Way-too-early top 25 college basketball teams for next year

[IU? I'm Fine]

Indiana had six players starting 9 games or more games and won 20 games. They were slotted to make the NCAA Tournament, and all six are anticipated to return. Indiana also has a recruiting class that is estimated to be in the top 30. That does not include 5* PG Lander who is likely to reclassify.

Well, I predict that IU gets Lander early. But being a really young freshman he will be brought along slowly at first...maybe. But, then again, how can a coach not use a 5*? Put him in.

Green is gone and D. Davis is gone, too. Good luck to those young men.

Race continues to improve, gains strength, giving IU excellent options inside. If he hits from 12' out that would be a big lift. Phin gets healthier and stronger and begins to regain quickness and spark and hit his shots. Brunk is Brunk...but his hedging on defense has to be addressed. He is not quick. But means well. Maybe, he improves by going left.

Any outside shooting by others and/or improved guard play will open up the offense.

Al Durham may just become more steady. Smith, too. They both have to step up...each and every game. Al will learn to not let his assignment get ahead of him. Both will improve their shots...maybe.

TJD will hot have to carry the load as much. But his game is going to go out the top. When IU starts hitting the outside shot and our guards play like some of the best in the B1G, then the sky may be the limit for the team and for TJD. Will TJD stretch his shot out to the 3?

Defense will become better as long and smart players get experience. More transition scoring opportunities will be opened by the defense. Archie Miller has more options as his bench improves from what he inherited.

IU will get another grad transfer that can hit the 3 consistently.

I also predict that IU is rated early in the low to mid 20's. They will play their way, at times, into the upper teens. They end the conference season with 12 B1G wins. Regular season they have 23 wins.

Seeded 6 in the NCAAT, they stay in the east and win at least the first 2 tourney games.

 

[SouthBendJim]

Indiana had six players starting 9 games or more games and won 20 games. They were slotted to make the NCAA Tournament, and all six are anticipated to return. Indiana also has a recruiting class that is estimated to be in the top 30. That does not include 5* PG Landers who is likely to reclassify.

Well, I predict that IU gets Landers early. But being a really young freshman he will be brought along slowly at first...maybe. But, then again, how can a coach not use a 5*? Put him in.

Green is gone and D. Davis is gone, too. Good luck to those young men.

Race continues to improve, gains strength, giving IU excellent options inside. If he hits from 12' out that would be a big lift. Phin gets healthier and stronger and begins to regain quickness and spark and hit his shots. Brunk is Brunk...but his hedging on defense has to be addressed. He is not quick. But means well. Maybe, he improves by going left.

Any outside shooting by others and/or improved guard play will open up the offense.

Al Durham may just become more steady. Smith, too. They both have to step up...each and every game. Al will learn to not let his assignment get ahead of him. Both will improve their shots...maybe.

TJD will hot have to carry the load as much. But his game is going to go out the top. When IU starts hitting the outside shot and our guards play like some of the best in the B1G, then the sky may be the limit for the team and for TJD. Will TJD stretch his shot out to the 3?

Defense will become better as long and smart players get experience. More transition scoring opportunities will be opened by the defense. Archie Miller has more options as his bench improves from what he inherited.

IU will get another grad transfer that can hit the 3 consistently.

I also predict that IU is rated early in the low to mid 20's. They will play their way, at times, into the upper teens. They end the conference season with 12 B1G wins. Regular season they have 23 wins.

Seeded 6 in the NCAAT, they stay in the east and win at least the first 2 tourney games.

Sounds plausible to me. I've been optimistic about Archie from the start. What we couldn't have accomplished this year with some shooters! I think we'll be getting those next year. Looking forward to Hunter living up to his billing. Hope we can land a really good big man.

 

[Paterfamilias]

Fwiw... here are my current Big 10 roster ratings for next season. Taking a few guesses on leave early dudes. The individual player ratings are based on recruiting rankings an experience only... not performance based. Torvik and others are obviously much superior, but at least it's something to look at during the way too early off-season The ranking next to each teams name is a six year average for where they would land nationally, if my projected Sagarin Rating turned out to be accurate. This isn't my prediction or "guarantee" as predictions are sometimes viewed here... just extremely early roster ratings. For entertainment purposes only

 

[Birnk403]

Fwiw... here are my current Big 10 roster ratings for next season. Taking a few guesses on leave early dudes. The individual player ratings are based on recruiting rankings an experience only... not performance based. Torvik and others are obviously much superior, but at least it's something to look at during the way too early off-season The ranking next to each teams name is a six year average for where they would land nationally, if my projected Sagarin Rating turned out to be accurate. This isn't my prediction or "guarantee" as predictions are sometimes viewed here... just extremely early roster ratings. For entertainment purposes only

Did you complete something like this for the 19-20 team? If so, where did you have IU rated? Thanks.

