Interesting draft stat

[raleighpanther]

I only mean to share an interesting stat that DiPaola just tweeted, not to cause a regurgitation of the same old arguments we've seen over and over again on this board. Well, here goes:

25% of the players just drafted had either 2 stars or no stars coming out of high school.

 

[Jpripper88]

I only mean to share an interesting stat that DiPaola just tweeted, not to cause a regurgitation of the same old arguments we've seen over and over again on this board. Well, here goes:

25% of the players just drafted had either 2 stars or no stars coming out of high school.

It does definitely tie into the star argument. It makes it clear stars matter, since an overwhelming majority of D1 players across FBS and D1AA are 2 star players and if stars didn't matter, those "2 stars or no stars" players would make up a much bigger percentage of the draft. This is further evidenced by the fact 3/4s of the 1st round was made up by 4 and 5 star players, despite the fact they represent a miniscule percentage of D1 players.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsport...nd-nfl-draft-picks-were-4-or-5-star-recruits/

 

[DiehardPanther]

It would be interesting to see how many guys get a boost to their rating based solely on where they verbal as opposed to actual performance.

 

[Swervin27]

if anything, this stat actually supports the star system. 75% of players drafter are 3 or more star players.

 

[RaleighPittFan]

I would be interested in seeing how many 5 star players who are eligible for the draft don't get drafted.

 

[Burgh15]

if anything, this stat actually supports the star system. 75% of players drafter are 3 or more star players.

Yep, especially considering the smaller percentage (is that safe to assume?) of four- and five-star players compared to the lower stars.

 

[wicker]

a simple mathematical check of the numbers of 5 star guys shows they are a minority. There are 592 five stars in the 18 class. There are 62,000+ at 2 or lower

 

[raleighpanther]

if anything, this stat actually supports the star system. 75% of players drafter are 3 or more star players.

I can't agree with your conclusion.

First, nearly all kids who get P5 D1 offers have 3 or more stars. Even at Pitt, which has middling recruiting ratings, we've only had one guy in the last 2 years, out of about 50 kids, who didn't have 3 or more stars (checked the ESPN site). So the percentage of kids at this level not getting 3 stars is probably about 5%.

But its not just that the 5% turns into something greater than 5% on draft day. The expectation is the 5% will be 0% on draft day. No one expects that any these kids will ever sniff an NFL roster. In fact, most don't expect them to ever make a contribution at the college level (see this board whine when one of them commits to Pitt.)

So, to me, the 25% figure is extremely impressive.

 

[raleighpanther]

At the other end of the scale, figuring out who the 5-star guys are is so easy, your grandmother could do it.
No one should be congratulated for having a decent percentage of their 5-star selections get drafted.

 

[wicker]

ESPN also trotted out the meaningless, though mathematically accurate, factoid that 65% of NFL rosters are made of guys from rounds 4-7. Rounds 4-7 represent 57% of the draft

 

[Jpripper88]

I can't agree with your conclusion.

First, nearly all kids who get P5 D1 offers have 3 or more stars. Even at Pitt, which has middling recruiting ratings, we've only had one guy in the last 2 years, out of about 50 kids, who didn't have 3 or more stars (checked the ESPN site). So the percentage of kids at this level not getting 3 stars is probably about 5%.

But its not just that the 5% turns into something greater than 5% on draft day. The expectation is the 5% will be 0% on draft day. No one expects that any these kids will ever sniff an NFL roster. In fact, most don't expect them to ever make a contribution at the college level (see this board whine when one of them commits to Pitt.)

So, to me, the 25% figure is extremely impressive.

None of those bolded statements are true.

If that is "extremely impressive" to you, you still don't understand mathematics or statistics.

 

[Jpripper88]

At the other end of the scale, figuring out who the 5-star guys are is so easy, your grandmother could do it.
No one should be congratulated for having a decent percentage of their 5-star selections get drafted.

Do you still not realize how few 4 and 5 stars there are? Do you not understand many of the best players overlap at the same schools, so, obviously, they can't all excel to the point of NFL draft pick, let alone 1st or 2nd round draft pick?

 

[raleighpanther]

Actually Wicker, if true, that is very meaningful. You'd expect higher draft picks to stick on NFL rosters at a greater rate than the lower round guys.
Flipping those percentages helps see it more clearly: 1st to 3rd round picks account for 43% of draft picks, and yet they make up something less than 35% of NFL rosters (less, because undrafted guys account for some percentage too). That's shocking if true.

 

[raleighpanther]

None of those bolded statements are true.

If that is "extremely impressive" to you, you still don't understand mathematics or statistics.

OK, Jripper, you tell me what the percentage is then if I'm wrong. If its less than 5% at Pitt, it ain't higher at Ohio State.
Anyway, those perecentages don't point to what is impressive. I REPEAT: the expectation that any of these 0/2 star kids will get drafted is ZERO. The fact that it is 25% is extremely impressive.

 

[raleighpanther]

Do you still not realize how few 4 and 5 stars there are? Do you not understand many of the best players overlap at the same schools, so, obviously, they can't all excel to the point of NFL draft pick, let alone 1st or 2nd round draft pick?

I get that, completely. I don't expect all 5 star guys to make it all the way to the NFL. I'm saying that the best players are easy to identify, and a high percentage SHOULD make it to the NFL, and they do. I have a "yeah, no shit" response to the fact that they do, its what we all expect, and no one should be congratulated because a reasonable percentage of their 5-star guys make it to the NFL.

