Home
Forums
New Posts
Illini Basketball
Illini Football
Sports Talk
Log in
Register
What's new
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Sports
Illini Basketball
Recruiting Talent vs. Conference Standings
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Obelix" data-source="post: 1410042" data-attributes="member: 7292"><p>First of all, great work Soupy, good analysis and appreciate the time spent on this. A few comments and one suggestion for improvement.</p><p></p><p>1) It is not really "talent" but more accurately "HS ranking" (in this case as measure by 247). While there is indeed correlation between rankings and talent (correlation decreases as one moves towards the lower end, since now 247 even ranks players even in the 250+ range), rankings are really more about "potential" based on HS/AAU. The higher the ranking, the higher the probability of <strong>individual</strong> success (not team success) in college, and that relationship is stronger at the higher end and gets weaker as one progress lower in the rankings. But talent extends beyond rankings into individual performance in college; it does not stop at HS/AAU. Therefore, there are new "rankings" (indicative of potential) as players move into the next level (i.e., ranking players in the NBA draft, post college, etc.) and so on.</p><p></p><p>2) A critical element not captured is <strong>positional</strong> talent. A great part of our problem post-Dee has been our inability to have B1G talent level at PG. Since Dee left (2006), Illinois has had only one (1) true B1G level PG until Frazier arrived on campus (i.e., Demetri McCamey). That is the most critical position. A secondary positional gap has been inside presence. You can't have such positional gaps (no matter how much posters argue about positionless basketball) unless you have exceptional talent at the other positions to compensate for. <strong>Depth</strong> is a critical element as well. A low ranked player should not hurt a team’s talent ranking (Duke, UK, Kansas and others have even had walkons at the end of the bench) unless the team has no depth at particular positions and are forced to play those players significant minutes.</p><p></p><p>3) Furthermore, HS rankings alone do not account for whether that HS ranking/potential was used or not (multiple players had injuries, suspensions, off court problems, etc. etc.). I believe you also identified that as a limitation. If one counts Michael Porter Jr. on Mizzou (who never really played), we may come to the conclusion that Mizzou was way more talented than it actually was. Same with Tracy, Thorne, Mike Shaw, and even Richmond (who missed games and playing time due to off court issues/failed tests, etc.). By the same token, the ranking of the 12th, 13th, 14th player on a team (even walkons) is irrelevant as they usually have really no effect and rarely play. The average HS ranking unfairly treats every player the same, whether they play or not, or how much they play. That is a critical limitation as it treats the 1st player on the team exactly the same as the 13th player on a team.</p><p></p><p>A way of actually addressing some of those gaps is weighting 247 rankings by the minutes each player played in the B1G (to stay consistent) and creating an Effective Ranking for EACH player, then adding them together (not averaging them) to create a composite Effective Ranking score for each team. While not perfect, that would IMO be a much better surrogate measure.</p><p></p><p>For example, Trent Frazier's Effective Ranking during the 2017-2018 season would be:</p><p></p><p>0.9392 x 533 = 500.5936</p><p></p><p>whereas, Mark Smith's Effective Ranking during the 2017-2018 season would be:</p><p></p><p>0.9629 x 279 = 268.6491</p><p></p><p>Which would much more accurately capture talent (weighted by utilization) on the team last year as measured by rankings. It also correctly compensates for players not playing for whatever reason (injuries, RS, off and on-court problems, suspensions, skipping practice, not getting along with coaches, etc. etc.), despite their rankings.</p><p></p><p>If we add (not average) the effective rankings of each player on the team, we would get an Effective Ranking composite for each team in the B1G, which will be a much better surrogate of the actual talent on B1G teams each year. And as with rankings, I believe that measure, and other similar measures, will show that the impact is more pronounced between high and low end, as it is within groups, especially at low end. That means that effective ranking would be more meaningful on its correlation of competing for B1G or making NCAA, e.g., between the 1st, or 2nd projected team and teams at the lower end, rather than projecting whether the 11th ranked team actually finished 9th or 13th which IMO is less important (similarly, rankings on the average show greater differences between the 15th ranked player and the 130th ranked player, rather than differences between players ranked 170th and 250th).