State of Recruiting/Do Rankings Matter?

[Walking Boot of Doom 18,170]

On 8/21/2017 at 11:46 PM, Walking Boot of Doom said:

TLDR; there is  a strong correlation between rankings and draft success, NBA success, and NCAA championships. See articles below for additional supporting evidence.

The bold portion of your quote is all I was really looking for. You are correct thought, your entire post is cherry picking and you could go on and on forever and ever because people will ALWAYS be incorrectly ranked when you have the present day results to assess against. Human error and statistics help explain that. You've also provided a lot of great examples of those outliers.

Here are links to articles I've read that helped inform my opinion that rankings are a strong tool for evaluating the potential success and impact of a player, which you can read if you're still bored:

NCAA Champs: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2127165-how-much-do-recruiting-rankings-factor-into-ncaa-basketball-success

NBA Draft Success: https://basketballrecruiting.rivals.com/news/crunching-the-numbers-recruiting-rankings-and-the-nba-draft

NBA Success: https://basketball.realgm.com/analysis/233037/Do-High-School-Stars-Lead-To-NBA-Success

All of this said, I fully believe your assessment and that of others that Phinisee is underrated and possibly under valued in the rankings. Still don't get this idea that the rankings are garbage. Someone else believed he could outsmart the experts on a consistent basis. I'm sure he has plenty of time to support his theories if you get in touch with him!

12 hours ago, Old Friend said:

No you didn't.  You provided one side, I provided the other, also with facts.  Rankings are based on opinion.   They are based on what other people say, and not even from watching kids play.  I stand by everything I say or I wouldn't say it.  You're complaining about style, and I couldn't care less if you like the way I say things or hate the way I say things.  I gave evidence that backed up my point and you said I was cherry picking, even though I said (and meant) I can do the same thing every year.  I gave local examples so people would get the point.  You think those were the only examples?  Hardly.   Your evidence and my evidence would hold equal value, I would think; and I stand by my point that I think the rankings are crap and designed to sell magazines.

Here you go OF. I've quoted my post again where I provided three difference sources who analyzed ranking data from Rivals and Scout, dating as far back as 2002, with all articles using at least ten years of data. Each article compared these complete multi-year data sets to three different measurements of success, and all three found strong positive correlation. Your list of players probably fall within the ~15% of players the data driven analysis in the articles found were inaccurately ranked per their defined success factors. Essentially, for every one example of a improperly ranked player you list, I could provide five or six counter examples.

If you are incapable of understanding why the evidence I provided is stronger, then I cannot help you and no meaningful debate can be had with you.

 

[Old Friend 8,630]

6 hours ago, Walking Boot of Doom said:

Here you go OF. I've quoted my post again where I provided three difference sources who analyzed ranking data from Rivals and Scout, dating as far back as 2002, with all articles using at least ten years of data. Each article compared these complete multi-year data sets to three different measurements of success, and all three found strong positive correlation. Your list of players probably fall within the ~15% of players the data driven analysis in the articles found were inaccurately ranked per their defined success factors. Essentially, for every one example of a improperly ranked player you list, I could provide five or six counter examples.

If you are incapable of understanding why the evidence I provided is stronger, then I cannot help you and no meaningful debate can be had with you.

 

Here's where we differ and where I think the disconnect is.  I said the top of the list is fine and usually accurate.  I have no debate there; but I also don't think it's very hard to predict the top 10-20 kids in some order.   Kids who will put up numbers as college freshmen are pretty easy to spot, and they'll make every list.  I don't disagree with that, and never have.   I think you're confusing what I'm saying with "all of the rankings are meaningless."  That's not what I said nor what I mean. Rankings are a snapshot, and after the top, mean very little or next to nothing because the people doing the ranking can't see a kid enough times to rank him.  The people who do this for a living are interested in the top kids.  The NBA kids.  That's what sells magazines.  Nobody buys a magazine or subscribes to a website to find out who the #21 ranked small forward is.  And the guys who rank don't see that kid more than once or MAYBE twice.  Which is why the rankings are crap in my opinion, and they're generally not very accurate.  The examples I gave were neither outliers nor cherry picking.   They were simply examples.  And there are plenty every year for the same reason. 

