McBean Definitions
Note: On Monday, I posted Sylvester McMonkey McBean Helps Settle the Pat White Question Once and for All, complete with annoying HTML that I couldn’t edit out of existence without starting over. Won’t make that mistake again. What follows is the digested feedback for improving the McBean Rating System, the purpose of which, to quote myself, is to develop “a collaborative, ongoing post-recruitment rating system that will allow us to determine if, in the Rich Rodriguez era, perfect-fit three-stars are more desirable than random four-stars.” Our goal is to settle the Pat White Question once and for all.
Thanks all for the quality feedback. In the original post, I proposed that players be rated over their career at Michigan using definitions that approximated the spirit of the Rivals star ratings to see if, on average, players exceeded or fell short of expectations. The effort would span the later Carr years and, of course, the Rodriguez era going forward. How players performed relative to expectations would give the mgocommunity interesting information on the ability of a coach’s system to evaluate and develop talent. For more detail, the original post.
We began with these definitions.
These were found to be too loose. SanDiegoWolverine dabbled with the idea of a two-faceted rating system, but my IQ will not permit that level of complexity, so I used the following comments to revise the definitions above.
First, wolfman81:
I'm not sure that there is a 1:1 correlation between the Rivals rankings and the McBean rankings.UMFootballCrazy found some numerical guidelines in Rivals:
Example (5 star): Elite, Dominant player, Complete package. Projects to the highest level. vs. Stud. Multi-year starter. All-something. NFL player.
I'll take "All-Something" to mean First team All conference in a BCS conference. That is 6 conferences x 22 players per all conference team = 132 -- plus kickers -- 5 star players. Does Rivals hand out 100 5 star ratings that often?
Players are also ranked on their quality with a star ranking. A five-star prospect is considered to be one of the nation's top 25-30 players, four star is a top 250-300 or so player, three-stars is a top 750 level player, two stars means the player is a mid-major prospect and one star means the player is not ranked.It seems that unless there is some loyalty to the proportion of star ratings allocated, then the McBean Rating loses its credibility. For example, if we dole out twice as many McBean five stars, is that Michigan developing talent or is that rose-colored glasses? It seems the NFL draft can serve in an advisory capacity, part of a checks and balances system.
UMFootballCrazy develops this:
5 Star *****He has more good stuff, but I steal so much of it down below, that I won't repeat it here.
This is a player who was drafted in the 1st round of the NFL entry draft and is thus regarded as one of the top 32 players in the nation (mirroring Rivals top 25-30 prospects) or baring that was an All-American and/or a 4 or five year starter (i.e. started as a freshman and started virtually every game they played at Michigan) and played at an "elite" level during their playing career.
Nedved963 cautions, however:
[M]oving forward with Rodriguez it's admitted his style is for college, and success in the Pros is not that great a correlation for the skill and effectiveness of Michigan's current players.I think Colin boils it down:
How you determine those expectations could certainly be done incorporating NFL performance.
And I think that is key. We don't want the NFL draft or an NFL career to answer entirely the question as to whether a player fell short of or exceeded expectations at the University of Michigan (i.e., Tom Brady), but it can be a tie-breaker, if you will, a check against overrating our beloved players (Breaston a five-star?) and ensuring proportion to the Rivals system.
As a result, I offer for final review, the new McBean Rating System definitions. I use the Rivals definitions (d'oh!) for the Rivals definitions. Special thanks to UMFootballCrazy as I steal a great deal of his language, but shift the emphasis, using the NFL as sort of a tie-breaker for those players on the cusp in the McBean ratings. However, I move away from UMFootballCrazy's proposed definition for the lower star players because I think there is a potential hazard to mishandling the lower rated players*:
Thanks again. If we settle on these definitions, I will re-rate the 2002 through 2006 classes.
* Again, to quote myself: "To be honest, I think some of the most important rating will take place down at the bottom of the scale. If you look at the classes above, what drags down a class (and gives Lloyd's classes a slight "underperform" grade) is guys ending up as two stars...being "invisible."
That is an area that has more impact on this analysis than whether Breaston gets a fifth. Since Michigan almost never recruits two star position players, is it fair that so many recruits end up as two stars because they can't get on the field?"
August 20th, 2009 at 10:11 PM ^
August 20th, 2009 at 10:15 PM ^
August 20th, 2009 at 10:40 PM ^
August 20th, 2009 at 10:50 PM ^
August 20th, 2009 at 10:44 PM ^
August 20th, 2009 at 10:33 PM ^
August 20th, 2009 at 10:58 PM ^
August 21st, 2009 at 10:47 AM ^
August 22nd, 2009 at 6:43 AM ^
August 20th, 2009 at 10:51 PM ^
August 20th, 2009 at 11:03 PM ^
August 20th, 2009 at 11:27 PM ^
August 21st, 2009 at 6:03 AM ^
August 21st, 2009 at 8:01 AM ^
August 21st, 2009 at 10:55 AM ^
August 21st, 2009 at 11:18 AM ^
August 21st, 2009 at 11:30 AM ^
August 21st, 2009 at 11:47 AM ^
August 21st, 2009 at 11:56 AM ^
August 21st, 2009 at 12:46 PM ^
August 21st, 2009 at 12:57 PM ^
August 21st, 2009 at 11:44 AM ^
August 20th, 2009 at 11:47 PM ^
August 21st, 2009 at 6:10 AM ^
August 21st, 2009 at 8:21 AM ^
August 21st, 2009 at 10:43 AM ^
August 21st, 2009 at 12:47 PM ^
August 21st, 2009 at 8:37 AM ^
August 21st, 2009 at 11:09 AM ^
August 21st, 2009 at 12:48 PM ^
August 21st, 2009 at 11:58 AM ^
August 21st, 2009 at 11:54 AM ^
August 21st, 2009 at 12:09 PM ^
August 21st, 2009 at 12:21 PM ^
August 21st, 2009 at 11:37 AM ^
August 21st, 2009 at 11:48 AM ^
August 21st, 2009 at 12:04 PM ^
August 21st, 2009 at 1:15 PM ^
August 21st, 2009 at 11:58 AM ^
August 21st, 2009 at 1:43 PM ^
August 21st, 2009 at 2:29 PM ^
August 21st, 2009 at 3:56 PM ^
August 21st, 2009 at 3:10 PM ^
August 21st, 2009 at 3:50 PM ^
August 21st, 2009 at 4:21 PM ^
August 21st, 2009 at 4:53 PM ^
August 21st, 2009 at 4:59 PM ^
August 21st, 2009 at 5:08 PM ^
Note: This Diary comes with the standard disclaimer that recruiting ratings are subjective, and that this amusing exercise is not intended to answer the fourteen unanswerable questions.However, he does not wish to put forth mere debate, but instead:
How do we move this question from the realm of water cooler optimism to something more analytical?Also as UMFootballCrazy said:
To me it just has a simple elegance...but unfortunately does not allow for endless beer fueled debating...dangWhich is exactly what you want since we want analysis in an attempt to measure some effect.
August 21st, 2009 at 5:24 PM ^
Comments