Why Talent/Recruiting Rankings Matter

[dpodoll68]

let's try this - there are players who were classified as "2-star" kids who later turned out to be more productive players than recruits who were classified as "4-star" kids. the point is that the initial classification was in error.

The '2-star' and '4-star' rankings are estimations of a player's talent level and future potential. If the system was perfect, every 5-star player would become a superstar, and no 2-star player would ever become a star player. The system isn't perfect. It is generally successful in assigning grades to players, but it's not 100% perfect. Mistakes are made. players are classified incorrectly or erroneously. Some kids peak early, others are late bloomers. some kids work harder than others. some kids just have more heart than others - which is almost impossible to measure or predict.

I am NOT saying the star ratings are worthless. they have merit. BUT, they are not a 100% infallible system.

Not a single person has ever argued that they are infallible. Who are you debating against?

The vast majority of 5-stars make the NFL. A lower percentage of 4-stars do, then again a lower percentage of 3-stars, and then finally a lower percentage of 2-stars. And then somebody picks out the rare 2-star who turned out better than the rare 4-star and says "See, recruiting rankings are worthless!" It's asinine.

Bill Gates, a college dropout, is far more successful than people with several advanced degrees. Does that mean that no one should go to college?

 

[short ornery norwegian]

I think one of the issues here is how "talent" is defined.

If "talent" is strictly based on star ratings and recruiting team rankings, then GWG's argument has merit.

I (and I suspect others) take a somewhat more expansive view of the term "talent." And I don't see star ratings and team rankings as a 100% infallible method of ranking "talent."

There are intangibles at play - some almost impossible to measure - heart, determination, drive, the will to win. Why do certain teams and certain players find a way to win close games, while other, equally 'talented' teams seem to find a way to lose close games? intangibles. I cover a HS team that has a lot of skilled athletes, but almost always finds a way to make a mistake at the worst possible time. To me, that is folded into the definition of "talent."

In that sense, coaching could be defined as helping players realize their talent to the fullest potential. I'm not sure you can separate one from the other. It's almost a chicken-and-egg debate. Where does the value of talent end and the value of coaching begin? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Why did I buy a canary yellow leisure suit for my roommate's wedding in 1977? Questions to ponder. (not christian or sam ponder - but sam is still hot)

 

[HoustonTXGopher]

How many Five star players are there each year? How are they derived? I would actually be surprised if more than a couple people knows how the star system woorks without looking it up.

 

[Spoofin]

I think one of the issues here is how "talent" is defined.

You are correct SON. Myself and a few others have pointed that out to GWG more than once in this thread - but he is choosing not to listen for transparent reasons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Maverick]

I think one of the issues here is how "talent" is defined.

If "talent" is strictly based on star ratings and recruiting team rankings, then GWG's argument has merit.

I (and I suspect others) take a somewhat more expansive view of the term "talent." And I don't see star ratings and team rankings as a 100% infallible method of ranking "talent."

There are intangibles at play - some almost impossible to measure - heart, determination, drive, the will to win. Why do certain teams and certain players find a way to win close games, while other, equally 'talented' teams seem to find a way to lose close games? intangibles. I cover a HS team that has a lot of skilled athletes, but almost always finds a way to make a mistake at the worst possible time. To me, that is folded into the definition of "talent."

In that sense, coaching could be defined as helping players realize their talent to the fullest potential. I'm not sure you can separate one from the other. It's almost a chicken-and-egg debate. Where does the value of talent end and the value of coaching begin? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Why did I buy a canary yellow leisure suit for my roommate's wedding in 1977? Questions to ponder. (not christian or sam ponder - but sam is still hot)

Good points all.

Canary yellow? Seriously?? Must have been a really good buddy. [emoji16]

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[GopherWeatherGuy]

You are correct SON. Myself and a few others have pointed that out to GWG more than once in this thread - but he is choosing not to listen for transparent reasons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Completely wrong and missing the point again. When I say talent, it is based on recruiting rankings. If recruiting rankings were 'infallible', talent (the higher rated team) would win 100% of the time, which isn't the case, as I've said over and over again. But they do win 75% of the time, based on fact.

You and others keep trying to tell me I'm wrong, yet have offered no proof otherwise. Yes, there are a few examples each year of teams that overachieve or underachieve, but they fit in that 25%. 75% of the time talent wins out. This is why I keep it simple because you can't even grasp the most simple of logic.

 

[Spoofin]

Completely wrong and missing the point again. When I say talent, it is based on recruiting rankings. If recruiting rankings were 'infallible', talent (the higher rated team) would win 100% of the time, which isn't the case, as I've said over and over again. But they do win 75% of the time, based on fact.

You and others keep trying to tell me I'm wrong, yet have offered no proof otherwise. Yes, there are a few examples each year of teams that overachieve or underachieve, but they fit in that 25%. 75% of the time talent wins out. This is why I keep it simple because you can't even grasp the most simple of logic.

