Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Geeky Recruiting Data Shit

2»

Comments

  • SwayeSwaye Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 41,043
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes
    Founders Club
    Damn. Last 3 classes are the best since 02, and getting better every year. Pete has this shit rolling.
  • AIRWOLFAIRWOLF Member Posts: 1,840
    5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Anniversary First Comment
    Swaye said:

    Damn. Last 3 classes are the best since 02, and getting better every year. Pete has this shit rolling.

    Yep. The other thing to realize is that even if you throw out Sarkisian's 2009 transition class, his recruiting was basically just in-line with the Power 5 average over the 2010-2013 time frame.

    Petersen's '16 class was equivalent to Sarkisian's '13 class (Sark's best) on paper. Of course, we all realize that "on paper" is ridiculously flattering to Sark's classes, while it is actually a bit punitive to Petersen's classes.
  • UWhuskytskeetUWhuskytskeet Member Posts: 7,104
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Answer
    I see you've given up on Tableau.
  • theknowledgetheknowledge Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 4,555
    5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Anniversary First Comment
    Swaye's Wigwam
    Pete's classes are a stairway to heaven. I love 2018's class. Best I've ever seen at UW since I've cared to pay attention (1996). The raw data clearly shows that my boner will also be raw come this time next year. 2019 offseason natty will be truly speshul.
  • AIRWOLFAIRWOLF Member Posts: 1,840
    5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Anniversary First Comment
    edited February 2018

    I see you've given up on Tableau.

    Not given up, but I have the raw data in Excel and I am just not very good at Tableau yet(?).
  • UW_Doog_BotUW_Doog_Bot Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 14,093
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes
    Swaye's Wigwam
    With grade inflation you are probably also seeing some distortion of the data since you have an upward limit to the grade. I would think this would mean that especially in the case of media bias it means our classes would be essentially under rated vs top recruiting classes full of kids with "5 star" ratings would be overstated.
  • SarkFanSixtyNineSarkFanSixtyNine Member Posts: 362
    First Anniversary 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes First Comment

    AIRWOLF said:

    I am learning how to use some data visualization software, so of course I am playing around with TBS data.

    The data is Rivals recruiting database. I'd prefer to use the 24/7 Composite rankings, but scraping that shit from the web is a major PITA.

    Pac-12 North
    image

    Pac-12 South
    image

    The funny part is the dip beore UW's rise was Pete's first class which ended up re-ranked as the best in the Pac that year.

    S Budda Baker, DL Vita Vea, WR Dante Pettis, CB Sidney Jones, S JoJo McIntosh, DL Greg Gaines. They were part of the same class and back then only Baker was considered a top-300 player.
    http://www.espn.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/108339/re-ranking-the-pac-12-recruiting-classes-from-2014
    This might be unprecedented player development. And he put that class together from scratch in a couple months.
    How does he do it? I had always assumed roids at Boise, but I think Washington/Pac12 football has much better oversight in that department.

    Anybody want to speculate on his advantage?
    Could he really be that much better at player development than everyone else while his assistants change dramatically?
    Are there any notable film watching or stat nerds that have stuck with him the whole time who are great at identifying talent?
  • AZDuckAZDuck Member Posts: 15,381
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Answer
    what is this vomit all over my screen
  • AIRWOLFAIRWOLF Member Posts: 1,840
    5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Anniversary First Comment
    edited February 2018


    I am still on the struggle bus, but I am working on figuring out how to do this shit in Tableau, rather than brute forcing it with ExcelFS.

    "Apparent Talent" is the 4 year average Rivals average stars for all signees, relative to the Power 5 average. So 10% is 10% better than average.

    "Composite Quality" is based on three SOS-adjusted ratings systems (Sagarin-game efficiency, FEI-drive efficiency, and S&P+-per play efficiency). It is a simple average of Z-scores, relative to the Power 5 average. The Composite Quality measure is highly correlated with FBS winning %, as one would expect, but it has the benefit of being SOS-adjusted and factoring out a great deal of randomness in terms of game outcomes.

    If you follow the link to Tableau you can see what team and head coach each data point represents.

    Tableau Link
Sign In or Register to comment.