OT: Super Bowl starters: less 4 and 5 stars than you would think
Numerous stats studies been posted on this blog correlating being a college FB starter or an NFL draftee with recruiting evaluation stars.
However, for the Falcons and Pats. These two teams have less 4 and 5 star ranked starters than expected. (compared to percentages from the NFL draft, prior Super Bowls, and Pro Bowl). Edit (originally wrote "more starters were unranked or rated 2 stars (12 total) than 5 stars (three total)")
Julio Jones, Martellus Bennett, and Malcom Brown were the only starters who were rated 5 stars coming out of high school.
Alan Branch from UM was a 3 star. Tom Brady was the only starter who was recruited before the star system was widespread--author retroactively gave him a 4 star.
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2017/2/3/14489482/s…
Edit: title changed from "more 3 stars" to "less 4 & 5 stars"
February 5th, 2017 at 11:34 AM ^
February 5th, 2017 at 11:36 AM ^
February 5th, 2017 at 1:15 PM ^
February 5th, 2017 at 2:54 PM ^
February 5th, 2017 at 4:01 PM ^
As in, people who get this wrong tend to have fewer IQ points compared to those who don't. But people who complain about this shit tend to be less fun to hang out with.
You can count IQ points but you can't count fun.
February 5th, 2017 at 8:17 PM ^
We all are used to it in the grocery store, but the pedants will insist on "10 items or Fewer"
February 5th, 2017 at 5:06 PM ^
Mary's phone number?
February 5th, 2017 at 7:54 PM ^
You are correct. "Fewer," not "less." Thank you.
February 5th, 2017 at 8:21 PM ^
Since we are in English class, could you please look up how to use "etc."? Also, could you please capitalize your last sentence?
February 5th, 2017 at 11:44 AM ^
February 5th, 2017 at 11:49 AM ^
February 5th, 2017 at 11:59 AM ^
That is a good one.
February 5th, 2017 at 12:49 PM ^
February 5th, 2017 at 1:04 PM ^
Because schools that don't get many 4 stars need that argument to recruit kids
February 5th, 2017 at 1:10 PM ^
I get that there are only a handful of 5 stars to go around. I think a lot of people are missing my point (I forgot how sensitive everyone is about "starz hype" and didn't write the post clearly)
My observation is that these two NFL teams have won their conferences and made it to the pinnacle of theNFL, the Super Bowl, with less 4 and 5 star talent than other NFL teams. I put out some data in response to lhglrkwg about the stars composition of Pro Bowl, Super Bowl, and NFL draft picks, and these two teams have less than average.
If you buy the fact that 4 & 5 stars, like NFL draft order, is a generally correlated with "talent" and better performance, then these two teams have defied that correlation, and have reached the pinnacle of the NFL with less "talent."
Is it coaching, culture, luck?
February 5th, 2017 at 2:08 PM ^
No, that's not what this means.
You are seeing that for some awesome accomplishment (getting to the Super Bowl, in this case) there is a 12-to-3 ratio of NR/2* to 5*s.
Your mistake is one of interpretation. Those numbers strongly SUPPORT recruiting rankings as correlating with success. I'd like to help you to see that.
The annual ratio of NR/2* players to 5* players is something like 6,000 to 30. Which is a 200:1 ratio.
So unless there are 200x more NR/2* players in the Super Bowl than 5*'s, you have made the wrong conclusion.
And there aren't 200x more. There are only 4x as many NR/2*'s as 5*'s. Which supports the predictive value of recruiting rankings.
And renders your conclusion as bad. Your conclusion is very bad.
February 5th, 2017 at 7:52 PM ^
I think you may be misunderstanding.
Yes, I get your point about about Recruiting rankings correlating with success, and I agree. I never said that Recruiting rankings aren't predicitve. That was someone else on another thread maybe last weak, last month or last year. I 100% agree the Stars are predictive and correlate with future performance.
My obesrvation is that these two particular teams, the Pats and Falcons, have fewer 4& 5 star players than expected compared to other SuperBowl teams. I am not using the general pool of high school recruits as the reference point. Maybe the typical Super Bowl team has 15 players rated 4*/5* , these two teams only have 9 players rated4*/5*. In my comparison, I have already weeded out all the other NR/2* players who never made it to the NFL, and am only comparing to other NFL teams.
If I said these two teams have more players drafted in later rounds, than other NFL teams, would that be easier for everyone to accept? If you buy that 5* is correlated with higher draft pick, then it's not that far of a leap. But everyone on this board is so smart with the statistics, and quick to jump on a perceived misconception.
Yes, I agree that an NFL team will NOT be filled with 4* and 5* like Alabama and OSU. I'm saying these two teams have even less 4* 5* than your typical NFL team or typical Super Bowl team.
