Jump to content

Decade-Long NU Recruiting Analysis


OurDecay

Recommended Posts

Great work. The uptick in quality and talent of players coming into the program is evident.

In addition to the ratings and the stars, another maybe even more important factor in determining the overall quality of a player are the 'intangibles'. Coach Miles wants extremely high character guys with incredible work ethic, a high basketball IQ, who fit the system, and are great teammates and great students. Players who will represent the university well and have a full understanding on what it's going to take to get things done on the court and in the classroom.

It's easy for coaches to go to events and offer scholarships to 4 and 5 star players. Through the recruiting process the coaches learn whether or not a player is someone that they can being into the fold and someone that will excel in the program. While all the stars and ratings are extremely important because they gauge talent and potential, the coaches evaluations of character are equally if not more important. Coach Miles has this down. Look at each and every player he has brought in so far. They are all good students, are of high character, have incredible drive and work ethic, are good teammates, and are selected because they are an exact fit to the system. Zero compromises are made here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something is flawed in your analysis when transfer Bo Spencer is factored in as an unranked 300 level player and transfer Walter Pitchford is factored in as a 173.   Caleb Walker was a juco All-American.  He's rated at 400.  Benny Parker and David Rivers, on the other hand, are rated at 169 and 179 respectively.  I like both Benny and David but I've watched all three and I would say Caleb was the better overall player.

 

I think the Doc players are rated unrealistically lowly compared to the Miles roster.  Not sure what conclusions can really be drawn.  I've had a vague sense that Miles was recruiting better than his predecessors but I don't think my impression is really any more concrete after reading your tables.  Sure, you've provided a basis for tabulating things the way you have but it's your methodology that is called into question. 

 

I believe recruiting has improved.  But you've attempted to prove it objectively and the problem is that you can't prove something objectively when your "objective" evaluation relies on subjective assessments.

 

But, nice work.  It still gives us reason to believe we're getting better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Norm, I think I covered most of that in my caveats. But for example...Caleb Walker...your beef is with Rivals, not me. Here is his recruiting profile:

https://rivals.yahoo.com/nebraska/basketball/recruiting/player-Caleb-Walker-109529;_ylt=ApyMmTymdajZXOaSft1lgUdRs5B4

They didn't list a single other offer, he didn't even get a star rating, and the commitment article suggested that he jumped at the NU offer. They mention he was his JUCO conference's player of the year. So if they undervalued him...and I'm not sure they did...that's on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree it confirms what we've all assumed, but also contains flaws - as listed with your caveats. No one would consider Moses a 4-star prospect at this point. Also, it looks like Miles is getting credit for 3 Sadler guys.

To me, the ultimate proof with be 2... 3... 4 years from now. And I expect the data to continue to support our current assumptions.

Side note - recruiting SHOULD be hand-over-fist better... The administrate is taking basketball more seriously than it ever has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to see Verbal Commits average for this year for the entire Big 10.

It basically supports the above that in terms of where the Huskers are current at in terms of landing highly rated prospects: towards the bottom. A combination of coaching, finding undervalued recruits, and finding players that fit our system has and can allow us to overcome this initial disadvantage.

 

BTW,we have already seen an advantage to recruiting 4-5 star recruits that we don't land: we've landed Abraham and White in the ever increasing world of Div I basketball transfers due to them previously being recruited by our staff. (THANKS KENYA!) Hopefully we can carry that momentum to landing these same types of players and freshmen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Great point, dimes

 

Thanks for posting this. I enjoyed reading it.

I do think the stars comparisons are a bit skewed...I'd give unranked guys a 2 star rating instead of 0.  

 

I set up the spreadsheets so that could be changed easily.  This was a first pass.  That would be an easy fix.  I could update the numbers and show how they look then.  That would help out the star issue and even it out a bit.

 

I'm open for suggestions on the overall ranking though...I eventually picked arbitrary numbers (300, 400, etc.) but I would consider alternative numbers or methods.  I originally tried to play talent evaluator and get subjective with those numbers...but that's a slope I didn't want to go down.  For one thing, its awfully easy to go into revisionist history...because you now know whether a guy panned out or didn't.

 

I'm always looking to improve it, so I'm all for input from HHC...that's why I posted it here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This analysis is flawed.  