My bad. You get it and have been very open minded in this thread, have not pivoted your position at all, and have only used the rubber/glue defense as a last resort. Others that don't agree are simpletons, don't understand statistics (amongst other things), and frankly are lucky that you don't make it more complicated. I see this clearly now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pompous Elitist]

You are correct SON. Myself and a few others have pointed that out to GWG more than once in this thread - but he is choosing not to listen for transparent reasons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Anything that draws the Eye of Mordor away from the fact we lost to two pretty bad teams partly for prep and schematic reasons.

 

[BarnBurner]

My bad. You get it and have been very open minded in this thread, have not pivoted your position at all, and have only used the rubber/glue defense as a last resort. Others that don't agree are simpletons, don't understand statistics (amongst other things), and frankly are lucky that you don't make it more complicated. I see this clearly now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GopherWeatherGuy]

My bad. You get it and have been very open minded in this thread, have not pivoted your position at all, and have only used the rubber/glue defense as a last resort. Others that don't agree are simpletons, don't understand statistics (amongst other things), and frankly are lucky that you don't make it more complicated. I see this clearly now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's good to see you've finally found some self awareness. I'm proud of you.

 

[JZsportswhiz]

When there is that level of correlation it's not a coincidence lol

Some of you PJ haters are unreal

 

[Spoofin]

When there is that level of correlation it's not a coincidence lol

Some of you PJ haters are unreal

Why on earth does my loathing of recruiting rankings have anything to do with PJ? That doesn't even make sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GopherWeatherGuy]

The more talented B1G teams are 4-1 today. Brings the season record to 22-5.

 

[bottlebass]

Because for the 10th time in this thread you don't have to. Kill/Claeys almost always beat the teams they were more talented than, but rarely beat the teams that had more talent than them. That's why their average finish in the west was 4.5.

.

Why do you continue to lie and ignore statistics? As another poster pointed out Kill/Claeys were 10-17 against teams with better talent than them. Don't call out others for ignoring statistics then do it your self.

 

[GopherWeatherGuy]

Why do you continue to lie and ignore statistics? As another poster pointed out Kill/Claeys were 10-17 against teams with better talent than them. Don't call out others for ignoring statistics then do it your self.

Yet I'm not ignoring it and haven't lied once. Is 10-17 good? Did we or are we going to win B1G west titles by only beating 1/3 of the teams that are more talented than us, which is the majority of the conference?

That record was just their guess going back to 2014, since 247's team talent rating only goes back to 2015. If I'm going to 'estimate' talent and go back to the beginning of the Kill era in 2011, the record would be ~13-30 give or take a few without knowing exactly how talented Illinois, Purdue, and Northwestern were at those times compared to Minnesota.

 

[bottlebass]

Yet I'm not ignoring it and haven't lied once. Is 10-17 good? Did we or are we going to win B1G west titles by only beating 1/3 of the teams that are more talented than us, which is the majority of the conference?

That record was just their guess going back to 2014, since 247's team talent rating only goes back to 2015. If I'm going to 'estimate' talent and go back to the beginning of the Kill era in 2011, the record would be ~13-30 give or take a few without knowing exactly how talented Illinois, Purdue, and Northwestern were at those times compared to Minnesota.

That's not what you said, you said rare. Is 10 our of 27 times rare? No. You are ignoring statistics and lying.

 

[mplsbadger]

I think this is incredibly obvious. Half the job of a coach is to find the other team’s bad players/units, while hiding your own. Does anyone really argue talent doesn’t matter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GopherWeatherGuy]

That's not what you said, you said rare. Is 10 our of 27 times rare? No. You are ignoring statistics and lying.

If you want to take issue with me calling it rare? Fine. Poor use of the term rare on my end. Maybe I should have said beating ranked teams was rare instead. They still lose to more talented teams far more than they beat them, which again is the point of this whole thread.

Without a talent upgrade they'll continue to be a 4th or 5th place team in the West, regardless of coaching. That's something that you seem to be ok with. I'm not.

 

[GopherWeatherGuy]

I think this is incredibly obvious. Half the job of a coach is to find the other team’s bad players/units, while hiding your own. Does anyone really argue talent doesn’t matter?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think anyone is arguing that talent matters. The same posters continue to argue that recruiting rankings are not a good indicator of talent, which is false.

 

[bottlebass]

If you want to take issue with me calling it rare? Fine. Poor use of the term rare on my end. Maybe I should have said beating ranked teams was rare instead. They still lose to more talented teams far more than they beat them, which again is the point of this whole thread.

Without a talent upgrade they'll continue to be a 4th or 5th place team in the West, regardless of coaching. That's something that you seem to be ok with. I'm not.

Wrong like always. I'm not OK with them being 4th or 5th in the west. Just pointing out you were wrong and making yourself look bad by ignoring statistics right after you tried to call other people out for ignoring statistics.

