State of Recruiting/Do Rankings Matter?

[MartintheMopMan]

Lets be honest, Mississippi State should never have a better Basketball recruiting class than Indiana no matter who the coach is. If they do, it's time to fully reevaluate our recruiting process.

Bad news bears. They had the 20th ranked class in 2015 to our 26th per 247.

[WayneFleekHoosier]

Bad news bears. They had the 20th ranked class in 2015 to our 26th per 247.

and your thoughts about that?

[MartintheMopMan]

and your thoughts about that?

Our 2015 class addressed our needs really well and I'm generally quite satisfied with it. A big name coach building up a middle-of-the-road program like Miss St should be able to have those kinds of instant results and because their needs were "pretty much everything" his addressing those needs results in a higher ranked class.

 

Recruiting classes on their own are a meaningless measure of team success. If recruiting results in players that fit the scheme, address needs, and will be able to meaningfully contribute at a level expected of the program, then it's a successful class. If it is full of 5 and 4 star players but they aren't what the team needs, then it will have a great ranking but a bad year. Look at our 2013 class for a good example. 6th ranked but we didn't even make the Tourney and only two of the players are left. If we only had the two players left when we recruited we would have been ranked in the low 30s.

[WayneFleekHoosier]

There are hundreds of stellar recruiting classes that work out "just fine". Look at Duke, UK, Arizona and countless others. Using our 1 bad highly ranked recruiting class to justify mediocre results doesn't make much sense to me.

[MartintheMopMan]

There are hundreds of stellar recruiting classes that work out
"just fine". Look at Duke, UK, Arizona and countless others. Using our 1 bad highly ranked recruiting class to justify mediocre results doesn't make much sense to me.

I never said there weren't? Just that the ranking of the recruiting class doesn't tell the whole story.

 

Do you think our 2015 recruiting class is "mediocre results"?

[WayneFleekHoosier]

I never said there weren't? Just that the ranking of the recruiting class doesn't tell the whole story.

Do you think our 2015 recruiting class is "mediocre results"?

I think we have covered this before but, player rankings have a VERY predictive value of player impact at the college level. Obviously there will be aberrations. What the coach does with that talent is another part of the equation. That means on the court with X's and O's and off the court with managing egos and such. This isn't a Crean discussion so I will veer left.

The "easiest way" to win is having the best players. I trust player rankings more than most I guess but the data is there to support this trust.

As far as our 2015 class, it was good not great class. It could become a great class if Juwan and OG develop and TB stays 2 years. We really needed another BIG or 2 that are ready to impact immediately. Hard to judge a class this early. I do know if TB goes down we are in deep trouble.

[MartintheMopMan]

I think we have covered this before but, player rankings have a VERY predictive value of player impact at the college level. Obviously there will be aberrations. What the coach does with that talent is another part of the equation. That means on the court with X's and O's and off the court with managing egos and such. This isn't a Crean discussion so I will veer left.

The "easiest way" to win is having the best players. I trust player rankings more than most I guess but the data is there to support this trust.

As far as our 2015 class, it was good not great class. It could become a great class if Juwan and OG develop and TB stays 2 years. We really needed another BIG or 2 that are ready to impact immediately. Hard to judge a class this early. I do know if TB goes down we are in deep trouble.

Player rankings. We're talking about recruiting class rankings not player rankings. Recruiting class rankings are based heavily on the number of ranked recruits you get and their rankings. A class with 2 5-stars will beat a class with 1 5-star even if the second school only has 1 spot open and they got exactly the player they wanted. They tell us nothing about the team itself.

 

Player rankings aren't even very good outside of the top 35ish. The lower you get, the less time has been spent evaluating and distinguishing the players. The lines are blurry and the difference between a player ranked 69th and 70th is slight enough not to matter much. At a microlevel, in terms of looking at a player and saying they'll be successful because they were ranked whatever they tend to be a mixed bag. It's not a surprise, there are tons of factors you just can't evaluate in isolation like that.

 

At a macrolevel, they're very predictive of the player's general chance for success. I read a great article on this about football rankings but can't find it (because I didn't look). Basically, a 5-star player has better odds of being an All-American type player than a 4-star and so own. But that doesn't mean you can look at the number in the charts or the stars and know who is the better player. So, you can take a high 4-star player and a 3-star player and compare them and they might turn out to be very similar in their college careers. 

 

If you have data showing they're predictive in another way, I would be interested in looking at it.