I take issue with the players from....say 30 -40 on down.  Your articles list players like Carmelo Anthony, Anthony Davis, Janari Parker, Andrew Wiggins, etc.   Kids that are ranked down lower than 30-40 are generally not one and done kids, so there is no correlation between ranking and NBA success, let alone predictors of college success; and the kids ranked there and below generally stick around and develop at different rates and to different levels.  So the #17 point guard in Phinisee's case means very little.  What does that mean?  Does it mean he'll produce the 17th best numbers of all freshman point guards?  No.  Does it mean there are definitely 16 players better than he is at that position?  No.  So...what, then?

Here's a line from one of your articles.  This is not me...this is from something you posted :  There have been almost as many Final Four teams that got there without a single prospect who was ranked by both Rivals and Scout. Butler (twice), VCU and Wichita State all got to the Final Four with starters who were apparently late-bloomers or overlooked as preps. 

That's the basis of my stance that rankings mean very little.  The next sentence says the most important factor is the average experience on those teams was "junior."  Yes.  Exactly.  The college experience made their high school ranking irrelevant.  If you're telling me the top ranked freshmen are difference makers and ranked appropriately, I'd agree with you.  And did.  My point is the ranking system doesn't have any way to account for system, development, or anything else; and most of the kids ranked below 30-40 are ranked based on nothing but statistics and what other people say.

Another of your articles talked about "stars" and how they predict NBA success.  Like I said...I don't disagree with the top.  I've never said differently; and of course 5 star kids are going to be more successful in the NBA because they're physically better.  And it's obvious.   I have never argued against that.  Not one of your articles says that the # 12 ranked power forward has consistently proven out over time to be the #10-14 power forward; or the #16 shooting guard has consistently proven to be the #12-18 shooting guard year in and year out.  Why?   Because there is no science or criteria to rank these players; they play against different caliber of competition; and there's no telling how a kid will develop, fit into a system, or anything like that.

My example in this case is Phinisee.   He's explosive quick, but doesn't show it all the time.  He's not a volume scorer.  He's fundamentally sound.  Doesn't try to do things he can't.  And he just makes everyone better.  There's no way there are 16 point guards better than he is; but he's just an example.  Like Heyward or Aaron Henry...he has been largely overlooked by the system because that system doesn't necessarily look for players like him.  Therefore, the system is crap.  It's based on subjective data.

Relative to your last sentence, if you want reasonable, meaningful debate, let's debate the same thing.  It doesn't seem we are.   You seem to be arguing against a point I'm not making.  

Here's something for you to read, since we're citing sources.   http://coachgeorgeraveling.com/high-school-player-rankings-and-reality/  Here's a quote from it :  Rankings have almost zero impact on your basketball career.

By the way, Steph Curry was ranked #281 by 247 and unranked by Rivals.  There is no realscience to predicting how a kid will do.

 

[AKHoosier 7,618]

Of course rankings matter.  Show me the last national championship team to not have highly ranked kids.

There are only about 10 (at most) teams every year capable of winning a national championship, all of whom likely have at least one 5 star, McDonald's All American on them.  Now, even Eric Bossi said there isn't a difference between kids ranked between 80-115 or so, and I believe that.  But there's a huge difference between a top 20 guy and a fringe top 100 player.

But I''m sure the king of hot takes is going to refute this by saying, "But Butler!".

[mdn82 26,344]

Curry was ranked what he was because he was 5'8" and weighed less than 140 pounds as a sophomore. He had a growth spurt his senior year and in college. Not exactly the norm, but I don't care your skill set. If you are sub 6 foot and 150 pounds your senior year in high school you aren't getting evaluated based solely on skill.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[JSHoosier 22,182]

16 minutes ago, AKHoosier said:

Of course rankings matter.  Show me the last national championship team to not have highly ranked kids.

