Jump to content

Interesting analysis of B1G recruiting vs performance on Reddit

49r

By 49r
in The Haymarket Hardwood

 Share

Recommended Posts

49r

49r

Posted
Posted

Came across this discussion of recruiting ranking vs actual performance on Reddit today, kind of interesting (I posted the imgur content below)

 

 

 

Trying to answer the question: If the order of finish of the Big Ten were determined strictly by recruiting rankings."

l5M85Zc.png

 

 

 

Average team "talent" rating.

EZVpCjU.png

 

 

How each team performs during the season relative to their talent rank within the conference. Performance determined by place in final conference standings

4fIlvcW.png

 

 

Graphs displaying each teams place in the conference standings versus their talent ranking within the conference. Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State.

g1lsCVi.png

 

 

Graphs displaying each teams place in the conference standings versus their talent ranking within the conference. Purdue, Minnesota, Penn State, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Nebraska

WxOa4py.png

 

 

Graphs displaying each teams place in the conference standings versus their talent ranking within the conference. Rutgers, Maryland

K6H3ItV.png

 

49r

49r

Posted
  • Author
Posted

One glaring error I noticed right away though is he had Michigan finishing 2nd last year and us 5th.  So I can't speak for the overall veracity of the charts.  They're fun to look at nonetheless.

AuroranHusker

AuroranHusker

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, 49r said:

One glaring error I noticed right away though is he had Michigan finishing 2nd last year and us 5th.  So I can't speak for the overall veracity of the charts.  They're fun to look at nonetheless.

 

Are they combining the results of the Michigan in its league regular season (5th) along with the hierarchy of a team's conference tournament finish (1st)?

 

Otherwise, I'm not seeing how they can use data that's so flawed. G.I.G.O. Ehh, oh well.

 

 

Edited by AuroranHusker
49r

49r

Posted
  • Author
Posted
7 hours ago, AuroranHusker said:

 

Are they combining the results of the Michigan in its league regular season (5th) along with the hierarchy of a team's conference tournament finish (1st)?

 

Otherwise, I'm not seeing how they can use data that's so flawed. G.I.G.O. Ehh, oh well.

 

 

 

While the data may be slightly flawed, I believe the general trends may be pretty accurate.  Couple of things that stood out to me right away by looking at the (admittedly small sample size of ) data are:

 

1).  Coach Miles' results tend to consistently outperform his recruiting performance

 

and

 

2).  Coach Miles' recruiting seems to be on an upward trajectory

AuroranHusker

AuroranHusker

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, 49r said:

 

While the data may be slightly flawed, I believe the general trends may be pretty accurate.  Couple of things that stood out to me right away by looking at the (admittedly small sample size of ) data are:

 

1).  Coach Miles' results tend to consistently outperform his recruiting performance

 

and

 

2).  Coach Miles' recruiting seems to be on an upward trajectory

 

Yeah, I agree to those two points... I just can't stand obvious bias like this toward UM. The data seems skewed.

 

 

Edited by AuroranHusker
Norm Peterson

Norm Peterson

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, jimmykc said:

Personally I prefer pie charts.

 

Pecan pie charts are my personal favorite.  Coconut cream is up there, too.

 

But, I mean, hell, let's be honest, I've not been known to decline a good piece of pie chart.

 

Never got into putting cheddar cheese on my apple pie chart, however.

Norm Peterson

Norm Peterson

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, 49r said:

One glaring error I noticed right away though is he had Michigan finishing 2nd last year and us 5th.  So I can't speak for the overall veracity of the charts.  They're fun to look at nonetheless.

 

The talent factor is a bit misleading as well.  It shows us having the 6th best level of talent in '16-17.  And if you just go by recruiting rankings, that might be true.  HOWEVER, that was all very young talent.  Isaiah, Jeriah and Jordy (all Rivals 150s) were freshmen and Glynn and Ed were sophomores.  Anton Gill was hobbled with an injury half the season and Andrew White was playing for Syracuse.  So, our highest-rated recruits were either very young or not contributing.

 

But if you look at things across Miles' tenure, which sort of factors out the youth effect, you see we consistently out-perform the level of talent we put on the floor.  And this year should be no exception considering he has us pegged at #11 in the league for talent this coming season.  Which kind of blows my mind a bit considering our whole starting lineup will consist of Rivals 4- or 5-stars.

AuroranHusker

AuroranHusker

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

The talent factor is a bit misleading as well.  It shows us having the 6th best level of talent in '16-17.  And if you just go by recruiting rankings, that might be true.  HOWEVER, that was all very young talent.  Isaiah, Jeriah and Jordy (all Rivals 150s) were freshmen and Glynn and Ed were sophomores.  Anton Gill was hobbled with an injury half the season and Andrew White was playing for Syracuse.  So, our highest-rated recruits were either very young or not contributing.

 

But if you look at things across Miles' tenure, which sort of factors out the youth effect, you see we consistently out-perform the level of talent we put on the floor.  And this year should be no exception considering he has us pegged at #11 in the league for talent this coming season.  Which kind of blows my mind a bit considering our whole starting lineup will consist of Rivals 4- or 5-stars.

 

 

11th?!?!?

 

 

No way.......