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Obelix, post: 1410042, member: 7292"] First of all, great work Soupy, good analysis and appreciate the time spent on this. A few comments and one suggestion for improvement. 1) It is not really "talent" but more accurately "HS ranking" (in this case as measure by 247). While there is indeed correlation between rankings and talent (correlation decreases as one moves towards the lower end, since now 247 even ranks players even in the 250+ range), rankings are really more about "potential" based on HS/AAU. The higher the ranking, the higher the probability of [B]individual[/B] success (not team success) in college, and that relationship is stronger at the higher end and gets weaker as one progress lower in the rankings. But talent extends beyond rankings into individual performance in college; it does not stop at HS/AAU. Therefore, there are new "rankings" (indicative of potential) as players move into the next level (i.e., ranking players in the NBA draft, post college, etc.) and so on. 2) A critical element not captured is [B]positional[/B] talent. A great part of our problem post-Dee has been our inability to have B1G talent level at PG. Since Dee left (2006), Illinois has had only one (1) true B1G level PG until Frazier arrived on campus (i.e., Demetri McCamey). That is the most critical position. A secondary positional gap has been inside presence. You can't have such positional gaps (no matter how much posters argue about positionless basketball) unless you have exceptional talent at the other positions to compensate for. [B]Depth[/B] is a critical element as well. A low ranked player should not hurt a team’s talent ranking (Duke, UK, Kansas and others have even had walkons at the end of the bench) unless the team has no depth at particular positions and are forced to play those players significant minutes. 3) Furthermore, HS rankings alone do not account for whether that HS ranking/potential was used or not (multiple players had injuries, suspensions, off court problems, etc. etc.). I believe you also identified that as a limitation. If one counts Michael Porter Jr. on Mizzou (who never really played), we may come to the conclusion that Mizzou was way more talented than it actually was. Same with Tracy, Thorne, Mike Shaw, and even Richmond (who missed games and playing time due to off court issues/failed tests, etc.). By the same token, the ranking of the 12th, 13th, 14th player on a team (even walkons) is irrelevant as they usually have really no effect and rarely play. The average HS ranking unfairly treats every player the same, whether they play or not, or how much they play. That is a critical limitation as it treats the 1st player on the team exactly the same as the 13th player on a team. A way of actually addressing some of those gaps is weighting 247 rankings by the minutes each player played in the B1G (to stay consistent) and creating an Effective Ranking for EACH player, then adding them together (not averaging them) to create a composite Effective Ranking score for each team. While not perfect, that would IMO be a much better surrogate measure. For example, Trent Frazier's Effective Ranking during the 2017-2018 season would be: 0.9392 x 533 = 500.5936 whereas, Mark Smith's Effective Ranking during the 2017-2018 season would be: 0.9629 x 279 = 268.6491 Which would much more accurately capture talent (weighted by utilization) on the team last year as measured by rankings. It also correctly compensates for players not playing for whatever reason (injuries, RS, off and on-court problems, suspensions, skipping practice, not getting along with coaches, etc. etc.), despite their rankings. If we add (not average) the effective rankings of each player on the team, we would get an Effective Ranking composite for each team in the B1G, which will be a much better surrogate of the actual talent on B1G teams each year. And as with rankings, I believe that measure, and other similar measures, will show that the impact is more pronounced between high and low end, as it is within groups, especially at low end. That means that effective ranking would be more meaningful on its correlation of competing for B1G or making NCAA, e.g., between the 1st, or 2nd projected team and teams at the lower end, rather than projecting whether the 11th ranked team actually finished 9th or 13th which IMO is less important (similarly, rankings on the average show greater differences between the 15th ranked player and the 130th ranked player, rather than differences between players ranked 170th and 250th). [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Sports
Illini Basketball
Recruiting Talent vs. Conference Standings
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…