|
Post by bigfan on Apr 2, 2015 13:44:51 GMT -5
What do star rankings have to do with anything? Star rankings for high school athletes really mean nothing. Izzo is the best late season coach around. I do think if anybody is going to beat Kentucky it will be WI. John Calipari says hi. Still 2 more games to go, ask the 2007 New England Patriots.
|
|
swiss
Sophomore
Posts: 216
|
Post by swiss on Apr 2, 2015 14:19:16 GMT -5
Still 2 more games to go, ask the 2007 New England Patriots. Coach K also says hi. He has the #1 player in the country coming out of high school, who will also be the #1 pick in the draft. But according to you rankings in high school don't matter
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Apr 2, 2015 14:24:45 GMT -5
Still 2 more games to go, ask the 2007 New England Patriots. Coach K also says hi. He has the #1 player in the country coming out of high school, who will also be the #1 pick in the draft. But according to you rankings in high school don't matter Tell that to Kwame Brown, Micheal Olowokandi and Greg Oden.
|
|
|
Post by sunsuphornsup on Apr 2, 2015 14:29:48 GMT -5
This thread has really devolved.
|
|
|
Post by southie on Apr 2, 2015 14:59:33 GMT -5
This thread has really devolved. Thanks to bigfan. #shocker
|
|
swiss
Sophomore
Posts: 216
|
Post by swiss on Apr 2, 2015 15:00:58 GMT -5
This thread has really devolved. It absolutely has, sorry about that. Just trying to make the point that rankings in a sport like volleyball or basketball are usually accurate because it's easier to scout and identify talent than it is a sport like high school football. So the 2015 VolleyballMag Fab 50 is probably very accurate.
|
|
|
Post by jasonr on Apr 2, 2015 17:11:01 GMT -5
This thread has really devolved. It absolutely has, sorry about that. Just trying to make the point that rankings in a sport like volleyball or basketball are usually accurate because it's easier to scout and identify talent than it is a sport like high school football. So the 2015 VolleyballMag Fab 50 is probably very accurate. They're accurate? Where's the data on that? There are plenty of anecdotes that support both sides of the argument, but I've never seen an analysis. I would be surprised if the national hit-rate in VB was better than ~50% compared to expectation. That would be in line with football.
|
|
swiss
Sophomore
Posts: 216
|
Post by swiss on Apr 2, 2015 18:43:40 GMT -5
It absolutely has, sorry about that. Just trying to make the point that rankings in a sport like volleyball or basketball are usually accurate because it's easier to scout and identify talent than it is a sport like high school football. So the 2015 VolleyballMag Fab 50 is probably very accurate. They're accurate? Where's the data on that? There are plenty of anecdotes that support both sides of the argument, but I've never seen an analysis. I would be surprised if the national hit-rate in VB was better than ~50% compared to expectation. That would be in line with football. Yes, volleyball players and basketball players compete against each other all the time on the aau circuit. So if there is a 6'2 OH she will most likely play against players who are just has tall, strong and big. Which makes it a lot easier to scout and evaluate that player. In high school football if you are a 6'6 290 pound offensive lineman you will probably compete against a player the same height, size, and strength once maybe if ever in your high school career, which makes it very difficult to evaluate talent in high school football.
|
|
|
Post by joetrinsey on Apr 2, 2015 18:50:04 GMT -5
It absolutely has, sorry about that. Just trying to make the point that rankings in a sport like volleyball or basketball are usually accurate because it's easier to scout and identify talent than it is a sport like high school football. So the 2015 VolleyballMag Fab 50 is probably very accurate. They're accurate? Where's the data on that? There are plenty of anecdotes that support both sides of the argument, but I've never seen an analysis. I would be surprised if the national hit-rate in VB was better than ~50% compared to expectation. That would be in line with football. When I was coaching college I started a study on this. I was still collecting data when I left for the NT, but the preliminary stuff suggested that maybe about 2/3 of team performance was determined by quality of recruits- I used the PrepVB rankings, which are generally a lot more accurate. I guess you could take either side of that. It makes a good argument that recruiting is critical, because at a certain point there's a disparity in "talent" (as defined by the rankings of the players at each school when they were incoming freshman) where you will very rarely see the more "talented" team lose. On the flip side, since the school itself has a higher correlation to recruiting than the coaching staff, you could argue that the 1/3 of team performance that's determined by "coaching" (defined by the gap between expected performance based on the aforementioned definition of "talent" and the actual performance) is the critical difference.
