Rankings/Stars/NBA draft

#1
B

BruinVol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
60,885
Likes
28,914
#1
I have long felt that the recruiting services really don’t do a good job of evaluating players in hoops unless the player is the elite of the elite.

I’ve said for years that outside of the 5 star talents the nerds with computers couldn’t see talent if it hit them in the head. So I decided to look at the last two nba first round draft choices and see if it told us anything regarding that.


Here is what I found:


I didn’t include any of the foreign players in this data.


22 first rounders were ranked in the top 25 of their classes by 247 composite or 48%.


7 first rounders were ranked 26-50 or 15%


So that’s 63% of the nba draft came from the top 50 of recruiting rankings.


6 first rounders were drafted in the first round that were rated between 51-100 by 247 composite rankings.


7 first rounders were drafted in the first round that were rated between 100-150.

7 first rounders were drafted in the first round that were rated worse than 150


I am willing to bet that if you continue to research this data more than 2 drafts you are going to see that the services do an awful job of seeing talent, ranking it accordingly, that isn’t 5 star talent or top 50.


Simply put if a Player isn’t ranked in the top 50 we shouldn’t pay one bit of attention to that players rankings because the data shows there is no difference in a player ranked 60 and one ranked 110 or even 210.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennesseefan31
#4
#4
There is. The lower the ranking the lower percentage chance of that player making the league. Players ranked 50-100 still make it at a much higher rate than those ranked below 150.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vols410
#5
#5
BruinVol said:
I have long felt that the recruiting services really don’t do a good job of evaluating players in hoops unless the player is the elite of the elite.

I’ve said for years that outside of the 5 star talents the nerds with computers couldn’t see talent if it hit them in the head. So I decided to look at the last two nba first round draft choices and see if it told us anything regarding that.


Here is what I found:


I didn’t include any of the foreign players in this data.


22 first rounders were ranked in the top 25 of their classes by 247 composite or 48%.


7 first rounders were ranked 26-50 or 15%


So that’s 63% of the nba draft came from the top 50 of recruiting rankings.


6 first rounders were drafted in the first round that were rated between 51-100 by 247 composite rankings.


7 first rounders were drafted in the first round that were rated between 100-150.

7 first rounders were drafted in the first round that were rated worse than 150


I am willing to bet that if you continue to research this data more than 2 drafts you are going to see that the services do an awful job of seeing talent, ranking it accordingly, that isn’t 5 star talent or top 50.


Simply put if a Player isn’t ranked in the top 50 we shouldn’t pay one bit of attention to that players rankings because the data shows there is no difference in a player ranked 60 and one ranked 110 or even 210.
Click to expand...
This is still the wrong way to break it down though, considering there are different numbers of players in each of those groups.

If there was truly no difference between those tiers of players, you would expect an equal number of 1st round draftees per player in that group.

So if we just limit this to say the top 500 players, for this 49 player sample we'd expect 2.5 Top 25 guys, 2.5 ranked 26-50, 4.9 ranked 51-100, 4.9 ranked 101-150, and the remaining 34.3 draftees to be in that 151-500 group.

What we actually see from this is that (obviously) the top 25 and 50 players, as you acknowledged, are certainly more likely to be successful, and there is practically zero difference for the 51-100 ranges and 101-150 ranges, but there is a massive drop of after 150, with those players' likelihood of being 1st rounders being 1/5th of what would be expected if those tiers were equal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol49er, GlennTenn, Lankykong and 3 others
#6
#6
k-town_king said:
There is. The lower the ranking the lower percentage chance of that player making the league. Players ranked 50-100 still make it at a much higher rate than those ranked below 150.
Click to expand...

Not really but it’s not a fair comparison because there are more players ranked below 150. The only real apples to apples comparison is 50-100 and 100-150 which I showed is no difference
 
#7
#7
At the end of the day so much of it comes down to what kids go to what camps, how much exposure they get, and in LIMITED opportunitites how do they perform.

Also, theyre 14-17 years old when these evals are being made. I don't even think its the recruiting services who mess up, I just think kids change. Sometimes kids have an off day at these showcase camps. A lot of factors.
 
#8
#8
BruinVol said:
Not really but it’s not a fair comparison because there are more players ranked below 150. The only real apples to apples comparison is 50-100 and 100-150 which I showed is no difference
Click to expand...
So a more accurate way to put it would be 50-150 are interchangeable, top 50 and below 150 are pretty accurate. So out of thousands of prospect each year all but about 100 are ranked properly.

Also I'm pretty sure players ranked 50-100 are drafted at a higher rate than those 100-150.
 
#10
#10
k-town_king said:
Also I'm pretty sure players ranked 50-100 are drafted at a higher rate than those 100-150.
Click to expand...


That’s my entire point that you are wrong. You are welcome to look past the last two drafts but the facts are more 100-150 players were drafted in the last 2 years than 50-100
 
#12
#12
BruinVol said:
Correct.

The main point I am making is there is no difference at all between the 50-100, 100-150 and over 150 groups
Click to expand...
I think there’s a definite difference if you take 10 guys randomly ranked 50-75 and another 10 guys ranked 200+...but I agree that splitting hairs between the 65th guy and 95th is very often minimal difference. I’ve long argued that fit both culture and style are much more important than a guy ranked say 20-30 spots higher.
 
