Chitown I love you want to cuddle with me later? I'm only a 3star cuddler but I try really, really hard.
Many, when debating the likely outcome of a particularly recruit's career, will reference how one of the scouting services have ranked them, while others will cite one of a handful of lower ranked recruits who met with success (David Harris, Braylon Edwards, Mike Hart come to mind). In the interest of quantifying whether recruit rankings can be, at all, predictive, here are the raw numbers on whether a recruit has panned out, sorted by star ranking.
First, I would like to note that all rankings are from Rivals, and that kickers and punters are not included (no kicker or punter is ever ranked higher than 3 stars) and does not include the 2007 or 2008 classes due to it being too early to tell. Finally, I am defining "success" as being the principle starter for at least one season.
In the 2002-2006 classes, we recruited 6 5* players, 5 of whom became starters (Grady has, and likely will, not).
We recruited 51 4-star players - 26 of whom became starters (about 51%).
We recruited 40 3-star or lower players - 9 of whom became starters (22.5%).
So, four star players are roughly twice as likely to grow to be a starter than three-star players. Further, the "drop out" rate of 3-stars is significantly higher - a larger number of 4-stars who did not become starters stayed with the team and provided depth. The mumber of 3-stars who simply quit football is much, much higher.
Lest people think I'm on the side of "Rodriguez shouldn't offer three-stars", that point of view is, in a word, dumb. Three-stars DO succeed, no team can have a class of 5 and 4 stars unless you're USC, and we need to have them. Further, ones offered this early at least FEEL like they may be better, because Rodriguez has more confidence in them. That said, recruits of all ratings miss, and three stars miss considerably more often than higher-ranked players - it is for likely we never hear of them again than it is that they become Bradent Englemon, musch less Mike Hart.
Chitown I love you want to cuddle with me later? I'm only a 3star cuddler but I try really, really hard.
Then there's only a 22.5 percent chance he'll cuddle with you. Sorry.
You mean there's a 22.5% chance I'm the person he wants to start cuddling with.
good stuff chitown.
so, like..... 5* players are probably better than 4* players, who are probably better than 3* players?
sorry, chitown... but uhhhh, why do we need this explained to us?
oh, yeah... i forgot: b/c kelly baraka and mike hart.
This was good work.
I am glad he did the research for us because the star system and likelihood of success has been a recurring theme here.
In a way, it justifies both sides' positions. It shows that more stars indicate a higher likelihood of success, but aren't a hundred percent infallible.
For me, it means that I can continue to be excited about the four and five stars, and also about kids I have seen play down here in Florida that I think may be underrated, like Smith and Hawthorne.
The funny thing is that Kelly Baraka wasn't a "bust" because he wasn't a good football player, and the scouting services messed up with him - he was a "bust", because he couldn't stay out of the courtroom, and was demonstrably an idiot.
I saw him play in high school, and the kid was sick. One of the best high school players I have ever seen in person. Him and Perry would have been quite the duo, assuming they both stuck it out all 4 years.
But is there a statistically significant difference in their probability of starting?
After estimating a probit model predicting the effect of star rating on likelihood of starting, (Dependent variable is dummy = 1 if started 0 otherwise. Two dummy independent variables indicating star rating),There is a significant difference between 3 stars and 4 or 5 stars, but there is NOT a significant difference between 4 and 5 stars.
This is likely due to the small number of 5 star recruits contained in the data. So, I would not be willing to claim that there is no difference between 4 and 5 star players just yet. I'd need more data.
If you're looking only at Michigan, I'd agree that the pool of 5 star players is too small to draw a conclusion - it's probably better to split this data into two groups: 4-star and above, and then three star and below.
However, Athlon sports did a study about the accuracy of star rankings as it pertains to the NFL draft (how many of each ranking get drafted) about a year ago:
First, this was only the 2008 draft class.
There are 25-30 5-star recruits in each year's class, in 2008, 12 were drafted in the first 3 rounds (considering the that NFL classes can draw from 3 different classes depending on redshirts and and early-entrants, they estimate this as 40-48% of 5-stars are taken in the first 3 rounds.
of the 275-325 4-stars in each class 30 were drafted - about 9-11% of them.
Of the 700-800 3-stars, 29 were drafted - about 3.6 percent.
Of the 1600-1800 2-stars 17 were drafted - or less than 1 percent.