There are only about 10 (at most) teams every year capable of winning a national championship, all of whom likely have at least one 5 star, McDonald's All American on them.  Now, even Eric Bossi said there isn't a difference between kids ranked between 80-115 or so, and I believe that.  But there's a huge difference between a top 20 guy and a fringe top 100 player.

But I''m sure the king of hot takes is going to refute this by saying, "But Butler!".

He never said there's not.  All he's saying is that outside of the top 20 or so they don't mean much, or anything at all, and aside from being fun to look at don't have much value.  Frankly, he's right at least to an extent; rankings are hardly the end all be all, far from it.

I have a similar feeling on highlights, I shake my head every time a poster uses highlights to judge a players skill set because those literally only exist to make a player look good.

[WayneFleekHoosier 50,833]

He never said there's not.  All he's saying is that outside of the top 20 or so they don't mean much, or anything at all, and aside from being fun to look at don't have much value.  Frankly, he's right at least to an extent; rankings are hardly the end all be all, far from it.

I have a similar feeling on highlights, I shake my head every time a poster uses highlights to judge a players skill set because those literally only exist to make a player look good.

So you are saying you can't judge anything from a players best plays?

I'd say you can judge shooting form, athleticism, speed, ball handling. I also think taking stats in HS plus AAU plus 10-20 minutes of highlights paints a pretty good picture.

 

Take Perea for example. Highlights looked incredible for athleticism, but it was clear he was very limited even from the highlights. We didn't see jumpers, 3's, slick passes, etc. Couple that with underwhelming stats in HS, the writing was on the wall.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using BtownBanners

[VO5 8,340]

1 hour ago, JSHoosier said:

He never said there's not.  All he's saying is that outside of the top 20 or so they don't mean much, or anything at all, and aside from being fun to look at don't have much value.  Frankly, he's right at least to an extent; rankings are hardly the end all be all, far from it.

I have a similar feeling on highlights, I shake my head every time a poster uses highlights to judge a players skill set because those literally only exist to make a player look good.

Highlights exist to show you the players best skills and what he's capable of. Of course they aren't the best measurement, but they give you a great idea of what a player can be like when he's hitting on all cylinders. 

Like with everything, it isn't the end all be all, but just a piece of the puzzle.

[mdn82 26,344]

So you are saying you can't judge anything from a players best plays?
I'd say you can judge shooting form, athleticism, speed, ball handling. I also think taking stats in HS plus AAU plus 10-20 minutes of highlights paints a pretty good picture.
 
Take Perea for example. Highlights looked incredible for athleticism, but it was clear he was very limited even from the highlights. We didn't see jumpers, 3's, slick passes, etc. Couple that with underwhelming stats in HS, the writing was on the wall.
 
 
Sent from my iPad using BtownBanners

Exactly. The players that are the hardest to gauge are those that play against inferior competition both in high school and AAU. When you get a player that plays even solid against good competition you have a solid idea of what you are getting and how they will help you at the next level. Those that don't fit into that area are all projection. Of course those people or players will be hit or miss. For the most part you have specific areas of the country that provide CONSISTENT players. The DMV, Midwest, and we are starting to see consistency out west as well. Texas has solid areas. Vegas now too. Most of this is due to coaching and AAU competition at a young age. Recruiters know this too so they attempt to rank based on this. They can't control what system a player goes into and how they fit. They attempt the unenviable task of ranking players based on handfuls of games they or others see. More times than not they are pretty damn accurate. There is a reason the majority of the time you are seeing the same teams at the end. It isn't just in game coaching imo.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[BGleas 8,967]

I don't know why this debate is always so difficult. It's not that hard. Nobody on the "ranking matter" side has said rankings are absolute. I think the majority agree that they're a guide for evaluating players, and while certainly falable, they are a pretty good indicator of the talent level a team has. 

