PDA

View Full Version : Recruiting Accuracy



JohnGalt
03-12-2010, 07:38 PM
Curious to know which group you all use to satisfy your recruiting queries...Is it like Ford vs Chevy with Scout vs Rivals or do some of you all use statsheet, collegehoops, etc.? I was looking over previous rankings and noticed a few interesting things...

1. Eric Boateng was ranked 24th by Scout, only 82nd by Rivals
2. Jon Scheyer was ranked 12th by Scout, only 71st by Rivals
3. Lance Thomas was ranked 19th by Scout, only 42nd by Rivals
4. Taylor King was ranked 71st by Scout, and 37th by Rivals.

Those are fairly large discrepancies, especially when looking at how well the player has performed at the next level. In any case, which recruiting site do you consider to be the creme de la creme?

BD80
03-12-2010, 07:51 PM
Curious to know which group you all use to satisfy your recruiting queries...Is it like Ford vs Chevy with Scout vs Rivals or do some of you all use statsheet, collegehoops, etc.? I was looking over previous rankings and noticed a few interesting things...

1. Eric Boateng was ranked 24th by Scout, only 82nd by Rivals
2. Jon Scheyer was ranked 12th by Scout, only 71st by Rivals
3. Lance Thomas was ranked 19th by Scout, only 42nd by Rivals
4. Taylor King was ranked 71st by Scout, and 37th by Rivals.

Those are fairly large discrepancies, especially when looking at how well the player has performed at the next level. In any case, which recruiting site do you consider to be the creme de la creme?

I for one prefer Scout's chicken bones method to Rival's ouija board approach. Or is it vice versa?

Kedsy
03-12-2010, 07:58 PM
Curious to know which group you all use to satisfy your recruiting queries...Is it like Ford vs Chevy with Scout vs Rivals or do some of you all use statsheet, collegehoops, etc.? I was looking over previous rankings and noticed a few interesting things...

1. Eric Boateng was ranked 24th by Scout, only 82nd by Rivals
2. Jon Scheyer was ranked 12th by Scout, only 71st by Rivals
3. Lance Thomas was ranked 19th by Scout, only 42nd by Rivals
4. Taylor King was ranked 71st by Scout, and 37th by Rivals.

Those are fairly large discrepancies, especially when looking at how well the player has performed at the next level. In any case, which recruiting site do you consider to be the creme de la creme?

I like to look at the RSCI, which is a composite of all the major recruiting services. That way if one service or the other is a lot different from the others for a particular recruit, the ranking is not as skewed.

roywhite
03-12-2010, 08:02 PM
Those are fairly large discrepancies, especially when looking at how well the player has performed at the next level. In any case, which recruiting site do you consider to be the creme de la creme?

It's generalizing, but a rule of thumb is Rivals for football, Scout for basketball. And check more than one site; the composite rating that Kedsy mentions is a good guide. The talent evaluation is not science, but it's interesting.

yancem
03-12-2010, 08:39 PM
It's generalizing, but a rule of thumb is Rivals for football, Scout for basketball. And check more than one site; the composite rating that Kedsy mentions is a good guide. The talent evaluation is not science, but it's interesting.

That's has always been my thought between the two but looking at the names listed in the op (small sample size granted) it would appear that Rivals was more accurate on two and Scout on two so maybe Rivals deserves more credit than I give it.

I agree that the composite is probably the best way to read the tea leaves but I think that is also a good rule of thumb that outside the top 10-20 its a crap shoot until you get down below 150-200 (still a bit of a crap shoot but if they are that low then the most likely aren't high div 1 material).

WiJoe
03-12-2010, 08:54 PM
I like to look at the RSCI, which is a composite of all the major recruiting services. That way if one service or the other is a lot different from the others for a particular recruit, the ranking is not as skewed.


YES! Not sure why people would not ALWAYS look at RSCI. IT'S A COMPOSITE, as opposed to a lot of the stuff out there that should be compost.

Dev11
03-12-2010, 08:58 PM
Its also helpful when reading about recruits to see how much they participate in AAU and other outside-school events. For Scout, it seems like Telep bases a lot of his analysis on kids he sees at his camps and events, so kids like Terrance Ross fly under the radar because they don't go to those events. Its obviously in a recruit's best interest to increase his exposure, but it creates discrepancies when certain kids choose not to showcase as much as others.

SCMatt33
03-12-2010, 09:09 PM
YES! Not sure why people would not ALWAYS look at RSCI. IT'S A COMPOSITE, as opposed to a lot of the stuff out there that should be compost.

