|
Post by fowl on Feb 5, 2012 11:27:37 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by ciabounce on Feb 5, 2012 13:22:02 GMT -8
In general they do, lets just look at this past nba draft class for college players.
1. Kyrie Irving (5 stars) 2. Derrick Williams (3 stars) 4. Tristan Thompson (5 stars) 8. Brandon Knight (5 stars) 9. Kemba Walker (5 stars) 10. Jimmer Fredette (3 stars) 11. Klay Thompson (4 stars) 12. Alec Burks (3 stars) 13. Markieff Morris (4 stars) 14. Marcus Morris (4 stars) 15. Kawhi Leonard (4 stars) 16. Nikola Vucevic (3 stars) 17. Iman Shumpert (4 stars) 18. Chris Singleton (5 stars) 19. Tobias Harris (5 stars) 21. Nolan Smith (4 star) 22. Kenneth Faried (unranked) 24. Reggie Jackson (3 stars) 25. Marshon Brooks (3 stars) 26. Jordan Hamilton (5 stars) 27. Jujuan Johnson (4 stars) 28. Norris Cole (unranked) 29. Cory Joseph (5 stars) 30. Jimmy Butler (unranked cause juco)
As you can see most of the picks are 4 or 5 stars (16) even though 4 or 5 stars are rated much more rarely than 3 stars and below, most NBA and NFL stars were highly recruited and regarded by scouting websites, there are always going to be 5 stars that don't work out, and 2 stars that do... but that happens much less often as vise versa.
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on Feb 8, 2012 16:39:06 GMT -8
Young basketball talent seems to be easier to prognosticate, the countryside is littered with 5 star football guys who for some reason didn't pan out.
|
|
|
Post by Frantic on Feb 8, 2012 16:51:13 GMT -8
The star ratings are the service's projection of how well the recruit will play in college, not the pros.
And one reason kids who commit to top programs may suddenly get higher ratings is because the rating services are, in my opinion, justified in relying on the opinion of a well-respected real-life coach's decision to offer a scholie.
|
|
|
Post by k5james on Feb 8, 2012 16:51:17 GMT -8
It matters but there are always exceptions.
|
|
|
Post by wolverine10 on Feb 8, 2012 22:50:52 GMT -8
There is a gap between the top 50 and the rest of the 4 / 3 star range. To me, the difference between a high 3 star and low 4 star is not that big. it is about the number of top programs who pursue a kid or their production in a good league that I tend to focus on.
IMO, beating out a BCS program school for a kid is impressive
~ Wisconsin and Oregon for a Kwayde Miller ~ Miami for Aaron Boesch ~ Colorado and Oregon State for Nico Siragusa ~ Colorado for Ausin Maass ~ Washington State for KendricK Mathis ~ Colorado for Teddy Queen ~ Arizona State for Matt Morin ~ Washington for Damontae Kazee ~ UCLA for Eric Judge
All impressive.
|
|
|
Post by bschmurda on Feb 8, 2012 22:53:25 GMT -8
some what, but they dont determine everything
|
|
|
Post by Sdsu4life on Feb 9, 2012 1:40:25 GMT -8
It's different for basketball than it is for football.
Ratings don't mean as much more so for football.
Matt Ryan, Darrelle Reevis, Joe Flacco, Santonio Holmes, mike williams
eric weddle, colin kapernick, sean smith, zane beadles was a 2 stars
Leon Mcfadden was a 2 star wr coming into sdsu
the list can go on and on.
Yes, if you are a 4 or 5 star coming out of hs. You are pretty much on the fast track to the pros. But it doesn't mean they will make it. And it doesn't mean 1, 2 or 3 stars can't make it.
|
|
|
Post by wolverine10 on Feb 9, 2012 7:33:48 GMT -8
The correlation between pro's and stars is well documented. The percentage of 2 stars that either go to the nfl or are all Americans is lower, but the population is immense as well.
