stat of the day: Big Ten talent comparison

[TR32]

I evaluated 247 sports rankings of players who played this season in the Big Ten.

Officially, there were 7 big ten teams with more talent than Indiana this season, and 4 with less talent. I'm sure you could argue a number of things about this one way or another but keep it civil. It is just for conversation.

I also generated a wins-per-star ranking to evaluate achievement. Michigan, Purdue, and Penn State are still alive so only current win totals count. Michigan and Purdue are way out in front of everyone else and neither of them has a 5-star player.

One might say that Michigan has gotten everything out of their talent this season.

Rules:
1.) top 9 players per team by minutes were tallied.
2.) players were ranked by stars no matter which team they originally signed with
3.) stars tallied: ex. 1 x 4-star = 4 pts.
3.) players I couldn't located received 2-stars.
4.) only players playing at least half the games counted, and in the cases where it was right at half, I took the big ten season half

Here are the rankings and the current "wins per star":

team total stars
Michigan 30
Purdue 30
Michigan St. 36
Ohio St. 30
Penn St. 30
Nebraska 30
Maryland 31
Rutgers 26
Wisconsin 27
Indiana 29
Minnesota 28
Northwestern 29
Iowa 28
Illinois 29

wins per star:
team wins per star
Michigan 1
Purdue 0.966666667
Michigan St. 0.833333333
Ohio St. 0.833333333
Penn St. 0.766666667
Nebraska 0.733333333
Maryland 0.612903226
Rutgers 0.576923077
Wisconsin 0.555555556
Indiana 0.551724138
Minnesota 0.535714286
Northwestern 0.517241379
Iowa 0.5
Illinois 0.482758621

 

[IndianaHoops]

How did you calculate Davis and Jones not playing the second half of the season?

Just curious....

They are both 4 stars.

 

[fpeaugh]

How did you calculate Davis and Jones not playing the second half of the season?

Just curious....

They are both 4 stars.

I’m sure he excluded them. That’s why our total is so low

 

[fpeaugh]

I evaluated 247 sports rankings of players who played this season in the Big Ten.

Officially, there were 7 big ten teams with more talent than Indiana this season, and 4 with less talent. I'm sure you could argue a number of things about this one way or another but keep it civil. It is just for conversation.

I also generated a wins-per-star ranking to evaluate achievement. Michigan, Purdue, and Penn State are still alive so only current win totals count. Michigan and Purdue are way out in front of everyone else and neither of them has a 5-star player.

One might say that Michigan has gotten everything out of their talent this season.

Rules:
1.) top 9 players per team by minutes were tallied.
2.) players were ranked by stars no matter which team they originally signed with
3.) stars tallied: ex. 1 x 4-star = 4 pts.
3.) players I couldn't located received 2-stars.
4.) only players playing at least half the games counted, and in the cases where it was right at half, I took the big ten season half

Here are the rankings and the current "wins per star":

team total stars
Michigan 30
Purdue 30
Michigan St. 36
Ohio St. 30
Penn St. 30
Nebraska 30
Maryland 31
Rutgers 26
Wisconsin 27
Indiana 29
Minnesota 28
Northwestern 29
Iowa 28
Illinois 29

wins per star:
team wins per star
Michigan 1
Purdue 0.966666667
Michigan St. 0.833333333
Ohio St. 0.833333333
Penn St. 0.766666667
Nebraska 0.733333333
Maryland 0.612903226
Rutgers 0.576923077
Wisconsin 0.555555556
Indiana 0.551724138
Minnesota 0.535714286
Northwestern 0.517241379
Iowa 0.5
Illinois 0.482758621

Why top 9? I see a big flaw imo. You’re not scaling at all. You’re assuming the 9th best player is as important to the team as their best player. A guy who averages 6 mpg the same as a guy who averages 36 minutes.

Thanks for doing this. It’s interesting. I do think you need to come up with a scale or something to get a more accurate reflection.

 

[BigNutsIUFan]

I wish there was a rating out there for college players. In a lot of cases a 3 star college senior is better than a 4 star freshman. Plain and simple outside of Juwan Morgan and some good games from Robert Johnson our team just stunk this year. There was a stretch where we came together and just came up a bit short against Mich St, Purdue, and Ohio St. I'm hoping Archie speeds up the learning curve next year or it could be a rough start again.

 

[IndianaHoops]

I’m sure he excluded them. That’s why our total is so low

No, he included them.

Our total should be lower.......much lower.

 

[fpeaugh]

No, he included them.

Our total should be lower.......much lower.

He couldn’t have. The math is pretty simple.

4 stars:
Rob
Davis
Smith
Moore
Jones

3 stars:
Morgan
Al
Green
McSwain

That’s 32 points - 2nd in the conference. He has us at 29.

I assume he’s not counting those two because of total minutes and counting McBob who was a 2 and some other lower players instead. That skews the numbers a bit lower than they would be with Davis and Jones.

