Why is Blue referred to as a 5* but Wilson is not?

[Silkk the Shaka]

Vander Blue is commonly referred to as a 5*, and this is why some people were so disappointed with his freshman year and so willing to write him off as a bust already (myself not included).  However, he was rated a 5* by only one service (Rivals) at #24 overall.  His consensus ranking was #48, which is definitely good, but it's not like we don't have higher/similarly rated players on the current roster.

Blue's RSCI rating and breakdown:

#48 consensus
#24 Rivals
#31 ESPN
#34 Dave Telep
#35 Hoopmasters
Unranked Prep Stars

Wilson's RSCI rating and breakdown:

#40 consensus
#23 Prepstars
#30 Dave Telep
#31 ESPN
#37 Hoopmasters
#45 Prep Stars
#66 All Star Report
#94 Rivals

So why is Wilson not referred to as a 5* if his highest ranking is one slot higher than Blue's, and his consensus ranking is higher too?  Do we have two five stars on the team?  Or do we have two high four stars in Blue and Wilson?

On top of those two, next year's roster includes:
Cadougan #47 consensus, rankings range from 41 to 76
Williams #67 consensus, rankings range from 42 to unranked
Jones #74 consensus, rankings range from 52 to unranked
Anderson #95 consensus, rankings range from 64 to unranked

I guess I don't really have a point except that it's weird to me that Blue is referred to as a 5* when some posters want to say he fell far short of expectations, but other posters watch the McD's AA game and lament Buzz' inability to land 5* players.  So which one is it?  Are Blue and Wilson both 5* recruits, and should Buzz be commended for landing two of them?  Or is it unfair to focus in on Blue and label him a bust when the consensus rankings have two other players on our roster ranked ahead of him?  Or will people eternally use selective data to whine?  Should we institute a Scoop convention that only RSCI #'s be used when discussing recruit rankings in an attempt to curb this problem?

[flash]

I don't really caught up in the number of star a recruit has, when it comes down to it, it really doesn't matter.  Blue was a "5 star recruit" and he played like a 3 star recruit all season.  James, Mcneal and matthews were all 4 star recruits and all played like 5's.  It feels good for your program to land 5 star players, but there really isn't that big of a difference from a 4 to a 5 star player, and when it comes down to it, rarely will a freshman have a big impact on a team. 

[Marquette84]

Vander Blue is commonly referred to as a 5*, and this is why some people were so disappointed with his freshman year and so willing to write him off as a bust already (myself not included).  However, he was rated a 5* by only one service (Rivals) at #24 overall.  His consensus ranking was #48, which is definitely good, but it's not like we don't have higher/similarly rated players on the current roster.

Blue's RSCI rating and breakdown:

#48 consensus
#24 Rivals
#31 ESPN
#34 Dave Telep
#35 Hoopmasters
Unranked Prep Stars

Wilson's RSCI rating and breakdown:

#40 consensus
#23 Prepstars
#30 Dave Telep
#31 ESPN
#37 Hoopmasters
#45 Prep Stars
#66 All Star Report
#94 Rivals

So why is Wilson not referred to as a 5* if his highest ranking is one slot higher than Blue's, and his consensus ranking is higher too?  Do we have two five stars on the team?  Or do we have two high four stars in Blue and Wilson?

Not every service uses "stars" to rate players.  There is no common definition.

Of those that use stars, Blue's top mark was a 5* rating, Wilson's best was a 4*.  It's as simple as that.

I guess I don't really have a point except that it's weird to me that Blue is referred to as a 5* when some posters want to say he fell far short of expectations, but other posters watch the McD's AA game and lament Buzz' inability to land 5* players.  So which one is it?  Are Blue and Wilson both 5* recruits, and should Buzz be commended for landing two of them?  Or is it unfair to focus in on Blue and label him a bust when the consensus rankings have two other players on our roster ranked ahead of him?  Or will people eternally use selective data to whine?  Should we institute a Scoop convention that only RSCI #'s be used when discussing recruit rankings in an attempt to curb this problem?

