1. Gator Country Black Friday special!

    Stay on top of the football coach search with the Insider Authority on Gator Sports with a special discount!

    Now's a great time to join or renew and get up to $20 off your annual subscription! LIMITED QUANTITIES -- for details click here.

Article: "Star ratings" matter in recruiting

Discussion in 'Nuttin' but Net' started by REM08, Jul 29, 2013.

  1. REM08
    Online

    REM08 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    Messages:
    4,825
    Likes Received:
    187
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Ratings Received:
    +686
    Sounds obvious. But, as the author (Dan Hanner) points out, not all conventional wisdom is backed up by data. In this case it is - and I thought the data was pretty interesting.

    http://basketball.realgm.com/article/229173/Star-Ratings-In-Depth

  2. MadduxFanII
    Offline

    MadduxFanII Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    5,326
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +442
    It's a genuinely valuable insight, however obvious it may seem. Every fanbase remembers the five stars who flamed out and the lower-ranked guys who flourished, and from those memories extrapolates the idea that "recruiting rankings don't matter."
    • Like Like x 1
  3. rserina
    Offline

    rserina VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    27,386
    Likes Received:
    516
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,092
    I find it hard to believe anyone could discredit recruiting rankings generally. Are they entirely accurate and predictive for the individual player? No. Do they reflect the broad quality and upside of a team's roster on the whole? Yes. In basketball, I think they are even more accurate at the top of the list than football.
  4. UFreak
    Online

    UFreak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    6,510
    Likes Received:
    255
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,149
    Absolutely. For a number of reasons. But one of the better ones is because the best of the best play actual games against each other on the AUA circuit. And when they go up against each other at camps, it's actual gamelike circumstances. Unlike football camps where it's seven on sevens, no pads, etc.
    Less margin of error.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. INGATORSWETRUST
    Offline

    INGATORSWETRUST Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    14,273
    Likes Received:
    376
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +410
    NBA players can go from HS to pros (Moses Malone, Kevin Garnett, Kobe Bryant, Lebron James), regardless of position, whereas a HS player would have difficulty transitioning immediately to the pros in football, especially at QB and the offensive/defensive lines. More injuries in football as well.

    Any correlation between stars and championships? Would expect Duke to have won more, if so.
  6. GatorLurker
    Online

    GatorLurker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,902
    Likes Received:
    129
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +452
    Except that a lot of Duke recruits rise in the rankings after they commit to Duke. For years it was the way that not quite good enough HS players suddenly became McDonalds AAs.
  7. REM08
    Online

    REM08 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    Messages:
    4,825
    Likes Received:
    187
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Ratings Received:
    +686
    ^^^^^^ I've actually always thought UNC should have won more considering the phenomenal players they've had throughout the years.
  8. VTGator
    Offline

    VTGator Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,935
    Likes Received:
    23
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings Received:
    +98
    What I find the most interesting is what it says about talent vs. experience. Looking at offensive ratings, a 5* freshman is significantly better than lower ranked players that are freshmen but not compared to lower ranked players that are more experienced.

    For example, on average a 3+* sophomore has better ORtg than a 5* freshman. But with another year of experience 5* players begin to dominate. 4* players including seniors have lower ORtgs compared to 5* sophomores.

    The winning formula seems to be to recruit a bunch of 3 and 4* players that will stay 3+ years, and occasionally bring in one or two 5* players that won't mind sharing minutes as freshmen and hopefully stay an extra year or two.
  9. REM08
    Online

    REM08 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    Messages:
    4,825
    Likes Received:
    187
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Ratings Received:
    +686
    Based on the data, I'd agree with that. The only qualification I'd make is that for each star level he's talking about the average player at that ranking. That seems obvious, but if he were to do even deeper research, I bet he'd find that 5 star kids ranked in the top 10 did much better than the ones ranked 10 - 25. I'd be surprised to see that 2, 3 and 4 star kids varied as much. This wouldn't be surprising given that the group of kids listed at 5 stars is the only group which actually contains a handful that are ready for the NBA right after high school.
  10. InstiGATOR1
    Offline

    InstiGATOR1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2011
    Messages:
    3,100
    Likes Received:
    36
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +75
    Notice though Hanner uses a composite ranking. So he shows that average recruiting stars is predictive for on average for players. That is a different thing than looking at one rating and predicting the ranking of a player.

Share This Page