For those concerned only with player rankings

[bma725]

bma, please help me out.  What's the key point you're trying to make here? 

If I'm interpreting it right, your key point is that a significant percentage of top 100 recruits do not pan out. 

I'm not necessarily sure I had one other than stimulating discussion during a slow period.

I guess this comes out of the fact that there's been a ridiculous attitude around here and the other board lately that makes it seem as if 4 and 5 star top 100 players are the only way for us to cure our supposed woes and if we could just stock our team full of them all of our problems would be solved.  There's this attitude that top 100 players are some how sure things, and we should only be recruiting them if we really want to win.  The fact of the matter is that that just isn't true and I think people need to actually be reminded of that.   Duke had a roster full of no one ranked lower than #81, and couldn't get out of the Sweet Sixteen.  Florida State has had a roster full of top 100 players for the last few years and has no NCAA wins to show for it.  Kentucky had 7 top 100 players this year and couldn't even make the NCAA Tournament. 

Also though, it's a reaction to the comments made the last few days regarding guys MU is recruiting.  Somebody posts something about DeAndre Kane and people say we shouldn't recruit him because he's only a three star and is between us and a few mid majors.  Somebody posts something about TJ Taylor and people say we shouldn't recruit him because he's only a three star and we need to be going after 4 and 5 stars only.  A post is made about Darius Smith and people complain about how we lost out on another 4 star player.

Maybe, given how incorrect many of the rankings have turned out to be, we should stop paying so much attention to them.  Maybe, rather than judging a kid based on whether he's #75 or #175, we should read up on whether he can shoot from the perimeter and what his lateral quickness is like and how he handles the ball in traffic.  Maybe, we should all remember that we're talking about kids who aren't even 18 yet, and trying to predict how they'll be the next four years is a nearly impossible job.

I was particularly struck by a comment you just made.  "Top 100 players are not supposed to just be servicable, especially after a few years in college."

I was just talking in general terms.  There's approximately 4500 Division One basketball players, which would make it around 1130 in each class(estimated).  So in theory the top 100 players are the top 9% of the players in a given class.  Does it seem right that a player deemed to be in the top 9% in his class can't even get off the bench after 3 years?  Or that a player in the top 9% struggles to play without fouling and and rarely scores more than 7PPG? 

That's all I was trying to say.  The idea is that the top 100 players in a class are supposed to be special....and most don't turn out that way.

[Henry Sugar]

Maybe, given how incorrect many of the rankings have turned out to be, we should stop paying so much attention to them.  Maybe, rather than judging a kid based on whether he's #75 or #175, we should read up on whether he can shoot from the perimeter and what his lateral quickness is like and how he handles the ball in traffic.  Maybe, we should all remember that we're talking about kids who aren't even 18 yet, and trying to predict how they'll be the next four years is a nearly impossible job.

That is an excellent point.  However, I struggle getting past the notion that the odds of success are far greater with a top 100 recruit than they are without a top 100 recruit.  It's probably best to consider a variety of inputs regarding players, such as their ranking, their level of competition, potential baggage, and fit, instead of just looking at ranking.

I was just talking in general terms.  There's approximately 4500 Division One basketball players, which would make it around 1130 in each class(estimated).  So in theory the top 100 players are the top 9% of the players in a given class.  Does it seem right that a player deemed to be in the top 9% in his class can't even get off the bench after 3 years?  Or that a player in the top 9% struggles to play without fouling and and rarely scores more than 7PPG? 

That's all I was trying to say.  The idea is that the top 100 players in a class are supposed to be special....and most don't turn out that way.

Looking at a few other numbers, it makes it easier to see why a high percentage of Top 100 players are not significant contributors.  In the RSCI top 100 from 2008 and 2007, I counted 93 players and 95 players that went to BCS conference schools, respectively.  In other words, almost all of the top 100 players go to BCS schools.  Add Memphis into the mix and the percentages go even higher. 