 

[IndianaHoops]

He couldn’t have. The math is pretty simple.

4 stars:
Rob
Davis
Smith
Moore
Jones

3 stars:
Morgan
Green
McSwain

I assume he’s not counting those two because of total minutes and counting McBob who was a 2 and some other lower players instead. That skews the numbers a bit lower than they would be with Davis and Jones.

247 Rankings (https://247sports.com/Season/2013-Basketball/CompositeRecruitRankings?InstitutionGroup=HighSchool)

Going with top 150 (3 star)

Moore isn’t a 4 star.....or a 3 star

Al isn’t a 3 star.

McSwain is a JUCO.

4 Stars - 16
Rob
Davis
Jones
Smith

3 Stars - 12
Morgan
Green
Newkirk
Hartman

Thompson 3 star - Did not play

Not Ranked
Durham
Moore
McSwain
Priller

28....with Davis and Jones.

Without Davis and Jones, 20, which is easily the worst talent in league this year.

 

[fpeaugh]

247 Rankings (https://247sports.com/Season/2013-Basketball/CompositeRecruitRankings?InstitutionGroup=HighSchool)

Going with top 150 (3 star)

Moore isn’t a 4 star.....or a 3 star

Al isn’t a 3 star.

McSwain is a JUCO.

4 Stars - 16
Rob
Davis
Jones
Smith

3 Stars - 12
Morgan
Green
Newkirk
Hartman

Thompson 3 star - Did not play

Not Ranked
Durham
Moore
McSwain
Priller

28....with Davis and Jones.

Without Davis and Jones, 20, which is easily the worst talent in league this year.

You’re really struggling with some very basic math here man. And I’m not sure how or why unless it’s for an agenda.

Let’s look at 247 then.

4 stars:
Morgan
Rob
Davis
Jones
Smith

3 stars:
Hartman
Al
Green
McSwain
Moore

That’s still 32 points - 2nd in the conference. I’m not sure how you’re missing the boat this bad. It’s about as basic of a concept as you’ll ever find.

 

[IndianaHoops]

You’re really struggling with some very basic math here man. And I’m not sure how or why unless it’s for an agenda.

Let’s look at 247 then.

4 stars:
Morgan
Rob
Davis
Jones
Smith

3 stars:
Hartman
Al
Green
McSwain
Moore

That’s still 32 points - 2nd in the conference. I’m not sure how you’re missing the boat this bad. It’s about as basic of a concept as you’ll ever find.

After looking at this, 247 is weird.....

Morgan is NOT a 4 star. He was not top 100. 117 is the same as 26? lol

Al is not top 150, not a 3 star. He isn’t even top 200. You really consider 225 a 3 star? lol

I guess you could put Moore in there at 3 stars at top 151....but that isn’t a typical 3 star rating.

For example, April was a 3 star.....at 410.....lol

I know your agenda, and it’s cute.....but IU had one of the least talented teams in the B10 last year, especially after Davis and Jones left.

Use a different site.....rivals, scout, or espn

 

[TR32]

Let me clarify, and keep in mind it is a single source for consistency:

247 sports rankings. Top 9 by minutes. Half the season minimum/ Big Ten half. All unranked or unfound top 9 players are given 2-stars

Davis, Jones, and Moore are out due to those comments above.

4 star = Johnson, Morgan, Smith = 12 points
3 star = Hartman, Newkirk, Green, Durham, McSwain (difficult to leave out JC and Prep school even though technically they are separately ranked) = 15 points
2 star = McRoberts = 2 points.

12+15+2 = 29.

 

[fpeaugh]

After looking at this, 247 is weird.....

Morgan is NOT a 4 star. He was not top 100. 117 is the same as 26? lol

Al is not top 150, not a 3 star. He isn’t even top 200. You really consider 225 a 3 star? lol

I guess you could put Moore in there at 3 stars at top 151....but that isn’t a typical 3 star rating.

For example, April was a 3 star.....at 410.....lol

I know your agenda, and it’s cute.....but IU had one of the least talented teams in the B10 last year, especially after Davis and Jones left.

Use a different site.....rivals, scout, or espn

It’s pretty simple to find the list.

https://indiana.247sports.com/Season/2014-Basketball/Commits

You can’t make exclusions for IU and not for the teams you’re comparing us to.

I’d say we were around 6th talent wise which is where we finished. We’re nowhere remotely close to the bottom of the conference. There are teams without a single 4 star.

 

[fpeaugh]

Let me clarify, and keep in mind it is a single source for consistency:

247 sports rankings. Top 9 by minutes. Half the season minimum/ Big Ten half. All unranked or unfound top 9 players are given 2-stars

Davis, Jones, and Moore are out due to those comments above.

4 star = Johnson, Morgan, Smith = 12 points
3 star = Hartman, Newkirk, Green, Durham, McSwain (difficult to leave out JC and Prep school even though technically they are separately ranked) = 15 points
2 star = McRoberts = 2 points.

