 |
L.C.
General User
Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,067
Status: Offline
|
|
|
| "Stars" again, Class of 2011 |
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2015 6:54:26 PM |
| |
Let's use the class of 2011 as a way to check the accuracy of the various ratings service. I have dividee the class into 3 groups, starters, role players, and those that didn't play much. Some don't fit neatly as there are some that mostly have been role players, but who have also started. Specifically, where would you put Purdum and L. Smith? I ended up putting Purdum in the top group since he started in 2012, and most likely will start this fall, and put Smith in the middle group, but others might disagree. Also, some of the players in the bottom group may have been held out because of injury, I don't know.
Starters: Russell, Crutcher, Fisher, McQueen, Wells, Vick, Powell, J. Johnson, Bass, Lucas, Purdum
Role Players: L. Smith, T. Davis, Macer
Rarely Played: Price, Welter, Haser, Hammonds, Bennett, Bell, Curtis.
ESPN had 3/11 in the first group 3 stars, 0 of 3 in the second, 2 of 7 in the third group. They have a fairly positive correlation, 27% of the top group, none of the middle, and 14% of the bottom group.
Scout.com had an inverse correlation. They only had one of 11 in the starter group picked as 3 stars, but 2/3 in the second group, and 4/7 in the bottom group. That's 9% in the top group, 67% in the middle group, and 54% in the bottom group.
Rivals had no correlation, either. Three of 11 in the top group were 3 stars, none of the second group were 3 stars, but 2/7 in the bottom group were 3 stars. That makes it 27% in the top group, none in the middle, and 29% in the bottom group. As for their two digit rating, the top group averaged 5.35, the middle group averaged 5.40, and the bottom group averaged 5.40. Again, there is no correlation.
247Sports was just starting up, and did not rate many players that year.
How about other offers? The top group had average .5 P5 offers and 2.0 G5 offers. The middle group averaged .7 P5 offers and 5.0 G5 offers. The bottom group averaged .29 G5 offers, and 1.3 G5 offers. There is some correlation here.
Conclusions: For the 2011 class, I'd rank the ratings methods in this order:
1. ESPN - had a positive correlation. Did the best job of picking the players in the top group
2. Offers - Had a correlation, but not a high one. Did a good job of picking the players in the bottom group.
3. Rivals - No correlation
4. Scout - Had an inverse correlation
“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus
|
|
|
|