Looking at the BCS school pool makes the talent level discussion even more interesting.  If math is right, there are 73 BCS schools, totaling 949 scholarship players, or about 238 players in every recruiting class.  About 40% of the approximate entries to BCS programs every year are "Top 100 kids". 

It makes sense to me that such a high percentage would not be a significant contributor because such a high percentage enter every year.  Signing a top 100 kid is not cream of the crop in the BCS... it's business as usual.  I think what's interesting is that maybe it's okay if a top 100 kid just ends up as serviceable.

Now I'm coming full circle, however.  If so many of the top 100 kids are entering BCS programs every year, how does a program compete if it is not signing them on a regular basis? 

[Atlanta Warrior]

For me the best indicator, at least for kids we are recruiting, is what other schools are recruiting that kids.  Many fly under the radar of the supposed talent evaluators.  Others ratings are inflated simply because they have signed with a Duke or other high level program.  Finally, character does matter as a number of highly talented kids are big time head cases.  I know that there was a lot of hand wringing over the Darius Smith decision but based on the account I read there was a lot of strange things going on with this kid.  I don't think a high school kid needs an entourage much less an agent.

Bottom line we are recruiting now against the big boys which means we will sometimes miss out on a kid.  It sure beats the Deane days when we were slugging it out with midmajor programs in the Horizon and MAC for kids from some farm town in the midwest.

[avid1010]

bma...regarding the Duke rankings.  How much of this is the scouting services overating kids that they know Duke is interested in? 

This is very often my thought.  I look at many of the players Duke recruits and they jump way up, while it's obvious they don't have the athleticism/skills to compete.  I always wonder how "dirty" recruiting gets with some of this data.  Should the teams that were recruiting Snear have told him that FSU is where highly ranked players go to end their chances at the NBA?

[bma725]

That is an excellent point.  However, I struggle getting past the notion that the odds of success are far greater with a top 100 recruit than they are without a top 100 recruit.  It's probably best to consider a variety of inputs regarding players, such as their ranking, their level of competition, potential baggage, and fit, instead of just looking at ranking.

Couple of things:

I think one thing we all have to remember when we think of the "Top 100 Kids" is that while the RSCI is an average of their ratings, there's so many differing opinions on how to rank a player that sometimes a consensus actually hasn't been reached.  All of the rankings have their own little idiosyncrasies in how they do their rankings.  Some are ranking players based upon who they feel are the best high school players.  Others do it on who they feel are the most college ready.  Others on who are the most NBA ready.  Others on who has the most potential to be a great college player.  Others on who has the most subjective talent.  So while they all number people from 1-100, the numbers mean different things to different people.  That's why you see guys like Nick Williams ranked #35 by one expert and not in the top 100 of others.  There is no set standard for how they do their evaluations. 

There's also a lot of politics involved.  Going back to Nick Williams, one of the reasons he was ranked #35 by ESPN, was that ESPN's ranking back then was done by Bob Gibbons.  Williams had played in Gibbons' Tournament of Champions AAU event, and played well.  When it comes time for him to do the rankings, Gibbons is known for unnaturally favoring player who played and played well in his event, even if they were not able to repeat that performance in other events.  Dave Telep on the other hand looks not only at how the guys are playing but outside factors like attitude, academics, surroundings etc.  Each of the services have their own little things they look at that effects an impartial evaluation.

Given that, I've never been particularly comfortable with labeling a kid as a top 100 player, since there are so many different things that go into that sort of ranking.  On to your points:

Looking at a few other numbers, it makes it easier to see why a high percentage of Top 100 players are not significant contributors.  In the RSCI top 100 from 2008 and 2007, I counted 93 players and 95 players that went to BCS conference schools, respectively.  In other words, almost all of the top 100 players go to BCS schools.  Add Memphis into the mix and the percentages go even higher.

