Big 10 Talent

[uneblinstu]

Star rankings never tell the whole story, nor are they an accurate predictor. What it does is highlight that the talent level at NU has, in fact, improved dramatically since Miles came on. If you'd made that list at the end of the Doc Sadler era, it wouldn't have been pretty. It also raises the expectation for Miles. He's theoretically got the groceries, now he needs to put a good meal on the table. Or something like that.

[big red22]

29 minutes ago, hhcdimes said:

 

I'm pulling the W-L records for the last 10 seasons to break something down. I tell everyone we  went 13-19 last year instead of 12-19 because I missed that the Chadron St game was an exhibition when pulling the numbers from Huskers.com. I didn't didn't come to 13-19 because I wanted us to appear to be better but because the script I used pulled the wrong info. It doesn't change our finish in the conference, whether we made the tournament, what sort of year, we had, etc.  Someone points it out.  I should stick with 13-19 because of my intent?

 

Given the feedback I would personally wonder if I got the other 9 season right, not the motivation of whomever pointed out the flaw in my methodology.

Let me repost this again

 

"I didn't look up any of the Nebraska players, because I already knew their rankings before I made this list.  I looked up every other team, because I did not know what they had.  So making Allen Top 100 was not intentional and was not done to give us an edge. If I do something like this again I will make sure to see if our recruits ranking dropped after they signed."

 

So to make the argument that I have a flawed methodology is false.  I do not question any of the other 13 teams I listed (The 9 seasons you were hinting at).  Even if I did miss a player, or botched their rating by a point or two it does not take away the purpose of the initial post!  Like ConkintheCorner said you guys are nit picking just to be difficult.

 

[Norm Peterson]

27 minutes ago, hhcdimes said:

 

I'm pulling the W-L records for the last 10 seasons to break something down. I tell everyone we  went 13-19 last year instead of 12-19 because I missed that the Chadron St game was an exhibition when pulling the numbers from Huskers.com. I didn't didn't come to 13-19 because I wanted us to appear to be better but because the script I used pulled the wrong info. It doesn't change our finish in the conference, whether we made the tournament, what sort of year, we had, etc.  Someone points it out.  I should stick with 13-19 because of my intent?

 

Given the feedback I would personally wonder if I got the other 9 season right, not the motivation of whomever pointed out the flaw in my methodology.

 

I think you totally misconstrued his use of the word irrelevant.  Fine, you can change Allen to top150 instead of top 100, deduct a point from our score, and we're still tied for second in the conference.  

 

It's a distinction that makes virtually no difference because it doesn't change the underlying conclusion.

 

He's not quibbling about changing the ranking; he's saying it doesn't matter in the end. That's how I took it.

[big red22]

8 minutes ago, uneblinstu said:

Star rankings never tell the whole story, nor are they an accurate predictor. What it does is highlight that the talent level at NU has, in fact, improved dramatically since Miles came on. If you'd made that list at the end of the Doc Sadler era, it wouldn't have been pretty. It also raises the expectation for Miles. He's theoretically got the groceries, now he needs to put a good meal on the table. Or something like that.

Somebody understands what the initial post was hinting at!

[big red22]

8 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

I think you totally misconstrued his use of the word irrelevant.  Fine, you can change Allen to top150 instead of top 100, deduct a point from our score, and we're still tied for second in the conference.  

 

It's a distinction that makes virtually no difference because it doesn't change the underlying conclusion.

 

He's not quibbling about changing the ranking; he's saying it doesn't matter in the end. That's how I took it.

This is 100% correct

[49r]

18 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

Jacob, it's not a perfect metric, but it is rational and objective.  You can apply it equally to all teams. Maybe some guys ended up better than their recruiting rankings; others worse.  But there's virtually no metric you could have applied that would be totally fool proof.

 

So, you either don't compare at all or you use some sort of flawed metric like the above.

