State of Recruiting/Do Rankings Matter?

[Walking Boot of Doom 18,170]

On 8/25/2017 at 6:04 PM, Old Friend said:

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.

 

1) The articles I provided also demonstrated the correlation between those outside of the top 25 and whatever success factor they measured

2) "Rankings have almost zero impact on your basketball career." .... Does this even need to be said? Agreed, and video game ratings have almost zero impact on professional athletes. Talk about arguing a point I'm not making.

Thanks for the Steph Curry pick. Your one additional outlier has once again overruled all other evidence.

[Old Friend 8,710]

1 minute ago, Walking Boot of Doom said:

1) The articles I provided also demonstrated the correlation between those outside of the top 25 and whatever success factor they measured

2) "Rankings have almost zero impact on your basketball career." .... Does this even need to be said? Talk about arguing a point I'm not making.

Thanks for the Steph Curry pick. Your one additional outlier has once again overruled all other evidence.

You can stop stalking me whenever you feel like it.  What point ARE you making, exactly?  Other than disagreeing with my breathing your oxygen, I mean?   What is the system designed to do?   What makes it accurate?  If the rankings have zero impact on a career, don't predict anything accurately outside the top 20-30, don't take into account system, circumstances, work habits, coaching, etc....and the people doing the ranking don't see all of the kids; let alone against similar competition; how are they accurate at all?  

The system is crap and outside the top should be given little credence.  It takes a snapshot and throws an arbitrary number that in the scheme of things means nothing.   I've given you several examples of players we've all heard of.  Not outliers.  But....These "additional outliers."  They just keep coming.....sort of makes you wonder if they are....you know...outliers.  

What point are you trying to make other than you think I'm wrong?   Do you think anyone outside a small group of.....outliers cares who's right or wrong, here?    Do you need a hug?

[Stuhoo 91,071]

 

[Stromboli 6,226]

Worst. Thread. Evverrrrrrrrrr....

 

I'd rather listen to someone convince me that Austin Boucher is The Second Coming of Damon Bailey.  

[Brass Cannon 25,645]

1 minute ago, Stromboli said:

Worst. Thread. Evverrrrrrrrrr....

 

I'd rather listen to someone convince me that Austin Boucher is The Second Coming of Damon Bailey.  

I got a guy for that

[HoosierX 1,810]

56 minutes ago, Walking Boot of Doom said:

1) The articles I provided also demonstrated the correlation between those outside of the top 25 and whatever success factor they measured

2) "Rankings have almost zero impact on your basketball career." .... Does this even need to be said? Agreed, and video game ratings have almost zero impact on professional athletes. Talk about arguing a point I'm not making.

Thanks for the Steph Curry pick. Your one additional outlier has once again overruled all other evidence.

He is the king of reframing arguments into ones the other person is not even making.

There really is no point in engaging with him.

There shouldn't be an argument here based on what you provided. Statistical evidence proves there is a correlation between the rankings and future success. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Walking Boot of Doom 18,170]

59 minutes ago, Old Friend said:

You can stop stalking me whenever you feel like it.  What point ARE you making, exactly?  Other than disagreeing with my breathing your oxygen, I mean?   What is the system designed to do?   What makes it accurate?  If the rankings have zero impact on a career, don't predict anything accurately outside the top 20-30, don't take into account system, circumstances, work habits, coaching, etc....and the people doing the ranking don't see all of the kids; let alone against similar competition; how are they accurate at all?  

The system is crap and outside the top should be given little credence.  It takes a snapshot and throws an arbitrary number that in the scheme of things means nothing.   I've given you several examples of players we've all heard of.  Not outliers.  But....These "additional outliers."  They just keep coming.....sort of makes you wonder if they are....you know...outliers.  

What point are you trying to make other than you think I'm wrong?   Do you think anyone outside a small group of.....outliers cares who's right or wrong, here?    Do you need a hug?

Didn't realize responding to your comment on my post is stalking. All of the points you made in bold have gone unsupported, so I don't know from where you draw those conclusions. The data based evidence I've provided you has demonstrated that your examples are indeed outliers. Finally, I'm defending a point that I've made. That is the purpose of debate, and that is why you post and respond as well. I think if you posted in a less condescending manner you would have far fewer posters "stalking" you on the board.   

[Old Friend 8,710]

4 hours ago, Walking Boot of Doom said:

Didn't realize responding to your comment on my post is stalking. All of the points you made in bold have gone unsupported, so I don't know from where you draw those conclusions. The data based evidence I've provided you has demonstrated that your examples are indeed outliers. Finally, I'm defending a point that I've made. That is the purpose of debate, and that is why you post and respond as well. I think if you posted in a less condescending manner you would have far fewer posters "stalking" you on the board.   