Yes and no.  Just looking at the 2006 names I mentioned, most of the reasons for disappointment were their own and not caused by another player:

Vernon Macklin - he was the back up to Hibbert, who was not a top 100 player before transferring and word out of UF is he's still not ready to contribute
Derrick Caracter - character issues kept him from reaching his supposed potential.  Moments of greatness, but he's a headcase.
Lance Thomas - he's surrounded by talented players, but even when given significant minutes he doesn't produce, and he's turned out not to be the athlete people thought he was.
Brian Zoubek - he's been given every opportunity to show he deserved the ranking.  But he's never been able to develop on the court even when given significant playing time
Ramar Smith - attitude issues caused his demise, he could never get out of his own way
Duke Crews - see Ramar Smith
Curtis Kelly - he had a logjam in front of him with Robinson and Adrien. 
Willie Kemp - admittedly had talent in front of him, but even when Memphis was struggling for a true PG before Rose, he couldn't get it done
James Keefe - can't guard anyone to save his life
Mike Jones - didn't even make it into school and has now been dismissed from two schools for attitude problems
Brian Carlwell - was behind top 100 player Shaun Pruitt, but even as a backup didn't contribute before getting hurt and transferring
Tom Herzog - even after a redshirt year, he wasn't ready for Big 10 ball.  MSU goes small rather than play him
Jamie Skeen - got injured, then got fat, then decided he was best suited as a bad shooting perimeter center and ended up transferring
Jonathan Kreft -couldn't even make it on campus before getting arrested for drug possession
Doug Wiggins - headcase.  Backup behind top guys at UConn, but even after a transfer and a chance to show his talent, he got arrested for B&E and might have been expelled from UMass.
Perry Stevenson - starter this year, playing almost 30MPG.  Never bulked up or added post moves to make himself a legit SEC player.
Edgar Sosa - UL doesn't have another top 100 player at the PG position, but Sosa was relegated to bench duty after he couldn't beat out Andre McGee.  Has never been able to understand Pitino's system, or cut down on mistakes, or any thing you need a PG to do.
Anthony Gurley - given plenty of time, and played well on occasion but showed no consistency.  Transferred after Skip Prosser died and was okay at UMass, but a top 60 prospect should be more than ok.
Jamil Tucker - as a 6'9 240lb center, he spends more time beyond the arc than in the post despite actual post talent. 
Isaih Dahlman - given every opportunity to prove himself, he's been unable to beat out anyone or even earn significant minutes
Keith Clark - got injured as a freshman, and averaged 5PPG as the back up to the Griffin brothers.  Stupidly declared for NBA, now in NBA DL.
Nigel Munson - couldn't get along with Seth Greenberg even though he would have had a chance to start as a sophomore.  Left school for a JUCO, never enrolled, nowhere to be found, may have given up the game.
Phil Nelson - started 9 games and played in every game...but not well.  Transferred to Portland State where he's been okay but you would expect more from #71 at that level.
Pierre Niles - weight problems and inability to play Memphis fast paced offense keep him off the court.
Mamadou Diarra - couldn't even contribute as a back up.  Yes USC has talent in front of him, but he can't even get 5 minutes a game.
Antonio Pena - starts, but doesn't contribute much.  Can't beat out Shane Clark a non top 100 player
Leon Freeman - still has not enrolled at a school because of academic issues
William Graves - already mentioned.  Players ahead of him sure, but he also got suspended
Josue Soto - couldn't beat out the other disappoint top 100 players at FSU, now at Florida International
Donneal Mack - talented players ahead of him, that I'll give you.  Tried to transfer then came back.
Jonathan Mitchell - he couldn't beat out the other top 100 players to start and didn't really contribute off the bench.  We'll see how he does at Rutgers now.
Taylor Harrison - barely got off the bench, got hurt at the end of his freshman year, hasn't played since
Soloman Tat - behind Sean Singletery as a freshman, he was expected to start after that since UVA desperate for talent, he played less than 10MPG in a total of 17 games this year and scored 11 total points.
Dan Werner - starter as a junior, averaged less than 9PPG.
Jeremy Mayfield - given a chance for big minutes, he couldn't do anything with them.  Less than 5PPG before becoming academically ineligible
Cameron Tatum - stuck behind a lot of talent, that one I'll give you.
Daniel Deane - couldn't hack it at Utah with not much talent around him.  Now at Oregon State where he is slightly improved...but that doesn't say much.
Hamady N'Diaye - RU is desperate for a big man, and he's got over 20 minutes a game for two years.  Can't stay out of foul trouble, can't really score either.
Adrian Graves - lots of talent around him at Xavier, but he couldn't contribute at all off the bench.  Got kicked out of school now at Bowling Green

Now I'm coming full circle, however.  If so many of the top 100 kids are entering BCS programs every year, how does a program compete if it is not signing them on a regular basis? 

