|
Replies: 10
| visibility 1
|
CU Guru [1797]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1399
Joined: 11/12/11
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [27366]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 26233
Joined: 9/19/11
|
Says a lot.
Jul 15, 2018, 11:02 PM
|
|
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13038]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22360
Joined: 4/24/04
|
Also a blow to the "recruiting rankings don't matter" crowd
Jul 16, 2018, 7:26 AM
|
|
Just look at the correlation between the 24/7 composite rating and the % of players that get drafted.
Thanks for posting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2217]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3280
Joined: 3/7/12
|
+1
Jul 16, 2018, 7:43 AM
|
|
Saw that as well. 85 on the composite is a mid-tier 3 star. But at this point if you’re still in the “stars don’t matter” crowd, you’ve already seen the facts and choose not to believe them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2383]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1882
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Sure, that's true in general, but...
Jul 16, 2018, 9:26 AM
[ in reply to Also a blow to the "recruiting rankings don't matter" crowd ] |
|
Doesn't Clemson's +21 vs. expectation in this study mean that we turn more one- to three-star players into draft picks while also helping the four- to five-star guys deliver on their potential?
Sure, the 4* and 5* guys will always have the highest draft-pick percentage. But Clemson is either light years beyond others in spotting five-star talent in lower-ranked recruits or has the ability to develop projects beyond what seems like their ceilings. The numbers prove it.
This is why I'm not worried at all about the stars next to the names of the guys this coaching staff signs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2217]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3280
Joined: 3/7/12
|
Re: Sure, that's true in general, but...
Jul 16, 2018, 9:33 AM
|
|
That 21 number is also over 10 recruiting classes. Which means basically 2 guys from each class that were 3 stars or lower getting developed into draft picks. And we’re the best at that with 2/class.
So the numbers tell me we’ve done a good job of that but we can’t rely on just getting 3 stars and “coaching them up”
|
|
|
|
|
|
Starter [383]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 285
Joined: 4/26/04
|
You are looking at it wrong.
Jul 16, 2018, 12:10 PM
|
|
The +21 is exactly what it says. Overall there are 49 draft picks in the era studied. 28 were expected to be drafted according to the study. An additional 21 were actually drafted, however, bringing the total to 49.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10822]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9006
Joined: 12/8/02
|
we have to be great at evaluations and
Jul 16, 2018, 3:09 PM
[ in reply to Sure, that's true in general, but... ] |
|
Player development. You don't just turn a 2 star into a first rounder. It means we saw great potential in a guy (Gaines Adams for example). The player probably didn't fit in the recruiting services mold.
The kid was willing to work and be developed. Our coaches seem to do a great job evaluating the kids bodies and attitudes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30831]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 34494
Joined: 6/22/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13038]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22360
Joined: 4/24/04
|
I think you're missing the point
Jul 16, 2018, 12:52 PM
|
|
The argument (i would assume) against recruiting rankings centers around their accuracy/inaccuracy. It doesn't matter if coaches or pro scouts use the recruiting rankings themselves. Obviously they operated for decades without them and could do so again. Who cares? What does matter for our debates around here is whether or not the recruiting rankings are an accurate reflection of the talent level being brought in and data like this just proves that they are pretty darn accurate.
There are obviously inaccuracies on an individual basis and areas for savvy coaching staffs to exploit (and based on the other data in this post the Clemson staff has done very well in that regard), but they are pretty darn good overall. As BornAtiger pointed out earlier, Clemson was one of the very best in the country at exceeding expected draft picks yet they only did so at a rate of about 2 per year. And part of that is almost surely developmental too and not just better evaluation.
There are inefficiencies out there to exploit in terms of underrated recruits, but there really aren't that many of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [3616]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 3791
Joined: 1/21/16
|
Re: I think you're missing the point--so are you
Jul 16, 2018, 4:25 PM
|
|
Clemson is only exceeding expectations for 2 draft picks per year, right? But if you're saying, "you can't just 'coach up' a lack of talent," you need to use SouCarlina as your example, not Clemson.
Clemson has coached up 2 players per year to the draft consistently over 10 years, the most in the nation. And according to this ranking, that has resulted in the 3rd highest number of picks, in spite of NOT having averaged #3 recruiting classes.
Probably the most accurate way to read this is to say that out of roughly 200+ players on scholly over a 10-year period, Dabo and his staff got 49 drafted (3rd highest in the nation), which is 42% higher than expected by rating (best in the nation). 21 out of 49. In contrast, if those guys had gone to Miami, the numbers would have reflected the ratings pretty closely, as you say.
At any time a 4* player at Clemson can look around the locker room and figure that if he does his job, he and 15 current teammates will meet in the NFL. And the 2* and 3* guys add to that culture by their hard work and drive to push those more talented guys for playing time. And this draft rate is climbing.
Just wait to see how frequently that Tiger Paw goes up on the board in the 2019 draft.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 10
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