Your opinion is your opinion.  You labeled what I gave you as evidence "outliers," which they weren't, but that's your opinion which you are presenting as absolute fact.   It's not.  At all.   And anyone who's objective and not worried about how things are said will know it.  Not like this is the first time you've argued about minutiae with me....trying to paint a picture.   You know that as well as I do.

 You're worried about style.   Nothing I post initially is ever condescending intentionally.  Yeah, I have strong opinions, usually (almost always) based on experiences or knowledge; and you along with a few others consistently worry about style or tone.  Like I've told everyone else....I'm nothing but that guy next to you belly up to a bar, talking sh*t about sports.  If you're worried about tone or style, you and I won't ever see eye to eye. I've been posting on boards like this for over a decade; and believe me I've been on the right track a hell of a lot more than I haven't.   It started with Mike Davis...I think I was the first guy on any board to claim he was a clown who didn't belong; and I got slammed for it.    

It's not like I'm going to change my style to appease you or others who don't care for it.   Especially if you're going to tell me your evidence is absolutely right and mine are "outliers" even if I gave you an article, just like you gave me.  And examples.  You don't accept them....which is fine.   But you don't get to pick and choose.   In my opinion, the system is crap.  I showed you multiple times using multiple examples why I feel that way.  My points are not at all unsupported, and your saying so just means you aren't willing to accept them or do any legwork on your own.  The data is all there if you want to look for it.   I gave you several examples;. and said I can do the same year after year.   And I can.  You can look up those lists as easily as I can.   I also told you I knew Gary Donna, who was one of the guys who ranked kids....and he specifically told me he sees the top kids all the time and the others almost never.  That's "unsupported."  Okay.  Your opinion.  I still say the rankings system is crap beyond the top kids, and is a predictor of very little.  See all above examples.    Anyway, nobody wants to read you and I in a pissing match; and I'm sure there are people who think you're right and people who think I am.  Who cares?  Robert Phinisee is better than his  ranking.   Mostly because he doesn't put up numbers like others do, and because the guys who do the ranking don't see what he IS.  Or...they haven't seen him at all.  Go IU

[mdn82 26,344]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/2127165-how-much-do-recruiting-rankings-factor-into-ncaa-basketball-success.amp.html

 

My favorite article I found on this subject. The truth seems to be in the middle. This stopped at Okafor's year in Duke which they won. Every championship team since 2007 had at least one player on their team with a top 25 ranking. Only two teams were led by Freshman (UK-Davis and Okafor-Duke). The rest were led by a top 25 player that was there multiple years and not one and done. Again, Duke and U.K. were the outliers, but rankings were consistently important for national champions. The worst team in that timeframe had an overall average of all rankings on their team of about 65. They weren't the norm. Most were in the 20s to 30s average ranking.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

 

[Uspshoosier 54,731]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/2127165-how-much-do-recruiting-rankings-factor-into-ncaa-basketball-success.amp.html
 
My favorite article I found on this subject. The truth seems to be in the middle. This stopped at Okafor's year in Duke which they won. Every championship team since 2007 had at least one player on their team with a top 25 ranking. Only two teams were led by Freshman (UK-Davis and Okafor-Duke). The rest were led by a top 25 player that was there multiple years and not one and done. Again, Duke and U.K. were the outliers, but rankings were consistently important for national champions. The worst team in that timeframe had an overall average of all rankings on their team of about 65. They weren't the norm. Most were in the 20s to 30s average ranking.
 
 
Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app
 

Here is every AP national player of the year since 2007 with composite ranking
2017 Frank Mason(145)
2016 Denzel Valentine(102)
2015 Frank Kaminsky(218)
2014 Doug McDermott(145)
2013 Trey Burke(93)
2012 Anthony Davis(1)
2011 Jimmer Fredette(222)
2010 Evan Turner(48)
2009 Blake Griffin(15)
2008 Tyler Hansbrough(10)
2007 Kevin Durant (2)
I was just interested to see what the numbers would look like. Moral of the story for me is that there are a ton of great college basketball players out there and you can either be a blue chip recruit or a kid ranked in the 200's but if you put in the work you can become player of the year


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

[mdn82 26,344]

Here is every AP national player of the year since 2007 with composite ranking
2017 Frank Mason(145)
2016 Denzel Valentine(102)
2015 Frank Kaminsky(218)
2014 Doug McDermott(145)
2013 Trey Burke(93)
2012 Anthony Davis(1)
2011 Jimmer Fredette(222)
2010 Evan Turner(48)
2009 Blake Griffin(15)
2008 Tyler Hansbrough(10)
2007 Kevin Durant (2)
I was just interested to see what the numbers would look like. Moral of the story for me is that there are a ton of great college basketball players out there and you can either be a blue chip recruit or a kid ranked in the 200's but if you put in the work you can become player of the year


