I believe there's a championship mix of non top 150 players out there. Question is, who's going to figure it out first?

(07-23-2014 05:27 PM)BIGDTiger Wrote:  I believe there's a championship mix of non top 150 players out there. Question is, who's going to figure it out first?

It doesn't work with high school. The range of the variables is much too large. In the NBA the level of competition, level of coaching, nutrition, etc. mostly exists within a relatively small band. In high school that band is enormous and the sample size of the high level events is too small.

(07-24-2014 12:55 AM)tkgrrett Wrote:  

(07-23-2014 05:27 PM)BIGDTiger Wrote:  I believe there's a championship mix of non top 150 players out there. Question is, who's going to figure it out first?

It doesn't work with high school. The range of the variables is much too large. In the NBA the level of competition, level of coaching, nutrition, etc. mostly exists within a relatively small band. In high school that band is enormous and the sample size of the high level events is too small.

Yep

What tkgrrett said is pretty truthful. Utilizing data to determine quality of recruit is tough to do with the wide range of skill that exists.

That being said, I'm sure there is some data could be used to filter out some of the talent from the rest of the batch.

Indeed.

The disparity in HS ball from state to state and AAU ball would make it tough.

Trying to get that many teams info would present another issue.

Trying to accurately get a HS players PER could be done on some level

Just not sure how accurate it would be

It's not like we need to reduce payroll (do we?).

(07-25-2014 01:40 PM)roundhouse74 Wrote:  It's not like we need to reduce payroll (do we?).

But we do need to reduce the amount of overrated recruits that we take in. Metrics could be a great way of eliminating possible recruits. & with today's technology, one could compile a list of areas &/or pipelines from where they wanted to mainly recruit from. & then use analytics to whittle those down.

(07-25-2014 01:51 PM)BIGDTiger Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 01:40 PM)roundhouse74 Wrote:  It's not like we need to reduce payroll (do we?).

But we do need to reduce the amount of overrated recruits that we take in. Metrics could be a great way of eliminating possible recruits. & with today's technology, one could compile a list of areas &/or pipelines from where they wanted to mainly recruit from. & then use analytics to whittle those down.

I somewhat agree, MOST recruiting services suck IMO

It's an interesting discussion

Non-150. No way.

50-150, possible.

(07-25-2014 02:55 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  Non-150. No way.

50-150, possible.

I think you're right. It might help you pick the best role players, but even that would be hard to quantify numerically due to differences in HS competition, who kept the stats, etc. I'm sure someone could name players who became college (or, more selectively, pro) stars - I mean difference maker type guys - that were not highly ranked coming out of HS. You'd have to eliminate someone like David Robinson, who grew quite a bit after enrolling at Navy. I know we all complain when the highly rated guys disappoint, but how many lower ranked players have developed into stars at Memphis or anywhere else? DJ might make the list (certainly a crowd fav), but I don't think there'd be many.

Of they do what they are talking about with the college shot clock then 50-150 will not be good enough. You will need top 50 to compete. The more they change the rules the less likely you can win with marginal talent and good fundamentals.

Interesting that between the two College ball is much more entertaining and has far more fans. Yet each year they keep trying to change it to me more and more like the NBA.

(07-25-2014 01:51 PM)BIGDTiger Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 01:40 PM)roundhouse74 Wrote:  It's not like we need to reduce payroll (do we?).

But we do need to reduce the amount of overrated recruits that we take in. Metrics could be a great way of eliminating possible recruits. & with today's technology, one could compile a list of areas &/or pipelines from where they wanted to mainly recruit from. & then use analytics to whittle those down.

The question isn't whether you can develop analytics to filter, the question is what value it would add beyond just going and watching the players like they do now. Analytics are useless without the proper context. HS and college are hugely different contexts and any information taken from HS based analytics would be virtually useless.

It would be like if a player like Jimmer Fredette went back to college for a year and the other college coaches tried to build their defenses against him based on NBA analytics. No matter how good the analytics were it just flat out wouldn't work remotely the same as it does in the NBA. He would still put 30 a night, in fact maybe even more since college coaches would then be putting defenses in place that came from an entirely different personnel context.

