Does Recruiting Rank Matter?

[Dr. Blackheart]

I remember 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 difference between 75 and 130.  As you say, once one gets past 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.

Except that is the range where all our "uncoachable players" landed as they thought they were something more:  Maymon, Mbakwe, Amo, Mason, Howard, Bradley, Bell, OD...to go with some great ones like Wade, Hay, Wes, JM, Novak, Travis.  That seems like the crapshoot range.  Our previous coach left because he felt he couldn't get into the sub-50 range at MU like he could at I4.

Buzz is shooting sub 50.  Has Junior, Vander (with the Rivals 5 star).  Get Dawson, Shaw or Tokoto and  WOW!  I am sick of the 5th place ribbon and the 1 and dones.

[NersEllenson]

Except that is the range where all our "uncoachable players" landed as they thought they were something more:  Maymon, Mbakwe, Amo, Mason, Howard, Bradley, Bell, OD...to go with some great ones like Wade, Hay, Wes, JM, Novak, Travis.  That seems like the crapshoot range.  Our previous coach left because he felt he couldn't get into the sub-50 range at MU like he could at I4.

Buzz is shooting sub 50.  Has Junior, Vander (with the Rivals 5 star).  Get Dawson, Shaw or Tokoto and  WOW!  I am sick of the 5th place ribbon and the 1 and dones.

In my view there is little difference between 75-150 with regard to rankings.  It will come down to if the kid is: hard working, coachable, has a good coach that maximizes his game/coaches system.   If you consistently land classes with players 150 and above (meaning ranked between 149 and Number 1)and have great coaching with a good system/program in place that melds good team chemistry and "buy in," you will be consistently successful...but as your original post stated  - if you want to be elite..it is critical to get Top 50 guys.

[Dr. Blackheart]

If you consistently land classes with players 150 and above and have great coaching with a good system/program in place that melds good team chemistry and "buy in," you will be consistently successful...

Where did that get Mike Deane?

[NersEllenson]

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

Do you have an opinion to share on the matter as to if recruiting rank matters?  Or did you just want to take a snipe?  And..fyi..the comment was meant in jest and to illustrate that much of what Chicos was writing was reflective of a Bo Ryan, Wisconsin team.

[NersEllenson]

Where did that get Mike Deane?

I don't have the data on Deane's recruiting classes/player, but as I recall he didn't get many Top 100 guys to campus (lost Billingsly and Alton Mason), and as I recall as time marched on his recruiting got worse and worse.  Furthermore I don't recall that he landed any Top 75 players.  Was he not recruiting in the 150-300 neighborhood?Additionally, he didn't have complete buy-in from his players, and I can tell you from personal anecdotes and feedback from some players of that era..that Mike didn't exactly have the respect of his players.

[bma725]

Do you have an opinion to share on the matter as to if recruiting rank matters?  Or did you just want to take a snipe?  And..fyi..the comment was meant in jest and to illustrate that much of what Chicos was writing was reflective of a Bo Ryan, Wisconsin team.

If you knew anything about Bo Ryan's recruiting, you wouldn't say that.  Wisconsin has pulled in higher rated recruits than MU by quite a bit under Ryan.  3 guys that were consensus Top 40, including 1 consensus Top 10 player.  MU hasn't had a guy like that in decades.

[GGGG]

Do you have an opinion to share on the matter as to if recruiting rank matters?  Or did you just want to take a snipe?  And..fyi..the comment was meant in jest and to illustrate that much of what Chicos was writing was reflective of a Bo Ryan, Wisconsin team.

Sure it was Ners....   

[mviale]

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

YES

[bilsu]

I think the perfect example for this is the ranking of Jones and his teammate who is going to Villanova (I think his name is Bell). Bell is the higher rated player. Having watched them both play 3 games in the national high school tournament, I can see why Bell was ranked higher. Jones seemed to let the game come to him and at times seemed to passive to me. Bell was more of a bulldog that went after the ball and agressively took the ball inside. He averaged more points than Jones because he was more agressive. He was the better high school player, but I am not sure how well his game is going to translate to the college game. Jones is more athletic, quicker and a better outside shooter. In my opinion Jones' has much more upside than Bell. Four years from now I can see people saying the rankings were wrong, but were they? I do not think the rankings are based on potential, they are based on how they are performing in high school.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

Nope, sorry Lenny, not what I said....I specifically said that wasn't the case.

Let me refresh for you what I said.

"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[n] you've got your next 200 or so."


