The existing star system tells us that #26 and #99 are the same. We intuitively understand that isn't true. The question is, where is the cut line? I can't emphasize enough that it depends on the class, but it seems to be around 40-50.
Illinois Hoops Recruiting Thread (July-August 2016)
- Status
The existing star system tells us that #26 and #99 are the same. We intuitively understand that isn't true. The question is, where is the cut line? I can't emphasize enough that it depends on the class, but it seems to be around 40-50.
There is no question that as you head down the rankings, the expected value line only goes in one direction. Every player has a lower expected value than the guy one spot ahead of him, all else being equal. And of course expected value can only tell you so much, we all know about the Damian Lillard's and the Cliff Alexanders. There are no guarantees.
But we have this idea of what "five star" and "four star" mean based on nothing more than the fact that 100 and 25 are nice round numbers. Those are not where history tells us we ought to be drawing the lines.
Current System:
5 star = Top 25
4 star = Top 100
3 star = mishmash of basically everyone else
2 star = at this point, almost no one
Much better, more accurate system:
6 star = Wilt. Kareem. Ewing. Shaq. Lebron. (you would never be able to trust ranking systems with 6-stars. They'd end up giving out 3-4 a year. But those are a fundamentally different class of players)
5 star = Top 8, say, the rotation players on a national all-high school team.
4 star = Top 40. Like the Billboard charts
3 star = Clear high major players. Guys with multiple high major offers.
2 star = Everyone else who ends up on high major rosters.
Not bad, but I wouldn't bother distinguishing the first group. I don't think they happen as often as several per year, maybe 1 every 3-4 years? And yes, you're right it does vary greatly year to year. I'd say most classes have more than 8 in the top group, but not always. I'd push out the typical 4 star group much further, probably to 75 or so. Illinois has landed guys like Deron, Roger, Demetri, etc outside of that 40 line so it's often enough to suggest that's too low. Then the next cutoff line, well, who really cares?
I think you are mixing a few things in your post, like NBA and college, and also star system and individual rankings.
There are indeed very few years that you get multiple players who become evolutionary specimens in the NBA, such as Lebron, Durant, etc. But this is irrelevant as far as college recruiting (e.g., Lebron did not even go to college, Oden never became such player in the NBA, etc.). Yet, there are many years when freshmen/sophomores really make a huge impact in college basketball. There are multiple such players in multiple years. That is the important thing with respect to recruiting, not whether they go on to become the top NBA players throughout their career.
Also, you confuse the overall star system (3 star player, 4 star player, etc.) with individual rankings. A 4* is not the same as another 4*. That is why all recruiting services give individual rankings of players, not just stars. If it did not matter, they would just classify players based on just stars. There is generally a big difference between a player ranked #62 (or slightly above 40 in your post) and a player ranked #150.
Seems difficult to say until well into their nba careers to see if they end up thy good.
I feel like the relatively distinct tiers go about like this:
Tier 1: Generational Talent. Specifically, a generational talent that's identified in high school and has game changing (or, as S&C put it, "evolutionary") attributes. This rules out guys like Steph Curry. I agree with S&C here: many years there's no one in this tier; when there is one, he's usually the only one in the class. I'd say the chronological list of these over the last 15 years goes Amare Stoudemire, Lebron James, Greg Oden, Kevin Durant, Derrick Rose, Anthony Davis, Andre Drummond (maybe), Andrew Wiggins, Karl-Anthony Towns (maybe), and Ben Simmons.
Tier 2: 1-7 or 8. These guys have a low bust rate, at least at the college level. Probably 90% of them star in college and get a shot at the NBA.
Tier 3: 7-20. Obvious NBA ceilings (and if not, they have at least one ultra-elite skill at the P5 level - usually outside shooting). Most of these guys end up being top collegiate players (and/or 1-and-done)
Tier 4: 21-35. Probable all-conference players at the P5 level. Possible NBA futures.
Tier 5: 36-50. Probable multi-year starters/potential all-conference. The bust rate really starts to climb in this tier.
Tier 6: 51-80. Safe bet to become important contributors. Multiple years in the rotation, probable starters at some point. Could be all-conference level. Plenty of busts in this tier and the one below.
Tier 7: 81-120. Obvious talent, not sure how it will translate. Possible limiting factors (uncertain development trajectory; lack of specific physical attributes or basketball skills). Some kids in this tier come out of nowhere (relatively) before their senior years. Lots of flame-outs, but plenty of undervalued talent in this group.
Tier 8: 121-150. Talented, could pan out. Wait-and-see prospects.