(07-23-2014 05:27 PM)BIGDTiger Wrote:  I believe there's a championship mix of non top 150 players out there. Question is, who's going to figure it out first?

Hal told me he was foolproof and mistake-proof.

(07-26-2014 10:55 AM)tkgrrett Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 01:51 PM)BIGDTiger Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 01:40 PM)roundhouse74 Wrote:  It's not like we need to reduce payroll (do we?).

But we do need to reduce the amount of overrated recruits that we take in. Metrics could be a great way of eliminating possible recruits. & with today's technology, one could compile a list of areas &/or pipelines from where they wanted to mainly recruit from. & then use analytics to whittle those down.

The question isn't whether you can develop analytics to filter, the question is what value it would add beyond just going and watching the players like they do now. Analytics are useless without the proper context. HS and college are hugely different contexts and any information taken from HS based analytics would be virtually useless.

It would be like if a player like Jimmer Fredette went back to college for a year and the other college coaches tried to build their defenses against him based on NBA analytics. No matter how good the analytics were it just flat out wouldn't work remotely the same as it does in the NBA. He would still put 30 a night, in fact maybe even more since college coaches would then be putting defenses in place that came from an entirely different personnel context.

In some regards, analytics remove context. Usage of analytics in college would be really tough based on all of the reasons listed here.

That being said, I think that usage of a little more numbers wouldn't be a bad thing. It would remove tons of the "project" players with the dreaded "upside".

Where I think it does have its place is with transfers from JUCO and other 4 year schools. It's easy to formulate quality of competition metrics and PER with known variables like conferences, tournaments, etc.

I'm a huge fan of analytics. Removes all of the "personality conflict" garbage, and "chemistry" crap that is taking over locker rooms today.

Make it about production and winning and all of those excuses for losing become secondary.

Another point that hasn't been mentioned is what happens if such a system succeeds. It seems that the hierarchy of college sports has protected itself on multiple levels. The big money programs get the best players, the most national coverage, the best facilities, and the top coaches. But, let's say a lesser program develops a system of recruiting using analytics that targets combined team production over individual talent, and they experience some tangible success. How long until a larger school with more money takes away the coaching staff? How long before the better players within the system are "lured" away by other schools with booster money or agents. It would be an interesting experiment with a smaller school, but whatever the results, I don't think long term success would ever be possible - the system is just not set up that way.

(07-29-2014 10:54 AM)madtiger Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 10:55 AM)tkgrrett Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 01:51 PM)BIGDTiger Wrote:  

(07-25-2014 01:40 PM)roundhouse74 Wrote:  It's not like we need to reduce payroll (do we?).

But we do need to reduce the amount of overrated recruits that we take in. Metrics could be a great way of eliminating possible recruits. & with today's technology, one could compile a list of areas &/or pipelines from where they wanted to mainly recruit from. & then use analytics to whittle those down.

The question isn't whether you can develop analytics to filter, the question is what value it would add beyond just going and watching the players like they do now. Analytics are useless without the proper context. HS and college are hugely different contexts and any information taken from HS based analytics would be virtually useless.

It would be like if a player like Jimmer Fredette went back to college for a year and the other college coaches tried to build their defenses against him based on NBA analytics. No matter how good the analytics were it just flat out wouldn't work remotely the same as it does in the NBA. He would still put 30 a night, in fact maybe even more since college coaches would then be putting defenses in place that came from an entirely different personnel context.

In some regards, analytics remove context. Usage of analytics in college would be really tough based on all of the reasons listed here.

That being said, I think that usage of a little more numbers wouldn't be a bad thing. It would remove tons of the "project" players with the dreaded "upside".

Where I think it does have its place is with transfers from JUCO and other 4 year schools. It's easy to formulate quality of competition metrics and PER with known variables like conferences, tournaments, etc.

I'm a huge fan of analytics. Removes all of the "personality conflict" garbage, and "chemistry" crap that is taking over locker rooms today.

Make it about production and winning and all of those excuses for losing become secondary.

I get your point but I had to smile a little thinking about that team from a crappy conference that had no chance of competing with the big boys and ended up going elite eight, elight eight, final four and just 2 minutes away from a national championship! Damn that was a fun ride!