In summary, you have your first 10 to 20 "Can't miss" guys (even though some of them miss).  Then your next 100 or so.  Then your next 200 or so.   I look at that as 3 buckets.   My point, which is basically exactly what Gibbons said and what others I've heard say OFF THE RECORD (they won't say it on the record because that would hurt their business), is that you can't really judge that well many of the top 100 kids outside the "can't miss guys".  You could put them in a hat and draw them out in any order and not be wrong or be right.  They have to slot them somewhere.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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

Maybe he just got lazy in the Texas sun, or maybe he chooses to read what he wants.  Who knows.  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt...he was obviously trying to be funny.   

[ChicosBailBonds]

Four years from now I can see people saying the rankings were wrong, but were they? I do not think the rankings are based on potential, they are based on how they are performing in high school.

That seems a fair assessment Bilsu.  That's also why it's great to get top classes, but a number of coaches are able to find the diamonds in the rough or coach them up to greater heights based on potential.  I don't lose a ton of sleep over recruiting classes if they're in the ballpark.

It's great to get a top 20 class, but if we miss now and again it's not panic time as long as you have a coach that can mold them properly into the system.

Case in point, in the last 5 years of the top 20 classes per the RSCI, not once did Butler finish there....yet they almost won the national title this year.

Yet, on several occasions the DePaul Blue Demons and NC State Wolfpack made the top 20.

Recruiting rankings are nice for fans and give an idea of where talent is, but it is not the end all be all.

[Doctor V]

If you knew anything about Bo Ryan's recruiting, you wouldn't say that.  Wisconsin has pulled in higher rated recruits than MU by quite a bit under Ryan.  3 guys that were consensus Top 40, including 1 consensus Top 10 player.  MU hasn't had a guy like that in decades.

Owned. It must suck getting owned, unless you become used to it

[NersEllenson]

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.

By your own post you've illustrated MU has pulled in 4 top 50 kids since 1998..and you mention Bo Ryan has pulled in 3 plus a Top 10 kid in Butch (and an overrated Top 10 at that).  Don't see the big disconnect between UW recruiting and MU's recruiting?  Furthermore, has MU not signed more players in the 50-100 range than has UW under Bo Ryan since 1998?

If you knew anything about Bo Ryan's recruiting, you wouldn't say that.  Wisconsin has pulled in higher rated recruits than MU by quite a bit under Ryan.  3 guys that were consensus Top 40, including 1 consensus Top 10 player.  MU hasn't had a guy like that in decades.

Owned. It must suck getting owned, unless you become used to it

Wouldn't say I was "owned," but rather in this case BMA's point wasn't valid.  It must suck to be of the small, and ignorant mind you possess - but I'm sure you have become used to it.  Homo.

[bilsu]

Considering Butch led UW to two 30 win seasons, I would say he ws not overrated.

[Lennys Tap]

Nope, sorry Lenny, not what I said....I specifically said that wasn't the case.

Let me refresh for you what I said.

"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[n] you've got your next 200 or so."


In summary, you have your first 10 to 20 "Can't miss" guys (even though some of them miss).  Then your next 100 or so.  Then your next 200 or so.   I look at that as 3 buckets.   My point, which is basically exactly what Gibbons said and what others I've heard say OFF THE RECORD (they won't say it on the record because that would hurt their business), is that you can't really judge that well many of the top 100 kids outside the "can't miss guys".  You could put them in a hat and draw them out in any order and not be wrong or be right.  They have to slot them somewhere.

Again, I'm not saying the scouts don't make mistakes in their rankings. And on top of that, a kid might be sick, nicked up or having an off day(s) when evaluated. So often 78 is as good or better a prospect as 58. And sometimes 98 is as good or better a prospect as 38. But as the gap widens the likelihood decreases.

According to your "bucket theory" 21 through 120 are equal as are 121 through 320. So a recruiting class with the 30th and 130th ranked players is equal to one with the 115th and the 310th since both have a player from bucket #2 and a player from bucket #3. Over a four year recruiting cycle your theory would give team A and B equal chances for success. My money is on team A. I'd even be willing to give you generous odds on this "even money bet" should you be interested

[bma725]

By your own post you've illustrated MU has pulled in 4 top 50 kids since 1998..and you mention Bo Ryan has pulled in 3 plus a Top 10 kid in Butch (and an overrated Top 10 at that).  Don't see the big disconnect between UW recruiting and MU's recruiting?  Furthermore, has MU not signed more players in the 50-100 range than has UW under Bo Ryan since 1998?

UW has pulled in 10 Top 100 recruits since 1998, MU has pulled in 11.  UW has pulled in 3 Top 40 kids since 1998 with one of those being Top 10.  MU has pulled in 3 top 40 players with none of those players being higher than #33.  UW has 7 players ranked between 50-100, MU has 8.  UW has 4 players that made at least one other Top 100 ranking, MU has 7.  In short, when it comes to ranking, the "big disconnect" you claim to see doesn't exist.