My belief 1. Offers from multiple bcs schools matter (they show other coaches who have id'd that player as a sleeper)
2. Highly productive players can be missed because of non optimal tools
3. Finding the athlete stuck in the wrong system (Brett Favre played in an option offense in high school)
|
|
|
Post by monty on Feb 9, 2012 7:42:37 GMT -8
Saw this the other day, I wonder if it is somewhat skewed since the patriots tend to go and get sleepers and love trading picks and stock piling 2nd and mid range draft picks where'd you likely get those guys that don't grade out at the combine off the charts (and those guys likely were physical specimen at camps and workouts as HS'ers too).
|
|
|
Post by RockNFish on Feb 9, 2012 10:50:38 GMT -8
In general they do, lets just look at this past nba draft class for college players. 1. Kyrie Irving (5 stars) 2. Derrick Williams (3 stars) 4. Tristan Thompson (5 stars) 8. Brandon Knight (5 stars) 9. Kemba Walker (5 stars) 10. Jimmer Fredette (3 stars) 11. Klay Thompson (4 stars) 12. Alec Burks (3 stars) 13. Markieff Morris (4 stars) 14. Marcus Morris (4 stars) 15. Kawhi Leonard (4 stars) 16. Nikola Vucevic (3 stars) 17. Iman Shumpert (4 stars) 18. Chris Singleton (5 stars) 19. Tobias Harris (5 stars) 21. Nolan Smith (4 star) 22. Kenneth Faried (unranked) 24. Reggie Jackson (3 stars) 25. Marshon Brooks (3 stars) 26. Jordan Hamilton (5 stars) 27. Jujuan Johnson (4 stars) 28. Norris Cole (unranked) 29. Cory Joseph (5 stars) 30. Jimmy Butler (unranked cause juco) As you can see most of the picks are 4 or 5 stars (16) even though 4 or 5 stars are rated much more rarely than 3 stars and below, most NBA and NFL stars were highly recruited and regarded by scouting websites, there are always going to be 5 stars that don't work out, and 2 stars that do... but that happens much less often as vise versa. think it would be more interesting to see the start ratings for... say, the final 4 teams over the last 5 years or so... Of course, I'm not going to pull it together, but think it would be interesting...
|
|
|
Post by aztecfankrishnan on Feb 9, 2012 17:01:43 GMT -8
I think what is also clear about this list is that most of the 4 and 5 star recruits end up at the same top 20 programs. However, as we have seen in recent years there is plenty of room for teams made up of 3 and fewer star recruits to crash the party (see Butler, VCU, Aztecs, etc). It's still about team play and just because your program doesn't have a lot of 4 and 5 star recruits does not mean you cannot compete and win. This is what is generally meant when the argument is made that stars are overrated.
Agreed that football is a completely different animal too.
|
|
|
Post by lovedaaztecs on Feb 20, 2012 20:01:59 GMT -8
I believe injuries play a big part in this when it comes to football. The star in high school go into college and play right away. They get beat up and many are just to banged up to make it to the NFL healthy. Many don't even get out of college, because they have gotten so many injuries.