The disappointment over Blue is a reflection of comments made at the time of his commitment--Blue was heralded at the time as the type of player we haven't signed since the days of Doc Rivers or Kerry Trotter.
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/64704752.html

Maybe Rosiak's comments were overblown--but a lot of people agreed with him.  Saying that Blue was similar in pedigree to James or McNeal--while more accurate--would have made it harder to argue that Buzz was a better recruiter than the guy who brought in James and McNeal.

Meanwhile, a comparison of Blue's performance to other recent frosh may explain any disappointment. 
http://bit.ly/hxUtae
(Make sure you change all players to Fr stats for a like-for-like comparison).

Finally the consensus rankings of the two players rated higher than Blue come with asterisks of their own.
Cadougan gets a pass because of his injury, and we just haven't seen Wilson yet. 

[mviale]

Cant wait for the season to start, so this banter will end.

[marquette99]

There have been 205 rivals 5-star players since mu joined the big east, and blue is the only one from wisconsin and we landed him - that's all.

Jamail Jones is rated the bigger prospect for the nba.

[bilsu]

It is quite obvious from the above data that all of Buzz's top recruits were overrated.

[downtown85]

Cant wait for the season to start, so this banter will end.

+1 we have got 7 long months of such threads.   

[macman320]

It is quite obvious from the above data that all of Buzz's top recruits were overrated.

Yeah, the highly touted DJO & Crowder really didn't live up to the hype. Oh wait...

I also don't get how people say players don't improve under Buzz. They don't blow up after 1 year like apparently lots of fans expect, but look at what Jimmy went from and how Junior and Otule are progressing. You can't expect freshman to play 15-20 min a game and at the same time be upset when Crowder, DJO, etc get put to the bench. We have solid veterans that play the bulk of the minutes and the luxury to let highly touted freshman/sophs develop in practice and take up their roles when the time comes. It's ridiculous to look at freshman stats when Buzz's teams don't need freshmen to play. Will people still be shocked when Erik Williams comes on strong next year and think "I can't believe he's a contributor as a junior after seeing him do nothing as a freshman."

[Benny B]

Until there is a objective, definitive and universally accepted method for determining class rankings (and therefore how many * a player gets), this is all just meaningless gibberish.

Vander and Jamil can be negative four million-bazillion stars for all I care... I'm happy they're on this team, and everyone else should be too.

[The Lens]

Saying that Blue was similar in pedigree to James or McNeal--while more accurate--would have made it harder to argue that Buzz was a better recruiter than the guy who brought in James and McNeal.
 

I see what you did here.  Cute.

[ringout]

I don't really caught up in the number of star a recruit has, when it comes down to it, it really doesn't matter.  Blue was a "5 star recruit" and he played like a 3 star recruit all season.  James, Mcneal and matthews were all 4 star recruits and all played like 5's.  It feels good for your program to land 5 star players, but there really isn't that big of a difference from a 4 to a 5 star player, and when it comes down to it, rarely will a freshman have a big impact on a team. 

3 Amigos got a ton of playing time, and improved because of that.  There was no alternative.  They were all we had.  Blue had upperclassmen to compete with, and that was his fate.  He will be fine.  The fact that he saw the floor as much as he did as a freshman is all you need to know about his ability.

[6746jonesr]

But, was Blue a 5 star recruit?  Isn't that normally reserved for the top 20-25 recruits in the country?  I don't think anyone had him in that category. 

[Marquette84]

But, was Blue a 5 star recruit?  Isn't that normally reserved for the top 20-25 recruits in the country?  I don't think anyone had him in that category. 

Rivals did:
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/recruiting/player-Vander-Blue-76953

3 Amigos got a ton of playing time, and improved because of that.  There was no alternative.  They were all we had.  Blue had upperclassmen to compete with, and that was his fate.  He will be fine.  The fact that he saw the floor as much as he did as a freshman is all you need to know about his ability.

This is interesting, because earlier in the week Pakuni argued quite vehemently that we were very inexperienced.  Of our top 10 players, he pointed out, 8 had zero or one year of D1 experience.  