Of the top 20 players taken in the draft, 3 were ranked outside Rivals top 100.
That study should be shown to every single D1 football recruit as part of a NCAA rule. Unless you're a five star, you have less than a 10% chance of being drafted and making a team. The importance of school cannot be overshadowed in light of these low rates of success.
It should definitely be a selling point. And that will help us, obviously.
That's fine and dandy, but how well did these 12 guys play? The draft is simply the pro version of recruiting. I'd like to see how these guys do on the field for a few years before making any claims.
If they were drafted highly, then chances are they performed well in college.
other than Michigan. One could do the same study as Chitown's for a few (or entire Big Ten), or if 5 stars is the primary focus, just do USC, as they have a bunch of them and would increase the sample size very quickly.
Another, indirect way to measure the reliability/impact of star rankings is to look at teams as a whole, the avg. star rating, and then the teams' final ranking. [These numbers are all available, I think, so gathering data would not be hard. This study may even have been done.]
There will be outliers there (RR at WVU), just like when done individually (Mike Hart). But a linear regression would provide a correlation that I'm guessing would be quite strong. I keep seeing the same schools that top the recruiting rankings (USC, LSU, Florida, OSU) at the top of the AP rankings at the end of the year. This would be independent confirmation of Chitown's approach.
Nice work Chitown.
also comes to mind, but I know what you're saying and I agree, although 5 stars seem like bigger failures when they fail instead of 4 stars. (Kevin Grady had fumblitis in HS, and that went overlooked. If it wasn't he would've been a mid-4 star).
Obi Ezeh comes to mind as what exactly? A 3-star that exceeded expectations? He's not exactly gang-busters. The fact that he'll in all likelihood end up a 4 year starter says way more about the state of our depth chart than it does about his abilities as an LB.
I'd say he's a perfect example of a three star meeting expectations - a sort of 'meh' player who may become a starter but who you'll probably forget existed the moment he leaves campus.
Even though he's not AA or All-Big Ten potential he led the team with tackles as a sophomore, which is good for any Michigan player. He will be drafted late after a 4-year starting career and play ST for someone. Still good for a low 3-star FB who was "given a shot" at FB, TE and LB.
Three star recruit - someone who isn't AA or All-Big Ten. Yeah, that's pretty much what I was saying.
BTW, not sure why you're so certain he'll be drafted.
Not every 4-star is AA or All-Big Ten potential either, I meant next year or these past years. I could see him getting a second or third team as a senior, maybe a junior though. He'll get NFL tryouts at least if he isn't taken with a late flier.
Numbers? You come at us with numbers? How dare you. I got two words for you - Mike Hart.
I don't think that I have ever seen anyone say that a typical 4 or 5 star doesn't have more of a chance to be successful than a typical 3 star. When people bring up exceptions, they are saying don't get down a 3 star player before he even arrives on campus.
However, I don't see the point when people on Mlive, work, or whatever forum get upset over RichRod offering a 3 star player that he has seen in person. We don't have the program at the moment to get 100% 4 and 5 stars like USC. We have to trust RichRod to get players that fit his system well, especially when he sees them perform in person and he has been solid thus far in recruiting for us.
here when the next 3 star or 4 star guy commits, but sadly, I doubt it. At least now we have even more fact beyond the Athlon link Chitown added (which has been on this blog before). So it is not a matter of opinion where reasonable people can disagree, it is a fact--star ratings, while never conclusive regarding a player's future, MATTER (sorry for the caps, but it's tiring to always read the "Mike Hart, blah blah blah" posters). While they matter, and to a degree are clearly predictive of a player's starting potential, it is that variance in predictability that makes 3 star recruits not worthy of hand-wringing when they commit. No team, except maybe SC, can recruit (or even should recruit) all 4 and 5 stars.
This is exactly my point. "Getting mad at Rodriguez" for offering 3-stars players is, in a word, dumb. Three-stars DO succeed, no team can have a class of 5 and 4 stars unless you're USC, and we need to have them. Further, ones offered this early at least FEEL like they may be better, because Rodriguez has more confidence in them. That said, recruits of all ratings miss, and three stars miss considerably more often than higher-ranked players - it is for likely we never hear of them again than it is that they become Bradent Englemon, musch less Mike Hart.
