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: 1410053" data-attributes="member: 7292"><p>While the coach always has the final saying, it does not actually excuse a coach's inability to develop that talent as again, measured by rankings. The coach who will play higher ranked talent will show in the Effective Ranking, the coach who will not play them will also show that. A coach who will just play them, but not coach them/develop them well, will also show as the Effective Ranking composite of the team will not correlate well with the final performance on the team (which is I believe what we want to show).</p><p></p><p>It is a much more preferable to counting 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. And it also avoids the problem of unfairly treating players the same, whether the top player on the team and the last person on the bench. In real situation, when we say that Kentucky is really talented (based on some measure of rankings), whether the 13th player on the team is a walkon is irrelevant, unless again they have no positional depth (rarely happens). And in the cases where they had a lot of depth 2 units (the famous in-out substitutions of all 5) that will also show, as the rankings of players who play (second unit) also corresponds to their high rankings (because they play).</p><p></p><p>It is not perfect, for sure, but less problems IMO with limitations of just averaging all rankings and counting all players the same irrespective of actually those players played or not. It is also different than saying this recruiting class is good, which is a-priori statement (i.e., denoting "expectations") than saying that were "talented" a particular year (based on rankings again, which as I said, IMO rankings=talent, just denotes correlation).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Obelix, post: 1410053, member: 7292"] While the coach always has the final saying, it does not actually excuse a coach's inability to develop that talent as again, measured by rankings. The coach who will play higher ranked talent will show in the Effective Ranking, the coach who will not play them will also show that. A coach who will just play them, but not coach them/develop them well, will also show as the Effective Ranking composite of the team will not correlate well with the final performance on the team (which is I believe what we want to show). It is a much more preferable to counting 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. And it also avoids the problem of unfairly treating players the same, whether the top player on the team and the last person on the bench. In real situation, when we say that Kentucky is really talented (based on some measure of rankings), whether the 13th player on the team is a walkon is irrelevant, unless again they have no positional depth (rarely happens). And in the cases where they had a lot of depth 2 units (the famous in-out substitutions of all 5) that will also show, as the rankings of players who play (second unit) also corresponds to their high rankings (because they play). It is not perfect, for sure, but less problems IMO with limitations of just averaging all rankings and counting all players the same irrespective of actually those players played or not. It is also different than saying this recruiting class is good, which is a-priori statement (i.e., denoting "expectations") than saying that were "talented" a particular year (based on rankings again, which as I said, IMO rankings=talent, just denotes correlation). [/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…