[Lennys Tap]

UW has pulled in 10 Top 100 recruits since 1998, MU has pulled in 11.  UW has pulled in 3 Top 40 kids since 1998 with one of those being Top 10.  MU has pulled in 3 top 40 players with none of those players being higher than #33.  UW has 7 players ranked between 50-100, MU has 8.  UW has 4 players that made at least one other Top 100 ranking, MU has 7.  In short, when it comes to ranking, the "big disconnect" you claim to see doesn't exist.

Earlier you stated that Wisconsin "has pulled in higher rated recruits than MU under Ryan by quite a bit" while your your succeeding post indicates a virtual dead heat. I think Ners was saying he doesn't see the "big disconnect" you previously suggested, though his misuse of a ? confuses the issue.

[NersEllenson]

Considering Butch led UW to two 30 win seasons, I would say he ws not overrated.

Those UW teams were good, but I think it is a stretch to say Butch lead them - he was a key ingredient - but his average as a junior was 8.8ppg with 5.9rpg and as a senior was 12.4ppg and 6.6.  Those numbers to me, aren't very indicative of a Top 10 talent/McDonalds All American.  Bo may not have used Butch in the best way - trying to bulk him up into a post player, but still Bo usually gets the most out of his talent - and in my opinion Butch was highly overrated.

[bma725]

Earlier you stated that Wisconsin "has pulled in higher rated recruits than MU under Ryan by quite a bit" while your your succeeding post indicates a virtual dead heat. I think Ners was saying he doesn't see the "big disconnect" you previously suggested, though his misuse of a ? confuses the issue.

You're misunderstanding what I wrote.  In the first post I'm talking about individuals, and yes, Ryan has pulled in players that are higher ranked than what MU has by quite a bit....Butch was #7, MU's best is Jackson at #33...and he's a transfer.  The second post is about the total number of players, not their specific rankings.

[GGGG]

Those UW teams were good, but I think it is a stretch to say Butch lead them - he was a key ingredient - but his average as a junior was 8.8ppg with 5.9rpg and as a senior was 12.4ppg and 6.6.  Those numbers to me, aren't very indicative of a Top 10 talent/McDonalds All American.  Bo may not have used Butch in the best way - trying to bulk him up into a post player, but still Bo usually gets the most out of his talent - and in my opinion Butch was highly overrated.

Yeah he was overrated...but man would he have been a nice fit on some of those 3 amigo teams.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

To get back to the original question:

The teams with the most talent usually win.

The most talented players are usually ranked the highest.

Yes, recruiting rank matters.

In an individual game, tournament or even season, recruiting rankings don't really matter that much, but on a macro level (over the course of time) recruiting ranking is generally a good indicator.

[Litehouse]

UW has pulled in 10 Top 100 recruits since 1998, MU has pulled in 11.  UW has pulled in 3 Top 40 kids since 1998 with one of those being Top 10.  MU has pulled in 3 top 40 players with none of those players being higher than #33.  UW has 7 players ranked between 50-100, MU has 8.  UW has 4 players that made at least one other Top 100 ranking, MU has 7.  In short, when it comes to ranking, the "big disconnect" you claim to see doesn't exist.

I don't know which specific players are included in the totals, but I'm guessing there might be a diffrence in how many years those players actually played for their respective school.  The MU numbers include Jackson, who obviously only played for us for 1 year.  Do they also include Mason, Blankson, Mbakwe, and Maymon?  The point being that even though MU may have signed 1 more top 100 player, the actual contributions on the floor may not reflect that.

[Lennys Tap]

To get back to the original question:

The teams with the most talent usually win.

The most talented players are usually ranked the highest.

Yes, recruiting rank matters.

In an individual game, tournament or even season, recruiting rankings don't really matter that much, but on a macro level (over the course of time) recruiting ranking is generally a good indicator.

In the words of the late, great, Ed McMahon:"You are correct, sir!" I could nitpick about your need for qualifiers but a) they're true and b) they're part of your DNA

[Dawson Rental]

I don't know which specific players are included in the totals, but I'm guessing there might be a difference in how many years those players actually played for their respective school.  The MU numbers include Jackson, who obviously only played for us for 1 year.  Do they also include Mason, Blankson, Mbakwe, and Maymon?  The point being that even though MU may have signed 1 more top 100 player, the actual contributions on the floor may not reflect that.

Excellent point.

One factor that I think we've overlooked is the effect that consistently getting at least one, usually two, top 100 ranked players makes the school a Playa.  In other words, when you hit the recruiting trail, you're more likely to get serious consideration from recruits based on the fact that they know that previously top 100 guys decided to go with you.