Does Recruiting Rank Matter?

[Dr. Blackheart]

With Vander Blue being MU's highest rated recruit in years...and with Buzz attracting back-to back highly regarded recruiting classes, we are all naturally excited about what is to come.  I came across these analyses in Stat sheet that looked at the success of recruits.  These findings support analyses done by the Cracked Sidewalks crew (BAMA, BMA, Sugar) that should really provide MU fans high hope. 

Two MU mentions of note:  Both Jerel and Wes listed under "Biggest Surprises", which obviously both have proven (JM as All BE and AA and Wes in the NBA).  My guess is Lazar would also have been on this list if this was done now.

Biggest Impact:
Conclusions:  Unlike the list of players that were the Most Disappointing, the players that showed up in the two categories above are well known and many went on to have success in the NBA.

Regarding NCAA Tournament winning, it's interesting to see several players from the same teams showing up around the same time. While a single Top 10 player can put a program on the path to winning, getting the right 2 or 3 players from the Top 100 can mean big success at NCAA Tournament time.

http://statsheet.com/bhsb/impact_players

Most Disappointing:
Conclusions:  There are only 2 players that match all three of the categories above (started less than 50% of their games, won less than 50% of their games, and never went to an NCAA Tournament game): Von Wafer (Florida State) and Abdou Diame (Auburn).

There were no players from the Top 10 that were in all 3 categories and only LaVell Blanchard (Michigan) was in 2 categories. Top 10 players are a virtual lock to start a bunch of games, help their team win more than 50% of their games, and reach the NCAA Tournament.

Lastly, the majority of players on this page had rather forgettable careers (you may not even recognize many of the names) and did not go on to success at the next level. This is quite different from the Impact Player list.

http://statsheet.com/bhsb/most_disappointing_players

Biggest Surprises
Conclusions:  There are no startling conclusions that came out of this analysis other than to see some interesting names included in the lists. If nothing else, this shows that occasionally players in the RSCI 51-100 can become a major force at the college level (e.g., Emeka Okafor, Josh Boone, Steve Blake, James Augustine, Joakim Noah, Darren Collison, Lonny Baxter, etc.)

http://statsheet.com/bhsb/surprising_players

[bilsu]

What really matters the most is  how hard a player is going to work. That will determine how good Gardner becomes.

[wadefan#1]

the only thing that matters is how they perform on the court.

[Brewtown Andy]

I remember during the NFL draft, someone - Pat Forde, maybe - named 2 of the top CFB recruits for this past year's senior class, and essentially wondered what ever happened to them.

Same thing goes for basketball recruiting.  You want to get the guys who appear to be the most talented, but you can't forget that there's guys out there who haven't quite had the light turn on for them yet.

[martyconlonontherun]

it's like the nba draft. Yeah sometimes a 2nd round pick does better thaan a lottery pick. But your best odds of getting a stud is in the top 10. We notice the brian butches of the world and the lazars of the world only because of their rankings. If you switched their raanking they don't stand out as much. Overall, the rankings do have weight. It's when you start looking at an individuaal players ranking is when the error goes up.

[Dr. Blackheart]

See, the list below...all have won at least one NC since 1997 with Duke, UNC, FL and CT each winning two during this time.  UCLA was the exception, but with three F4's (Not to mention all the F4 spots filled by these teams as well).  

It is fine to fixate on the exceptions to this--those who blow up, like Wade or Wes, as that has been MU's place.  But, the Buzzer is trying to get beyond that with consistently high classes...and it doesn't take much to associate why below.  Obviously, there are a lot of exceptions and reasons--but a coach who attracts talent and has a proven name is #1. The fact that Buzz is also a teacher/developer is huge added bonus.  The game coaching and program leadership comes with experience.  

This is going to be a fun ride next couple of years.  Get ready to open up the wallets, boys.

# of Top 50 Recruits since 1998 (Statsheet)

1.  North Carolina 30  
2.  Duke 28  
3.  Florida 21  
4.  Kansas 20  
5.  UCLA 20
6.  Kentucky 19  
7.  Connecticut 18
8.  Arizona 17  
9.  Syracuse 16  
10. Michigan State 15

[martyconlonontherun]

See, the list below...all have won at least one NC since 1997 with Duke, UNC, FL and CT each winning two during this time.  UCLA was the exception, but with three F4's (Not to mention all the F4 spots filled by these teams as well).  

It is fine to fixate on the exceptions to this--those who blow up, like Wade or Wes, as that has been MU's place.  But, the Buzzer is trying to get beyond that with consistently high classes...and it doesn't take much to associate why below.  Obviously, there are a lot of exceptions and reasons--but a coach who attracts talent and has a proven name is #1. The fact that Buzz is also a teacher/developer is huge added bonus.  The game coaching and program leadership comes with experience.  

This is going to be a fun ride next couple of years.  Get ready to open up the wallets, boys.