12+15+2 = 29.

Thanks. Why 9 players? That’s including some players averaging less than 10 mpg. Just curious how you came up with that.

 

[TR32]

Top 9 is a cutoff. If I had gone with top 6 or even 7, IU would probably have a higher wins per stars ranking vs. some other schools. Had I used minutes as the cutoff, I would use 10 minutes per game, but that would not ensure the same number per team, so I ranked each team by minutes and used the top 9.

If we did this every year we could come to some understanding of what a 1.0 wins per star really means and whether the numbers should be corrected in some way.

In terms of talent comparisons, it might be reasonable to assign 6 points for a 5-star, 4 points for a 4-star, 2 points for a 3 star and 1 point for a 2 star. But considering the top current Big Ten teams remaining are hovering around 1.0, I think it is at least reasonable for discussion purposes.

Duncan Robinson receives only 2-stars because he transferred in from DIII, but no one would suggest that he isn't more talented than that. But that is the entire point of the exercise. Personal development, team development, fit-in-system, and of course coaching should all help to define how a talent pool may be molded to achieve greater than the sum of the parts.

I will go back and rate the past few seasons to see how Archie did with this group.

 

[TR32]

Thanks. Why 9 players? That’s including some players averaging less than 10 mpg. Just curious how you came up with that.

Most teams run 8 or 9 if you kind of look at their minutes and sub patterns during games. It has to be a consistent number. Going with 8 is probably a good cut off as well. Perhaps better than 9.

 

[TR32]

team 5-star 4-star 3-star 2-star
Michigan 0 5 2 2
Purdue 0 4 4 1
Michigan St. 3 4 1 1
Ohio St. 0 4 4 1
Penn St. 0 4 4 1
Nebraska 1 3 3 2
Maryland 0 6 1 2
Rutgers 0 1 6 2
Wisconsin 0 3 3 3
Indiana 0 3 5 1
Minnesota 0 2 6 1
Northwestern 0 2 7 0
Iowa 0 2 6 1
Illinois 0 3 5 1

 

[IndianaHoops]

team 5-star 4-star 3-star 2-star
Michigan 0 5 2 2
Purdue 0 4 4 1
Michigan St. 3 4 1 1
Ohio St. 0 4 4 1
Penn St. 0 4 4 1
Nebraska 1 3 3 2
Maryland 0 6 1 2
Rutgers 0 1 6 2
Wisconsin 0 3 3 3
Indiana 0 3 5 1
Minnesota 0 2 6 1
Northwestern 0 2 7 0
Iowa 0 2 6 1
Illinois 0 3 5 1

3 star rating goes all the way to 450?

Forget stars and go with average rating.

That range is waaaayyyy too big.

 

[IndianaHoops]

It’s pretty simple to find the list.

https://indiana.247sports.com/Season/2014-Basketball/Commits

You can’t make exclusions for IU and not for the teams you’re comparing us to.

I’d say we were around 6th talent wise which is where we finished. We’re nowhere remotely close to the bottom of the conference. There are teams without a single 4 star.

All teams have at least 2 4 Stars......except Rutgers and they have 1

 

[TR32]

3 star rating goes all the way to 450?

Forget stars and go with average rating.

That range is waaaayyyy too big.

3-star goes down to their rating of 0.810. It allows different years to be comparable even if there are more good players in a given year. It does seem like quite a stretch. It would be a lot of work, but only taking something close to the top 150 players might be a good way to do it.

 

[TR32]

All teams have at least 2 4 Stars......except Rutgers and they have 1

Also, Indiana is the highest ranked team in the conference with only 3 5+4 star players. Everyone else tied or above IU has at least 4, and MSU has 7.

When you factor in that Archie was a first year coach and no one in the rankings is over 6'7-6'8" (Morgan), it makes Miller look pretty efficient at least relative to his conference peers.

It also predicts a jump next season purely based on talent increases.

 

[parkerman]

I like this sort of analysis, thanks! What is the most glaring fact for me is that of the 4 5star players in the BIG, Michigan State has 3 of them. The total number of them seems low, and as far as recruiting goes, Michigan State is in a league of its own.

These results somewhat tarnishes the Izzo record in that he should be dominant. Would be interesting to see the same numbers using only BIG regular season wins. Izzo does a harder preseason schedule than most other teams (he did win the regular season after all). The unbalanced schedule will skew the results, but does seem a good counterpoint to the preseason cupcake teams. The current analysis gives equal weight to BIG wins and cupcake wins.

 

[SIhoosier26]

All teams have at least 2 4 Stars......except Rutgers and they have 1

That doesn't fit his agenda

 

[T.M.P.]

.rivals, scout, or espn

Combine them into a consensus...

 

[cshartle123]

Use composite national rank for each player rather than stars or ratings. The highest ranking score has the lowest talent.