Recruiting Tool/Strategy

[JazzNC]

I'd love to put together some statistics to see if they support my belief that Syracuse develops players at a much higher rate than many other schools. Depending on the results it would make a heck of a recruiting tool. Here's my idea:

I would look at 5 star prospects who have had successful NBA careers. I'd do the same for 4 star and three star prospects too. The definition of a "successful NBA career" would have to be uniformly applied. Ex: NBA career lasting a minimum of 5 years (maybe more criteria)

I'd then determine the success percentage by star for each school. I'd give extra weight for 4 and even more for 3 star prospects having success in the NBA, creating some sort of success formula. Conversely, failure to achieve "success" by a 5 star prospect would be judged more harshly than failure by a 3 star prospect.

My premise is that developing a 3 or 4 star prospect to the NBA is far more impressive and requires more development than sending 5 star guys to the NBA .

My goal would be to prove that schools like Kentucky are merely a cushy place to play for a year, rather than a place to truly develop one's game in preparation for the NBA.

Anybody want to take on such a project? Such a formula could be applied to all schools to see how they stack up.

 

[Funk Doc]

I'd love to put together some statistics to see if they support my belief that Syracuse develops players at a much higher rate than many other schools. Depending on the results it would make a heck of a recruiting tool. Here's my idea:

I would look at 5 star prospects who have had successful NBA careers. I'd do the same for 4 star and three star prospects too. The definition of a "successful NBA career" would have to be uniformly applied. Ex: NBA career lasting a minimum of 5 years (maybe more criteria).

I'd then determine the success percentage by star for each school. I'd give extra weight for 4 and even more for 3 star prospects having success in the NBA, creating some sort of success formula. Conversely, failure to achieve "success" by a 5 star prospect would be judged more harshly than failure by a 3 star prospect.

My premise is that developing a 3 or 4 star prospect to the NBA is far more impressive and requires more development than sending 5 star guys to the NBA .

My goal would be to prove that schools like Kentucky are merely a cushy place to play for a year, rather than a place to truly develop one's game in preparation for the NBA.

Anybody want to take on such a project? Such a formula could be applied to all schools to see how they stack up.

Well I agree that history has shown that Cuse has created some successful NBA careers, based of your requirements(ex: Hak.). It's very difficult to compare. Who is the last low four, three star recruit to go to Kentucky? It's the whole apple to oranges debate.

 

[JazzNC]

Well I agree that history has shown that Cuse has created some successful NBA careers, based of your requirements(ex: Hak.). It's very difficult to compare. Who is the last low four, three star recruit to go to Kentucky? It's the whole apple to oranges debate.

It might be hard to compare with a school like Kentucky, but it would be a start. It would certainly be valuable when comparing other major colleges success (Villanova, UCONN, Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, etc..,). Not everyone is a UK or Duke.

Furthermore, UK would get a lot of points for the number of players sent to the NBA, BUT they'd be hurt (penalized) for failing to secure success in the NBA for their 5 star prospects. I do think there is a way to mathematically compare.

Maybe "success" criteria is different for different star players.

5 star success - 5 year NBA career with scoring, rebounding or assist numbers.

4 star success - 3 year NBA career
3 star success- drafted in first round

I'm not sure yet...brainstorming

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

I'd love to put together some statistics to see if they support my belief that Syracuse develops players at a much higher rate than many other schools. Depending on the results it would make a heck of a recruiting tool. Here's my idea:

I would look at 5 star prospects who have had successful NBA careers. I'd do the same for 4 star and three star prospects too. The definition of a "successful NBA career" would have to be uniformly applied. Ex: NBA career lasting a minimum of 5 years (maybe more criteria)

I'd then determine the success percentage by star for each school. I'd give extra weight for 4 and even more for 3 star prospects having success in the NBA, creating some sort of success formula. Conversely, failure to achieve "success" by a 5 star prospect would be judged more harshly than failure by a 3 star prospect.

My premise is that developing a 3 or 4 star prospect to the NBA is far more impressive and requires more development than sending 5 star guys to the NBA .

My goal would be to prove that schools like Kentucky are merely a cushy place to play for a year, rather than a place to truly develop one's game in preparation for the NBA.

Anybody want to take on such a project? Such a formula could be applied to all schools to see how they stack up.

Can't wait to read it. PM me when done. Thanks in advance.

 

[Oakland]

This would be a good exercise which I would luv to see (SWC, have any extra time on your hands?). The results should be fairly robust given the number of data points over the last 20(?) years. I suspect it would punch a hole in the Kentucky mystique as you intend - not that they would be worse but probably no better than peer schools (maybe worse ).

HS prospect talent probably follows a bell shaped curve (like so many things in life), but I would not use the star system as it does not adequately differentiate the talent at the top end (I've stated before that there should be a 6 star category for the sure-fire NBAers like Anthony Davis). Start with the cumulative ranking of the services. Break out the tiers so that the true high end talent is isolated and the tiers follow a rough bell shape. I'd suggest the following: top 5, next 10, next 20, next 40, and next 80 (if you have the time or are really good at doing this). The results could be as easy as comparing the % of players in each group that make the NBA vs. other schools. An issue is the definition of making the NBA. For simplicity's sake, I'd make it that the player is on the 13 man roster of an NBA team the next season, draft position would also be interesting (do both!). Penalizing for non-performance would probably only add information if you had a secondary criteria, for example: a hit is if a player makes an NBA roster, a miss if the player is not drafted. You could then assign a negative value if the player is not drafted (this would probably only make sense to do for the top 3 or 4 tiers). However, the miss value would be arbitrary.