 

[Paterfamilias]

Did you complete something like this for the 19-20 team? If so, where did you have IU rated? Thanks.

I had IU at #23 (among Power 6 conference teams), with an expected Sagarin of 86.08. IU finished about 1.5 points worse than what I had them. Had they gotten to 86.08, they would have finished tied for 22nd in Sagarin. IU finished 27th in Sagarin among the Power 6 schools, so they really weren't that far off from my roster projections.

The Big 10 overall was much, much better than I had them last year. This upcoming year was supposed to be the big year for the conference, but it seemed like all of the teams got good a year early.

 

[Birnk403]

I had IU at #23 (among Power 6 conference teams), with an expected Sagarin of 86.08. IU finished about 1.5 points worse than what I had them. Had they gotten to 86.08, they would have finished tied for 22nd in Sagarin. IU finished 27th in Sagarin among the Power 6 schools, so they really weren't that far off from my roster projections.

The Big 10 overall was much, much better than I had them last year. This upcoming year was supposed to be the big year for the conference, but it seemed like all of the teams got good a year early.

Thanks.

 

[hondo314]

Fwiw... here are my current Big 10 roster ratings for next season. Taking a few guesses on leave early dudes. The individual player ratings are based on recruiting rankings an experience only... not performance based. Torvik and others are obviously much superior, but at least it's something to look at during the way too early off-season The ranking next to each teams name is a six year average for where they would land nationally, if my projected Sagarin Rating turned out to be accurate. This isn't my prediction or "guarantee" as predictions are sometimes viewed here... just extremely early roster ratings. For entertainment purposes only

Pater, we can tell a thinly veiled guarantee when we read one. Plus we have this time stamped. Lol

 

[Falky22]

I had IU at #23 (among Power 6 conference teams), with an expected Sagarin of 86.08. IU finished about 1.5 points worse than what I had them. Had they gotten to 86.08, they would have finished tied for 22nd in Sagarin. IU finished 27th in Sagarin among the Power 6 schools, so they really weren't that far off from my roster projections.

The Big 10 overall was much, much better than I had them last year. This upcoming year was supposed to be the big year for the conference, but it seemed like all of the teams got good a year early.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

 

[birdforbogey]

Fwiw... here are my current Big 10 roster ratings for next season. Taking a few guesses on leave early dudes. The individual player ratings are based on recruiting rankings an experience only... not performance based. Torvik and others are obviously much superior, but at least it's something to look at during the way too early off-season The ranking next to each teams name is a six year average for where they would land nationally, if my projected Sagarin Rating turned out to be accurate. This isn't my prediction or "guarantee" as predictions are sometimes viewed here... just extremely early roster ratings. For entertainment purposes only

Excellent work Pater!

 

[rsomm]

I guess I don't understand. TJD is rated at 29. Luke Garza the BT player of the year is rated at 27? Cockburn the freshman of the year is rated at 24? I think TJD is going to be really good, but first he needs to get a jump shot. You have him the best player in the BT? He might make preseason 2nd team BT. The BT should be better next year than last year. A lot of really good players return. It will be hard for the team that finished a 11 seed in the BT T to finish in the upper part of the conference.

 

[Paterfamilias]

I guess I don't understand. TJD is rated at 29. Luke Garza the BT player of the year is rated at 27? Cockburn the freshman of the year is rated at 24? I think TJD is going to be really good, but first he needs to get a jump shot. You have him the best player in the BT? He might make preseason 2nd team BT. The BT should be better next year than last year. A lot of really good players return. It will be hard for the team that finished a 11 seed in the BT T to finish in the upper part of the conference.

The whole chart is based entirely on recruiting rankings and experience level. Some player rankings will look ridiculous because some turn out to be busts. TJD actually has a score a bit higher than his ranking (#26) calls for, because McDonalds All-Americans automatically get rated like they were Top 25.