|
|
|
Post by jasonr on Apr 2, 2015 22:00:04 GMT -5
They're accurate? Where's the data on that? There are plenty of anecdotes that support both sides of the argument, but I've never seen an analysis. I would be surprised if the national hit-rate in VB was better than ~50% compared to expectation. That would be in line with football. When I was coaching college I started a study on this. I was still collecting data when I left for the NT, but the preliminary stuff suggested that maybe about 2/3 of team performance was determined by quality of recruits- I used the PrepVB rankings, which are generally a lot more accurate. I guess you could take either side of that. It makes a good argument that recruiting is critical, because at a certain point there's a disparity in "talent" (as defined by the rankings of the players at each school when they were incoming freshman) where you will very rarely see the more "talented" team lose. On the flip side, since the school itself has a higher correlation to recruiting than the coaching staff, you could argue that the 1/3 of team performance that's determined by "coaching" (defined by the gap between expected performance based on the aforementioned definition of "talent" and the actual performance) is the critical difference. How did you define whether a player was a hit or bust? Working definition of meeting expectation is highly subjective and would change the results considerably. For example, if we just did a little observational analysis of top 10 recruits and their performance over the last 10 years, what would be considered a hit vs. bust given their enormous expectations? Then, once defined, what's the ratio of meeting expectation vs. not meeting expectation? I don't have skin in the game, but I'm guessing it's about 50% if we're granting top 10 recruits need to perform at a very high level, e.g. reach some level of All-American status or multiple 1st team All-Conference selections to meet expectation.
|
|
|
Post by jasonr on Apr 2, 2015 22:12:40 GMT -5
They're accurate? Where's the data on that? There are plenty of anecdotes that support both sides of the argument, but I've never seen an analysis. I would be surprised if the national hit-rate in VB was better than ~50% compared to expectation. That would be in line with football. Yes, volleyball players and basketball players compete against each other all the time on the aau circuit. So if there is a 6'2 OH she will most likely play against players who are just has tall, strong and big. Which makes it a lot easier to scout and evaluate that player. In high school football if you are a 6'6 290 pound offensive lineman you will probably compete against a player the same height, size, and strength once maybe if ever in your high school career, which makes it very difficult to evaluate talent in high school football. That's one side of the argument, the other is that football scouting is much more intense and sophisticated than volleyball. There's much more money at stake and therefore much more time, effort, and resources are spent analyzing players at all levels. Fans on here get sketched out when a few select HS freshman are being evaluated and recruited by college coaches. That's been the norm in football for a couple decades now. There are scouting services that evaluate tape of kids that go to camp at 12, 13, etc. years old in football for all positions. A mere size discrepancy isn't going to impact evaluation that much since there's a couple decades of data which helps account for that. I'm just not convinced by anecdotes. For almost every Tom we can usually find a Fonoimoana.
|
|
|
Post by occamsrazor on Apr 2, 2015 23:11:02 GMT -5
Yes, volleyball players and basketball players compete against each other all the time on the aau circuit. So if there is a 6'2 OH she will most likely play against players who are just has tall, strong and big. Which makes it a lot easier to scout and evaluate that player. In high school football if you are a 6'6 290 pound offensive lineman you will probably compete against a player the same height, size, and strength once maybe if ever in your high school career, which makes it very difficult to evaluate talent in high school football. That's one side of the argument, the other is that football scouting is much more intense and sophisticated than volleyball. There's much more money at stake and therefore much more time, effort, and resources are spent analyzing players at all levels. Fans on here get sketched out when a few select HS freshman are being evaluated and recruited by college coaches. That's been the norm in football for a couple decades now. There are scouting services that evaluate tape of kids that go to camp at 12, 13, etc. years old in football for all positions. A mere size discrepancy isn't going to impact evaluation that much since there's a couple decades of data which helps account for that. I'm just not convinced by anecdotes. For almost every Tom we can usually find a Fonoimoana. To test for this article's validity, couldn't someone back-test the Fab 50 list from their 2013 article: www.volleyballmag.com/articles/42921-2013-vbm-girls-fab-50 There are certainly some hits, like Carlini, but perhaps someone could go through those 50 and grade out the list based on 2014 results?
