Not sure I understand the star ranking system

[RandygoCuse]

I've never been sure I understood the difference between 5, 4, and 3 stars. Assuming a player lives up to his billing, could someone savvier than I am in this area please let me know if I'm correct?

Five Star - Carmelo Anthony

Four Star - Hakim Warrick

Three Star - Scoop Jardine.

Thanks!

 

[TinyManInside]

Hakim Warrick averaged 20 to 21.5 ppg and >8.5 rbpg as a junior and senior. He was Big East Player of the Year, and a consensus All-American as a SR.

If that's not 5 stars, I'm not sure what is. The guy was an amazing player for us.

 

[NYCorange]

I'm confused, what star ranking system are you talking about? The recruiting star system is obviously just a projection, and based largely around potential. Rautins, if I remember correctly was either a 1 star or a zero star recruit, but obviously he played great for us as a senior. Or are you talking about a different star system?

 

[Frozen]

I'm confused, what star ranking system are you talking about? The recruiting star system is obviously just a projection, and based largely around potential. Rautins, if I remember correctly was either a 1 star or a zero star recruit, but obviously he played great for us as a senior. Or are you talking about a different star system?

Yeah, OP confused me too.

 

[RandygoCuse]

Sorry for the confusion - I meant that if a player is 5 stars, how good is he as opposed to if he is only 3 or 4. The best way I knew to explain it was if a five star recruit was actually as good as projected does that mean 5 stars is projecting someone at Carmelo's level? If a 4 star is as good as projected, is his quality of play about the equivalent of Warrick?

 

[Cusefan0307]

A lot of it has to do with pro potential and immediate impact. A 5 star guy should have more of an immediate impact than a 4, a 4 than a 3, and a 3 than a 2. It's not a perfect system obviously as the MVP of the NBA was a 2 star recruit and so was former NPOY Jimmer Fredette.

 

[NYCorange]

Right, it's just a guess. And there's a big difference between top recruit in the country (Okafor or Towns), and lowest 5 star like Mel Trimble of Maryland (who was very good) or Jasean Tate (who didn't have as big of an impact).

In general, these are my expectations for a player at Syracuse:

5 star: Plays a lot, probably starts as a freshman, probably leaves early for the NBA, but if he stays, is at least an All-conference level player by junior year, hopefully sophomore.

4 Star: Might play a little bit freshman year. Gets some run sophomore year and possibly starts. Definitely a starter by Junior year, and is a very good player (hopefully all conference Junior or Senior year).

3 Star or lower: I wonder why we took this kid, but I have faith in the staff. Don't expect anything until junior year. A redshirt during the first year probably makes sense.

Obviously, there are outliers. Waiters and Jerami Grant were 4-stars who were pretty good (or excellent in Waiters' case) their sophomore year and had serious NBA potential (read: athleticism) and left early. Rakeem was a 5 star who was solid but not spectacular until his amazing senior year. Mookie Jones never panned out, and Rautins was amazing. But the above are a good guideline to my expectations for each player coming in.

 

[Brooky03]

Specific recruit rankings (numbers) are relative to the rest of a recruit's class. The star rankings allow for comparison between classes.

For instance, if a program lands the #20 ranked players in the 2016 and 2017 recruiting classes, it's hard to tell if they're equal talents just by the ranking within their class. If the 2016 class is stacked, the #20 player could be a 5-star, projected to dominate and be OAD. If the 2017 class is comparatively weak, the #20 player might just be a 4-star, who's projected to make an impact early but might not be OAD level.

That's the best way I can quantify it.

 

[RF2044]

Right, it's just a guess. And there's a big difference between top recruit in the country (Okafor or Towns), and lowest 5 star like Mel Trimble of Maryland (who was very good) or Jasean Tate (who didn't have as big of an impact).

In general, these are my expectations for a player at Syracuse:

5 star: Plays a lot, probably starts as a freshman, probably leaves early for the NBA, but if he stays, is at least an All-conference level player by junior year, hopefully sophomore.

4 Star: Might play a little bit freshman year. Gets some run sophomore year and possibly starts. Definitely a starter by Junior year, and is a very good player (hopefully all conference Junior or Senior year).

3 Star or lower: I wonder why we took this kid, but I have faith in the staff. Don't expect anything until junior year. A redshirt during the first year probably makes sense.