How did MU compete in the toughest conference in the country with only three true top 100 players?  You don't need to bring in a boatload of top 100 kids every year to be successful, but you need to hit on the ones you bring in.  You also need to have a fairly well developed scouting system and a good on the court system so you can identify players that may fit the role you need that aren't top 100 types.  And you need to be very good at player development when you get guys that are raw.

Maybe most importantly, you need to recruit good kids.  I think a lot of the services get caught up in looking at the player's physical attributes and skillset and don't look enough at attitude and things like desire and will to win.  If you can get a guy that wants to work hard every day, wants to get better every day, and is coachable...you can turn him into a player regardless of where he was out of high school.

[Pardner]

Great thread guys.  What I like about Buzz is that he recruits balance.  He goes for the high stars at the skill positions, and is willing to take development chances like with the Bigs--if they fit a freakish profile (Liam, Roseboro, etc.).  In Moneyball, Billy Beane laid out how he used stats to reduce the chances of misses--he weighed experience (college over hs) and OBP as key predictors of potential success in draftees.  Beane hated scouts as they too often fell in love with physical talent instead of whether they were players or not.  Beane himself was rated high but washed out as a prospect.

JUCO's/transfers, in general, have a bad reputation due to character and academics.  Buzz seems to give them a year of maturity (physical and character).  He also signed two from Milwaukee (close to home) to reduce his risks.  Butler, EWill, Otule and Liam have continued to grow physically.  Buzz has recruited for positions and his system, versus just talent.  Crean, Coach K. recently, even Izzo for a while (now he's back to balance), went to too much for only a certain talent, while Calhoun, Self, Williams always seem to have balance on their teams. 

These are kids...they mature (or don't) at different levels.  MU just may have the best support system of any major program.   I think I saw a stat that 50-60% of all students don't finish all four years at the school they started...a similar number for hoops players.  It is better to recruit balance and to do it successively to offset your risks/bets.  And some kids are just late bloomers like Cunningham at Nova.  I like Buzz's approach.  Let's see him develop them.  Our odds for next year just got a lot better as Buzz and staff never seem to rest.

[bma725]

Someone asked about how MU compares to this, here's a look going back to Crean's first class:

2007:
#91 - Trevor Mbakwe

2005:
#36 - DJ
#57 - McNeal
#61 - Wes

2003
#71 - Dameon Mason

2002
#57 - Steve Novak
Robert Jackson(#33 on 1998 RSCI)

2001
#40 - Travis Diener

2000
#85 - Scott Merritt

Additionally, these players made either one or more top 100 lists, but not enough to get into the consensus rankings:

2006
Lazar Hayward(#73 on Rivals, #76 on Hoopmasters)

2003
Brandon Bell(#57 on Bob Gibbons)

2002
Karon Bradley(#100 on HoopScoop)

2001
Ron Howard(#98 on HoopScoop, #78 on Bob Gibbons)

2000
Dwyane Wade(#55 on Bob Gibbons, #50 on Foxsports)
Odartey Blankson(#100 on Bob Gibbons)
Terry Sanders(#22 by USA Recruiting)


Note: I didn't include any of the non-RSCI services like HoopsHype, Athlon, or Rise Magazine etc since they don't seem to have as much credibility.  I also didn't include CSTV, since they don't rank players 1-100 they just lump everyone together.  Plus, something is screwed up with their site and they are listing every MU recruit from 2000-2002 as a member of the top 100 even though when you actually go to the lists for those years, only Merritt, Diener and Novak are on them.