 

[GopherWeatherGuy]

Wrong like always. I'm not OK with them being 4th or 5th in the west. Just pointing out you were wrong and making yourself look bad by ignoring statistics right after you tried to call other people out for ignoring statistics.

Where did I ignore a statistic? I said 'rare', admitted that wasn't the right word, and now you're saying everything I said is false. Wow, you are sad.

 

[bottlebass]

Where did I ignore a statistic? I said 'rare', admitted that wasn't the right word, and now you're saying everything I said is false. Wow, you are sad.

By saying it was rare for us to beat a team who had better talent you ignored the statistic posted earlier in this thread. You were wrong and admitted it so not sure why you are now arguing that you weren't wrong (did I say the word false?). Talk about being sad.

Also you were wrong to assume I like us being towards the bottom of the west. Wrong again.

 

[GopherWeatherGuy]

By saying it was rare for us to beat a team who had better talent you ignored the statistic posted earlier in this thread. You were wrong and admitted it so not sure why you are now arguing that you weren't wrong (did I say the word false?). Talk about being sad.

Also you were wrong to assume I like us being towards the bottom of the west. Wrong again.

So outside of saying 'rare', even though they still lost to more talented teams 2/3 of the time, everything I posted is fact. Yet you continue to say everything I said is wrong. You're the one who continues to look foolish by trying to argue against statistics.

 

[bottlebass]

So outside of saying 'rare', even though they still lost to more talented teams 2/3 of the time, everything I posted is fact. Yet you continue to say everything I said is wrong. You're the one who continues to look foolish by trying to argue against statistics.

I'm not arguing against statistics. I said talent is part of the equation. And the statistics prove it is only part of the equation as less talented teams do beat talented teams. Not sure why this is so hard for you to understand. It is blatantly obvious to everyone else.

So no, everything else you are saying is not fact. You are a sad person but keep !

 

[GopherWeatherGuy]

I'm not arguing against statistics. I said talent is part of the equation. And the statistics prove it is only part of the equation as less talented teams do beat talented teams. Not sure why this is so hard for you to understand. It is blatantly obvious to everyone else.

So no, everything else you are saying is not fact. You are a sad person but keep !

Then what are you arguing about? I've said repeatedly that less talented teams beat more talented teams, but it only happens ~25% of the time. For the Gophers it happened 32% of the time. Both of those are outlined in my OP, yet you're arguing and calling me a lier about what?

 

[bottlebass]

Then what are you arguing about? I've said repeatedly that less talented teams beat more talented teams, but it only happens ~25% of the time. For the Gophers it happened 32% of the time. Both of those are outlined in my OP, yet you're arguing and calling me a lier about what?

Geez you aren't very good at following threads. I pointed out you were wrong and that you shouldn't ignore statistics. You admitted to being wrong, then claimed you haven't said anything wrong and all you have stated were facts. I again proved you wrong. Now you are making up me calling you a liar (i think that's what you meant by "lier"?).

For the last time, no one is arguing with you about whether talent matters. You seem to think it is the ONLY thing that matters, which is not true. Read that sentence over and over until you finally understand. It's very simple.

 

[GopherWeatherGuy]

Geez you aren't very good at following threads. I pointed out you were wrong and that you shouldn't ignore statistics. You admitted to being wrong, then claimed you haven't said anything wrong and all you have stated were facts. I again proved you wrong. Now you are making up me calling you a liar (i think that's what you meant by "lier"?).

For the last time, no one is arguing with you about whether talent matters. You seem to think it is the ONLY thing that matters, which is not true. Read that sentence over and over until you finally understand. It's very simple.

Why do you keep arguing with me then after I admitted my use of the term 'rare' was wrong, even though they still lose the majority of the games to more talented teams. That's a fact. Talent is the #1 thing that matters. The only thing you proved wrong is that I used 'rare' incorrectly. Good for you, you're really bringing some insight to the table this morning.

 

[bottlebass]

Why do you keep arguing with me then after I admitted my use of the term 'rare' was wrong, even though they still lose the majority of the games to more talented teams. That's a fact. Talent is the #1 thing that matters. The only thing you proved wrong is that I used 'rare' incorrectly. Good for you, you're really bringing some insight to the table this morning.

You need to stop freaking out. Maybe cut back on the caffeine by about 10 cups? Then re-read the posts.

 

[GopherWeatherGuy]

You need to stop freaking out. Maybe cut back on the caffeine by about 10 cups? Then re-read the posts.

I like coffee. And I've read the posts. You're arguing about nothing.

 

[bottlebass]

I like coffee. And I've read the posts. You're arguing about nothing.

Coffee is pretty good, I'm 3 cups deep already today. OK then, my job is done! Until you are wrong again, then I'll let you know. Adios amigo. See you later gator. In a while croco... you get it.