Obviously, there are outliers. Waiters and Jerami Grant were 4-stars who were pretty good (or excellent in Waiters' case) their sophomore year and had serious NBA potential (read: athleticism) and left early. Rakeem was a 5 star who was solid but not spectacular until his amazing senior year. Mookie Jones never panned out, and Rautins was amazing. But the above are a good guideline to my expectations for each player coming in.

I think a lot of whether they play or not has to do with team need and opportunity. UK and Duke sometimes have 5-stars who don't play a lot, because other players are ahead of them. Doesn't mean those guys can't play. Conversely, on other teams, those guys start immediately and often are focal points of the offense.

But it is an imperfect science. What was Russell from Ohio State rated? Certainly not a five star--but he got an opportunity to start, thrived, and is projected to be a top 5 draft pick. I'm sure there were easily a few dozen recruits rated higher than him going into last season.

 

[jordoo]

I don't think anyone understands it 100%. Sure some ranking give scores and scores correlate to stars but the scores are arbitrary just like the services that simply put a star value and ranking on a kid with no score. 5star is the highest 0star the lowest but there isn't much to understand after that.

 

[iommi]

By the way, I'm pretty sure Hakim Warrick wasn't even a 4-star. I could be wrong but I think he was a 3-star?:noidea:

 

[Frozen]

By the way, I'm pretty sure Hakim Warrick wasn't even a 4-star. I could be wrong but I think he was a 3-star?:noidea:

I doubt he was rated that high. Only had offers from SU, Providence and I think St. Joe's.

 

[iommi]

I doubt he was rated that high. Only had offers from SU, Providence and I think St. Joe's.

Yeah, he was either a ** or a ***.

 

[RF2044]

Sorry for the confusion - I meant that if a player is 5 stars, how good is he as opposed to if he is only 3 or 4. The best way I knew to explain it was if a five star recruit was actually as good as projected does that mean 5 stars is projecting someone at Carmelo's level? If a 4 star is as good as projected, is his quality of play about the equivalent of Warrick?

Okay, with that as the criteria...

• A five star is generally going to be a blue chip recruit, and a player capable of making a significant impact at the collegiate level from the get go. Likely early entry candidate after one season who would generally be projected in the top 10. We don't get many of these guys [true blue chippers]. Examples -- Carmelo obviously, DC, Owens, Wallace [the latter three obviously playing in a time when guys didn't jump pro as early].

• A four star is a player who could play early and make an impact based upon situational roster need, but more likely is going to start out in a reserve capacity freshmen year. Highly talented / rated prospect who might have a "hole" [examples -- Jerami Grant, who was very skinny coming in, Rak who was more athlete than player initially, a player like Dion who has tons of offensive talent but needs to adjust how he plays to fit into a team concept, Harris's lack of perimeter skills, MCW's physique, etc.]

• A three star recruit is more of a program guy. For us, it is generally going to be a high upside player, but not a likely early entry candidate. These are the guys who develop over the course of their careers into impact players later on [examples -- CJ, Scoop, Rick, Etan, Hart, Kris Joseph]

Anything lower than that fits into one of two categories for SU, in my opinion:

• The prospect is under recruited, but has the tools to legitimately be a three star caliber prospect who develops into a quality program guy. Despite being under the radar, they have the physical capabilities to emerge as impact players at the high major collegiate level [examples -- Arinze, Rautins]

• The recruit is a project that the coaching staff takes a flyer on, with some potential to develop into a quality player. 50/50 proposition on whether that happens... but sometimes you get lucky [examples -- Brennan-McBride, Sean Williams, Chinoso Obokoh]

 

[reedny]

The only observation I would make is that, until recently (a few things going on), we had a string of blue chip (5 star) recruits. In the past, we've had stretches where we didn't get one (when we do we rarely get more than one a year). But we brought in a blue chipper 5 years in a row until this current class:

- 2014 (CM)
- 2013 (TE)
- 2012 (DC2)
- 2011 (Rak)
- 2010 (Fab)

Here's an explanation of the ratings (based on player rankings - top 50 in FB are 5 star; top 25 in bb are 5 star):
google "SB Sports Star Ratings Explained"

 

[moqui]

the rankings are subjective to begin with, but the star system is meaningless:
all guys ranked in the top 25 get 5 stars, regardless of actual talent.
all guys ranked 26 through 100 get 4 stars, regardless of actual talent
all guys ranked 101 through whatever get 3 stars, etc.

forget the stars and forget the individual rankings. RSCI creates a composite index using all the major scouting services which should have a bit more validity, but I'm not sure if they are updating anymore. If they are, their next rankings should be out soon. If not, we could probably create our own version.