The whole thing is based on 7 years of productivity averages that I found for each recruiting level....

1-10
11-25
26-50
51-75
76-100
4,4,4
4,4,3
4,4,X
4 X,X
4,3 ,3
4,3,X
3,3,3
3,3,X
3,X,X
3,2,2
3,2,X
JC 1-5
JC 6-15
JC 16-25
JC 26-50
JC 51-100
Juco unranked
Foreign

I read all I can about foreign players and grad transfers to try to give them a suitable score. I'm not sure I'm doing a real good job on the ones that I have to make up on my own.

It's fun and helps in preparation for betting games, which I take pretty seriously.

 

[minneman]

I guess I don't understand. TJD is rated at 29. Luke Garza the BT player of the year is rated at 27? Cockburn the freshman of the year is rated at 24? I think TJD is going to be really good, but first he needs to get a jump shot. You have him the best player in the BT? He might make preseason 2nd team BT. The BT should be better next year than last year. A lot of really good players return. It will be hard for the team that finished a 11 seed in the BT T to finish in the upper part of the conference.

If you read what he wrote, he specifically says that those numbers are based only on HS rank plus experience. It doesn't account for actual performance.

 

[.Gerdis]

If you read what he wrote, he specifically says that those numbers are based only on HS rank plus experience. It doesn't account for actual performance.

and there’s an argument that can be made that talent shouldn’t be measured by actual performance, as it doesn’t exist in a vacuum. In other words flip Garza and TJD, and their numbers wont be the same. The performance is is a result of a number of things, talent being only one of them.

Put Race Thompson on MSU, or Maryland, of Nu. The results may vary greatly. On one team maybe he’s 1st team all B10, and on another maybe he never plays. One just doesn’t know. But, his “talent” will be the same. Of course a player can also be developed, or I should say a player can minimize or maximize his talent based on a number of things. If DA started for another team and averaged 25 points would he be more talented?

What Pater is trying to do is use data based off a HS rating baseline, colored with an experience factor. A player can perform better or worse based on circumstances, system, luck, health, coaching, etc.

Taken another way, would TJD perform “better” if he were on Gonzaga, prairie view State, UNC, or UCLA last year? Who knows.

You could take our roster and move it entirely to another team and have completely different opinions on who our best players are, and what are our team weaknesses and strengths.

 

[fkfootball]

We could be good next year and still finish like 9th in conference. The Big Ten is just stupid good right now. I hate it.

 

[rsomm]

So your trying to say IU has the best high school talent in the BT! Is that a ataboy for Coach to get this team to the bottom of the BT? When you have players like Olidipo or Carson Edwards who 3 star talent in highschool, it has very little bearing on the current college talent level. Almost every team has a player or two that are far better than their highschool ranking, and almost all have overrated players. So what is the end goal? Some people are going to look at your assumptions and come away with that IU should be the runaway favorite for the BT. I guarantee IU won't be.

 

[go_iu]

Indiana had six players starting 9 games or more games and won 20 games. They were slotted to make the NCAA Tournament, and all six are anticipated to return. Indiana also has a recruiting class that is estimated to be in the top 30. That does not include 5* PG Landers who is likely to reclassify.

Well, I predict that IU gets Landers early. But being a really young freshman he will be brought along slowly at first...maybe. But, then again, how can a coach not use a 5*? Put him in.

Green is gone and D. Davis is gone, too. Good luck to those young men.

Race continues to improve, gains strength, giving IU excellent options inside. If he hits from 12' out that would be a big lift. Phin gets healthier and stronger and begins to regain quickness and spark and hit his shots. Brunk is Brunk...but his hedging on defense has to be addressed. He is not quick. But means well. Maybe, he improves by going left.

Any outside shooting by others and/or improved guard play will open up the offense.

Al Durham may just become more steady. Smith, too. They both have to step up...each and every game. Al will learn to not let his assignment get ahead of him. Both will improve their shots...maybe.

TJD will hot have to carry the load as much. But his game is going to go out the top. When IU starts hitting the outside shot and our guards play like some of the best in the B1G, then the sky may be the limit for the team and for TJD. Will TJD stretch his shot out to the 3?

Defense will become better as long and smart players get experience. More transition scoring opportunities will be opened by the defense. Archie Miller has more options as his bench improves from what he inherited.

