Seattle Hoo
03-09-2015, 12:17 AM
On another thread, there was a discussion of the effect of changes in the game on the distribution of talent over time. I tried to come up with a test that could give some meaningful indication. Collecting data on recruiting rankings is not easy, particularly before 1998, but it is relatively simple to collect the data on McDonald's All Americans. If we are interested in just the very top level of talent, then the McD's AA rosters are a very good indicator. Probably the 20 consensus best players of each year are in that game. These are the players most affected by NBA rules.
So, I made a database with every McDonald's All-American through last year's game. In each player's record is the year he played and the college he committed to for the following fall. There was one complication in my data collection - the sites that have the college next to the player's name seem to list the college where he finished his career. I wanted the college that he originally signed with, because I think that is the relevant date. We are looking at the decisions of high school seniors. As much as possible, I chased down the transfers and put in the original college. The mistakes I did not recognize will distort the data somewhat. If anyone wants to try and perfect it, I can give you a data dump.
For the analysis, I divided the McD's period of 1977-2014 into three eras: up to 1990; from 1991 to 2000; and after 2000. I would be happy to run it with any other dividing lines people think are more relevant. The program is set up so that it can use any number of breakpoints. The 1990-2000 period seems to be a transitional period between Old School and Modern Era.
Another note: "NBA" appears as a "school."
So, the results summarized:
Era 1 (1977-1990)
Players: 331 Teams with at least one: 75
Top Ten teams had 40.18127 percent of all Burger Boys
There were 4.4133334 Burger Boys per team that had 1
Era 2 (1991-2000)
Players: 221 Teams with at least one: 66
Top Ten teams had 44.343892 percent of all Burger Boys
There were 3.3484848 Burger Boys per team that had 1
** 12 players went straight to the NBA, placing the NBA in third place
Era 3 (2001-2014)
Players: 337 Teams with at least one: 61
Top Ten teams had 52.522254 percent of all Burger Boys
There were 5.52459 Burger Boys per team that had 1
** 13 players went straight to the NBA, placing the NBA in sixth place
So, the Stone Age had the lowest concentration of Burger Boys in the top ten teams, with the Modern Age having the highest concentration. The Iron Age had the widest distribution of Burger Boys, with a steep decline in distribution from then to the Modern Age.
Interestingly, the share of the top THREE teams went from 16.9% in Stone Age, to 19.9% in Iron Age, to 25.5% in the Modern Age. In the first and last eras, Duke, UNC and UK were the top three. In the second era, the NBA bumped UK.
A couple observations that were interesting to me were 1) that a lot of McDonald's All Americans end up at different colleges than they began; and 2) being a McDonald's All American is no guarantee of being an impact player in college. A surprising number of these guys were memorable to me for how unimpressive their college careers were.
If anybody is interested, I would be more than happy to share the data, but it would be quite voluminous for one message board post. I would also be interested in suggestions for other analyses of worth, and will probably start working on widening the recruit pool to try for the top 50-100 players of each year. That would not be too difficult back to 1998, but before then, the data gets sketchy. One of my long-term goals is to do a comparison of recruiting class rankings to season results.
So, I made a database with every McDonald's All-American through last year's game. In each player's record is the year he played and the college he committed to for the following fall. There was one complication in my data collection - the sites that have the college next to the player's name seem to list the college where he finished his career. I wanted the college that he originally signed with, because I think that is the relevant date. We are looking at the decisions of high school seniors. As much as possible, I chased down the transfers and put in the original college. The mistakes I did not recognize will distort the data somewhat. If anyone wants to try and perfect it, I can give you a data dump.
For the analysis, I divided the McD's period of 1977-2014 into three eras: up to 1990; from 1991 to 2000; and after 2000. I would be happy to run it with any other dividing lines people think are more relevant. The program is set up so that it can use any number of breakpoints. The 1990-2000 period seems to be a transitional period between Old School and Modern Era.
Another note: "NBA" appears as a "school."
So, the results summarized:
Era 1 (1977-1990)
Players: 331 Teams with at least one: 75
Top Ten teams had 40.18127 percent of all Burger Boys
There were 4.4133334 Burger Boys per team that had 1
Era 2 (1991-2000)
Players: 221 Teams with at least one: 66
Top Ten teams had 44.343892 percent of all Burger Boys
There were 3.3484848 Burger Boys per team that had 1
** 12 players went straight to the NBA, placing the NBA in third place
Era 3 (2001-2014)
Players: 337 Teams with at least one: 61
Top Ten teams had 52.522254 percent of all Burger Boys
There were 5.52459 Burger Boys per team that had 1
** 13 players went straight to the NBA, placing the NBA in sixth place
So, the Stone Age had the lowest concentration of Burger Boys in the top ten teams, with the Modern Age having the highest concentration. The Iron Age had the widest distribution of Burger Boys, with a steep decline in distribution from then to the Modern Age.
Interestingly, the share of the top THREE teams went from 16.9% in Stone Age, to 19.9% in Iron Age, to 25.5% in the Modern Age. In the first and last eras, Duke, UNC and UK were the top three. In the second era, the NBA bumped UK.
A couple observations that were interesting to me were 1) that a lot of McDonald's All Americans end up at different colleges than they began; and 2) being a McDonald's All American is no guarantee of being an impact player in college. A surprising number of these guys were memorable to me for how unimpressive their college careers were.
If anybody is interested, I would be more than happy to share the data, but it would be quite voluminous for one message board post. I would also be interested in suggestions for other analyses of worth, and will probably start working on widening the recruit pool to try for the top 50-100 players of each year. That would not be too difficult back to 1998, but before then, the data gets sketchy. One of my long-term goals is to do a comparison of recruiting class rankings to season results.