Tier 9: 151-200-ish. A lot of times these players have one special physical attribute, but are very raw (like Victor Uyaelunmo's height and mobility) or are average athletes with average size and skill, but possess promising intangibles (like Javon Pickett's motor and knack for scoring in the paint). Could become solid P5 contributors, but a crapshoot at this point.
Tier 10: 200-500. Either didn't play AAU ball and played HS in a small state/conference (every year you see someone at South Dakota or Eastern Washington averaging 20/8/4 who just flew completely under the radar). Physical late-bloomers, etc. Totally unprojectable, at least below the top 250. If a B1G coach takes a commitment from a 2-star (see Weber with Chet Frazier), it's probably a combination of squinting hard and noticing something no one else has noticed, along with being in a tough recruiting spot and deciding that a warm practice body is better than putting a chair on the court.
Not a perfect science and it varies from class to class, but I think there are about ten levels.
Tier 4:
Tier 1: Generational Talent. Specifically, a generational talent that's identified in high school and has game changing (or, as S&C put it, "evolutionary") attributes. This rules out guys like Steph Curry. I agree with S&C here: many years there's no one in this tier; when there is one, he's usually the only one in the class. I'd say the chronological list of these over the last 15 years goes Amare Stoudemire, Lebron James, Greg Oden, Kevin Durant, Derrick Rose, Anthony Davis, Andre Drummond (maybe), Andrew Wiggins, Karl-Anthony Towns (maybe), and Ben Simmons.
Tier 2: 1-7 or 8. These guys have a low bust rate, at least at the college level. Probably 90% of them star in college and get a shot at the NBA.
Tier 3: 7-20. Obvious NBA ceilings (and if not, they have at least one ultra-elite skill at the P5 level - usually outside shooting). Most of these guys end up being top collegiate players (and/or 1-and-done)
Tier 4: 21-35. Probable all-conference players at the P5 level. Possible NBA futures.
Tier 5: 36-50. Probable multi-year starters/potential all-conference. The bust rate really starts to climb in this tier.
Tier 6: 51-80. Safe bet to become important contributors. Multiple years in the rotation, probable starters at some point. Could be all-conference level. Plenty of busts in this tier and the one below.
Tier 7: 81-120. Obvious talent, not sure how it will translate. Possible limiting factors (uncertain development trajectory; lack of specific physical attributes or basketball skills). Some kids in this tier come out of nowhere (relatively) before their senior years. Lots of flame-outs, but plenty of undervalued talent in this group.
Tier 8: 121-150. Talented, could pan out. Wait-and-see prospects.
Tier 9: 151-200-ish. A lot of times these players have one special physical attribute, but are very raw (like Victor Uyaelunmo's height and mobility) or are average athletes with average size and skill, but possess promising intangibles (like Javon Pickett's motor and knack for scoring in the paint). Could become solid P5 contributors, but a crapshoot at this point.
Tier 10: 200-500. Either didn't play AAU ball and played HS in a small state/conference (every year you see someone at South Dakota or Eastern Washington averaging 20/8/4 who just flew completely under the radar). Physical late-bloomers, etc. Totally unprojectable, at least below the top 250. If a B1G coach takes a commitment from a 2-star (see Weber with Chet Frazier), it's probably a combination of squinting hard and noticing something no one else has noticed, along with being in a tough recruiting spot and deciding that a warm practice body is better than putting a chair on the court.
Not a perfect science and it varies from class to class, but I think there are about ten levels.
Tier 4:
Talk of Frazier dropping? Was he higher than his Scout 78?
That's another confusing thing. Recruiting rankings should reflect a player's ability, not necessarily where they end up in college. There are quite a few NR players who end up in high major rosters just because of desperation/inability to recruit better players, injuries, attrition at the last minute with not much time to recruit, etc. Those players should not be ranked higher than some players who are more talented, yet for some reason decide to attend a mid-majors. Or some player who may not have a lot of high major offers because of grades, etc.
Deleted member 10676
D
Guest
Derek Piper @DPiperScout 8m8 minutes ago #Illini hosting 2018 PG Courtney Ramey on Saturday for a visit. "Me & Coach Groce have a great relationship."
Chris Yates
Recruiting Correspondent
- Michigan
Their experts obviously knew everyone wanted to say: "Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier!"
Right, that's exactly what I'm saying. But if Rivals.com added a sixth star, you know they would start using it all the time, just to drum up interest.
You don't need a sixth star for people to know LeBron James is something different. But he is something different. Not sure when the next guy like that is even on the horizon, it's been kind of awhile now since Anthony Davis.
Admittedly, the data is noisy. Cut off the 5 stars at like 12 and then the four stars at 75? I don't think that's perfect, but its still probably better than the slavish 25/100 we have now, which clearly fails to differentiate a substantial and meaningful gulf between elite guys and "other" five stars.