 

1.  Measuring Pedigree not Quality.  It is not clear what you mean by pedigree and not quality.  Do you mean perceived value due to recruiting database rankings and/or offers?  It almost feels as if you are measuring the quality of the player and not the pedigree.  If you were to argue pedigree in the form of AAU team (in some cases it is assumed a player is quality because they play for a reputable AAU team); or coach (think Tarin Smith having a good pedigree because he played for Bobby Hurley in high school); or even bloodlines (Shavon Shields has a good pedigree because he is Will Shields' son).  However, rankings and scholarship offers are not a direct indication of pedigree.  Pedigree though could be a factor, although not exclusive, of quality and thus higher rankings and more scholarships offers.

 

2.  Rankings, even today, are flawed.  Unlike high school football, most highly rated high school basketball players play against top competition on a regular basis as a result of AAU tournaments and recruiting/development by private schools.  Most rating services concentrate upon those good-on-good tournaments for determining rankings.  However, a major flaw exists.  JUCOs, international kids, and non-AAU playing public high school kids are not scouted as much and do not receive as good of ratings.  Doc heavily relied upon JUCO and international recruiting for many of his classes as a result, Doc was penalized.

 

3.  Reported Scholarship Offers is also a flaw standard.  The recruiting databases only list scholarship offers which are claimed by the recruit.  For example, Baker Steinkuhler was a 5 star recruit for Nebraska.  A review of his profile reflects only Nebraska offered Steinkuhler.  Does that mean only Nebraska offered Baker?  The answer is "no" many schools offered Baker but Nebraska is the only offer Baker went on record receiving because Nebraska was the only school Baker ever considered.  Conversely, I know of a few kids who reported to have offers from multiple Power 5 schools to the recruiting services.  Since the schools cannot officially comment on recruits, the services had to depend on the word of the recruit.  In truth, most of these kids were just receiving information from the schools and never actually received an offer.  I remember talking to one recruit why he lied about his offer list and he said it was to drum up interest from other schools (it never worked).  

 

Additionally, in the case of JUCOs, schools only tend to take JUCOs when a specific need arises (which is the same as graduate transfers).  In most cases, while the kid may be great athletically, coaches tend to be reluctant to bring in a JUCO who will only be around for 1-2 seasons.  In most cases JUCOs provide depth and/or are roll players.  Further, until 2008, kids who didnt have the grades to play in college opted for the NBA instead of going to JUCO.

 

Finally, scouting internationally is not easy and rating services seem to only focus on kids who play on international all-star teams with high visibility. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a fantastic response, Donkey...thank you.

So if I'm hearing you right, your belief is that there is really no way to measure or track recruiting in a "statistical" or objective way. No matter what you use, it would have the inherent flaws you mention.

So we pretty much need to rely on our own subjective judgements, or eyeballs, to determine the kinds of prospects we are recruiting to NU?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a fantastic response, Donkey...thank you.

So if I'm hearing you right, your belief is that there is really no way to measure or track recruiting in a "statistical" or objective way. No matter what you use, it would have the inherent flaws you mention.

So we pretty much need to rely on our own subjective judgements, or eyeballs, to determine the kinds of prospects we are recruiting to NU?

Results (wins and losses) is pretty objective. Obviously relies on more than just recruiting, but it's a big part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that I know much about Husker bball recruiting pre-2011ish, but from an outsider's perspective I feel that Miles has improved upon previous coaches. Especially this 2015 class, which could come together for NU quite nicely. White was a great pickup and, no matter what delusional cu fans will say, you also have to give credit to Miles for picking out two players who had talent but not the right system to prove themselves (TP and walter).

 

All that said, I tend to agree with Norm in that you can't try to objectify basketball recruiting services and the ratings they give to players. "Stars" are worthless... and outside of the top100-150 players, a lot of evaluations are worthless as well. Some evaluations occur when recruits are underclassmen...and they don't get updated even once. When I'm looking at a recruit's "pedigree", I look at scholarship offers. What is the average level of school that offered this player a scholarship? Donkey is right, you can't trust the websites on this either...but if you dig deep enough on Twitter/ google news more often than not you can get a pretty good idea about where a recruit stands. In the end...the only talent evaluators that really matter are coaching staffs. Recruiting services are meant to be read by fans who want to feel like experts. In reality, basketball recruiting services on the internet are extremely flawed, and trying to "objectively" assess your program's recruiting upswing using them is pointless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a fantastic response, Donkey...thank you.