I'd love to put together some statistics to see if they support my belief that Syracuse develops players at a much higher rate than many other schools. Depending on the results it would make heck of a recruiting tool. Here's my idea:

I would look at 5 star prospects who have had successful NBA careers. I'd do the same for 4 star and three star prospects too. The definition of a "successful NBA career" would have to be uniformly applied. Ex: NBA career lasting a minimum of 5 years (maybe more criteria)

I'd then determine the success percentage by star for each school. I'd give extra weight for 4 and even more for 3 star prospects having success in the NBA, creating some sort of success formula. Conversely, failure to achieve "success" by a 5 star prospect would be judged more harshly than failure by a 3 star prospect.

My premise is that developing a 3 or 4 star prospect to the NBA is far more impressive and requires more development than sending 5 star guys to the NBA .

My goal would be to prove that schools like Kentucky are merely a cushy place to play for a year, rather than a place to truly develop one's game in preparation for the NBA.

Anybody want to take on such a project? Such a formula could be applied to all schools to see how they stack up.

 

[JazzNC]

This would be a good exercise which I would luv to see (SWC, have any extra time on your hands?). The results should be fairly robust given the number of data points over the last 20(?) years. I suspect it would punch a hole in the Kentucky mystique as you intend - not that they would be worse but probably no better than peer schools (maybe worse ).

HS prospect talent probably follows a bell shaped curve (like so many things in life), but I would not use the star system as it does not adequately differentiate the talent at the top end (I've stated before that there should be a 6 star category for the sure-fire NBAers like Anthony Davis). Start with the cumulative ranking of the services. Break out the tiers so that the true high end talent is isolated and the tiers follow a rough bell shape. I'd suggest the following: top 5, next 10, next 20, next 40, and next 80 (if you have the time or are really good at doing this). The results could be as easy as comparing the % of players in each group that make the NBA vs. other schools. An issue is the definition of making the NBA. For simplicity's sake, I'd make it that the player is on the 13 man roster of an NBA team the next season, draft position would also be interesting (do both!). Penalizing for non-performance would probably only add information if you had a secondary criteria, for example: a hit is if a player makes an NBA roster, a miss if the player is not drafted. You could then assign a negative value if the player is not drafted (this would probably only make sense to do for the top 3 or 4 tiers). However, the miss value would be arbitrary.

I like your idea of not using stars, but actual ranking in the class. You could use the average of the major recruiting sites.

I suspect the results would prove very interesting, and of course if they support Syracuse (or whatever school you represent) that would make a great recruiting tool.

I'm surprised it hasn't been done already.

 

[Jeremy L.]

Well I agree that history has shown that Cuse has created some successful NBA careers, based of your requirements(ex: Hak.). It's very difficult to compare. Who is the last low four, three star recruit to go to Kentucky? It's the whole apple to oranges debate.

Had to go back to 2008 per rivals.

https://kentucky./commitments/basketball/2008

 

[Funk Doc]

Had to go back to 2008 per rivals.

https://kentucky.. . . . . . . . . . /commitments/basketball/2008

Link didn't open, but wow...that's a long way back!

Was that still in the Tubby Smith regime?

 

[Knicks411]

Does it not seem odd to go into this with the idea of "proving" something, as opposed to seeing what the evidence actually says? Seems like it could lead to some bias and decisions made to ensure the desired result.

Another issue you might have to battle is that there seems to be some bias in the recruiting rankings toward the bigger schools; I know I hear people complain that some players get moved up spots in the rankings because they commit to Duke or UK or whatever.

Thirdly, I'm not sure that developing a 3 or 4 star recruit into an NBA player takes the same skillset as developing a 5 star talent into a top player in the league, like an Anthony Davis or Karl-Anthony Towns.

I would love to see the results though.

 

[Funk Doc]

Does it not seem odd to go into this with the idea of "proving" something, as opposed to seeing what the evidence actually says? Seems like it could lead to some bias and decisions made to ensure the desired result.

Another issue you might have to battle is that there seems to be some bias in the recruiting rankings toward the bigger schools; I know I hear people complain that some players get moved up spots in the rankings because they commit to Duke or UK or whatever.

Thirdly, I'm not sure that developing a 3 or 4 star recruit into an NBA player takes the same skillset as developing a 5 star talent into a top player in the league, like an Anthony Davis or Karl-Anthony Towns.

I would love to see the results though.

Yeah...we have quite a few players that advanced their skills throughout their time at Cuse and had themselves decent NBA careers. We also have a few going against us...(ie Donte Greene).

But I have permanent Orange glasses on!! Once a player chooses elsewhere, I am sad for a bit, but I no longer care to even track their careers. For the most part...guaranteed studs will be studs. Davis, Towns, Wiggins, etc..are going to be great no matter who coached them. I mean Carmelo, love him to death for what he did for Cuse, had no business even playing college ball!