The average star rating of the Pats and Falcons this year is 2.8 and 2.5 (more 2 stars and unranked than 4 & 5 stars)
2012, Super Bowl teams (Giants and Pats) average stars rating was 3.5 & 3.2 (on balance more 4 & 5 stars than 2 stars and unranked)
2013, Super Bowl teams (Ravens & 49rs) average stars rating was 3.4 and 3.5 (on balance more 4 & 5 stars than 2 stars and unranked)
2014, Super Bowl teams (Seahawks and Broncos) average stars rating was 3.0 & 2.5 (one team had more 4& 5 stars, the other had more 2 stars and unranked)
2015 Super Bowl teams (Seahwaks and Pats) average stars rating was 2.8 and 3.0
February 5th, 2017 at 11:40 AM ^
February 5th, 2017 at 2:28 PM ^
February 5th, 2017 at 11:43 AM ^
3 out of 22 = 13.6% Not gonna spend time digging too deep into the stats, but that seems about right to me.
Also, Alan Branch was not a 3 Star.
February 5th, 2017 at 12:10 PM ^
February 5th, 2017 at 12:12 PM ^
I think the rankings were especially bad back in those days. I didn't do a whole lot of investigating, I just know that he made his commitment at the Army AA game and even back then guys who played in that game were not 3 stars.
February 5th, 2017 at 12:28 PM ^
probably never bothered to look at New Mexico.
February 5th, 2017 at 11:44 AM ^
February 5th, 2017 at 12:18 PM ^
February 5th, 2017 at 11:47 AM ^
February 6th, 2017 at 7:04 AM ^
February 5th, 2017 at 11:49 AM ^
February 5th, 2017 at 12:16 PM ^
but hold on for just a minute... Are you inferring that there are more 5 stars than 3 stars?
February 5th, 2017 at 12:31 PM ^
Maybe you're missing my point, or maybe I'm missing yours.
Based on the correlations of 5 stars and 4 stars to draft status, I would guess that there would be a higher number of 4 or 5 stars starters. I don't have exact numbers, but something like 50% of 1st round draft picks were 4 or 5 stars.
I get it that there are few 5 stars. But if you include 4 & 5 stars, you have a large pool of very talented high school recruits.
Eyeball test looking down the list, on these two rosters there are disproprionately fewer 4-5 stars. Out of 44 spots, only 9 (20%) starters were 4 or 5 stars.
2017 ProBowl. 80 players. 35 (43%) were 4 or 5 stars. Only 19 were 2 star or unranked
2015 Draft. 251 players. 86 (34%) were 4 or 5 stars. Only 52 were 2star or unranked..
2017 Super Bowl. 44 starters. 8 (29%) were 4 or 5 stars. Only 12 are 2 star or unranked
I think I worded the post badly. My main observation is that it feels like there are less 4 and 5 stars in this Super Bowl than you would expect.
Average rank of Pats is 2.8 stars, Falcons 2.5 stars.
In 2012 the Super Bowl teams were 3.5 stars/3.2 stars.
2013: 3.4/3.5.
2014: 3.0/2.5
2015: 2.8/3.0
(source: http://j.tinyurl.com/h82dbpb)
Maybe I should have titled it "less 4 or 5 stars than you would expect"
February 5th, 2017 at 4:58 PM ^
wow dude
February 5th, 2017 at 11:51 AM ^
In addition to the obvious point about there being far fewer four and five stars, it also seems like there are plenty of decent to good NFL teams that make their living in the 3rd to 6th rounds of the draft, which seems to be where a lot of the better but still less heralded players in college seem to find themselves. There is somthing to be said for that strategy quite honestly, and something to be said for scouts who can pick these kids out from what is a very large pool otherwise.
February 5th, 2017 at 12:09 PM ^
Not only that, but there are consistently good teams (Steelers, Patriots, etc.) who are always picking at the bottom of each round because of their on-field success. So not only do the Patriots generally pick well in the later rounds, but they're picking at the bottom of each round. So those 5-stars who realize their talent in college go early, while the Patriots (when they win the Super Bowl) are picking at #32, #64, etc. The Steelers are picking (roughly) at #28, #56, etc. The Packers are picking at #26, #52, and so on.
February 5th, 2017 at 12:26 PM ^
February 5th, 2017 at 1:02 PM ^
So those 5-stars who realize their talent in college go early, while the Patriots (when they win the Super Bowl) are picking at #32, #64, etc. The Steelers are picking (roughly) at #28, #60, etc. The Packers are picking at #26, #58, and so on.
FIFY.
February 6th, 2017 at 1:43 AM ^
Pats also game the supplemental pick system so they have more middle round draft picks to potentially hit on.
Sure they're good at scouting and development, but they're also playing with more lotto tickets due to their approach to free agents.
February 5th, 2017 at 11:52 AM ^
February 5th, 2017 at 11:52 AM ^
February 5th, 2017 at 12:00 PM ^
February 5th, 2017 at 12:05 PM ^
February 5th, 2017 at 12:21 PM ^
February 5th, 2017 at 12:37 PM ^
February 5th, 2017 at 12:38 PM ^
February 5th, 2017 at 12:46 PM ^
I get all of what you said, and I agree.
Briefly, my point, which I provided a few supporting stats in response to lhglrkwg, is simply that these 2 NFL teams have made it to the Super Bowl with less 4 and 5 stars than other NFL teams.
I don't think I wrote the original post cleary.
February 5th, 2017 at 1:05 PM ^
February 5th, 2017 at 2:56 PM ^
February 5th, 2017 at 7:59 PM ^
Might be significant, might not be.
At least you understand my observation.
February 5th, 2017 at 2:48 PM ^