|
|
|
Post by monty on Feb 20, 2012 23:59:50 GMT -8
I believe injuries play a big part in this when it comes to football. The star in high school go into college and play right away. They get beat up and many are just to banged up to make it to the NFL healthy. Many don't even get out of college, because they have gotten so many injuries. Indeed. Also, look at old school baseball scouts - they'd note the dudes beard pattern. Basketball is an explosive game, most guys are going to do what they're going to do at 15. Baseball is a skilled and attrition game - it takes a lot of reps to see what a guy can deal with that skill Football, is a whole 'nother animal: you can't measure ball sack, and just like baseball, you don't want a dude that is fully mature at 15 unless he's an animal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2012 11:36:54 GMT -8
To me, the difference between a high 3 star and low 4 star is not that big. it is about the number of top programs who pursue a kid or their production in a good league that I tend to focus on. IMO, beating out a BCS program school for a kid is impressive ~ Wisconsin and Oregon for a Kwayde Miller ~ Miami for Aaron Boesch ~ Colorado and Oregon State for Nico Siragusa ~ Colorado for Ausin Maass ~ Washington State for KendricK Mathis ~ Colorado for Teddy Queen ~ Arizona State for Matt Morin ~ Washington for Damontae Kazee ~ UCLA for Eric Judge All impressive. Having followed this stuff pretty closely for five years or so, I agree completely. About the number of stars, I'll say this. As a practical matter, these days Rivals rates virtually everybody signed by an FBS school between 5.2 and 6.1. To put it another way, they rate everybody from 1 to 10. Theoretically, a 3-star kid is only 75% as good as a 4-star kid. However, the 3-star kid could have obtained a Rivals rating of 5.7 whereas a 4-star kid could have received a rating of 5.8. Or to put it another way, that 4-star kid was basically given a rating of a 7 whereas the 3-star kid was given a rating of 6. Six is not just 75% of 7, it's 86% of 7. So why Rivals doesn't just do away with the stars system and rate kids solely 5.2-6.1 is something that makes no sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by k5james on Feb 21, 2012 11:57:28 GMT -8
To me, the difference between a high 3 star and low 4 star is not that big. it is about the number of top programs who pursue a kid or their production in a good league that I tend to focus on. IMO, beating out a BCS program school for a kid is impressive ~ Wisconsin and Oregon for a Kwayde Miller ~ Miami for Aaron Boesch ~ Colorado and Oregon State for Nico Siragusa ~ Colorado for Ausin Maass ~ Washington State for KendricK Mathis ~ Colorado for Teddy Queen ~ Arizona State for Matt Morin ~ Washington for Damontae Kazee ~ UCLA for Eric Judge All impressive. Having followed this stuff pretty closely for five years or so, I agree completely. About the number of stars, I'll say this. As a practical matter, these days Rivals rates virtually everybody signed by an FBS school between 5.2 and 6.1. To put it another way, they rate everybody from 1 to 10. Theoretically, a 3-star kid is only 75% as good as a 4-star kid. However, the 3-star kid could have obtained a Rivals rating of 5.7 whereas a 4-star kid could have received a rating of 5.8. Or to put it another way, that 4-star kid was basically given a rating of a 7 whereas the 3-star kid was given a rating of 6. Six is not just 75% of 7, it's 86% of 7. So why Rivals doesn't just do away with the stars system and rate kids solely 5.2-6.1 is something that makes no sense to me. That's another reason I'm leaning hard towards switching to 247. They do the stars as well but they also rate the players 1-100 and if they haven't seen him they just don't rate him unlike Rivals who just casually gave a bunch of our guys 2 stars. If not for EL I would have made the switch already.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2012 12:58:47 GMT -8
That's another reason I'm leaning hard towards switching to 247. They do the stars as well but they also rate the players 1-100 and if they haven't seen him they just don't rate him unlike Rivals who just casually gave a bunch of our guys 2 stars. If not for EL I would have made the switch already. As I said, Rivals' original 1-5 stars has essentially evolved into a 1-10 system although they don't number the ratings that way. The 247 system really isn't a 1-100 system since the lowest rating is 45 for kids they haven't seen and 60 IIRC for kids they have. Still, a 60-100 system allows for a lot more specificity than 1-10. Then there's the manner in which Rivals rated the 2011 SDSU class. Literally half of them were obviously not seen so they just gave them all a 5.2 rating. Very slipshod work so I agree with you that if it wasn't for Edward, I would switch to 247.
|
|
|
Post by aztecfankrishnan on Mar 14, 2012 12:38:26 GMT -8
Interesting note of relevance today from Rivals. NC State has 7 former Rivals Top150 players on its roster while the Aztecs have only 1 (Xavier Thames).
|
|
|
Post by MonsterSiZiN on Mar 14, 2012 17:00:25 GMT -8
5 stars usually produce right away. 4 stars usually produce mid season and become stars after their first years. 3 stars are usually senior leaders top players. 2 stars below are usually role players.
all from my perspective...of course there is always suprises and let-downs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2012 11:59:10 GMT -8
Interesting note of relevance today from Rivals. NC State has 7 former Rivals Top150 players on its roster while the Aztecs have only 1 (Xavier Thames). Wow! NC State was definitely underseeded as an 11.
|
|