IU will get another grad transfer that can hit the 3 consistently.

I also predict that IU is rated early in the low to mid 20's. They will play their way, at times, into the upper teens. They end the conference season with 12 B1G wins. Regular season they have 23 wins.

Seeded 6 in the NCAAT, they stay in the east and win at least the first 2 tourney games.

Right on Lander, he should be handed the keys before the first practice!!!!!!! Maybe Rob can redshirt if he manages to get another concussion walking down the street in the off season.

 

[Paterfamilias]

So your trying to say IU has the best high school talent in the BT! Is that a ataboy for Coach to get this team to the bottom of the BT? When you have players like Olidipo or Carson Edwards who 3 star talent in highschool, it has very little bearing on the current college talent level. Almost every team has a player or two that are far better than their highschool ranking, and almost all have overrated players. So what is the end goal? Some people are going to look at your assumptions and come away with that IU should be the runaway favorite for the BT. I guarantee IU won't be.

I don't know that I'm trying to say anything really. The original "endgame" as you call it was to provide my workplace fantasy college basketball league with our own little magazine complete with cheat sheets. Now I just enjoy tracking the recruiting rankings to see how predictive they are.

I also go back at seasons end and recalculate based on the top 8 players in minutes. Sometimes I throw a player out of the calculation altogether if injury has altered the trajectory of his career. It's also kind of cool that I can do historic roster ratings as far back as I can dig up recruiting rankings.

Here's a quick look at IU dating back to 2002. I've ranked each team by it's Expected Sagarin (taking out guys like Mo Creek and Deron Davis) based on the kids that actually received the playing minutes for the season. Then I compare that to Sagarin's final rating for each team to find out which teams overachieved or underachieved based on "Paper Roster Talent & Experience"

Is it the gospel? Of course not! Regardless, it's the kind of thing that interests me and I have yet to find anyone else giving me better content than I provide for myself... mostly because nobody else does anything like what I'm doing.

I've written many letters dating back to my youth trying to convince magazines that they should include recruiting rankings with their team rosters. Just seeing name, height, weight and hometown doesn't give me any clue as to kids likely career trajectory.

Anyway, I finally just decided to do it for myself and my fantasy league. I share it here most years because I figure that a few are like me and dig this kind of stuff whether it's a great predictive model or not.

 

[Radio Zero]

I don't know that I'm trying to say anything really. The original "endgame" as you call it was to provide my workplace fantasy college basketball league with our own little magazine complete with cheat sheets. Now I just enjoy tracking the recruiting rankings to see how predictive they are.

I also go back at seasons end and recalculate based on the top 8 players in minutes. Sometimes I throw a player out of the calculation altogether if injury has altered the trajectory of his career. It's also kind of cool that I can do historic roster ratings as far back as I can dig up recruiting rankings.

Here's a quick look at IU dating back to 2002. I've ranked each team by it's Expected Sagarin (taking out guys like Mo Creek and Deron Davis) based on the kids that actually received the playing minutes for the season. Then I compare that to Sagarin's final rating for each team to find out which teams overachieved or underachieved based on "Paper Roster Talent & Experience"

Is it the gospel? Of course not! Regardless, it's the kind of thing that interests me and I have yet to find anyone else giving me better content than I provide for myself... mostly because nobody else does anything like what I'm doing.

I've written many letters dating back to my youth trying to convince magazines that they should include recruiting rankings with their team rosters. Just seeing name, height, weight and hometown doesn't give me any clue as to kids likely career trajectory.

Anyway, I finally just decided to do it for myself and my fantasy league. I share it here most years because I figure that a few are like me and dig this kind of stuff whether it's a great predictive model or not.

So the number to the left of the coach’s name is under/overachievement? Thanks in advance.

 

[Paterfamilias]

So the number to the left of the coach’s name is under/overachievement? Thanks in advance.

Yep... but remember it's just based on my roster rankings which are based 100% off of recruiting rankings and experience, nothing else!

 

[go_iu]

I don't know that I'm trying to say anything really. The original "endgame" as you call it was to provide my workplace fantasy college basketball league with our own little magazine complete with cheat sheets. Now I just enjoy tracking the recruiting rankings to see how predictive they are.

I also go back at seasons end and recalculate based on the top 8 players in minutes. Sometimes I throw a player out of the calculation altogether if injury has altered the trajectory of his career. It's also kind of cool that I can do historic roster ratings as far back as I can dig up recruiting rankings.