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

While true for POY I only see two that won a title. Both were top 10 players. I am not suggesting it is easy to put up the silly numbers some posted to win the award. But there is a reason those two won it. They were surrounded with other like talented players. I am all for recruiting a 200 ranked kid and he ends up making it. But I also want to win titles. Recent history suggests that isn't going to happen. Nova is the outlier of ultra talented teams winning. I would rather take my chances with the norm of what's working.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[Uspshoosier 54,731]

While true for POY I only see two that won a title. Both were top 10 players. I am not suggesting it is easy to put up the silly numbers some posted to win the award. But there is a reason those two won it. They were surrounded with other like talented players. I am all for recruiting a 200 ranked kid and he ends up making it. But I also want to win titles. Recent history suggests that isn't going to happen. Nova is the outlier of ultra talented teams winning. I would rather take my chances with the norm of what's working.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Did those coaches recruit those players because of their ranking by their name by a scouting service or did they recruit them because they are really good at basketball? The numbers suggest that really good players win national championships. All I'm saying is for most hoops junkies who follow and watch enough of these kids can figure out which players will be good at college basketball without the ranking next to their name which for me makes the rankings of players not that important in determining who is good or not. I enjoy rankings from the entertainment side of things.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

[mdn82 26,344]

Did those coaches recruit those players because of their ranking by their name by a scouting service or did they recruit them because they are really good at basketball? The numbers suggest that really good players win national championships. All I'm saying is for most hoops junkies who follow and watch enough of these kids can figure out which players will be good at college basketball without the ranking next to their name which for me makes the rankings of players not that important in determining who is good or not. I enjoy rankings from the entertainment side of things.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

That really makes no sense. If they are really good at basketball they will typically be ranked very high whether or not a coach looks at rankings which nobody ever said they did. I don't know what point you are remotely trying to prove there? Hoops junkies can figure that out huh? Maybe. Maybe there is a wee bit more involved in an evaluation than hoops junkie approved. Trust me when I say I watch a lot of high school basketball and there is a huge difference between watching a game and scouting a game. I guess if you are scouting hundreds of games I digress and I would probably listen to your evaluation of talent and use that as a part of the pie based on needs for the team I give a damn about. Rankings dont mean a player is going to succeed. It means there is a higher probability of success. That is mainly all anyone has said. I have no clue what rabbit hole you went down and why.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[Uspshoosier 54,731]

That really makes no sense. If they are really good at basketball they will typically be ranked very high whether or not a coach looks at rankings which nobody ever said they did. I don't know what point you are remotely trying to prove there? Hoops junkies can figure that out huh? Maybe. Maybe there is a wee bit more involved in an evaluation than hoops junkie approved. Trust me when I say I watch a lot of high school basketball and there is a huge difference between watching a game and scouting a game. I guess if you are scouting hundreds of games I digress and I would probably listen to your evaluation of talent and use that as a part of the pie based on needs for the team I give a damn about. Rankings dont mean a player is going to succeed. It means there is a higher probability of success. That is mainly all anyone has said. I have no clue what rabbit hole you went down and why.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Pretty simple rankings are for entertainment and for the fans. Scouting directors have said as much. I do evaluate a bunch of games but my evaluation would be what other peoples evaluation would be at the end of the day, an opinion


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

[mdn82 26,344]

Pretty simple rankings are for entertainment and for the fans. Scouting directors have said as much. I do evaluate a bunch of games but my evaluation would be what other peoples evaluation would be at the end of the day, an opinion

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

Ok? Nobody has argued against this? Can't there also be a direct correlation to winning at a high level which there is?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[WayneFleekHoosier 51,875]

This is wild. Ratings aren't perfect but ratings aren't "crap" either. To argue that they have no validity is silly to me. The whole 30-100 talk being a crap shoot is maybe partially true but generally the key is that those kids are better/have more potential than the next subset.

Things like playing time, coaching, style, teammates, etc effect their career arc so it is hard to say if the evaluators are wrong on "misses" in the first place.

But in general 5 stars are better than 4 stars, who are better than 3 then 2, then 1. This isn't 100% though and that is expected.

Also, generally the kids playing on these circuits are already considered the best of their peer groups and that is why the are playing in these events in the first place. Granted injuries and late maturation can foul this up (OG and Curry).

So in the end, the exact number isn't that important to me but the range is a factor that I think holds a lot of predictability.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[HoosierX 1,810]

54 minutes ago, WayneFleekHoosier said:

This is wild. Ratings aren't perfect but ratings aren't "crap" either. To argue that they have no validity is silly to me. The whole 30-100 talk being a crap shoot is maybe partially true but generally the key is that those kids are better/have more potential than the next subset.