So if I'm hearing you right, your belief is that there is really no way to measure or track recruiting in a "statistical" or objective way. No matter what you use, it would have the inherent flaws you mention.

So we pretty much need to rely on our own subjective judgements, or eyeballs, to determine the kinds of prospects we are recruiting to NU?

Results (wins and losses) is pretty objective. Obviously relies on more than just recruiting, but it's a big part.
The Nebrasketball cellar-dweller to 4th-place-finish in the B1G last season is incredible, given the low-star and other-team-rejects and Doc-holdover nature of the team. The incredibility is particularly pronounced when compared with exceedingly high-star teams like Illinois and UNLV who underachieved their talent and were lucky to accomplish a win or two between them in the NIT. The long history of over-achievement of their talent by Tim Miles' teams is what makes the prospect of higher-level talent in Huskerland intriguing and exciting: if he could reach excellent results with talent that was perceived to be limited, imagine what he could do with high-level talent!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

This is a bump to this thread I had started last year.  Many of you provided very good feedback and criticisms on the folly of using recruiting services, offers, etc. to judge recruiting progress.  With Elijah Thomas on campus and both Horne and Roby in the fold...I just thought I'd provide an update to show the trends "as is"...without claiming any value from them.

 

I did incorporate some feedback from you guys on how to evaluate unrated/unevaluated players.  Also...Isaiah Roby is a prime example of how you can't always use "offers" to judge a recruit.  He's clearly elite, highly rated...a top-150 player.  Yet his offer list is scant.  And that's for the obvious reason that we were on him very, very early, and he committed to us very, very early.

 

Anyway,  thought you guys would enjoy:

 

aetnxz.jpg

For context, the 2013-2014 Big Ten Conference using the same criteria:

 

10nrszk.jpg

I guess an immediate takeaway is...we are trending in the direction that would appear to be competitive (from a talent standpoint) with the bulk of the league.  That's one of those things that lead you to want to give Miles & co. a long, long leash and let it play out for a bit.  Gotta be patient.

 

RDK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a bump to this thread I had started last year.  Many of you provided very good feedback and criticisms on the folly of using recruiting services, offers, etc. to judge recruiting progress.  With Elijah Thomas on campus and both Horne and Roby in the fold...I just thought I'd provide an update to show the trends "as is"...without claiming any value from them.

 

I did incorporate some feedback from you guys on how to evaluate unrated/unevaluated players.  Also...Isaiah Roby is a prime example of how you can't always use "offers" to judge a recruit.  He's clearly elite, highly rated...a top-150 player.  Yet his offer list is scant.  And that's for the obvious reason that we were on him very, very early, and he committed to us very, very early.

 

Anyway,  thought you guys would enjoy:

 

aetnxz.jpg

For context, the 2013-2014 Big Ten Conference using the same criteria:

 

10nrszk.jpg

I guess an immediate takeaway is...we are trending in the direction that would appear to be competitive (from a talent standpoint) with the bulk of the league.  That's one of those things that lead you to want to give Miles & co. a long, long leash and let it play out for a bit.  Gotta be patient.

 

RDK

 

Great analysis.  This guy has gotten us to a top 4 conference talent level.  We just need to let the underclassmen ferment and keep filling in talented rosters behind them.  It's reasonable to wait given what Miles done in recruiting has basically never happened before at Nebraska (Nee was close).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This guy has gotten us to a top 4 conference talent level.   

 

That's not quite accurate. You're comparing a ranking number of 2 guys for next year's class vs numbers from 2013-14. Going by verbalcommits.com we've gone from the basement to middle of the pack though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This guy has gotten us to a top 4 conference talent level.

That's not quite accurate. You're comparing a ranking number of 2 guys for next year's class vs numbers from 2013-14. Going by verbalcommits.com we've gone from the basement to middle of the pack though.

Exactly. That's still a great place to be, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

×
×
  • Create New...