Your argument seems to be that Blue's playing time was limited because there was too much experience ahead of him.

I think the correct view is somewhere between those two--while we were quite experienced, a player as talented as Blue (consensus top 50 /top 25 by some accounts) should have shown a greater contribution than he did.  

[ringout]

Rivals did:
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/recruiting/player-Vander-Blue-76953



This is interesting, because earlier in the week Pakuni argued quite vehemently that we were very inexperienced.  Of our top 10 players, he pointed out, 8 had zero or one year of D1 experience.  

Your argument seems to be that Blue's playing time was limited because there was too much experience ahead of him.

I think the correct view is somewhere between those two--while we were quite experienced, a player as talented as Blue (consensus top 50 /top 25 by some accounts) should have shown a greater contribution than he did.  

I did not say there was too much experience ahead fo VB.  Thanks for playing.

I said that there was NO experience ahead of the 3 Amigos. 

From a D1 perspective, we were inexperienced this year, but the guys that played ahead of VB were more experienced and deserved to play ahead of VB.

Any freshman that plays in every game was making a contribution.   

[Marquette84]

I did not say there was too much experience ahead fo VB.  Thanks for playing.

I said that there was NO experience ahead of the 3 Amigos. 

I remember that we somehow we managed to field a team for the 8 games that Matthews missed completely with injury--that tells me there WERE other players available.  

McNeal only averaged 27 mpg, which tells me that someone else was available at his position for at least 13 mpg as well.  

Maybe you have a point on James--then again, if Blue came in and performed anything close to what James did as a frosh, we wouldn't have toyed around with Cadougan, Smith and Buycks this season at the point--Blue would have been the day-one starter and that would be the end of the PG controversy.

From a D1 perspective, we were inexperienced this year, but the guys that played ahead of VB were more experienced and deserved to play ahead of VB.

I don't think Buzz agrees with you--experience has never been his primary criteria for playing time. If so, we would have seen a lot more of Fulce and Williams this year as opposed to Crowder.

[Silkk the Shaka]

I remember that we somehow we managed to field a team for the 8 games that Matthews missed completely with injury--that tells me there WERE other players available.  

McNeal only averaged 27 mpg, which tells me that someone else was available at his position for at least 13 mpg as well.  

Maybe you have a point on James--then again, if Blue came in and performed anything close to what James did as a frosh, we wouldn't have toyed around with Cadougan, Smith and Buycks this season at the point--Blue would have been the day-one starter and that would be the end of the PG controversy.

I don't think Buzz agrees with you--experience has never been his primary criteria for playing time. If so, we would have seen a lot more of Fulce and Williams this year as opposed to Crowder.

Blue has never been a point guard in his life, but had he been as good at PG as James from the get-go he would have played 30 mpg from day 1?  Duh, but the chances of that happening are somewhere between zero and one percent.  Because he's a wing.  And he played behind DJO and Jimmy B at the 2/3, not Cadougan and Buycks at the 1.  Bad example.

Fulce had knee injuries that severely limited his PT, and Buzz revealed this week that Erik played the entire season with an injured shoulder and will possibly have surgery on it this summer.  Bad examples.

[ATL MU Warrior]

Blue has never been a point guard in his life, but had he been as good at PG as James from the get-go he would have played 30 mpg from day 1?  Duh, but the chances of that happening are somewhere between zero and one percent.  Because he's a wing.  And he played behind DJO and Jimmy B at the 2/3, not Cadougan and Buycks at the 1.  Bad example.

Fulce had knee injuries that severely limited his PT, and Buzz revealed this week that Erik played the entire season with an injured shoulder and will possibly have surgery on it this summer.  Bad examples.

Does this surprise you? 

This is the first I heard about EWill.  Any details about what he did/how he was injured?

[rocky_warrior]

Buzz revealed this week that Erik played the entire season with an injured shoulder and will possibly have surgery on it this summer.

This is probably deserving of another topic - I must have missed this - where did he say that?

If anyone, I was worried about Gardner's shoulder.

[GGGG]

Regarding EWill...couldn't find anything in writing, but I found this.