Things like playing time, coaching, style, teammates, etc effect their career arc so it is hard to say if the evaluators are wrong on "misses" in the first place.

But in general 5 stars are better than 4 stars, who are better than 3 then 2, then 1. This isn't 100% though and that is expected.

Also, generally the kids playing on these circuits are already considered the best of their peer groups and that is why the are playing in these events in the first place. Granted injuries and late maturation can foul this up (OG and Curry).

So in the end, the exact number isn't that important to me but the range is a factor that I think holds a lot of predictability.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

But...do you know Gary Donna?

[Uspshoosier 54,731]

Ok? Nobody has argued against this? Can't there also be a direct correlation to winning at a high level which there is?
 
 
Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

I never said there wasn't a direct correlation to winning at a high level. I was just trying to say (sorry for it coming out wrong) I'm comfortable enough with my own evaluations of players from the AAU, high school, watching Facebook and YouTube full games of these players that for me rankings don't matter as much as it does for some others that don't have a chance to evaluate players. You will never hear me say scouts are crap and don't know what they are doing I respect the heck out of their job and know its difficult. Maybe my perspective is a little different since I've talked with many of these scouts at different AAU events and have got to know some of them personally. A couple of examples from some of my 4 days watching at Westfield. I had my list of players to evaluate that IU was looking but really had no knowledge or program that told me who else was on the teams. While watching Louis King's team a was paying closer attention to him. As good as he was it only took me two games to realize that he wasn't the stud on the team. Same with Watfords team. While I went to watch him another started to stand out and was clearly the stud on the team. Without looking at the rankings of these guys I was able to watch with my own eyes and come to the conclusion that these 2 were really good at basketball. Cam Reddish was kings teammate and veron Carey was Watfords. Of course when I looked them up they were top 5 recruits. As I was watching Swider I began a conversation with a scout that was watching he noticed I my son and I was decked out in IU gear so we started talking about CAM recruiting Swider. This scout goes on to tell me that CAM is recruiting Swider as a shooting guard and I politely disagreed but he was bullish and kind of jerk about it. We all know Swider wasn't recruited for his SG skills but a national scout tried to tell me he was. I'm sorry this probably has nothing to do with you were talking about but I thought I would share


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

[Walking Boot of Doom 18,170]

1 hour ago, WayneFleekHoosier said:

This is wild. Ratings aren't perfect but ratings aren't "crap" either. To argue that they have no validity is silly to me. The whole 30-100 talk being a crap shoot is maybe partially true but generally the key is that those kids are better/have more potential than the next subset.

Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

This is the point I made from the beginning. Even acknowledged that Phinisee could be totally undervalued. Glad someone has reading comprehension ability...

[Walking Boot of Doom 18,170]

1 hour ago, Uspshoosier said:

I never said there wasn't a direct correlation to winning at a high level. I was just trying to say (sorry for it coming out wrong) I'm comfortable enough with my own evaluations of players from the AAU, high school, watching Facebook and YouTube full games of these players that for me rankings don't matter as much as it does for some others that don't have a chance to evaluate players. You will never hear me say scouts are crap and don't know what they are doing I respect the heck out of their job and know its difficult. Maybe my perspective is a little different since I've talked with many of these scouts at different AAU events and have got to know some of them personally. A couple of examples from some of my 4 days watching at Westfield. I had my list of players to evaluate that IU was looking but really had no knowledge or program that told me who else was on the teams. While watching Louis King's team a was paying closer attention to him. As good as he was it only took me two games to realize that he wasn't the stud on the team. Same with Watfords team. While I went to watch him another started to stand out and was clearly the stud on the team. Without looking at the rankings of these guys I was able to watch with my own eyes and come to the conclusion that these 2 were really good at basketball. Cam Reddish was kings teammate and veron Carey was Watfords. Of course when I looked them up they were top 5 recruits. As I was watching Swider I began a conversation with a scout that was watching he noticed I my son and I was decked out in IU gear so we started talking about CAM recruiting Swider. This scout goes on to tell me that CAM is recruiting Swider as a shooting guard and I politely disagreed but he was bullish and kind of jerk about it. We all know Swider wasn't recruited for his SG skills but a national scout tried to tell me he was. I'm sorry this probably has nothing to do with you were talking about but I thought I would share


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

Your story is very interesting, and kudos on your evaluations. You provide good info here. I think you are saying rankings have no impact on recruiting (which they don't) and mdn is saying what I've been arguing the whole time that the rankings derived from professionals' evaluation of players are good indicators of success (which they are). 

This entire thread appears to be more complicated by base misunderstandings.