Here's a quick look at IU dating back to 2002. I've ranked each team by it's Expected Sagarin (taking out guys like Mo Creek and Deron Davis) based on the kids that actually received the playing minutes for the season. Then I compare that to Sagarin's final rating for each team to find out which teams overachieved or underachieved based on "Paper Roster Talent & Experience"

Is it the gospel? Of course not! Regardless, it's the kind of thing that interests me and I have yet to find anyone else giving me better content than I provide for myself... mostly because nobody else does anything like what I'm doing.

I've written many letters dating back to my youth trying to convince magazines that they should include recruiting rankings with their team rosters. Just seeing name, height, weight and hometown doesn't give me any clue as to kids likely career trajectory.

Anyway, I finally just decided to do it for myself and my fantasy league. I share it here most years because I figure that a few are like me and dig this kind of stuff whether it's a great predictive model or not.

That's too much math, I just do eye test and does it look like IU ball. The last time it did really was Davis/Sampson era and that's very sad considering we basically paid Davis in food stamps and had loftier expectations and better results.

 

[rsomm]

I see no use for these ratings. It's obvious that they have no relationship to the BT teams. So why rate teams bye how their players are rated in highschool! IU looks like they best highschool talent, but that "highschool" talent can't beat teams like Wisconsin or Purdue who's "highschool" talent is so poor? I think the only thing you have established, that the ratings do not translate to the college basketball court.

 

[minneman]

I see no use for these ratings. It's obvious that they have no relationship to the BT teams. So why rate teams bye how their players are rated in highschool! IU looks like they best highschool talent, but that "highschool" talent can't beat teams like Wisconsin or Purdue who's "highschool" talent is so poor? I think the only thing you have established, that the ratings do not translate to the college basketball court.

Then ignore them. @Paterfamilias even says, "for entertainment purposes only" while also recognizing they're far from perfect. You'd know this if you actually read what he wrote instead of skipping that and just jumping to complaining.

I, for one, find them interesting and am glad he posts them. I also disagree that they're useless. They did give an idea of how well the coach is doing. Is he making players better or not? Are they playing better than would be expected?

 

[Paterfamilias]

I see no use for these ratings. It's obvious that they have no relationship to the BT teams. So why rate teams bye how their players are rated in highschool! IU looks like they best highschool talent, but that "highschool" talent can't beat teams like Wisconsin or Purdue who's "highschool" talent is so poor? I think the only thing you have established, that the ratings do not translate to the college basketball court.

Why does this bother you so much? How about you rank the Big 10 next year for me, and we'll compare at the end of next year to see if you were able to outperform a system that pays zero attention to anything that's ever happened on a college basketball court. This should be a pretty easy victory for you and whatever you do... don't refer to my stupid rosters while compiling your list.

 

[iubud]

Fwiw... here are my current Big 10 roster ratings for next season. Taking a few guesses on leave early dudes. The individual player ratings are based on recruiting rankings an experience only... not performance based. Torvik and others are obviously much superior, but at least it's something to look at during the way too early off-season The ranking next to each teams name is a six year average for where they would land nationally, if my projected Sagarin Rating turned out to be accurate. This isn't my prediction or "guarantee" as predictions are sometimes viewed here... just extremely early roster ratings. For entertainment purposes only

I like to see Indiana at #9. It might be a little higher than I expect, but we are headed in that direction from talent and experience. I do expect improvement from this year. Guard play has held us back. Phinisee as a junior with Franklin and Durham are solid, but the infusion of Lander, Leal and Galloway should give us better options than we had this year. We lose Green and add a lot more.

I'll take TJD. Thompson, and Smith as they were this year with the hope for a little improvement and more consistency. Brunk needs more strength. Hunter is a wildcard that could have the biggest improvement.

 

[Emartin70287]

Why is Damezi listed as a sg? Has he ever played that position?

 

[Paterfamilias]

Why is Damezi listed as a sg? Has he ever played that position?

I just use the positions as they are listed at verbalcommits.com. Some of them occasionally aren't correct, but it's easier to just treat all teams the same and use the rosters as they appear.

 

[Emartin70287]

I just use the positions as they are listed at verbalcommits.com. Some of them occasionally aren't correct, but it's easier to just treat all teams the same and use the rosters as they appear.