[WayneFleekHoosier]

Player rankings. We're talking about recruiting class rankings not player rankings. Recruiting class rankings are based heavily on the number of ranked recruits you get and their rankings. A class with 2 5-stars will beat a class with 1 5-star even if the second school only has 1 spot open and they got exactly the player they wanted. They tell us nothing about the team itself.

Player rankings aren't even very good outside of the top 35ish. The lower you get, the less time has been spent evaluating and distinguishing the players. The lines are blurry and the difference between a player ranked 69th and 70th is slight enough not to matter much. At a microlevel, in terms of looking at a player and saying they'll be successful because they were ranked whatever they tend to be a mixed bag. It's not a surprise, there are tons of factors you just can't evaluate in isolation like that.

At a macrolevel, they're very predictive of the player's general chance for success. I read a great article on this about football rankings but can't find it (because I didn't look). Basically, a 5-star player has better odds of being an All-American type player than a 4-star and so own. But that doesn't mean you can look at the number in the charts or the stars and know who is the better player. So, you can take a high 4-star player and a 3-star player and compare them and they might turn out to be very similar in their college careers.

If you have data showing they're predictive in another way, I would be interested in looking at it.

which is precisely why they do star rankings. Top 25 is a 5 star. Predictive value is very high. 4 star is 26-100. Number is somewhat important here because that is a wide range. 26 is likely better than 98. Whereas 50 and 70 is probably quite comparable. 3 stars mostly are players that are being recruited by major programs. Less than 3 is saved for the Prillers and Aprils of the world.

Class ranking generally is predictive of on court results too although admittedly less so in the era of 1 and dones.

[MartintheMopMan]

which is precisely why they do star rankings. Top 25 is a 5 star. Predictive value is very high. 4 star is 26-100. Number is somewhat important here because that is a wide range. 26 is likely better than 98. Whereas 50 and 70 is probably quite comparable. 3 stars mostly are players that are being recruited by major programs. Less than 3 is saved for the Prillers and Aprils of the world.

Class ranking generally is predictive of on court results too although admittedly less so in the era of 1 and dones.

I'm pretty sure I agree with that assessment of the star and numbering system and it jives with what I was saying.

 

Still would need some kind of evidence showing recruiting class rankings were predictive though, since I strongly disagree. They may be correlative (as in, the best teams frequently have the best recruiting classes because they're the best teams and can get high level recruits) but that Georgia Tech had a top-10 recruiting class in 2012 does not tell you they're going to even be a tourney team. It has no predictive value.

 

In order to have predictive value, they have to be causally linked. "Because Georgia Tech has a top-10 recruiting class, they will be a high-skill basketball team" is a prediction based on recruiting class rankings. When you look at like, Duke, the cause is mixed up. Duke could make a final four run with a 40th ranked recruiting class simply because of their current players and coaching. So, the recruiting class is not predictive of their season.

 

That correlation may understandably throw you off. It's easy to think that because looking at recruiting class rankings you can see the same top school repeated as having top classes, the rankings must be correct for everyone else, but the causation isn't there. This problem is magnified because we're naturally drawn to the programs we recognize (and they are the ones that confirm our results). That leads to looking over the rankings which did not correlate with successful seasons and being reinforced by the ones that did.

 

Not that it really matters, because very few people actually make the argument a single class can turn a bad team into a good team. It's the addition of players through multiple classes that creates good teams. That's part of why dynasties exist in college sports. You need a whole string of successes to even get started so the barrier for entry is too much for most teams.

any college coach will tell you recruiting is the biggest factor in winning games. Teams with the best players generally win on every level. Following recruiting is your best window into the future. Plus it's tons of fun.

Definitely. I doubt anyone would disagree with that. If you can't recruit you can't win. Though, it's again, usually on a macro level. You have to recruit well generally, not recruit one great player and surround them with duds.

[hoosierpap]

Just wanted to start this so no one gets in trouble  :cheese:

 

 

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this, I just thought we should start this on a fun (?) note...I give you RMK's take on rankings...

 

 

"The credibility people give to national rankings of high school players absolutely baffles me.

To the best of my ability, I can't even imagine a coach, ever, who was capable of saying, 'This kid is the thirty-second best or the thirty-fourth best small forward in the country.' I'm talking about a coach. I'm talking about a guy like me who has coached in college for 30 years: to rate this kid as the best prospect, or the twelfth-best prospect, or the eightieth-best prospect. That's impossible.

Most of these guys who rate kids have no concept of what it takes to put a team together.