 

well, rational-ish and objective-ish...and the metric is applied the same to all schools so it's not terribly subjective.  But I'll side a little bit with @Jacob Padilla here and say that it's hard to weight the transfers the same as the HS recruits.  In general, higher ranked prospects that transfer do so because they didn't pan out as hoped at their original school.  Ones that "transfer up", like Derrick White at Colorado last year for example are unranked or unheralded in the first place.  I can see how Nebraska's ranking in @big red22 list could be considered inflated a bit.

Edited September 21, 2017 by 49r

[big red22]

1 minute ago, 49r said:

 

well, rational-ish and objective-ish...and the metric is applied the same to all schools so it's not terribly subjective.  But I'll side a little bit with @Jacob Padilla here and say that it's hard to weight the transfers the same as the HS recruits.  In general, higher ranked prospects that transfer do so because they didn't pan out as hoped at their original school.  Ones that "transfer up", like Derrick White at Colorado last year for example are unranked or unheralded in the first place.  I can see how Nebraska's ranking in @big red22 list could be considered inflated a bit.

Every school deals with the same things.  School 1 loses a high rated player, because there was another high rated player that fit school 1's system better.  School 2 picks up school 1's departed player, because they feel that school 1's system did not work as well as School 2's system will.  

 

The moral of the story here is no my list is not an exact science, but it paints a pretty good picture of where our teams talent is at.

[Norm Peterson]

12 minutes ago, uneblinstu said:

Star rankings never tell the whole story, nor are they an accurate predictor. What it does is highlight that the talent level at NU has, in fact, improved dramatically since Miles came on. If you'd made that list at the end of the Doc Sadler era, it wouldn't have been pretty. It also raises the expectation for Miles. He's theoretically got the groceries, now he needs to put a good meal on the table. Or something like that.

 

I disagree that star rankings aren't an accurate predictor. They are not a perfectly accurate predictor in the sense that some people who are highly ranked don't pan out and others who were not highly ranked end up becoming great players. However, there is a strong correlation between a player's Rivals 150 rank and how they end up doing in college.

 

A few years ago, I posted on here some of my findings when I did a longitudinal breakdown of Rivals 150 players from multiple recruiting classes and their first-year impact on the programs they committed to.  While there were outliers in both directions, the general trend line was reflective of a fairly strong correlation between points scored and rivals ranking. 

 

The closer to the top in the Rivals rankings a player was, the more points he tended to kick in during his freshman season of college ball.

[uneblinstu]

That was kinda my point. Perhaps I made it poorly. Essentially, I'm saying that Miles has, or should have, the talent to win. It's time for it to happen.

[Jacob Padilla]

Yes, generally more highly-ranked players translate to more talent and production. But on an individual basis, there are plenty of misevaluations during the process. A lot of guys dominate the high school level and then their game doesn't translate. Does that mean those players failed to live up to their talent, or does it mean the evaluators were wrong about them?

 

Take away what Anton Gill and James Palmer Jr. were ranked coming out of high school. Based on what they've done in college, do they look like big talents? Injuries have certainly held Gill back, but the injuries at Nebraska aside he has never been a good player to this point in his college career. Palmer has some intriguing physical tools, but he didn't play much as a freshman and regressed as a sophomore. 

 

I'm just arguing the other side here because "talent" is a nebulous word. A guy like Isaac Copeland has realized more of that "talent" than most of the other guys on this list, but even he has been incredibly inconsistent and is no sure thing.

 

9 of your 15 points comes from Copeland, Palmer and Gill. We don't even know if Gill is going to be able to earn minutes coming off that knee injury.

 

Nebraska certainly has a lot more talent on paper than in recent years. But I'd say the team has a wide range of outcomes because so many of those "talented" players are unknowns. These are the guys Miles gambled on. We'll have to see how much talent they really have once they hit the floor.

[big red22]

38 minutes ago, Jacob Padilla said:

Yes, generally more highly-ranked players translate to more talent and production. But on an individual basis, there are plenty of misevaluations during the process. A lot of guys dominate the high school level and then their game doesn't translate. Does that mean those players failed to live up to their talent, or does it mean the evaluators were wrong about them?