Thats fair.

 

[Paterfamilias]

Thats fair.

It turns out that verbal commits actually has Anderson listed as a SF now. Perhaps they always did, but they do change positions once in a while. Could be that I just hit a g when I should have hit f on the keyboard, and I mostly don't do position changes after commitment.

I went ahead and fixed it, because (now that you bring it up) it will keep calling out to me for correction... plus I needed to do an update on Ohio State and a correction to Nebraska.

 

[MKordIUBB]

We could be good next year and still finish like 9th in conference. The Big Ten is just stupid good right now. I hate it.

We could be 7th in the conference and finish in the top 25. BIG is literally the SEC for football, now with actual title contenders

 

[5morebanners]

So your trying to say IU has the best high school talent in the BT! Is that a ataboy for Coach to get this team to the bottom of the BT? When you have players like Olidipo or Carson Edwards who 3 star talent in highschool, it has very little bearing on the current college talent level. Almost every team has a player or two that are far better than their highschool ranking, and almost all have overrated players. So what is the end goal? Some people are going to look at your assumptions and come away with that IU should be the runaway favorite for the BT. I guarantee IU won't be.

He’s not trying to say anything... It’s data, not an opinion. Some people like facts. Try being one of them.

 

[.Gerdis]

BIG is literally the SEC for football, now with actual title contenders

The B10 hasn’t won a National championship in basketball in 20 years. That’s despite numerous number 1 and 2 seeds. This year there were a bunch of top 25 teams, but the league was much weaker at the top than it was at any point over the last 20 years.

The SEC cranks our football national titles on a regular basis.

comparing the relative strength (top to bottom) of last years B10 BB to SEC football is one thing. But, if you are talking titles there is no comparison.

edit: I believe they SEC has 11 FB national championships since 2003. That’s nuts.

 

[Birnk403]

He’s not trying to say anything... It’s data, not an opinion. Some people like facts. Try being one of them.

I really like it, but a big chunk of it isn’t data at all.

 

[Cutter1973]

That's too much math, I just do eye test and does it look like IU ball. The last time it did really was Davis/Sampson era and that's very sad considering we basically paid Davis in food stamps and had loftier expectations and better results.

You are clueless. What is “IU Ball”?

 

[Paterfamilias]

So your trying to say IU has the best high school talent in the BT! Is that a ataboy for Coach to get this team to the bottom of the BT? When you have players like Olidipo or Carson Edwards who 3 star talent in highschool, it has very little bearing on the current college talent level. Almost every team has a player or two that are far better than their highschool ranking, and almost all have overrated players. So what is the end goal? Some people are going to look at your assumptions and come away with that IU should be the runaway favorite for the BT. I guarantee IU won't be.

I almost let it slip by that you called Carsen Edwards a 3-star recruit. Edwards was ranked in the Top 100 by ESPN and Rivals, even the 247 composite calls him a 4-star. The 247 in-house rank was in the 130 range as a 3-star.

In my system, Edwards was a (4,4,3) with a trajectory of 14-21-24-27. By his junior year the 24 would be colored yellow, which indicates All-Conference Watch List level. The 27 in his senior season indicates National Awards Watch List level.

Obviously Edwards didn't need 4 years and was better than his rankings, but not by as much as you think. People say the same about Juwan Morgan (calling him a 3-star), but he was also a 4,4,3 who ended up being just about what he was supposed to be. Juwan was ranked #77 by 247 (in-house) and his lone 3-star ranking was Rivals, who had him ranked just outside the Top 100 at #109. These are highly touted dudes that are supposed to be high level upperclassmen.

**Edit** I mistakenly gave the trajectory of 4,4,4 recruits rather than 4,4,3 above, but still both Edwards and Morgan projected as All-Conference watch list guys by career end.

 

[5morebanners]

5morebanners said:

↑



He’s not trying to say anything... It’s data, not an opinion. Some people like facts. Try being one of them.

I really like it, but a big chunk of it isn’t data at all.
[/quote]
Which part? The foreign players? Maybe, on the surface but the predictive values still reliably establish a trend line over time. Again, it’s just additional data for your brain to analyze. Do you feel the same way about Sag, Kenpom and others formulas as well? Just curious?

 

[Birnk403]

I really like it, but a big chunk of it isn’t data at all.

