for Pryor and Benimon got his numbers on a much lower level.. Also wouldn't a graph favor the sub 180 group because there's more of them? "There wasn't any scouting for Pryor" - that's the point. Outside of a small sample at the top, rankings are pretty inefficient. If the ranking systems are completely missing guys who end up in the development league and who end up in the NBA, the argument that "you can't have too many sub-200 guys and compete" does not hold - you want that kind of talent. I'm fairly sure that if you added final year Benimon and Pryor to this team, they'd have made the tournament. "Benimon got his numbers on a much lower level", while true, completely begs the question of what was Benimon's value by his last year of college. Jerrelle Benimon ended up playing in the NBA - after Hollis Thompson's ranking, no other player ended up logging NBA minutes. You can make whatever argument you want about him playing at a lower level, but by his final year, Jerrelle Benimon was a very, very valuable player who put numbers up against majors - if you want to find a conference or SOS adjusted win share stat, great, but he's still a strong data point that the rankings are not an efficient system outside of a certain base ranking. I get that rankings aren't perfect but referring to players 3 to 5 years after graduating HS doesn't necessarily mean that their ranking was wrong in my view.. Plus folks can't evaluate players they don't see which is the case for the majority of non ranked kids who fall in the sub 180 range..
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,358
|
Post by prhoya on Mar 5, 2018 11:26:01 GMT -5
JT3's problem was never getting well ranked recruits (except maybe the last few years). He got quite a few very highly ranked guys (Monroe, Wright, Freeman, Copeland), but also had a lot of other top 100 guys (Peak, White, Starks, Lubick, Adams, Hopkins). The problem is that none of JT3's more recent top-ranked recruits performed at anything remotely resembling their rank, perhaps except for Peak. Some guys like Lubick really performed under the level you would expect, others struggled (Copeland, Hopkins) The question is: why? Was it wrong fit, bad evaluation of player, player's lack of development, etc...? Then, can Pat and the coaching staff learn from what's gone wrong and right at GU?
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Mar 5, 2018 11:32:18 GMT -5
Another year, another All-BE first team with 2 guys outside of the Top 100 ... and three more guys in the next six well outside of it. Yes but look at the percentage of top 100 guys playing in the BE who made All-BE. Rankings matter. A lot. Way more in basketball than any other sport. I've never disputed that. But every time we are interested and/or get a commit who is not Top 100, people use the rankings as a definitive reason as to why a player won't be any good. It's a single data point, not the only data point, and it can be inaccurate. Year after Year, a good third of the BE first team and closer to 40-50% of all teams are players not ranked in the Top 100. While rankings are generally reasonably accurate in aggregate, they aren't particularly accurate for an individual. And it's just ignorant to ignore other data points just because a bunch of recruiting "gurus" who have suspiciously common rankings say so. There's also no reason to ignore their opinions. I've used rankings many, many times. But what was posted was not a point in favor of OP, who has bashed players because of rankings to exclusion of other data points. No one is suggesting to ignore rankings. But there's a lot more information out there.