 

Take away what Anton Gill and James Palmer Jr. were ranked coming out of high school. Based on what they've done in college, do they look like big talents? Injuries have certainly held Gill back, but the injuries at Nebraska aside he has never been a good player to this point in his college career. Palmer has some intriguing physical tools, but he didn't play much as a freshman and regressed as a sophomore. 

 

I'm just arguing the other side here because "talent" is a nebulous word. A guy like Isaac Copeland has realized more of that "talent" than most of the other guys on this list, but even he has been incredibly inconsistent and is no sure thing.

 

9 of your 15 points comes from Copeland, Palmer and Gill. We don't even know if Gill is going to be able to earn minutes coming off that knee injury.

 

Nebraska certainly has a lot more talent on paper than in recent years. But I'd say the team has a wide range of outcomes because so many of those "talented" players are unknowns. These are the guys Miles gambled on. We'll have to see how much talent they really have once they hit the floor.

Look no one is disputing that there is a lot of grey area with our team, but "as far as talent goes a lot of schools wanted the players we have and that says something"

 

I am not going to go very deep here, because I am just wasting my breath.  There are poor starts for a LOT of Top guys, for a LOT of Top teams.  It happens everywhere man!

 

Here are some examples

 

Kieta Bates-Diop = Top 50 (3pts)

 

Kieta Bates-Diop Stats

 

Charles Matthews = Top 50 (3pts)

 

Charles Matthews Stats

 

De'Ron Davis = Top 50 (3pts)

 

De'Ron Davis Stats

 

Leron Black = Top 50 (3pts)

 

Leron Black Stats

 

And there are plenty more

 

 

 

 

[Norm Peterson]

1 hour ago, Jacob Padilla said:

Yes, generally more highly-ranked players translate to more talent and production. But on an individual basis, there are plenty of misevaluations during the process. A lot of guys dominate the high school level and then their game doesn't translate. Does that mean those players failed to live up to their talent, or does it mean the evaluators were wrong about them?

 

Take away what Leon Gilmore and Ronnie Harrell, Jr. were ranked coming out of high school. Based on what they've done in college, do they look like big talents? Injuries have certainly held Harrell back, but the injuries at Creighton aside he has never been a good player to this point in his college career. Harrell has some intriguing physical tools, but he didn't play much as a freshman and regressed as a sophomore. 

 

I'm just arguing the other side here because I get to feeling almost physically ill if I say something good about Nebraska basketball and only do so if it would strain credulity to not admit something good about the Huskers.

 

9 of your 15 points comes from Copeland, Palmer and Gill. We don't even know if Gill is going to be able to earn minutes coming off that knee injury.

 

Nebraska certainly has a lot more talent on paper than in recent years. But I'd say the team has a wide range of outcomes because so many of those "talented" players are unknowns. These are the guys Miles gambled on. We'll have to see how much talent they really have once they hit the floor.

 

Fixed that for you.

[hhcmatt]

3 hours ago, big red22 said:

Let me repost this again

 

"I didn't look up any of the Nebraska players, because I already knew their rankings before I made this list.  I looked up every other team, because I did not know what they had.  So making Allen Top 100 was not intentional and was not done to give us an edge. If I do something like this again I will make sure to see if our recruits ranking dropped after they signed."

 

So to make the argument that I have a flawed methodology is false.  I do not question any of the other 13 teams I listed (The 9 seasons you were hinting at).  Even if I did miss a player, or botched their rating by a point or two it does not take away the purpose of the initial post!  Like ConkintheCorner said you guys are nit picking just to be difficult.

 

 

Maybe I'm using the wrong word here.

I don't care how you're ranking nor do I even care what the rankings mean.  Can any of us be absolutely right or wrong in arguments in interpretation of this data anyway? No.

 

I'm saying that their is a slight inaccuracy.  The point of bringing it up is that in the only thing here you can have right or wrong you have something wrong. 

I often do the same thing. It's not meant to be personal.