# of Top 50 Recruits since 1998 (Statsheet)

1.  North Carolina 30  
2.  Duke 28  
3.  Florida 21  
4.  Kansas 20  
5.  UCLA 20
6.  Kentucky 19  
7.  Connecticut 18
8.  Arizona 17  
9.  Syracuse 16  
10. Michigan State 15

Dr. B- do you have a link to that spreadsheet or know how many MU had?

[bma725]

If you're looking at Top 50, MU has had 4 since 1998:

Robert Jackson - #33 in 1998
Travis Diener - #40 in 2001
Dominic James - #36 in 2005
Junior Cadougan - #47 in 2009

Blue might move into the Top 50 when the final rankings are updated sometime next month, but for right now he's #53.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Here is the link I forgot to attach in the post above.  Edit:  This is indeed through 2009... Statsheet lists MU with 3 vs. BMA's list....looked back and they have Jackson under Miss St. for #4 for MU as BMA points out.  VB would be 5.  Sorry for the late link.  Lots of great recruiting stats in that section for those interested.

http://statsheet.com/bhsb/recruits_by_college

[brewcity77]

If you're looking at Top 50, MU has had 4 since 1998:

Robert Jackson - #33 in 1998
Travis Diener - #40 in 2001
Dominic James - #36 in 2005
Junior Cadougan - #47 in 2009

Blue might move into the Top 50 when the final rankings are updated sometime next month, but for right now he's #53.

Blue at 53?!? The lowest I had seen him at previously was at around 38 . I thought Jones was ranked in the mid-50s. And while I hate to say it matters, clearly that list from Dr. Blackheart indicates otherwise if we ever want to seriously have a shot at another title.

[bma725]

Blue at 53?!? The lowest I had seen him at previously was at around 38 . I thought Jones was ranked in the mid-50s. And while I hate to say it matters, clearly that list from Dr. Blackheart indicates otherwise if we ever want to seriously have a shot at another title.

Keep in mind, the consensus rankings are updated two or three times per class, so the last one is from last September and there has been quite a bit of change since that time.  Take a look at how their rankings have changed from September til now....

Vander Blue
USA Today:  Unranked both times
HoopMasters:  35 both times
Scout:  was 27 now 34
Prepstars: was unranked now 90
Rivals: was 22 now 24
Bob Gibbons:  was unranked now 42
ESPN:  was 34 now 31

Jamail Jones
USA Today:  Unranked both times
Hoopmasters: was 74 now 96
Scout:  Unranked both times
PrepStars:  was 92 now 79
Rivals:  was 65 now 52
Bob Gibbons:  was unranked now 85
ESPN: was 61 now 53

Based upon how the consensus rankings work, and the point system in place, the amount of points that Vander has would put him in the 45-48 range most years, and Jamail would move up a spot or two at most. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

the only thing that matters is how they perform on the court.

Amen.  Give me a bunch of basketball players that get it, work their tails off and play the game right over a group of high fliers that show up only half the time.

Now, if you can a bunch of high fliers that also are smart, work their tails off - then you've got something very special.

[jmayer1]

Amen.  Give me a bunch of basketball players that get it, work their tails off and play the game right over a group of high fliers that show up only half the time.

Now, if you can a bunch of high fliers that also are smart, work their tails off - then you've got something very special.

You sound like Fran

The fact is players are ranked higher for a reason.  Generally, the better players you get, the better you'll do.  There are obviously misses on both sides, but as a whole the rankings prove themselves out pretty well.

[bilsu]

There is a hugh difference between a school that signs 20+ vs a team that signed 4 top 50's. One you have more of them on the court and two if one under performs it does not matter as much. Furthermore, if you change it to top 25 MU falls out all together and I will guess NC goes from 30 to 15-20. However, you can argue that a one done is less valuable than a player ranked in the 40's that stays all four years. MU's best chance for a final four is if Blue, Jones, Newbill, Smith and Gardner are together as seniors at MU. Of course they would need decent recruiting classes behind them to fill out the front line.

[NersEllenson]

Amen.  Give me a bunch of basketball players that get it, work their tails off and play the game right over a group of high fliers that show up only half the time.

Could I recommend you consider joining the Wisconsin Badger boards, and adopt them as your team?  You'd increase your chances of not having to see a group of high fliers, while simulateneously being able to see a bunch of players work their tails off and play the game the right way - into a scrum of a game with typical scores in the 60-55 range.

[Doctor V]

Could I recommend you consider joining the Wisconsin Badger boards, and adopt them as your team?  You'd increase your chances of not having to see a group of high fliers, while simulateneously being able to see a bunch of players work their tails off and play the game the right way - into a scrum of a game with typical scores in the 60-55 range.

No homo

[NersEllenson]

No homo

Have you not seen your psychiatrist lately?  Meds off a little today?  That multiple personality disorder kicking in today - to where you think you are Chicos??  Or are you now Chico's spokesperson?  Or are you in fact the homo, who has it hard for Chicos? 