 

khoock

khoock

Posted
Posted

Our talent level is dwindling and is very top heavy (purely off of rankings)

Seniors: James Palmer, Glynn Watson, and Isaac Copeland

Juniors: Isaiah Roby

Sophomores: Nana Akenten and Thomas Allen

Freshmen: N/A

 

The rest of the roster were 3* or below and not ranked by any services coming out of high school. Including 5 underclassmen. FWIW.

Norm Peterson

Norm Peterson

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, khoock said:

Our talent level is dwindling and is very top heavy (purely off of rankings)

Seniors: James Palmer, Glynn Watson, and Isaac Copeland

Juniors: Isaiah Roby

Sophomores: Nana Akenten and Thomas Allen

Freshmen: N/A

 

The rest of the roster were 3* or below and not ranked by any services coming out of high school. Including 5 underclassmen. FWIW.

 

I and HB and a few others have been beating the drum about how not extending Miles' contract has hurt us in recruiting.

 

If you were to plug in 2019 commits, it would graphically illustrate what we've been concerned about.

hskr4life

hskr4life

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

I and HB and a few others have been beating the drum about how not extending Miles' contract has hurt us in recruiting.

 

If you were to plug in 2019 commits, it would graphically illustrate what we've been concerned about.

 

Amen!  Unfortunately the "recruit and you'll earn the extension" just doesn't play here.  The problem is that we might have a few down years in a couple years and it will be due to not extending right away.  The wolves better stay away during this time because they were warned.  

Fullbacksympathy

Fullbacksympathy

Posted
Posted
22 hours ago, khoock said:

Our talent level is dwindling and is very top heavy (purely off of rankings)

Seniors: James Palmer, Glynn Watson, and Isaac Copeland

Juniors: Isaiah Roby

Sophomores: Nana Akenten and Thomas Allen

Freshmen: N/A

 

The rest of the roster were 3* or below and not ranked by any services coming out of high school. Including 5 underclassmen. FWIW.

 

I don't agree with this entirely.  If Roby stays next year is potentially...

 

RFr: Heiman, Davis

So: Amir 

Jr:  BURKE, Allen, Chan, Nana, Thor 

Sr:  Roby

 

So a starting lineup might be:

 

Amir

TA

Burke

Chan

Roby

 

That's a pretty formidable bunch with 4/5 upperclassmen.   The real question is whether or not the bench players (Nana, Thor, Heiman, Davis) will be able to effectively contribute.  TM deserves the benefit of the doubt for his evaluations of talent at this point, considering the lineup he's rolling out this year.  I also think we'll add a couple of impact freshmen based on the sniffs we're currently getting.  If we get Yavuz Gultekin and Mika Adams Woods, that gives a serviceable backup PG and a very versatile and talented 3-4 swing player.  2020 is looking glorious for local talent, and already got Donovan Williams and probably Arop, so I would say things are pretty well under control.  

khoock

khoock

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, LK1 said:

 

I don't agree with this entirely.  If Roby stays next year is potentially...

 

RFr: Heiman, Davis

So: Amir 

Jr:  BURKE, Allen, Chan, Nana, Thor 

Sr:  Roby

 

So a starting lineup might be:

 

Amir

TA

Burke

Chan

Roby

 

That's a pretty formidable bunch with 4/5 upperclassmen.   The real question is whether or not the bench players (Nana, Thor, Heiman, Davis) will be able to effectively contribute.  TM deserves the benefit of the doubt for his evaluations of talent at this point, considering the lineup he's rolling out this year.  I also think we'll add a couple of impact freshmen based on the sniffs we're currently getting.  If we get Yavuz Gultekin and Mika Adams Woods, that gives a serviceable backup PG and a very versatile and talented 3-4 swing player.  2020 is looking glorious for local talent, and already got Donovan Williams and probably Arop, so I would say things are pretty well under control.  

Remember i stated, "purely off of rankings". Im not saying Tim Miles doesnt have a good eye for underrated talent or isnt good at developing players. Just that our roster is very top heavy in terms of player rankings and stars. Next year, on paper, we arent a very talented team.

 

Also, of all the prospects you mentioned none of them are top 150 or 4* guys at the moment. Which is exactly my point.

Fullbacksympathy

Fullbacksympathy

Posted
Posted
51 minutes ago, khoock said:

Remember i stated, "purely off of rankings". Im not saying Tim Miles doesnt have a good eye for underrated talent or isnt good at developing players. Just that our roster is very top heavy in terms of player rankings and stars. Next year, on paper, we arent a very talented team.

 

Also, of all the prospects you mentioned none of them are top 150 or 4* guys at the moment. Which is exactly my point.

 

Yes you did, and that's noted, but two of the 4stars (Roby, Allen) are slated to return next season.  I also think stats already acquired are a greater indicator of talent, and Burke's 18ppg as a true freshman scream 4 star talent to me--kind of like Terran.  I think he's earned that distinction based on practice rumblings.  So:

 

4****:  Roby, Allen, Burke if his D1 stats are a formidable substitute for stars (possibly Yavuz)

3***:  Harris, Heiman, Thor, Nana (possibly Adams Woods)

2**: Dedoch Chan (which might be wrong based on his JUCO numbers and All-Region accolades as a freshman)

 

This just doesn't look like a huge dropoff to me, and certainly not an emergency, but I do agree it probably can't possibly be as good of a team as what we're rolling out this season.  

 

 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...