Last Years NFL Draft
First Round of the 2008 NFL draft had
5 star - 5 players
4 star - 11 players
3 star - 6 players
2 star - 7 players
1 star - 0 players
0 star - 2 players
Stats according to Rivals...this wasn't an abnormal year. There is no reason to be down on RichRod for offering a 3 star he sees in person.
star rating. There are only roughly 40 5-star players each class. If 5 of them end up 1st round draft picks, then that is a rate of about 12.5%.
There are well over a hundred 4-star players, so that corresponds to something like a 5% (say 11/200) 1st round draft rate.
There are many hundreds of 3-star players, so the 6 players in the 1st round represent about a 1% rate.
Chitown's analysis holds.
True and I thought of that when I posted it, but there are what, 250 4-5 star players every year? And half of the top 32 players in college (according to the NFL first round draft) are 3 stars or lower?
I think we shouldn't get down on RichRod for going after some 3 star players. That is my point, especially after a 3-9 season.
1) RichRod typically sees the player in person and knows what he wants for his system
2) RichRod has been a solid recruiter for us so far
3) We are not on USC's level at the moment and must expect some 3 star players
4) 3 stars can become valuable contibutors
But, lets assume that RR is a better evaluator than most other coaches. However, that would not translate a 3* success rate (however it is measured) that would typically be expected of a 4* (that would be absurdly clairvoyant as to warrant his own TV channel with Dion Warwick); something in between, but closer to the 3* success rate than 4* rate.
The point is, based on the fore mentioned probabilities, Michigan is better off getting the higher rated guys (based on several services, and taking into consideration offers from other schools - which is an indication of at least a semi-independent evaluation) than lower rated ones, despite RR's talent at judging talent and all of the Mike Hart references. The chances of having a contributing/starter/star are all higher.
Obviously Michigan is better served getting all 4-5 stars. Obviously 4-5 stars are more likely to develop into stars. But, we can't get only 4-5 stars, so I don't care if people are less excited about 3 stars, but they shouldn't be negative towards getting a three star player if RichRod has seen him in person and thinks he fits the system.
That is my point. We are in 100% agreement. ChiTown misread my point on another thread moments before he started this thread and spazed out on me.
Chitown never misreads and never forgets.
Actually, he has a track record of misreading and apparently misquoting.
You said, smarmily, "Do I need to mention Mike Hart and Braylon Edwards?", which is the exact thing that drives me nuts. I didn't misread or misunderstand.
No those weren't my exact words. Quotes are for using exact words, not just making up whatever you wished the person said. Besides, you have to look at a quote in context. My point on Hart and Edwards (which I admit I didn't effectively convey) is:
To those upset that RichRod offered 3 star Kinard after seeing him perform in person. Should I also be upset that Carr offered 3 star Hart and 3 star Braylon?
I agreed with you in that forum thread that "rankings do matter' and you somehow took that to mean the exact opposite....what gives?
No, ChiTown NEVER misreads!
There was a 5* kicker from Montana who went to Oklahoma them proceeded to drink his way to some NAIA school. There are 5* kickers, they only get the extra 2+ stars for being a badass from Montana.
Edit: He was a 5* to Scout. Rivals did give 4* in the 2002 class though, which was his. Still, you have to be Montanan to get the extra star.
Recruiting doesn't matter because Kelly Baraka.
well thought out, supported by empirical evidence, and sure to fly over the collective heads of the intended audience.
I actually have never met a person who thought that the typical 4 and 5 star player was not more likely to succeed on average than the typical 3 or 2 star player. I am not sure that there is an intended audience.
Whenever a recruit commits to us, you can guarantee that if it's a 3 star that someone will say something like "why are we offering this 3 star guy?" Someone else will then reply "stars don't matter because of Hart/Edwards/Baraka ahhhhh". And someone else says then the next guy says "we should only offer 4 star guys", and the whole thing starts again.
This thread SHOULD stop that, but it won't. Empirical evidence trumps all, so just stop, people.
Just because a guy is ranked as a 3 star in Feb doesn't mean he will be a 3 star in Nov or Dec. The rankings are fluid throughout the year. If these guys go out and have big senior years they may become 4 stars. Not to mention Kinard was very productive as junior LB, has good LB size for his age, and played top flight competition.
Why did ChiTown's post get changed to "Anonymous Coward"?