#13
#13
BruinVol said:
I have long felt that the recruiting services really don’t do a good job of evaluating players in hoops unless the player is the elite of the elite.

I’ve said for years that outside of the 5 star talents the nerds with computers couldn’t see talent if it hit them in the head. So I decided to look at the last two nba first round draft choices and see if it told us anything regarding that.


Here is what I found:


I didn’t include any of the foreign players in this data.


22 first rounders were ranked in the top 25 of their classes by 247 composite or 48%.


7 first rounders were ranked 26-50 or 15%


So that’s 63% of the nba draft came from the top 50 of recruiting rankings.


6 first rounders were drafted in the first round that were rated between 51-100 by 247 composite rankings.


7 first rounders were drafted in the first round that were rated between 100-150.

7 first rounders were drafted in the first round that were rated worse than 150


I am willing to bet that if you continue to research this data more than 2 drafts you are going to see that the services do an awful job of seeing talent, ranking it accordingly, that isn’t 5 star talent or top 50.


Simply put if a Player isn’t ranked in the top 50 we shouldn’t pay one bit of attention to that players rankings because the data shows there is no difference in a player ranked 60 and one ranked 110 or even 210.
Click to expand...

Go back and categorize the first rounders by class. Redshirt freshman would be a sophomore.
The class evaluations are BEFORE any other type of player development.
 
#14
#14
bleedingTNorange said:
I think there’s a definite difference if you take 10 guys randomly ranked 50-75 and another 10 guys ranked 200+...but I agree that splitting hairs between the 65th guy and 95th is very often minimal difference. I’ve long argued that fit both culture and style are much more important than a guy ranked say 20-30 spots higher.
Click to expand...

The issue with the over 150 crowd is how the services don’t really go higher. The data really shows the services just need to stop at 50
But we all know that wouldn’t be any fun
 
#15
#15
Dougie_D said:
Go back and categorize the first rounders by class. Redshirt freshman would be a sophomore.
The class evaluations are BEFORE any other type of player development.
Click to expand...


I don’t follow unless you are saying the players need to be re-ranked. If so grant williams would have been a 5 star
 
#16
#16
BruinVol said:
That’s my entire point that you are wrong. You are welcome to look past the last two drafts but the facts are more 100-150 players were drafted in the last 2 years than 50-100
Click to expand...
I do think 7 players in each of those groups is way too small a sample size to make this claim, but I'm also too lazy to figure it out lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: k-town_king
#17
#17
BruinVol said:
I don’t follow unless you are saying the players need to be re-ranked. If so grant williams would have been a 5 star
Click to expand...
Yes - rerank your rankings. Maybe use some sliding scale based on each year in college/overseas, etc.. or completely disregard anybody who’s not a true freshman. These rankings aren’t meant to predict NBA first rounders. They are meant for college. What happens during college life is based on how those coaches can develop/regress a player.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pimo1
#18
#18
Vols410 said:
I do think 7 players in each of those groups is way too small a sample size to make this claim, but I'm also too lazy to figure it out lol.
Click to expand...


Yea I have been bored and I agree we need to look at ten years really to have enough data to be sure.


I did go back one more year. More of the same.


72,79,85,123,185,294 and 2 NR players were drafted in the first round.
 
#19
#19
Dougie_D said:
Yes - rerank your rankings. Maybe use some sliding scale based on each year in college/overseas, etc.. or completely disregard anybody who’s not a true freshman. These rankings aren’t meant to predict NBA first rounders. They are meant for college. What happens during college life is based on how those coaches can develop/regress a player.
Click to expand...


Yes I’d like to see how many players Became starters, all conference and such based on rankings
 
#20
#20
More fuel to the 50-100 group is irrelevant. Just went back to year 4


2016 draft had these player rankings drafted

58,87, 112, 131, 156, 188, 221,239 and one NR player.


So over the last four years:

50-100=11 players drafted
100-150=10 players drafted
Over 150=16 players drafted
 
#21
#21
BruinVol said:
The issue with the over 150 crowd is how the services don’t really go higher. The data really shows the services just need to stop at 50
But we all know that wouldn’t be any fun
Click to expand...
To me they’re doing a pretty good job ranking to 150 if 90% of those kids are getting drafted...now you can argue that #70 should’ve been #140 or that #135 should’ve been #86, but is that a result of a coaching change? A kid not buying in? An injury? They’re never going to bat 100%, but to me if 90% of the guys in the 150 make up those drafted, then they obviously are doing a good job picking the 150.
 
#22
#22
BruinVol said:
More fuel to the 50-100 group is irrelevant. Just went back to year 4


2016 draft had these player rankings drafted

58,87, 112, 131, 156, 188, 221,239 and one NR player.


So over the last four years:

50-100=11 players drafted
100-150=10 players drafted
Over 150=16 players drafted
Click to expand...
Out of how many total?
 
#25
#25
bleedingTNorange said:
You doing 1st round only or 1&2? Previously you were eliminating foreign, so I’m asking out of how many total players are these numbers?
Click to expand...

Ok. Same

Yes only 1st round and not looking at foreign guys drafted.


I am saying and I think proving my point very well that the top 50 are easy to rank and they do a good job with it. After the top 50 there is no discernible Difference in any players nba draft projection. They just aren’t doing a good job after 50
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top