Is Victor Oladipo better than Jeremy Hollowell? Of course, but that doesn't mean rankings don't matter. Is Gordon Hayward better than Hanner Perea (or really anyone IU has had recently)? Of course, but that doesn't mean rankings don't matter. 

Rankings are a piece of the puzzle, and yes there are factors that go into a kids ranking beyond simply how good he is. Thinngs like exposure (the AAU program a kid played in), competition, location, etc can all impact things, and quite often things like character and toughness are not taken into account. Ranking are NOT perfect. 

But, if all things are equal over a 10 year period I'll take all top 100 kids and you take all kids 100+ and my team will be much better over that period. Doesn't mean your team won't have some good years or even beat mine on occasion over that period, but my team will be in contention much more consistently and better positioned and more likely to win titles, etc. 

 

[Old Friend 8,630]

2 hours ago, AKHoosier said:

Of course rankings matter.  Show me the last national championship team to not have highly ranked kids.

There are only about 10 (at most) teams every year capable of winning a national championship, all of whom likely have at least one 5 star, McDonald's All American on them.  Now, even Eric Bossi said there isn't a difference between kids ranked between 80-115 or so, and I believe that.  But there's a huge difference between a top 20 guy and a fringe top 100 player.

But I''m sure the king of hot takes is going to refute this by saying, "But Butler!".

This isn't the point I've consistently debated against.    All I'm saying....is that the people doing the ranking don't see the kids ranked say, 30-150 enough to rank them accurately.   Do they usually have the top 150 right?  I'd say....sort of.  If they rank the top 150 players in the country, by and large, that group will come from a group of maybe 250 - 300 players who in that snapshot of time are probably pretty close to that.  But they are not a predictor,.  They are not accurate.  They're for fans.  This thread is a good example.  (The king of hot takes....I like that.  Funny how the responses pile up sometimes, isn't it?)

You say "but Butler," and I'll point you to the link I posted above which states half of final four teams since, what, 2008 have not had highly ranked kids on their roster.  It's not just "but Butler."   At all.   That's an easy rebuttal, but there are far more examples.   Teams with experience matter.  Teams with good coaches matter.  Rankings are meaningless in the scheme of things.  They're for fans.  They sell magazines.  And they just aren't very accurate outside the obvious kids the "rankers" see all the time.  There are WAY too many variables for rankings to matter or be accurate, which is why I have said the system is crap.   I've never made a comment against the highly ranked kids because those have been pretty good indicators.   They're also not very hard.  You and I could go watch those kids against high school players and it would be pretty easy to point them out.

[Old Friend 8,630]

1 hour ago, WayneFleekHoosier said:

So you are saying you can't judge anything from a players best plays?

I'd say you can judge shooting form, athleticism, speed, ball handling. I also think taking stats in HS plus AAU plus 10-20 minutes of highlights paints a pretty good picture.

 

Take Perea for example. Highlights looked incredible for athleticism, but it was clear he was very limited even from the highlights. We didn't see jumpers, 3's, slick passes, etc. Couple that with underwhelming stats in HS, the writing was on the wall.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using BtownBanners

Judging a kid and ranking him are different things, though.  Perea was a highly ranked kid....got to the 30's for a while and ended up, what, #71?   Based almost exclusively on athletic ability.  He wasn't close to that good.  So he dropped.  How'd he get to the 30's?  Because people didn't see him and ranked him based on highlight films.  When they DID watch him...BECAUSE he got ranked highly, he dropped again.   And still finished way too high.

Here's the question....Do you all remember "the movement?"  Every person here was so fired up about that class because they were ranked so highly....and look what happened.  Clearly, Jurkin, Perea, and Hollowell were WAY over rated; and I was on record about Hollowell and Jurkin at the time.  Patterson never qualified; and I was on record as a big fan...but we never got to find out.  And Yogi.  He was on the radar as a 4th grader.  Great player then and now.  The system was very wrong in that case.  Now there are many people arguing on behalf of the ranking system vehemently defending it.  I think that's interesting.   Outlier?  Cherry picking?  Or flawed system?