You can't look at future classes. Right now, they have the rankings for 2010 as of September, but there is nothing for 2011 or 2012. They don't come in until late in the game, often too late for the interest of some people on this board.

juise
03-12-2010, 09:17 PM
Surely you don't mean... you're not insinuating... that projecting the development of high school kids isn't an exact science. Blasphemy! :p

verga
03-12-2010, 10:34 PM
The ACC Sports Journal (Poop Sheet), year in and year out pretty much nail the top 50. I also think Scout does a pretty good job. Rivals is a football recruiting site,they do basketball but they are right there with ESPN when it comes to rankings. The key to consistent rankings is getting the players in the 25-50 bracket, just about anyone can nail the top 25. Its not an exact science but for the most part the Poop Sheet does very well.

-bdbd
03-13-2010, 12:54 AM
The ACC Sports Journal (Poop Sheet), year in and year out pretty much nail the top 50. I also think Scout does a pretty good job. Rivals is a football recruiting site,they do basketball but they are right there with ESPN when it comes to rankings. The key to consistent rankings is getting the players in the 25-50 bracket, just about anyone can nail the top 25. Its not an exact science but for the most part the Poop Sheet does very well.

I'm with Verga here. In fact I have ACC Sports Journal in print and online. They seem to have reasonable and non-exaggerated discussions of recruits and recruiting. Other than that I try to do a composite, seeing where the average lies between multiple sources (RCSI, per Kedsey, is not a bad idea) - look for common themes in the write-ups on him.

Another thought: I also look at the other schools that are offering the kid, to get a sense of what the coaches think of him. (Example, if a kid is ranked around #100 in his class, but has offers from UCONN, KY, and Duke, well just maybe the recruiting services kinda missed on him... Conversely, sometimes you'll see a relatively high rated player who only has offers from the mid-majors or tail-end BCS teams...) I think this is partly why so many of us have been asking about who else is recruiting/offering Felix, b/c we're unsure of where he actually belongs in the "rankings."

In the end, in K I trust.

:rolleyes:

SCMatt33
03-13-2010, 01:41 AM
I'm with Verga here. In fact I have ACC Sports Journal in print and online. They seem to have reasonable and non-exaggerated discussions of recruits and recruiting. Other than that I try to do a composite, seeing where the average lies between multiple sources (RCSI, per Kedsey, is not a bad idea) - look for common themes in the write-ups on him.

Another thought: I also look at the other schools that are offering the kid, to get a sense of what the coaches think of him. (Example, if a kid is ranked around #100 in his class, but has offers from UCONN, KY, and Duke, well just maybe the recruiting services kinda missed on him... Conversely, sometimes you'll see a relatively high rated player who only has offers from the mid-majors or tail-end BCS teams...) I think this is partly why so many of us have been asking about who else is recruiting/offering Felix, b/c we're unsure of where he actually belongs in the "rankings."

In the end, in K I trust.

:rolleyes:

The problem with using who is recruiting him as a guide is that coaches can be just as wrong as the recruiting services. It's also somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophesy as players often receive generous bumps when better schools come knocking.

For the most part, I look at this like the NFL draft. Think of five star players as first rounder's and four star players at second and third rounders. Is there any guarantee that any of them are going to be stars, no, but in general, a higher percentage of first-round picks become stars compared to later picks.

JohnGalt
03-13-2010, 07:24 AM
I think that is also a good rule of thumb that outside the top 10-20 its a crap shoot until you get down below 150-200 (still a bit of a crap shoot but if they are that low then the most likely aren't high div 1 material).

Unfortunately for us, this isn't the case. Paulus, McRoberts, Randolph, and maybe even Burgess were all consensus top 20, if not 10 recruits...ouch

Saratoga2
03-13-2010, 07:31 AM
Unfortunately for us, this isn't the case. Paulus, McRoberts, Randolph, and maybe even Burgess were all consensus top 20, if not 10 recruits...ouch

Singler, Smith and Scheyer are living up to expectations and then some. I don't think it is fair to expect every highly ranked recruit to excel. The idea is to recruit from the better players who can meet academic requirements and hope that a percentage of them will be the real deal. Look at what has happened with UNC with 7 McDonalds all americans this year.

JohnGalt
03-13-2010, 07:48 AM
Singler, Smith and Scheyer are living up to expectations and then some. I don't think it is fair to expect every highly ranked recruit to excel. The idea is to recruit from the better players who can meet academic requirements and hope that a percentage of them will be the real deal. Look at what has happened with UNC with 7 McDonalds all americans this year.