But they give a ranking to each kid, and that sells newspapers or publications, and it's gospel. Meanwhile, nobody ever follows through and sees how often they were right, and how more often they were wrong.

 

 

Where, for example, do you suppose Larry Bird was ranked nationally as a high school player? Where was Calbert Cheaney ranked? Or Karl Malone?

 

So many things have happened that make it tough for a kid to keep everything in perspective as he advances in development as a person and a player - the ratings systems, the McDonald's All-Star games, the elevation of those kids at 17 or 18 years old to a national status that a Jerry West or an Oscar Robertson didn't achieve until he had played three or four all-star years in the NBA. And when it finally did come to a West or a Robertson, he had earned it, rather than having it conferred on him by some moron with a pen."

 

http://www.hogville.net/yabbse/index.php?topic=113852.0;wap

[Miller'sTheMan]

Do rankings matter to me? Yes, but I think they get overblown a lot. Obviously everyone wants the 5 stars/4 stars because those are the guys with the best chance to become a really good player. However, you see 3 stars become better players than some higher ranked guys all the time. I think the most important thing in recruiting is getting the guy who you think has the best chance to become a good player, regardless of where he's ranked.

[Brass Cannon]

I think for the most part rankings are more of an indicator of a players ability to contribute right off the bat assuming quality coaching.  Not which one is going to be the better player down the road.  Their were dozens of players better than Oladipo his Freshmen and Sophomore years. 

 

Most 3 stars aren't ready to do that their freshman year(Trey Burke is a really good example of an exception).  Most 5 stars are. 

 

In regards to us, we do need highly ranked guys next year.  Cujo probably isn't ready to contribute starting next year.  Certainly not 30+ minutes a game. 

[Alford Bailey]

Crean HAS to get better recruiting bigs. More than one at a time on the roster and a more balanced roster so we aren't constantly counting on a frosh as our inside presence.

[Alford Bailey]

Unless you are Bo Ryan, Brad Stevens or Bob Knight 25 years ago recruit rankings matter. And when you have a very mediocre coach recruit rankings REALLY matter. A whole bunch.

[AKHoosier]

Wow, Bob Knight was absolutely right on that.  There really is probably no difference between the 8th ranked SF in the country and the 32nd ranked PF.

 

The fact is that recruiting and scouting is such a business now.  Where there's money to be made, it's going to be made.

[Alford Bailey]

I think for the most part rankings are more of an indicator of a players ability to contribute right off the bat assuming quality coaching.  Not which one is going to be the better player down the road.  Their were dozens of players better than Oladipo his Freshmen and Sophomore years. 

 

Most 3 stars aren't ready to do that their freshman year(Trey Burke is a really good example of an exception).  Most 5 stars are. 

 

In regards to us, we do need highly ranked guys next year.  Cujo probably isn't ready to contribute starting next year.  Certainly not 30+ minutes a game. 

Cujo is a nice player but we need Bruce Brown or Rawle real bad!

[WayneFleekHoosier]

2015 NBA draft exhibit A

1. KAT a total beast. #2
2. D. Russell #30 was fast rising too
3. Okafor #6
4. Porzingis foreign
5. Herzonja foreign
6. WCS #47
7. Mudiay #1
8. Stan Johnson # 3
9. Kaminsky UNRANKED
10. Winslow #15
11. Turner #7
12. Lyles #17
13. Booker #22
14. Payne 3 star
15. Oubre #5
16. Rozier # 17
17. Vaughn #13
18. Dekker #8
19. Grant #90
20. Wright UNRANKED 2 star
21. Anderson#35
22. Portis #25
23. Hollis Jefferson #15
24. Tyus Jones #8
25. Martin #11
26. Milinitov foreign
27. Nance UNRANKED
28. Hunter UNRANKED
29. McCullough #32
30. Looney #11


4 UNRANKED Upperclassman who developed.

Otherwise it's chalk and the recruiting analysts are doing pretty good. This is a trend for most drafts.

[WayneFleekHoosier]

Also the recruiting rankings have grown significantly since Knight was in the game. "Knight" and Day difference so to speak.

[WayneFleekHoosier]

Brass Canon is correct too that those rankings indicate impact and talent and don't necessarily take work ethic/coaching/fit/personality etc into account.

[323SGrant]

Bringing very good versatile talent to your team is very important. Rankings, although not an exact science as there are exceptions, are important. If you want to be avg., without NCAA Championships, then recruit like that school up North.