 

[SoBeCuse]

I think Russell was five stars. He was a McD kid but I don't think he played in the game due to injury. On Jasean Tate: He actually had a good year. Averaged 8/5. Once he was inserted into the starting lineup towards the end of the season OSU was better. The problem with him is much like Paul Harris. Tate is more of a bull-type very strong player who has more of a PF type game stuck in a 6-4 frame.

 

[Briancuse]

I've never been sure I understood the difference between 5, 4, and 3 stars. Assuming a player lives up to his billing, could someone savvier than I am in this area please let me know if I'm correct?

Five Star - Carmelo Anthony

Four Star - Hakim Warrick

Three Star - Scoop Jardine.

Thanks!

Hakim's body size in hs had a lot to do with why he was ranked so low. The star system can be flawed, look at Trob, and Watkins, both were borderline 5 start recruits.

 

[El Jefe Syr]

I've never been sure I understood the difference between 5, 4, and 3 stars. Assuming a player lives up to his billing, could someone savvier than I am in this area please let me know if I'm correct?

Five Star - Carmelo Anthony

Four Star - Hakim Warrick

Three Star - Scoop Jardine.

Thanks!

Recruit ranking system = meaning of life

Understanding either gives a leg up on the universe's more complex problems.

 

[RandygoCuse]

Hakim Warrick averaged 20 to 21.5 ppg and >8.5 rbpg as a junior and senior. He was Big East Player of the Year, and a consensus All-American as a SR.

If that's not 5 stars, I'm not sure what is. The guy was an amazing player for us.

Mea culpa - I forgot how good be was as an upper classman

 

[Mstumpy50]

This should clarify all confusion....

 

[two3zone]

I get why you guys want to trash the star system for recruits but what is the alternative? For such "flawed" system it works and to be honest a majority of these 5 star guys are either studs in college or make it to the next level. Of course 1-4 star guys will bust out and become great players, some players mature slower and some bodies take time to develop. More times than not the ranking is usually correct, it's not a bad system.

 

[realorange]

I get why you guys want to trash the star system for recruits but what is the alternative? For such "flawed" system it works and to be honest a majority of these 5 star guys are either studs in college or make it to the next level. Of course 1-4 star guys will bust out and become great players, some players mature slower and some bodies take time to develop. More times than not the ranking is usually correct, it's not a bad system.

Question is: Works for who? The coaches don't need it. They know by watching a player if they want to offer a scholy. To me the star system is for the players and the fans more than anything else. Bragging points only.

 

[two3zone]

Question is: Works for who? The coaches don't need it. They know by watching a player if they want to offer a scholy. To me the star system is for the players and the fans more than anything else. Bragging points only.

Coaches absolutely use it, to think they don't is extremely close minded. You don't think they're looking at these reports? I'm sorry, if JB goes to a game with a 5 star HS sophomore in it and he doesn't impress right away you're telling me he doesn't go an see him again? Coaches just don't go to every single HS basketball and look for a player, they use scouting reports among other resources to find players. It's asinine to think otherwise.

 

[TinyManInside]

Sorry for the confusion - I meant that if a player is 5 stars, how good is he as opposed to if he is only 3 or 4. The best way I knew to explain it was if a five star recruit was actually as good as projected does that mean 5 stars is projecting someone at Carmelo's level? If a 4 star is as good as projected, is his quality of play about the equivalent of Warrick?

Warrick was the equivalent of a 3 star at the point when he was recruited. I went down to Philly to see him play as a SR in high school a couple of times and knew we were getting a special talent. He just needed time to grow into his body and get stronger.

One of the big problems with the ranking services is that they tend to not do a good job in defining what their rankings mean. Some services rank in a different manner. It's been awhile since I followed this stuff very closely, but I remember one service basing their rankings solely on the kid's performance as a high school player, another ranking it based on projected college play, and yet another ranking based on projected pro potential. The same kid could be ranked differently under each of these different sets of criteria.

I agree with moqui that usually the multi-service-averaged rankings by rscii tended to be the one that paid the most attention to.