Smith and Scheyer weren't consensus top 20 recruits. I don't expect EVERY recruit to live up to their high school ranking simply because there are a number of intangibles that come with moving up in quality of play...the same goes when leaving college for the PROs. My only point was to counter the one I quoted in that - in all of these recruiting guru's infinite wisdom - they all make the same mistake sometimes...a la Paulus, Randolph, and Burgess just to name a few. After living through our 2005 recruiting flop, I consider what I'm seeing 8 miles down the road to be among the most beautiful things I've ever seen...

moonpie23
03-13-2010, 08:25 AM
look at hansblah's numbers to realize that it's not scientific...

roywhite
03-13-2010, 08:31 AM
http://www.rscihoops.com/

Recent RSCI ratings for some Duke recruits (final rankings for their year)

2006
Lance Thomas #20
Gerald Henderson #10
Brian Zoubek #25
Jon Scheyer # 28

2007
Kyle Singler #5
Nolan Smith #19

2008
Elliot Williams #15

2009
Ryan Kelly #14
Mason Plumlee #18

Duvall
03-13-2010, 09:36 AM
look at hansblah's numbers to realize that it's not scientific...

Why? Hansbrough had a consensus ranking of 4 coming out of high school. The only surprise was that he ended up staying four years.

JaMarcus Russell
03-13-2010, 09:47 AM
The ACC Sports Journal (Poop Sheet), year in and year out pretty much nail the top 50.

I went to their site but couldn't find the rankings. Do you have to be a subscriber to see their top 50 list?

superdave
03-13-2010, 09:54 AM
Dont recruiting ranking tend to inflate big men? Chris Burgess dominated high school as a 16 year old because he was 6'10''. So he was ranked #1. Then other guys hit their growth spurts and Burgess was ranked #10. By the time he got to Duke, he'd been passed.

I dont mean to pick on Burgess but that's true of many big man recruits. Those guys get by in high school on height, weight, strength. By the time they get to college, they realize they are a step slow, their footwork needs work and the double clutch shot from the shoulder gets blocked by the better athletes.

Guard play translates better because either you can dribble or you cant, either you can break a guy down or you cant, either you can shoot or you cant.

But big men have a hard time measuring themselves in high school because they are posting up 6'4'' 180 lbers half the time.

BD80
03-13-2010, 10:27 AM
Dont recruiting ranking tend to inflate big men? Chris Burgess dominated high school as a 16 year old because he was 6'10''. So he was ranked #1. Then other guys hit their growth spurts and Burgess was ranked #10. By the time he got to Duke, he'd been passed. ...

Chris had many issues, but I think the biggest problem was trying to make his way at Duke with a burden on his shoulders. A burden that was about 240 lbs. His father Ken.

Ken was a nightmare. After Chris transferred, Ken called Coach K "petty and dishonest," and demonstrated a real jealousy of Coach K's relationship with Shane. I don't recall ANYONE else ever challenging Coach K's honesty.

I actually felt bad for Chris. He was a mental mess. Watching him at the free throw line was painful.

Ken Burgess rode his son into the ground. Was he a #1 recruit? No. But for his dad, Chris could have been a very productive player.

JohnGalt
03-13-2010, 12:43 PM
But big men have a hard time measuring themselves in high school because they are posting up 6'4'' 180 lbers half the time.

Don't you think the recruiting guys would pick up on this stuff though? Take Shavlik who averaged like 40pts a game his senior year in high school...If he's consistently playing against kids that are 6'6" and smaller, it seems that these recruiting 'experts' would pick up on that and look a little more closely at foot work and post moves...things that would lead to more success at the next level. I could be mistaken, but aren't people that work for Scout, Rivals, et al going to these games and watching or is based more on raw numbers than I realize? They can't just look at box scores to rank these kids, can they?

superdave
03-13-2010, 01:36 PM
Don't you think the recruiting guys would pick up on this stuff though? Take Shavlik who averaged like 40pts a game his senior year in high school...If he's consistently playing against kids that are 6'6" and smaller, it seems that these recruiting 'experts' would pick up on that and look a little more closely at foot work and post moves...things that would lead to more success at the next level. I could be mistaken, but aren't people that work for Scout, Rivals, et al going to these games and watching or is based more on raw numbers than I realize? They can't just look at box scores to rank these kids, can they?

Yeah but it's also impossible (nearly) to get better against 6'5''guys.

Shav is another one like Burgess. Big recruit, average college player.

Another trend to avoid in recruits is a guy who falls in rankings from year to year. Or as I like to call it - the opposite of Kyrie Irving.

JohnGalt
03-13-2010, 04:39 PM
Another trend to avoid in recruits is a guy who falls in rankings from year to year. Or as I like to call it - the opposite of Kyrie Irving.

I'll cross my fingers your theory holds true as Kendall Marshall and Reggie Bullock are on steady decline...