[Hoosier Guy 8,333]

I believe it's essential to have some highly ranked recruits

[WayneFleekHoosier 50,833]

You continue to point to the "movement" class. Yogi was properly rated. Hollowell was rated on size and shot making ability. He didn't live up to it because of attitude and work ethic. And fit. That's fair. He was a miss, but not by a ton. Perea was sinking in rankings. Your description of him is fair. Jurkin was never that highly rated and was injured most of his career. Patterson was a 100-150 type player. A hit or miss guy. He wasn't very good. He wasn't bad either. Just blah.

So of this class you continue to go back to, Yogi rated well, Jurkin fairly, Patterson fairly, Hollowell a miss, and Perea a miss. Could argue fit and off court apply to Hollowell and Perea. But even still, Perea and Hollowell were both better than many 150+ rated kids.


Sent from my iPad using BtownBanners

[mdn82 26,344]

Judging a kid and ranking him are different things, though.  Perea was a highly ranked kid....got to the 30's for a while and ended up, what, #71?   Based almost exclusively on athletic ability.  He wasn't close to that good.  So he dropped.  How'd he get to the 30's?  Because people didn't see him and ranked him based on highlight films.  When they DID watch him...BECAUSE he got ranked highly, he dropped again.   And still finished way too high.
Here's the question....Do you all remember "the movement?"  Every person here was so fired up about that class because they were ranked so highly....and look what happened.  Clearly, Jurkin, Perea, and Hollowell were WAY over rated; and I was on record about Hollowell and Jurkin at the time.  Patterson never qualified; and I was on record as a big fan...but we never got to find out.  And Yogi.  He was on the radar as a 4th grader.  Great player then and now.  The system was very wrong in that case.  Now there are many people arguing on behalf of the ranking system vehemently defending it.  I think that's interesting.   Outlier?  Cherry picking?  Or flawed system?

To piggyback what BGleas discussed I disagree Perea and Hollowell were ranked too high. How they play is not 100% of a ranking or expectation of how they will perform at the college level. A ranking is based on skill level, attributes, and projection. Like he said they don't take into account attitude or things like that. You can't teach what he had, but at the same time you can't coach toughness or IQ if you have a kid that doesn't care. If he had IQ and toughness he would have been a 5 star. That is why he started in the 30s. Same for Hollowell. He had skills at his size you can't teach, but his attitude sucked and he was soft. Those are the types of kids where rankings "screw up". Same as a Phinisee and a reason I think he will outplay ranking.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[Hoosier Guy 8,333]

40 minutes ago, mdn82 said:

To piggyback what BGleas discussed I disagree Perea and Hollowell were ranked too high. How they play is not 100% of a ranking or expectation of how they will perform at the college level. A ranking is based on skill level, attributes, and projection. Like he said they don't take into account attitude or things like that. You can't teach what he had, but at the same time you can't coach toughness or IQ if you have a kid that doesn't care. If he had IQ and toughness he would have been a 5 star. That is why he started in the 30s. Same for Hollowell. He had skills at his size you can't teach, but his attitude sucked and he was soft. Those are the types of kids where rankings "screw up". Same as a Phinisee and a reason I think he will outplay ranking.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Yeah Perea and Hollowell were just bad eggs. Bad eggs who didn't care one bit about the team

[Old Friend 8,630]

56 minutes ago, mdn82 said:

To piggyback what BGleas discussed I disagree Perea and Hollowell were ranked too high. How they play is not 100% of a ranking or expectation of how they will perform at the college level. A ranking is based on skill level, attributes, and projection. Like he said they don't take into account attitude or things like that. You can't teach what he had, but at the same time you can't coach toughness or IQ if you have a kid that doesn't care. If he had IQ and toughness he would have been a 5 star. That is why he started in the 30s. Same for Hollowell. He had skills at his size you can't teach, but his attitude sucked and he was soft. Those are the types of kids where rankings "screw up". Same as a Phinisee and a reason I think he will outplay ranking.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

I don't think we're saying entirely different things.  My initial point (which has for some reason started a fire)  was and is that the rankings system is crap.  It has no criteria, doesn't take many variables into account, overweights the tangibles, and can't predict anything.  Notice that any time a lower ranked player signs with a big school, hos ranking frequently goes up?  Why?  Did he get better because he signed a piece of paper or made a phone call?  

Or....do those doing the ranking use subjective material to rank kids?  Anyway..... I think more people are put off by a strong opinion and a style than the substance of this.  Phinisee is better than hia ranking.   By a lot.

[mdn82 26,344]

Do you think those two hurt chemistry during the 2012-13 season which led to our late season collapse? Or was that on Crean?

No they weren't the cause of it. I think there isn't one reason for something like that but many reasons. Same as when a team takes off. These are college kids with various distractions and stresses. Along with a coach that went over the top with practices while not being a leveling force. Months of expectations wore them. Not one reason, but the man in charge needs to be a calming force and he wasn't.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[Hoosier Guy 8,333]

16 minutes ago, Iugradman said:

Do you think those two hurt chemistry during the 2012-13 season which led to our late season collapse? Or was that on Crean?

I don't think those two hurt team chemistry. There was still Jordy, Watford, Zeller, Yogi, Sheehey and Victor. It was more on Crean's coaching

[323SGrant 1,176]

26 minutes ago, Iugradman said:

Do you think those two hurt chemistry during the 2012-13 season which led to our late season collapse? Or was that on Crean?

Crean

[Uspshoosier 53,437]

Do rankings matter? This question has been and will continue to be debated until the end of time. Lol. Here is my long winded answer. If u don't want to read it all then the short answer to this question is yes and no. This is actually a fun debate with great points on both side of the argument when it doesn't get personal. Rankings and polls are created for the fans. It gives fan bases something to talk about during the off season. As a director of scouting for one of the scouting services told me rankings are for entertainment purposes and as long as fans invest in them they will be around. Do rankings matter to head coaches? Is CAM waiting at his computer the night before 247, rivals, or espn release their rankings hitting refresh to see who they rank so they can go out and recruit or stop recruiting a kid? No. I have been fortunate enough to attend AAU events and High school games where different parts of the college basketball world are there and I make it a point to strike a conversation with them because at the end of the day they are all hoops junkies like me so it's not everyday u get a chance to interact with other hoops junkies with the same passion. I have asked High major, mid major, and low major coaches how much stock they put in the rankings. I haven't had one coach say that they have influenced them in recruiting or not recruiting a kid. Having said that I'm not one that says that they are crap and the system is broken. Most of these scouts are ex head coaches or assistant coaches or have been around the game their whole life. They know and love the game as much as anyone else in the business. For someone that follows college basketball casually or doesn't follow recruiting these scouting services will matter to you. They are a guideline (piece of the puzzle) for people who haven't watched these kids play. However for me and others I don't need evan Daniels or Jerry Meyer to put a number 11 by keion Brooks to know he is really good at basketball. I'm obsessed enough to watch high school games of the top high school kids on YouTube, Facebook, and go to AAU events close to me. Being able to watch kids in person will always be more important to me then what I see on a list. I use each scouts take (yes even espn) and how it compares to what I've seen and try to get the full picture of the recruiting puzzle. Most of you will agree once a recruit commits his ranking number shouldn't matter anymore, he is a Hoosier and will have our full support until they prove us otherwise. There is no right or wrong answer to this question but it is a fun debate. I promise next year when this topic comes back up I will not copy and paste this for my 2018 reply.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners