McBean 2002 Class

Submitted by Meeechigan Dan on

The McBean Definitions discussion was lively.

Only minor changes resulted from the debate:

  • I removed the reference to a “five year starter.” Amazing that so many different sets of eyes (except cali4uofm) could miss that, although it was referenced elsewhere.
  • I clarified the McBean four-star rating a little bit. The 2002 class has two guys who I initially rated as four stars – Mark Bihl and Rueben Riley – that I have dropped to three stars given that they were undrafted.

Three other issues were discussed:

  1. brad voiced a concern that if all starters at Michigan get three stars, there is no differentiation between a weak starter and a solid three-star guy like Chris Graham, for example. This is a reasonable observation, because I had Mark Bihl and Rueben Riley rated as four-star starters but backed them down to three (as I considered them borderline four-stars) because they were undrafted. So are both Mark Bihl and Darnell Hood three-star players? That needs to be further debated in this thread.
  2. There was some debate about punters and kickers, but I think the exception to a punter or kicker as a lower rated player can be handled in the rare event a Space Emperor decides to play ball on our planet.
  3. The dominant concern was using the NFL to assign career star ratings. SanDiegoWolverine voices this concern:
I don't think the NFL is that relevant in the sense that how our players perform in the NFL shouldn't change our perception of their value/production when they were at Michigan. I'd rather have Rod recruit players that dominate while they are at Michigan and underperform at the NFL than vice versa.
    UMFootballCrazy counters:

The draft is a national comparison, a national measure of the athletes.
    And summarizes, I think correctly:

"Elite" = 5*

or

"Significant Impact" = 4*

or

"Solid" = 3*

I think that you will find that, barring a few exceptions, most of those that get that fifth star will be first-rounders or high second-rounders; the second group will get drafted; and the third group will make up the bulk of the rest of the starters.

I agree with BlueBulls that ONLY the draft can inform a McBean rating, and only as a tie-breaker. Steve Breaston is a classic example. Four-star or five? He seems to be on the cusp – look at all the Michigan records and his current value to Arizona – but in the end, he is a four and the draft – 5th round – gives us a valuable assessment tool of his potential (developed at Michigan) at the time his career in college ended. So the NFL draft stays as a tie-breaker, and the final McBean Definitions will be:




Let's begin with the 2002 class. There are some interesting borderline cases in this class. Given the currently assigned career ratings, this class underperformed significantly.

Comments

MichIOE01

August 27th, 2009 at 9:54 AM ^

This would require a LOT of extra work (so I'm not suggesting you do it, just saying it would be nice to see), but it would be great to see an overall +/- for the team (i.e. this class is a -7 or -14 depending on how you count the N/A's).

That could then be compared to other teams to get an overall picture for how good teams are at finding diamonds in the rough and developing players.

Meeechigan Dan

August 27th, 2009 at 10:17 AM ^

Wow. Would be cool, but you aren't kidding. Maybe after this blows up and Rivals buys us the mgocommunity out for millions, we can get to that, but this project is going to be strictly a Michigan project for now.

wolfman81

August 27th, 2009 at 10:47 AM ^

I like Breaston as a 4*, as you succinctly explain in the OP. I think that if he had been All American (I believe there is a such thing as an "All American returner") the 5* label would fit. Alas, DeSean McCoy was that All-American

I think Gutz works as a 3*. He was supposed to start, got hurt, then got Henne'd (so he transferred). From all indications, he had a good senior season at Idaho St and he's in the NFL (but wasn't drafted). As he only spent one season at Idaho St. we can say with some certainty that his development was accomplished at Michigan.

Quinton McCoy and Tom Berishaj...I don't remember if they played. Does that make them 1* or 0*? I assume that 2* means they saw the field, perhaps on special teams...?

Mark Bihl and Ruben Riley: It appears that Mark Bihl is on the San Diego Chargers NFL roster, while Ruben Riley was signed and cut by the Dolphins...More data from the Bentley. Bihl won the Robert P. Ufer award along with Woodley. I think Bihl has a case for 4*, I'd leave Riley as a 3*.

I'd keep Tabb as a 3*. He did start a few games (see above Bentley link).

This will be a bit unpopular, but I'd consider making David Harris a 4*. He was 2nd team All-American and 1st team All-Big Ten. Also, he was a 2nd Round NFL draft pick (47th pick in the draft). It seems like he is barely outside of the top 25-30 prospects that mirrors Rivals.

Finally, a thought about your formula. As I recall, you have total stars and average star rating (these are your last two rows). It occurs to me that these star ratings are not a linear scale. (Only 30 5-stars, about 250 4-stars, etc.) Just think about how much better a team is when they have 5-7 guys get drafted as opposed to 2-3. Also, consider when there are 1-2 guys drafted in the first round as opposed to none. It seems that some sort of weighted average is appropriate here. How much more effective can a defense be when they have a guy like Woodson shutting down one side of the field? How effective will the D-Line be when they have BG bullying O-Linemen around? While football is still a team game, one player has a non-linear impact. I would consider this formula:

sqrt{(sum{ stars^2})/Number of players in class}

It would be an interesting tweak to the formula. And as long as you use it for both ratings, you still compare apples to apples. It might have the added benefit of helping you decide "how much" did the team over-perform or under-perform.

[Edit: I'm brain dead this morning. My formula is just the RMS or sqrt{avg{x^2}}.]

UMFootballCrazy

August 27th, 2009 at 12:53 PM ^

Here is the difficulty, what he has done since being drafted is nice, great for him, but irrelevant for this exercise. His draft position at #47 puts his far enough down in the second round that he is ends up being a high four star, but not high enough to be a low five star (think under 40, as we are trying to capture the top 25-35 athletes in the nation as deserving of the fifth star). Harris is the kind of player that could have gone to pretty much any major D1 school and been a 3+ year starter and be expected to make a "significant impact" wherever he went. A great addition to the Michigan program.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?abbr=M&collegeName=Michigan&…

Ziff72

August 27th, 2009 at 1:43 PM ^

David Harris was an excellent player for us, but he has become almost Spielman esque in people's praise. He had a great senior season and was solid, but unnoticeable as a Junior and didn't play before that so to say he was going to walk into USC and play 3+ years is a little over the top.

UMFootballCrazy

August 27th, 2009 at 2:38 PM ^

Point well taken. I fall victim to my own reasons for wanting to lean on the draft as the primary yardstick, is that even I fall in love with our own guys. We all want to hype our own guys and tend to think they will rawk anywhere they go. That is why I love the draft. Those doing the drafting are looking for talent and don't care where it comes from. In that regard Harris is still a high four star, but not a low five star.

SanDiegoWolverine

August 27th, 2009 at 2:33 PM ^

I'm sorry but if you were at any point a 1st or 2nd team All-American you should be a 5 star. It's embarrassing that some people are using the NFL draft as a cop out for not being able to determine the player's value on their own. 47th is damn good, and don't forget that NFL teams had concerns about his knees long term and that players slip every year in the draft.

Was James Laurinaitis a borderline 5 star? He was only picked 35th? He was an All-American for 3 years but since the NFL draft is 'a snapshot of a players value at the end of his college career' it sounds like he was on the cusp of a McBean 4 star rating.

Also, Matt Jones must have been a solid 5 star for Arkansas, right? He was picked 21st after all despite not playing WR in college. Maybe he was only 2nd team All-SEC but being drafted in the 1st round has to be a 'tiebreaker' right?

So let me turn the sarcasm down a notch and pose a serious question because it is very relevant. Rich Rod recruited and developed Steve Slaton and Pat White who were dominate players and we can all agree were 5 star McBeans by any reasonable measurement. However, Slaton was drafted 89th and White 44th. So if we pay attention to the draft too much in the future we're going to start calling the next Pat White or Steve Slaton 4 star McBeans because they weren't drafted high enough. I hope you guys are starting to see how crazy this is. Players drop every year are sometimes not even drafted (hello Jason White) who are excellent college players for reasons of phyical stature, athleticism, character, injury history, scheme they played in, etc... so let's not let that get in the way of what the true impact a player had at the college level.

UMFootballCrazy

August 27th, 2009 at 2:45 PM ^

Laurinaitis would be a low five/high four...I would tend to push him up. But your examples are the exceptions that prove the rule. There are always guys whose draft stock will drop, the Heisman winner who is undrafted and so forth and this is why the draft is but one marker and I can understand Dan's logic in making it the tiebreaker. So yes, I would be comfortable making a low second rounder a five star if his on field results and recognition (1st Team All-American) warrant the fifth star. My leaning on the draft is a way to help us not fall in love with out own players and see them through the lense of the cold hearted talent scout who cares not about our program but only at finding talent for his NFL team.

SanDiegoWolverine

August 27th, 2009 at 3:59 PM ^

If all O$U players get knocked down a notch by default I can understand, but not under any objective measure. Any time you win the award for being the best player at you position I'm pretty sure you are a solid 5 star. He also has already won the starting spot for the Rams before even having a chance to play a snap in a real NFL game. I know the Rams suck but most 5 star McBeans wouldn't even start 1st game their rookie year. Just seems like you are setting the bar awfully high.

UMFootballCrazy

August 27th, 2009 at 8:30 PM ^

[-1 to you sir for the "$" ... always show your opponent respect, even if they do not deserve it] But as I said in another post on this thread, for all his talent, he would check out of games and at time be invisible. When he was on and focused he was a terror. High, four stars in my book, perhaps a low five star based on talent recognition. "Significant impact" but not solidly "Elite."

SanDiegoWolverine

August 27th, 2009 at 4:44 PM ^

But a solid 4 star+ McBean. He was mentioned Junior and Senior year as a Heisman contender but never quite put together that amazing season we thought he was capable of. I think getting drafted in the 2nd was more a reflection of his potential/arm strength than indicative of where he stood after 4 years.

wolfman81

August 27th, 2009 at 5:08 PM ^

We try to have the McBean's mirror the Rivals rankings. As there are 25-30 Rivals 5 stars awarded, we need to limit ourselves to this number. The number of All-Americans per team is (11 offense + 11 defense + punter + kicker + returner) 25 players. Let's assume that all of these 1st teamers are in. You now have room for 5 2nd teamers at best. If we expand this to 1st or 2nd team All-American, we are up to 50, and that that leaves us 20 players too many.

Let's talk a bit more about Harris in particular. 2nd team All-American means that we should put him on the border between 4-star and 5-star. In 2003 he didn't play (injury?). In 2004 he started once (injury?). In 2005 he started 11 games. In 2006 he started 13 games, was 2nd team AA, 1st team All B10, team Co-MVP (Mike Hart), and won the Mike Gittelson award (given to the U-M player who exhibits a resolute work ethic and commitment to preparing for the game). (This is where I begin to state my opinion, you can agree or disagree with me as you see fit.) He was a solid player. He just could never quite step up and stop that mobile QB (a reasonable request of your MLB--among others). Also, he was hurt early on. In my mind he's close. If he had been able to start 5+ games as a sophomore, I'd push him up. If they had been able to beat OSU in 2006, led by his defense, I'd push him up. I think the NFL draft agrees with this assessment as they drafted him 49th--in the second round. Close, but not close enough.

James Laurinaitis was a first team All-American for 2 seasons. He's a 5 star. For this assessment, I don't care about the NFL draft. His college career was not a borderline case.

Matt Jones was 2nd team All-SEC. He was not even close to the All American discussion. He is a 4-star. I don't care if he was the first overall selection in the NFL draft. He just wasn't that good of a college player.

Notice that in all of these cases, I consider the college career first. If there is some doubt about what category the player should fit into, only then do I consider the NFL draft. The NFL draft is a tiebreaker, but only when there is a tie to be broken. In my mind, 1st team All-American = 5-star McBean. All-Conference = 4-star McBean. Starter = 3-star McBean. There can be exceptions to this rule (Tom Brady was not All-Conference, but I think he should be 4 star due to his leadership on the field and other intangibles. As he was drafted, the NFL assessment backs this opinion up. The fact that he will likely be a first ballot NFL hall of famer cannot bump him up to the 5-star discussion; at the same time, it does not harm my 4-star rating.) But, I think that this rule sets a minimum standard.

SanDiegoWolverine

August 27th, 2009 at 8:00 PM ^

I do disagree with the All-American part of it however. We have all pretty much have agreed we are giving McBean 5 stars to specialist like kicking, punting and returning. So now you have 44 all Americans every year we are considering for 5 stars. There are probably 7-8 players each year that have been All-Americans before. So now we are closer to 35. Also I'm okay with a few more 5 star McBeans each year than Rivals. More than the thirty (5 star) players each year that come out during high school perform like 5 stars once they get into college. But if Rivals named 40 every year there would be larger margin of error for them.

Harris also started 9 games his first year in the NFL and tore it up; indicating that he was already at that level coming out of college. I do think Harris was a 5 star player by his senior year regardless of his injury status or playing time before then. A player that starts 3-4 years isn't necessarily a better talent but might have had more opportunities or less talent in front of him. And if the player has so much talent in front of him that he transfers but still becomes a 4 or 5 star player somewhere else then McBean should reflect that; He was still a great pickup by the coach.

Meeechigan Dan

August 27th, 2009 at 2:24 PM ^

Several observations here:

1. I will never assign 0 or 1 star since we don't see those in the Rivals system. If a player never plays and transfers, that players would get an N/A. If a player never plays but stays on the team, they get 2 stars.

2. I tend to agree on Bihl. Any others want to vote on Bihl - 4 or 3 stars?

3. I like Harris as a 5-star because of his impact at Michigan over his borderline NHL draft status. I think he was the best linebacker I have seen at Michigan in a decade plus. Remember, we use the NFL draft only as a tie-breaker. Let's get some input on Harris from others.

4. Either formula requires me to do research, but I think you make a phenomenal point. Two two-star disappointments - players who are inconsequential on the team - drag down a five-star all-world player to an average of three stars. Which would you rather have? Lamarr Woodley and two nobodies or Darnell Hood, Rueben Riley and Matt Gutierrez? Clearly, the stud player is inordinately valuable. I will look at the formula; at the very least, some adjustment is necessary because a five-star is more valuable than a two-star is costly.

wolfman81

August 27th, 2009 at 3:01 PM ^

1. Ok, no 1 stars, but then we have to have an "unrated" category. (Or not as Michigan tends to not sign unrated recruits. This sets a minimum rating of 2 stars.)

2. Bihl = 4 star. Vote Early, Vote Often.

3. I still vote Harris as a 4 star. 2nd team AA is the definition of borderline (in my mind) and he doesn't quite measure up. By the thinnest of margins.

4. True, both formulas make you do research. However, once the research is done, the second formula is no more work (or so little that the difference isn't much to quibble over). Your question of 1 5-star and 2 2-stars vs. 3 3-stars is the valid question. Alternatively, would you rather a recruiting class of half 5-stars and half 2 stars vs. half 4-stars and half 3-stars. Assuming 20 players per class, remember that "half 5 stars" means 10 All-Americans in that class and "half 4 stars" means 10 guys get drafted (and we'll say that there were 3-5 guys that were All-Conference).

RageCage35

August 27th, 2009 at 10:48 AM ^

I just want to mention that I think Guitierrez is definitely a 3*. He was an injury away from likely starting 2 years. Chad Henne comes in and takes any chance he has of seeing the field. We don't know how good he would have been or even if he would have been able to hold off Henne for two seasons, however he was good enough to start. Guitierrez is good enough to be a 3rd string QB in the NFL too.

mjv

August 27th, 2009 at 10:48 AM ^

Quick comments

Gutz -- was on the Pats roster for at least a year, if not two and started a year at Wyoming as I recall. He should be at least 3* if not higher.

Kolodziej -- never played as I recall. as I recall he converted from TE in HS to tackle and it didn't work out. 3* might be generous.

UMFootballCrazy

August 27th, 2009 at 12:28 PM ^

Dan, thank you for all your work in putting up this topic and synthesizing all of the varied contributions into a workable format for assessing how the program is doing in terms of talent development. And for everyone who participated, this has been one of the most thoughtful discussions on this blog in a while and everyone was very civil and its stayed on topic the whole time. Kudos to you Dan, I look forward to seeing each season`s analysis come out, and kudos to everyone else for making this discussion such fun.

Looking over the list, I think you have it about right and I tend to think Harris is more a high four star than a low five, but over all it captures the start and finish of that class well. It is hard not to be both disapointed and perhaps even frustrated that there were so many four star recruits that did not live up to potential and three star recruits that disapeared once they got here. Only two players on the team were rated higher coming out than going in.

It represents a significant drop. Perhaps someone who is a Rivals subscriber can do a sort based upon average star ratings and see how big a drop that is in terms of rankings.

Beegs

August 27th, 2009 at 1:09 PM ^

I think we all agree that this exercise is extremely difficult to get 100% rational. But this comes as close as I think possible and I feel real confident that this tells us something (in this case, the class almost uniformly underachieved).

If I were to offer any tweak (and why not, everyone else did!)I wonder if there is a way to account for the N/A guys. If they are N/A because they completely washed out and never played, then that is more like a 0, no? But if they never played because they had a career ending injury then the N/A is more appropriate (i.e., not punishing the overall ranking).

wolfman81

August 27th, 2009 at 1:55 PM ^

I really enjoy this discussion, so please take this in the manner that it is intended. "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another." (Proverbs 27:17)

It looks like you have taken McCoy and Berishaj entirely out of your calculation for the McBean ratings. If you do this you have to take them out of the Rivals calculation as well. They can't exist as one part of the comparison, but not as the other.

I'm going to try to convince you to leave them in. After all they were recruited to come here, got scholarships, and just never saw the field. (Except for, perhaps, special teams.) Whether it is zero stars, one star, or two stars, they should be kept in.

I've done the quick calculations:
zero stars -> average = 2.86
one star -> average = 2.95
two stars -> average = 3.05
ignore them -> average = 3.16

Compare this to the Rivals average of 3.52, and you still see the perceived under-performance of this class, which is now highlighted even more.

Just for fun, I took the RMS as well (I'll say that McCoy and Berishaj are 2 stars for this exercise.) I found Rivals RMS = 3.59 and McBean RMS = 3.15. This doesn't change much, but you see the effect of having more highly rated guys when you make Bihl and Harris 4 stars instead of a 3 and a 5. The average is unchanged while the RMS = 3.13. I'm not sure that these differences are big enough to warrant wholesale changes to your formula, but it is still an interesting question to consider (and not that difficult to implement).

UMFootballCrazy

August 27th, 2009 at 3:05 PM ^

There is of course the Bently Library:

http://bentley.umich.edu/athdept/football/football.htm

And the athletic department's own stat page:

http://www.mgoblue.com/history/article.aspx?id=73664

for all sports or just for football:

http://stats.ath.umich.edu/football/footstart.php

Unfortunately the only stat that I did not see was number of starts. What does it take to earn a varsity letter? If it is one start, then I believe Bently allows you to search for lettermen. Hope those two pages help.

wolfman81

August 27th, 2009 at 3:38 PM ^

I've found something that may or may not be helpful. Apparently the nuts looked at our recent recruiting in 2006. According to this site:

Quinton McCoy took a year at a prep school, re-signed with Michigan in 2003, and then flunked out of school. Lineman Tom Berishaj and tight end Kevin Murphy left the program for undisclosed reasons, but neither had made much of an impact on the field.

I can't find either of these guys in a 5 minute googlestalking, so I think that it is safe to say that they really didn't find the field wherever they went to. 2* is pretty safe. Unrated isn't out of the question (is that 1*?)

[Edit: It turns out that the nutty site referenced above spends some time talking about the 2006 game. Kind of a fun read. Especially when you scan through some of the homerism.]

SanDiegoWolverine

August 27th, 2009 at 2:41 PM ^

If the OP thinks that Bihl and Riley were "non-impact" starters then I'm fine with that, but don't downgrade because they weren't drafted. I've never been a great judge of talent on the O-line so I can't say one way or the other, only to no let the NFL teams skew your opinion of him. I'm not delving into another diatribe to explain why.

BlueBulls

August 27th, 2009 at 4:00 PM ^

Dan, your project is both intellectually stimuating and extremely relevant. Thanks for all the hard work (and the shout out).

Can't wait to see where this research and discussion take us.

Irish

August 27th, 2009 at 9:41 PM ^

Just wanted to say that I really like your blog posts, I would be interested in your impression of ND players but only if you had been a ND fan, would probably be swayed by your current affiliation. I hope you keep posting them as your rankings are finalized