Also, while rankings purely for JUCOS are tough to find, HoopScoop does a thing every year where they group all HS, Prep and JUCO players together into one composite top 100.  They don't publish rankings for it, they just state what level the player is on when compared with all other players in the incoming class regardless of where they are coming from.  Several MU players made that:

2008
Jimmy Butler (Ranked between 11-40)
Joe Fulce (Ranked between 71-100)

2005
Jamil Lott(Ranked between 11-40)

2004
Ousmane Barro (Ranked between 11-40)
Mike Kinsella (Ranked Between 11-40)

2003
Marcus Jackson (Ranked between 11-40)

2000
Terry Sanders (Ranked between 11-40)

[rocky_warrior]

2008
Joe Fulce (Ranked between 71-100)

Really - Fulce was ranked lower than all those other guys?  That surprises me based off what I heard when he was coming in.  Of course, we've barely seen him play, so I can't say the rankings were incorrect...

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Someone asked about how MU compares to this, here's a look going back to Crean's first class:

2007:
#91 - Trevor Mbakwe

2005:
#36 - DJ
#57 - McNeal
#61 - Wes

2003
#71 - Dameon Mason

2002
#57 - Steve Novak
Robert Jackson(#33 on 1998 RSCI)

2001
#40 - Travis Diener

2000
#85 - Scott Merritt

Additionally, these players made either one or more top 100 lists, but not enough to get into the consensus rankings:

2006
Lazar Hayward(#73 on Rivals, #76 on Hoopmasters)

2003
Brandon Bell(#57 on Bob Gibbons)

2002
Karon Bradley(#100 on HoopScoop)

2001
Ron Howard(#98 on HoopScoop, #78 on Bob Gibbons)

2000
Dwyane Wade(#55 on Bob Gibbons, #50 on Foxsports)
Odartey Blankson(#100 on Bob Gibbons)
Terry Sanders(#22 by USA Recruiting)


Note: I didn't include any of the non-RSCI services like HoopsHype, Athlon, or Rise Magazine etc since they don't seem to have as much credibility.  I also didn't include CSTV, since they don't rank players 1-100 they just lump everyone together.  Plus, something is screwed up with their site and they are listing every MU recruit from 2000-2002 as a member of the top 100 even though when you actually go to the lists for those years, only Merritt, Diener and Novak are on them.

Also, while rankings purely for JUCOS are tough to find, HoopScoop does a thing every year where they group all HS, Prep and JUCO players together into one composite top 100.  They don't publish rankings for it, they just state what level the player is on when compared with all other players in the incoming class regardless of where they are coming from.  Several MU players made that:

2008
Jimmy Butler (Ranked between 11-40)
Joe Fulce (Ranked between 71-100)

2005
Jamil Lott(Ranked between 11-40)

2004
Ousmane Barro (Ranked between 11-40)
Mike Kinsella (Ranked Between 11-40)

2003
Marcus Jackson (Ranked between 11-40)

2000
Terry Sanders (Ranked between 11-40)

Thanks for posting and proving my point, BMA.

This list proves that Dwyane Wade Terry Sanders was not the unknown "diamond in the rough" that the Tanning Cream fans love to talk about. Terry was a well known commodity, and Cream just got lucky to land him and lucky to have Steve Novak, Travis Deiner and Robert Jackson fall in his lap. Without Terry, Cream never gets the big money or the job at IU. In fact, name a great season that Cream had without Terry.

Let's not use revisionist history to hail "The second greatest"...

[Kramerica]

Thanks for posting and proving my point, BMA.

This list proves that Dwyane Wade Terry Sanders was not the unknown "diamond in the rough" that the Tanning Cream fans love to talk about. Terry was a well known commodity, and Cream just got lucky to land him and lucky to have Steve Novak, Travis Deiner and Robert Jackson fall in his lap. Without Terry, Cream never gets the big money or the job at IU. In fact, name a great season that Cream had without Terry.

Let's not use revisionist history to hail "The second greatest"...

Hey, never mock the Colonel.  He was my favorite player when I went to MU.