Which part? The foreign players? Maybe, on the surface but the predictive values still reliably establish a trend line over time. Again, it’s just additional data for your brain to analyze. Do you feel the same way about Sag, Kenpom and others formulas as well? Just curious?[/QUOTE]
None of the high school rankings are “data”, they’re opinions assigned by people not exactly known for their evaluation skills. The vast majority of coaches don’t consider the rankings legitimate.

 

[Paterfamilias]

Which part? The foreign players? Maybe, on the surface but the predictive values still reliably establish a trend line over time. Again, it’s just additional data for your brain to analyze. Do you feel the same way about Sag, Kenpom and others formulas as well? Just curious?

(I screwed up the quote somehow, so ignore the quote)

As for as the accuracy of recruiting rankings, I have to disagree with the coaches and so does the NBA.

A couple of years ago I did a study to find out what % of players were able to earn at least $5 Million in their NBA careers, all broken down by ranking in the RSCI Top 100. I ended up pulling up short and only did Top 70, just because by that point it felt like going further would just be a waste of time.

Here are the results from the recruiting classes 2004-2012. I didn't get more recent than that because players from the latest classes wouldn't have time to finish college careers and make NBA money.

Hopefully, the chart is self explanatory. As you can see, the probability of earning at least 5 Mill in an NBA career is highly correlated with recruiting ranking. If the rankings were not legit, I don't think this chart would have such a neat and clean decline in probability as ranking decreases.

 

[.Gerdis]

(I screwed up the quote somehow, so ignore the quote)

As for as the accuracy of recruiting rankings, I have to disagree with the coaches and so does the NBA.

A couple of years ago I did a study to find out what % of players were able to earn at least $5 Million in their NBA careers, all broken down by ranking in the RSCI Top 100. I ended up pulling up short and only did Top 70, just because by that point it felt like going further would just be a waste of time.

Here are the results from the recruiting classes 2004-2012. I didn't get more recent than that because players from the latest classes wouldn't have time to finish college careers and make NBA money.

Hopefully, the chart is self explanatory. As you can see, the probability of earning at least 5 Mill in an NBA career is highly correlated with recruiting ranking. If the rankings were not legit, I don't think this chart would have such a neat and clean decline in probability as ranking decreases.

What is the significance of “45”. I would assume that you would see more skewed results with more total players at the lower levels? In other words, I read this as each band of ranking has exactly 45 players. I would expect only a few total players that were top 5, and a greater number of total players as you move down. The percentages make sense, but the total column doesn’t make sense to me. I assume I’m reading it wrong.

edit: Excuse my ignorance. As each band is a count of number of players of course each band is equal. I was thinking that it related to 5 star, 4 star, etc. not my day!!!!!

 

[Paterfamilias]

What is the significance of “45”. I would assume that you would see more skewed results with more total players at the lower levels? In other words, I read this as each band of ranking has exactly 45 players. I would expect only a few total players that were top 5, and a greater number of total players as you move down. The percentages make sense, but the total column doesn’t make sense to me. I assume I’m reading it wrong.

There were 9 classes in the study and I broke the rankings into increments of 5. So there were 45 players total in each grouping. The last grouping has 90, because had I continued on I was going to do it in groups of 10.

 

[.Gerdis]

What is the significance of “45”. I would assume that you would see more skewed results with more total players at the lower levels? In other words, I read this as each band of ranking has exactly 45 players. I would expect only a few total players that were top 5, and a greater number of total players as you move down. The percentages make sense, but the total column doesn’t make sense to me. I assume I’m reading it wrong.

There were 9 classes in the study and I broke the rankings into increments of 5. So there were 45 players total in each grouping. The last grouping has 90, because had I continued on I was going to do it in groups of 10.

Often when you see recruiting breakdowns the bands widen as you go down the list, which makes sense to me. In other words a player ranked 5th is typically night and day over a player ranked 25th. However a player ranked 70 might not be much different than 100. So, you see that as you move down the bands widen. 1-10,11-25, 26-50, 51-75, 76-100....something like that.

I am embarrassed to say that I didn;t look closely enough at the chart you posted and didn't catch that every grouping but the last was for 5 players per class. Paterfamilias, you put a lot of thought, effort and data into your posts, and deserve better. Oh, well, probably not the first time someone jumped to conclusions because they didn't look closely enough. Please keep posting things like this, I find them very interesting.