Deleted member 631370
It's a shame that when that meteor eventually finishes us off, the question of the extent to which ratings predict performance will remain unresolved.I like the colors.
As one of my stats profs was fond of saying, "Garbage in, garbage out." Your analysis, while impressive, is utterly dependent on ratings, which are hardly scientific (being kind here). Fully understand there isn't any other data to base these analyses on. But still, you're relying on a very subjective metric. Good talking point though. Very commendable initiative.
A few things have been established. Teams that have a BCR (or blue chip ratio) of less than 50% -- meaning, less than 50% of their roster consists of 4/5* recruits -- have never won a title in the modern era of recruiting ratings. And year after year, team recruiting rankings correlate fairly well with performance. It's not a perfect correlation, but the aggregate data definitely supports correlation at a minimum.
I know you're not discarding it outright (as many have done). And I agree with your basic point. I guess I'm more supportive of relying on ratings than many, but of course there are inherent limitations.
I'll put it this way. Ratings are *generally* indicative of talent, and talent is a necessary -- but not sufficient -- condition for success.