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on Mar 5, 2018 11:34:16 GMT -5
I've sorted this out with ranking and final year NCAA WS, which I think is a good estimation of what a player eventually became. I think I'm going to have to correct what I said above, which was that there'd be sort of a flat line of value between 75-400. There's not. The sub-180 players were worth substantially more than the 80-180 players, which I think can be explained in a number of ways - they represent rankings misses, because the system is not completely efficient. Senior year of HS Whittington should not have been ranked low as 213 - that's just a plain scouting miss because rankings do miss players, it doesn't represent Whittington improving and becoming a much better player throughout his college career. Name . Ranking Final Year WS Monroe 8 5.5 Freeman 9 4.7 J. Smith 17 3.6 Copeland 24 3.9 Sims 30 3.9 Porter 31 7.1 DSR 36 4.2 Wright 44 3.1 Lubick 44 2.1 Clark 46 4.8 Govan 46 4.2 Thompson 54 4.5 White 55 2.5 Domingo 59 0.6 Peak 65 3.9 Adams 71 0 Starks 79 3.8 Derrickson 80 3.7 Cameron 91 0.2 Hopkins 100 1.3 Agau 105 0.8 Campbell 107 0.3 Vaughn 118 2.3 Ayegba 122 0.8 Trawick 137 1.6 Bowen 141 0.5 Bolden 164 0.2 Johnson 180 2.4 Whittington 213 1.7 Sanford 222 2.3 Mescherikov 295 0.6 Benimon 316 6.5 Wattad 366 1.8 Pryor 400 3.9 Hayes 400 1.8 I think you have to remove Pryor & Benninmon from the graph.. There wasn't any scouting for Pryor and Benimon got his numbers on a much lower level.. Also wouldn't a graph favor the sub 180 group because there's more of them? I dont mind WS as a metric but it is far from perfect as tam results effect it so much. It does work for showing ranked players under the same coaching. I think your graph shows exactly how much rankings matter. Of course there will be individual misses but there are usually some circumstances behind them. If you are going by WS you cant include Vee and Bennimon. They both went down levels and a WS on a mid major is not the same as a high major. Bennimon may have been under ranked but he has pretty much flamed out as a pro. If you put someone ranked as high as him in the CAA they should do great. As for Pryor. He was a non qualifier which affects not getting ranked. He was another one that was super old his senior year. If you notice most of the lower ranked guys that make it on all whatever teams are senior or RS seniors. I have mentioned all this earlier in the thread. A sub 180 senior is roughly equal to a SO. 100. You just cant compare the two unless you are going to compare them at the same stage of their careers. Just think who would be on All BE for example if hey were seniors or RS seniors this year.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Mar 5, 2018 11:49:58 GMT -5
Clearly, the better ranked you are, the better odds that you're going to succeed - but it's certainly no guarantee. JT3's problem was never getting well ranked recruits (except maybe the last few years). He got quite a few very highly ranked guys (Monroe, Wright, Freeman, Copeland), but also had a lot of other top 100 guys (Peak, White, Starks, Lubick, Adams, Hopkins). JTIII had three big issues recruiting. One, I'm fairly convinced he was not a very good talent evaluator. A lot of coaches aren't. They often fail to appreciate certain aspects of players or really understand how to build a balanced roster. Some evaluation mistakes like passing on Josh Hart absolutely could have made a huge difference. What was kind of funny early (him commenting that he never would have recruiting Wallace or Hibbert for GU) later manifested itself in poor preference evaluations. Two, the public perception of the system really hurt his ability to recruit guards. Three, he never was able to recruit depth effectively -- and so even when topline talent was there, the team had terrible holes, and when classes underperformed, the prior and next class often had few recruits and couldn't make up the difference. It's worth noting that there's some bad luck here. I've said it before, but the 2011 and 2014 classes underperformed their hype. 2011: Otto Porter - Two great years Tyler Adams - injured, never played Mikael Hopkins - became a decent role player by senior year Greg Whittington - Injuries, Class + Hookers = one good semester Jabril Trawick - Nice role player The 2011 class lost two potential good players. Otto was spectacular, but really only gave one great year (and two years total). I'm being charitable to Hopkins here, and while I love Trawick, this monster class probably gave us 5 semesters of above average basketball. Egads. 2014: Isaac Copeland - showed some promise, never played defense, seemed to stop trying, transferred LJ Peak - Good three year player Paul White - Injured, transferred Tre Campbell - He was really good in the Xavier game Trey Mourning - Not a hyped recruit, hasn't contributed yet We got LJ Peak out of this class and scattered decent games from Copeland. So what's that? Maybe four above average semesters? Again, injuries, transfers, etc. Some of this may be JTIII's fault, but much of it is injury related or other uncontrollables. Especially 2011. We could really use a super class that mostly delivers.
|
|