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//110319/483/urn_publicid_ap_org574e880c28fd411bbb8d5d516bb31abe/

[Pakuni]

I don't think Buzz agrees with you--experience has never been his primary criteria for playing time. If so, we would have seen a lot more of Fulce and Williams this year as opposed to Crowder.

Someone here recently told me that Jae Crowder came into the season with two years relevant experience.
Erik Williams came into the season with one.
Ergo, Buzz played the more experienced guy.
At least according to that person.

[Pakuni]

This is probably deserving of another topic - I must have missed this - where did he say that?

If anyone, I was worried about Gardner's shoulder.

On the Scout Board, Dodds recapped the latest Buzz Show, during which he mentioned Erik's shoulder injury when asked about the returning players.

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=415&f=2850&t=7376748

[GGGG]

Outside of the injury information on EWill, nothing really all that substantive from Buzz in that thread.  Some players need to have an "impact" and some need to "evolve."  Oh and Ox needs to get in better shape.  (Duh.)

[Silkk the Shaka]

This is probably deserving of another topic - I must have missed this - where did he say that?

If anyone, I was worried about Gardner's shoulder.

http://www.gomarquette.com/allaccess/

In the most recent show, not sure what time, but it's in there

[Marquette84]

Blue has never been a point guard in his life, but had he been as good at PG as James from the get-go he would have played 30 mpg from day 1?  Duh, but the chances of that happening are somewhere between zero and one percent.  Because he's a wing.  And he played behind DJO and Jimmy B at the 2/3, not Cadougan and Buycks at the 1.  Bad example.

And yet, throughout the year many on this board said Blue was our best PG prospect. All of a sudden, you object to that notion.  Go figure.  

I guess the issue for me is that if Buzz can coach Buycks or Smith to make the transition from 2G to the point in his offense, he could have done the same for Blue.

And let's be honest--Buzz's offense doesn't rely on a point guard to run the offense in a traditional sense.  Aside from brining the ball up (which Blue would have been perfectly capable of doing), the PG responsibility isn't that much different than the 2G.

So, yeah, if Blue had demonstrated James' scoring potential, I absolutely think that he would have been the guy bringing the ball up (instead of Buycks and/or Smith).

Fulce had knee injuries that severely limited his PT, and Buzz revealed this week that Erik played the entire season with an injured shoulder and will possibly have surgery on it this summer.  Bad examples.

Fulce and Willams received as many as 19 and 23 minutes respectively--which would seem to define the upper limitations of their injuries.  The fact that they routinely received less than that reflects choice/not injury limitation.

But let's give you the benefit of the doubt--Buzz didn't want to give minutes to Crowder ahead of the more experienced players.  He only did it because he had to.  

If Buzz has projected Fulce and/or Williams' limited minutes for the last five to ten minutes of close games, I'd concede your point.  

But the fact is that according to Buzz, Williams started in order to protect Crowder from picking up an early foul.  That tells me that Buzz didn't favor experience--he wanted Crowder in the lineup ahead of Williams--for some very obvious reasons.  

[ringout]

I remember that we somehow we managed to field a team for the 8 games that Matthews missed completely with injury--that tells me there WERE other players available.  

McNeal only averaged 27 mpg, which tells me that someone else was available at his position for at least 13 mpg as well.  

Maybe you have a point on James--then again, if Blue came in and performed anything close to what James did as a frosh, we wouldn't have toyed around with Cadougan, Smith and Buycks this season at the point--Blue would have been the day-one starter and that would be the end of the PG controversy.

I don't think Buzz agrees with you--experience has never been his primary criteria for playing time. If so, we would have seen a lot more of Fulce and Williams this year as opposed to Crowder.

The only other guards were Tommy Brice and Joe Chapman.  Fitz played on the perimeter, but we all know how consistent he was.  When McNeal arrived at MU, he was the least of the Amigos.  My argument is that VB will be a quality player over his career at MU.  That's all.  If you think otherwise, well, we'll talk in 3 years.

You are all over the place.  Not sure what your overall point is.  I think your channeling Chicos today.