|
|
|
Post by jasonr on Apr 3, 2015 10:50:41 GMT -5
That's one side of the argument, the other is that football scouting is much more intense and sophisticated than volleyball. There's much more money at stake and therefore much more time, effort, and resources are spent analyzing players at all levels. Fans on here get sketched out when a few select HS freshman are being evaluated and recruited by college coaches. That's been the norm in football for a couple decades now. There are scouting services that evaluate tape of kids that go to camp at 12, 13, etc. years old in football for all positions. A mere size discrepancy isn't going to impact evaluation that much since there's a couple decades of data which helps account for that. I'm just not convinced by anecdotes. For almost every Tom we can usually find a Fonoimoana. To test for this article's validity, couldn't someone back-test the Fab 50 list from their 2013 article: www.volleyballmag.com/articles/42921-2013-vbm-girls-fab-50 There are certainly some hits, like Carlini, but perhaps someone could go through those 50 and grade out the list based on 2014 results?
We'd need to go back further. Expectation isn't about just the subsequent year, it's about a player's collegiate career, presumably.
|
|
|
Post by joetrinsey on Apr 3, 2015 10:54:49 GMT -5
When I was coaching college I started a study on this. I was still collecting data when I left for the NT, but the preliminary stuff suggested that maybe about 2/3 of team performance was determined by quality of recruits- I used the PrepVB rankings, which are generally a lot more accurate. I guess you could take either side of that. It makes a good argument that recruiting is critical, because at a certain point there's a disparity in "talent" (as defined by the rankings of the players at each school when they were incoming freshman) where you will very rarely see the more "talented" team lose. On the flip side, since the school itself has a higher correlation to recruiting than the coaching staff, you could argue that the 1/3 of team performance that's determined by "coaching" (defined by the gap between expected performance based on the aforementioned definition of "talent" and the actual performance) is the critical difference. How did you define whether a player was a hit or bust? Working definition of meeting expectation is highly subjective and would change the results considerably. For example, if we just did a little observational analysis of top 10 recruits and their performance over the last 10 years, what would be considered a hit vs. bust given their enormous expectations? Then, once defined, what's the ratio of meeting expectation vs. not meeting expectation? I don't have skin in the game, but I'm guessing it's about 50% if we're granting top 10 recruits need to perform at a very high level, e.g. reach some level of All-American status or multiple 1st team All-Conference selections to meet expectation. I didn't define player-by-player. I agree that something like "meeting expectation" is highly subjective and I wanted to avoid that. I just wanted to get more information about how much of on-court team performance was dictated by the "talent" level of the team. Or, to put another way, how well the recruiting rankings (I used PrepVB as it seems the most accurate to me) predict success of the team. I scaled the rankings on a log scale (because obviously #1 recruit isn't twice as good as the #2 recruit, who isn't twice as good as the #4 recruit, etc) and assigned a total "talent point" number to each team. Then I correlated that number to on-court results. So the study didn't determine, "if this individual player is ranked top-10, they are this likely to succeed." It said more like, "if this team has all top-15 recruits, they are this likely to beat a team with all 40-60 recruits."
|
|
|
Post by FOBRA on Apr 3, 2015 11:47:02 GMT -5
They're accurate? Where's the data on that? There are plenty of anecdotes that support both sides of the argument, but I've never seen an analysis. I would be surprised if the national hit-rate in VB was better than ~50% compared to expectation. That would be in line with football. What criteria are you using to judge football, because 50% seems insanely high. I think the last study I saw was that a 5 star football prospect was around 25% to be an All-American and a 4 star was around a 6-7% chance. Football scouting is very good on an aggregate level (teams with more star ratings do better) but have a pretty big miss rate on an individual level. In a different metric, someone here did a quick review of first team All-American volleyball teams and over 5 or 6 years, something like 60-70% of the spots were taken by PrepVolleyball Top 10 players. Just perusing the Top10 lists over the years, you see very few misses. Outside the top 10 you see a lot more "whatever happened to her?" but that makes sense since there aren't really 50 top level elite players each class. Similarly VolleyballMag's Fab50 is going to be scattershot since it's just too many players... the majority will not be All-American/Conference type players.
|
|