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: 1410126" data-attributes="member: 7292"><p>Personally, I do not believe that HS ranking is the sole determinant of "talent." Talent extends into many other things as individual accolades and performance proofpoints (please see my previous post on golden eras). But even in the case that we use HS rankings as the sole surrogate (which I disagree), the question that we are analyzing is not how ranked players were used. That can be answered pretty deterministically, we know. What we try to do is use Effective Ranking as a predictor (independent variable) to analyze and investigate correlation with B1G performance (dependent variable, which we also know deterministically for each year). </p><p></p><p>The reason it would be more interesting is that Effective Ranking is closer (although not the same) with people's view of the loaded term "talent" (in past seasons). I do not think that when someone says (correctly or incorrectly) that Missouri was very talented last year, it has much to do with Michael Porter. Or someone can say, we were so talented in those years (with Groce) because of Tracy (in years he did not play). Given that injuries, suspensions, on and off-court problems, player/coach issues, etc. etc. are so prominent, it helps towards the analysis in that direction. Yet, since this measure does embed HS rankings, the same problems and bias will still exist IMO. If I had to take a guess, as with individual rankings (which is the basis for all this), the correlation will be greater at the high end rather than lower end. Correlation also does not mean perfect correlation either, even at higher end. </p><p></p><p>To relate all this back to recruiting, it does not mean that you will find "talent" only high up in the rankings. There are many very talented players who were not as highly ranked. But chances are higher, that you will find "talent" at the high end of the rankings. That's the notion of correlation (stronger at the high end). Anyway, every interesting discussion so far.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Obelix, post: 1410126, member: 7292"] Personally, I do not believe that HS ranking is the sole determinant of "talent." Talent extends into many other things as individual accolades and performance proofpoints (please see my previous post on golden eras). But even in the case that we use HS rankings as the sole surrogate (which I disagree), the question that we are analyzing is not how ranked players were used. That can be answered pretty deterministically, we know. What we try to do is use Effective Ranking as a predictor (independent variable) to analyze and investigate correlation with B1G performance (dependent variable, which we also know deterministically for each year). The reason it would be more interesting is that Effective Ranking is closer (although not the same) with people's view of the loaded term "talent" (in past seasons). I do not think that when someone says (correctly or incorrectly) that Missouri was very talented last year, it has much to do with Michael Porter. Or someone can say, we were so talented in those years (with Groce) because of Tracy (in years he did not play). Given that injuries, suspensions, on and off-court problems, player/coach issues, etc. etc. are so prominent, it helps towards the analysis in that direction. Yet, since this measure does embed HS rankings, the same problems and bias will still exist IMO. If I had to take a guess, as with individual rankings (which is the basis for all this), the correlation will be greater at the high end rather than lower end. Correlation also does not mean perfect correlation either, even at higher end. To relate all this back to recruiting, it does not mean that you will find "talent" only high up in the rankings. There are many very talented players who were not as highly ranked. But chances are higher, that you will find "talent" at the high end of the rankings. That's the notion of correlation (stronger at the high end). Anyway, every interesting discussion so far. [/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…