Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Re-rating recruits based on performance
chuck
Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 10,604
I can't sleep tonight.
I've been toying with my spreadsheet with recent recruiting classes and tried to objectively re-rate each recruit signed since 2010. I want to stick to the Scout system of 1*-5*. The idea is to see how many lived up to projected potential, evaluate recruiting success or lack thereof, and ultimately to bash on Sarkisian because that's just fun. Here is the draft rating "system" I came up with:
1*: never made it or flamed out before doing anything
2*: stayed but just a bad player unable to get on the field, or stayed a while and played poorly, then left.
3*: stayed and played but not a good player, played some at a functional level then left, or still here and undetermined
4*: stayed/staying, solid or good player or important contributor whether they should be or not (Mickens for example)
5*: All Conference caliber
There are some weaknesses in my system. It's hard to account for someone like Josh Shirley, who actually gave a couple of decent years but got the boot with eligibility still on the table. He gets 3* on my scale. It's hard to fairly rate young guys, like the bulk of the 2013 class, but that mostly results in the average being dragged toward the middle (3*) since nobody that young is likely to be All Conference at this stage and few are even going to be important contributors yet. I also have a problem with a guy like Mickens, who I believe to be just barely above terrible, being only one point below a great player like Shelton or Kikaha simply because he's been targeted a lot for strange reasons (Sark and his bubble screen obsession and Smith because he has very limited options).
So...the point of this post is to solicit input/suggestions. How would you do it?
I've been toying with my spreadsheet with recent recruiting classes and tried to objectively re-rate each recruit signed since 2010. I want to stick to the Scout system of 1*-5*. The idea is to see how many lived up to projected potential, evaluate recruiting success or lack thereof, and ultimately to bash on Sarkisian because that's just fun. Here is the draft rating "system" I came up with:
1*: never made it or flamed out before doing anything
2*: stayed but just a bad player unable to get on the field, or stayed a while and played poorly, then left.
3*: stayed and played but not a good player, played some at a functional level then left, or still here and undetermined
4*: stayed/staying, solid or good player or important contributor whether they should be or not (Mickens for example)
5*: All Conference caliber
There are some weaknesses in my system. It's hard to account for someone like Josh Shirley, who actually gave a couple of decent years but got the boot with eligibility still on the table. He gets 3* on my scale. It's hard to fairly rate young guys, like the bulk of the 2013 class, but that mostly results in the average being dragged toward the middle (3*) since nobody that young is likely to be All Conference at this stage and few are even going to be important contributors yet. I also have a problem with a guy like Mickens, who I believe to be just barely above terrible, being only one point below a great player like Shelton or Kikaha simply because he's been targeted a lot for strange reasons (Sark and his bubble screen obsession and Smith because he has very limited options).
So...the point of this post is to solicit input/suggestions. How would you do it?
Comments
I would love to hear solutions.
I do agree that rating most players who still have most or part of their career ahead of them is going to result in errors. I looked at my list for the 2013 class and most are stuck at 3* right now because you just don't know. The dropouts are obvious enough, and the ones playing meaningful snaps right now (like Qualls) are obvious, but the rest are unknowns.
Kind of fun anyways.
The Toolbox: Offensive Line Stats - Football Study Hall
Those were examples I grabbed at just a quick glance.
5* = All-American (any level)
4* = All-Conference (first or second team, generally)
3* = Solid Starter (played pretty well, maybe HM All-Conference)
2* = Played with only marginal contribution (could've been a bad starter like Ossai or just a guy who didn't do much)
1* = Terrible, DNP, left, etc. (Pretty much guys who never saw the field; if they transferred, then I include what they did at the new school)
2010
QB: Nick Montana (1)
RB: Deontae Cooper (2/3), Jesse Callier (2), Zach Fogerson (1)
WR: Kevin Smith (3), DiAndre Campbell (2)
TE: Michael Hartvigson (2)
OL: Colin Porter (3/4), Ben Riva (3), Colin Tanigawa (3), Mike Criste (2/3), James Atoe (2), Erik Kohler (2)
DL: Sione Potoa'e (2), Lawrence Lagafuaina (1)
DE: Hau'oli Kikaha (5), Andrew Hudson (3/4), Josh Shirley (2/3)
LB: John Timu (3), Garret Gilliland (1/2), Jamaal Kearse (1/2), Cooper Pelluer (1)
DB: Sean Parker (3), Greg Ducre (3), Taz Stevenson (1/2)
2011
QB: Derrick Brown (1)
RB: Bishop Sankey (5), Dezden Petty (1)
WR: Kasen Williams (3/4), Marvin Hall (2), Jamaal Jones (1)
TE: Austin Seferian-Jenkins (4/5), Josh Perkins (2/3)
OL: Dexter Charles (3), Sifa Tufunga (2)
DL: Danny Shelton (5), Jarrett Finau (2), Taniela Tupou (2)
LB: Travis Feeney (3/4*), Thomas Tutogi (3), Scott Lawyer (2/3*), Matthew Lyons (1), Corey Waller (1), Evan Zeger (1)
DB: Marcus Peters (5), James Sample (3)
2012
QB: Cyler Miles (2/3*), Jeff Lindquist (2*)
RB: Dwayne Washington (3*), Erich Wilson (1/2)
WR: Jaydon Mickens (2/3), Kendyl Taylor (2/3)
OL: Jake Eldrenkamp (3*), Shane Brostek (2), Nathan Dean (1), Cory Fuavai (1), Tayor Hindy (1),
DL: Pio Vatuvei (3), Josh Banks (2), Damon Turpin (1)
LB: Shaq Thompson (5), Cory Littleton (3*), Psalm Wooching (2), Ryan McDaniel (1), Blake Rodgers (1)
DB: Cleveland Wallace (1/2), Darien Washington (1)
P: Travis Coons (3/4), Korey Durkee (3)
*Based on a projection through the end of their career.
But it's also why we usually don't give them a "final" rating until they exhaust eligibility. For example Andrew Hudson, he probably gets bumped up a bit for this year since contributed more. DiAndre Campbell would stay the same, because meh.
0 = Never made it into school for whatever reason
1 = Contributed to the program but never made it onto the field for anything more than garbage time snaps (regardless of whether left the program or completed eligibility)
2 = 2nd string player who never was able to crack the starting lineup - think backup or special teams player
3 = replacement level starter in the conference - a player that wasn't great but also would start for other teams in the conference and that while you'd like to upgrade from him, you also could take a step back from him
4 = All-Conference caliber player - you could plug him into most teams in the conference and he'd immediately start for them and be an upgrade
5 = All American - you could plug him into most teams in the country and he'd immediately start for them and be an upgrade
I'd also differentiate between these levels as well to account for the differences between players (think the difference between an A-, A, and A+). I'd save the highest ratings, the 5's, for guys that were finalists/winners for the Heisman or positional awards in the country. An all-conference player that is a fringe All-American I'd rank higher than All-Conference players. Go down a sliding scale like that ... 4, 4.3, 4.7, 5.0.
I think Andrew Hudson is probably the rare exception to go from ass.door.out to back in the mix with the type of season he is having.