[ChicosBailBonds]

You sound like Fran

The fact is players are ranked higher for a reason.  Generally, the better players you get, the better you'll do.  There are obviously misses on both sides, but as a whole the rankings prove themselves out pretty well.

We all get that, but when push comes to shove, there is no difference between the 58th ranked player and the 78th ranked player.  The differences, if any, are so subtle that you can't quantify them.  Get a guru off the record, like Bob Gibbons, and he'll tell you that when they start slotting players after the first 10 to 20, it's a complete crap shoot for the next 100 or so.

Basically you have the "can't miss" guys, though he then we can all find examples of bombs.  Then you have your next 100 or so which you can throw into a hat and pull out in any order and not be wrong or right every time you do it.  The you've got your next 200 or so.

We could all sit here and look at the RSCI or individual rankings over the last 10 years and find a lot of players ranked 20 to 100 only to find the guys closer to 100 did better than the guys closer to 20.....and vice versa.

Just as we could find a lot of players that didn't even make it in a top 100 list.

Rankings are great, they sell subscriptions and get some fans all fired up.  But give me good attitude, coachable players, high basketball IQ, and solid athletes and you'll win a ton of games. 

[Doctor V]

Have you not seen your psychiatrist lately?  Meds off a little today?  That multiple personality disorder kicking in today - to where you think you are Chicos??  Or are you now Chico's spokesperson?  Or are you in fact the homo, who has it hard for Chicos? 

Haha you've got me laughing, good work. Its amazing how far a no homo can go. Anyway, maybe Chicos is my psychiatrist, whats it to you?

About basketball, if  Junior and Vander can be anywhere close to as good as the other two guards on that list, MU is in good hands. I've got more confidence in Vander than Junior from what ive heard, but I really hope Cadougan proves me wrong.

Although this would be a pretty small lineup, I salivate at the idea of Junior, Vander, DJO, Jones, and Otule/gardner/name that big being on the court at the same time

[ChicosBailBonds]

Could I recommend you consider joining the Wisconsin Badger boards, and adopt them as your team?  You'd increase your chances of not having to see a group of high fliers, while simulateneously being able to see a bunch of players work their tails off and play the game the right way - into a scrum of a game with typical scores in the 60-55 range.

No thanks.  I don't think I would enjoy a team resembling Adolph Rupp's all white team.

Let's also not confuse what I am saying.  I would love top 20 talent and high flying athletes, but I want them to be smart, coachable, and top BASKETBALL players.  If we can get those, then that is very special.

[Nukem2]

We all get that, but when push comes to shove, there is no difference between the 58th ranked player and the 78th ranked player.  The differences, if any, are so subtle that you can't quantify them.  Get a guru off the record, like Bob Gibbons, and he'll tell you that when they start slotting players after the first 10 to 20, it's a complete crap shoot for the next 100 or so.

I rember comments Bob Gibbons made re Ryan Amoroso.  Paraphrasing,  Gibbons said he was a potential Top 75 player but slotted him in the 130s with the proviso that there was not much diffence between 75 and 130.  As you say, once one gets pst the first wave of players, the difference between guys is rather finite.

Having said that, I still would love to have guys in the Top 100 who will work hard and be coachable.

[Lennys Tap]

OK. 58 is no different than 78. And 78 is no different than 130. I suppose you could argue that 130 is no different than 200 and 200 is no different than 300. And once you get to 300, is there really any difference between 300 and 500? So I guess that there's really no difference between 58 and 500. Except that a roster of guys rated 58 resembles maybe a Villanova while a roster of guys rated 300-500 looks like Prairie View A&M. There will be players who greatly exceed or disappoint their rankings. But the top programs are the ones who consistently get the highest ranked players. So does recruiting rank matter? If your goal is to be an elite program, yes.

[Lennys Tap]

You sound like Fran

The fact is players are ranked higher for a reason.  Generally, the better players you get, the better you'll do.  There are obviously misses on both sides, but as a whole the rankings prove themselves out pretty well.

+1. When you start taking stuff almost verbatim from Fran's playbook it's time to re-examine your stance

[ChicosBailBonds]

I rember comments Bob Gibbons made re Ryan Amoroso.  Paraphrasing,  Gibbons said he was a potential Top 75 player but slotted him in the 130s with the proviso that there was not much diffence between 75 and 130.  As you say, once one gets pst the first wave of players, the difference between guys is rather finite.

Having said that, I still would love to have guys in the Top 100 who will work hard and be coachable.

Yup

Sorting through who is 54 vs 83rd or whatever is nothing but goofy stuff for fans to argue over. 

[GGGG]

Could I recommend you consider joining the Wisconsin Badger boards, and adopt them as your team?  You'd increase your chances of not having to see a group of high fliers, while simulateneously being able to see a bunch of players work their tails off and play the game the right way - into a scrum of a game with typical scores in the 60-55 range.

Did you intentionally snip the second part of his post to take a snipe?  Or did you just not bother to read it?

Now, if you can a bunch of high fliers that also are smart, work their tails off - then you've got something very special.