Here's a fun link to play around with on this subject, btw.
I'd argue that's the most important one. "Is this guy a high-major talent or isn't he?"
There is a lot of discussion and ideas about new recruiting groups, etc. but none of those are better than what exists today with individual rankings. If you get the #54 player in the country, it is irrelevant whether you brand that player 4* or 4-, or 3+, or 3 or whatever. At the end, you got the #54 player in the country that particular year. The star classification can mean different things to different people.
Deleted member 10676
D
Guest
https://www.prephoops.com/2016/08/grassroots-first-person-jetsramey-united/
Scott Burgess @scottybscout https://twitter.com/scottybscout/status/768244440666402816 Jets/Ramey United Program MVP: Belleville East 2017 SF Javon Pickett
Scott Burgess @scottybscout https://twitter.com/scottybscout/status/768244440666402816 Jets/Ramey United Program MVP: Belleville East 2017 SF Javon Pickett
Deleted member 10676
D
Guest
Emmanuel Dildy very active at Miznoz.
Sam Snelling @SamSnellingRMN https://twitter.com/SamSnellingRMN/status/768231886254510084 Addendum to @scottybscout's report on Talen Horton-Tucker unofficial to Mizzou on 9/10, date is flexible but will happen for a FB home game
Sam Snelling @SamSnellingRMN https://twitter.com/SamSnellingRMN/status/768231886254510084 Addendum to @scottybscout's report on Talen Horton-Tucker unofficial to Mizzou on 9/10, date is flexible but will happen for a FB home game
This would be the 6-star list in my memory as a basketball fan:
Ewing, Shaq, Garnett, Lebron, Oden, and Anthony Davis.
You're tempted to put some other guys on there, Durant, Wiggins, Kobe, maybe Pearl Washington, hypothetically maybe Benji Wilson. But I think what makes those six guys unique was how complete they were even as high school seniors. They weren't just on another physical and athletic plane from everyone else, they weren't just mold-breaking players, they arrived fully formed even as 18 year olds. Doesn't mean they didn't get better from there (all of them but Oden did), but their role and their purpose on a basketball floor was almost preordained.
Hard to pin down consensus on an exact number. Tiers make it easier.
LOL. Your talking about a kid that has played one season, most of it out of position and using the term STILL? Are we to assume you have seen him recently going up against other bigs?
I may be wrong, but I predict
TJL will STILL need to improve after his freshman year.
Tilmon will STILL need to improve after his freshman year.
TFrazier will STILL need to get stronger after his freshman year.
OK, now take the IL trivial contest to see if you have been paying attention.
1. What MLB team hat did JCL wear during his OV?
2. When JFG went to South Bend to pick up DJax and his buddie, what type of vehicle did Groce drive?
3. Prior to LaLu what HS did JCL attend? a give me.
4. What airport were Evans and his Mom diverted to on way to OV?
5. What is JCL's little brother Isaiah's nickname??
6. What does LeRon Black's Mom do for a living?
7. What HS did the infamous cheerleader go to that tweeted TF during his visit last weekend?
8. What college did JFG's wife graduate from?
9. Who is the best ping pong player on the UI team/.staff?
10. Where did JCL's DAD go to HS??
Have fun.:
Bonus question--What police force does DPaul's Dad work for??
That's a brutal quiz. I don't think I could answer any of those correctly. It's not like I'm just a casual fan either, I read the recruiting threads pretty much every day religiously. I've only been posting for three years, but I've been lurking since at least the IDKWTI days.
The difficulty is to differentiate before they play in college, however, without being influenced by their career afterwards. Wiggins, for example, was definitely a much bigger deal than Anthony Davis. So was Jabari Parker for that matter, or OJ Mayo. But as far as college recruiting, it makes very little difference IMO such sub-classifications that only occur (as others noted) once or twice in a decade. There are multiple freshmen/sophomores who have a huge impact in the college game every year. That is much more important with regards to recruiting.
That's not the way I remember it.
Davis developed late so he didn't have the multi-year hype train like Lebron did, but on the All-American Game circuit he looked like something out of Space Jam.
Wiggins definitely has an argument. For me it's just that he was such a familiar TYPE of player, even though he was a ludicrously athletic version of it.
Parker and OJ Mayo were just the #1 recruits of their respective years. No different from Brandon Jennings or Harrison Barnes or whoever.
Tevo
- Wilmette, IL
Verge at 200 is cuckoo, unless they discount his ranking based on "Likelihood to be Eligible As A Freshman".
- Status