 

[ThatPittGuy]

OK, Jripper, you tell me what the percentage is then if I'm wrong. If its less than 5% at Pitt, it ain't higher at Ohio State.
Anyway, those perecentages don't point to what is impressive. I REPEAT: the expectation that any of these 0/2 star kids will get drafted is ZERO. The fact that it is 25% is extremely impressive.

There's no statistical argument to refute what you think is impressive.

There's a statistical argument for recruiting 5 star kids over 2 star kids.

 

[raleighpanther]

There's no statistical argument to refute what you think is impressive.

There's a statistical argument for recruiting 5 star kids over 2 star kids.

Of course there is no statistical argument for recruiting 5 star kids over 2 star kids. There is also no logical argument for doing so either. I wasn't in any way implying that there is. That would be stupid.

I'm just pointing out that some kids that no one thinks will have much of a chance to make it at the college level end up getting drafted by NFL teams. Quite a few of them. I just think that is pretty cool.

 

[ThatPittGuy]

Of course there is no statistical argument for recruiting 5 star kids over 2 star kids. There is also no logical argument for doing so either. I wasn't in any way implying that there is. That would be stupid.

I'm just pointing out that some kids that no one thinks will have much of a chance to make it at the college level end up getting drafted by NFL teams. Quite a few of them. I just think that is pretty cool.

Re-read my post. Statistics support recruiting a 5 star over a 2 star if that's all the info about either player we know.

The point is nobody can use statistics to tell you what is or isn't "pretty cool".

 

[DiehardPanther]

Out of curiosity- when is the last time Bama had a 2 star recruit. Not a walkon, but a player on 'ship.

 

[Swervin27]

Out of curiosity- when is the last time Bama had a 2 star recruit. Not a walkon, but a player on 'ship.

tinos brother maybe.

 

[Jpripper88]

OK, Jripper, you tell me what the percentage is then if I'm wrong. If its less than 5% at Pitt, it ain't higher at Ohio State.
Anyway, those perecentages don't point to what is impressive. I REPEAT: the expectation that any of these 0/2 star kids will get drafted is ZERO. The fact that it is 25% is extremely impressive.

That is not a fact nor should it be anyone's expectation. That is a completely fabricated fallacy. By virtue of opportunity and competition there should be a large number of 0-2 star players who become very good players and get drafted. They just aren't more likely to do that than 3 stars, who aren't more likely than 4 stars, who aren't more likely than 5 stars.

And yes, you had an objective with this post, as you do every year and throughout the year. It is proven wrong and misguided time and again.

 

[Jpripper88]

Out of curiosity- when is the last time Bama had a 2 star recruit. Not a walkon, but a player on 'ship.

This past year. Also one in 2015.

 

[raleighpanther]

Re-read my post. Statistics support recruiting a 5 star over a 2 star if that's all the info about either player we know.

The point is nobody can use statistics to tell you what is or isn't "pretty cool".

I don't know who you guys are arguing with. Your supposing I said something I never said. I absolutely agree that stats support recruiting a 5 star guy over a two star guy.
Its just surprising that this many kids that no one thought would perform well did so. If you had asked me before I saw that 25% figure, what percentage of kids who are 0-2 star guy get drafted in a given year, I would have guessed ~5%. I'm assuming most people would. Be honest with yourselves, what percentage would you have guessed? The 25% is just surprising, that's really all I was implying; oh, and that I think its cool that this many kids massively exceeded expectation.

I hope all of our recruits are 4-5 star guys this year...and every year. I rather not take and 2-star guys. Because on AVERAGE, they're better players. Have always thought so. At the total level, this is undoubtedly true. I am however, willing to look at a kid like Pinnock, our two star recruit this year, and consider that as an INDIVIDUAL, his talent and production MAY exceed his rating, and not write him off as a certain lost cause as some are prone to do.

That is what I believe. I have no subtle hidden objective beyond what I just stated.

 

[Jpripper88]

I don't know who you guys are arguing with. Your supposing I said something I never said. I absolutely agree that stats support recruiting a 5 star guy over a two star guy.
Its just surprising that this many kids that no one thought would perform well did so. If you had asked me before I saw that 25% figure, what percentage of kids who are 0-2 star guy get drafted in a given year, I would have guessed ~5%. I'm assuming most people would. Be honest with yourselves, what percentage would you have guessed? The 25% is just surprising, that's really all I was implying; oh, and that I think its cool that this many kids massively exceeded expectation.

I hope all of our recruits are 4-5 star guys this year...and every year. I rather not take and 2-star guys. Because on AVERAGE, they're better players. Have always thought so. At the total level, this is undoubtedly true. I am however, willing to look at a kid like Pinnock, our two star recruit this year, and consider that as an INDIVIDUAL, his talent and production MAY exceed his rating, and not write him off as a certain lost cause as some are prone to do.

That is what I believe. I have no subtle hidden objective beyond what I just stated.

That isn't surprising. The vast majority of draft eligible players are 0-2 stars coming out of high school and they still are in the minority for draft picks. Many schools have practically 0 "3 star" players. Someone has to produce. Someone has to shine. The majority of 4 and 5 star players stack up at the same schools and, as a result, many of them do not ever get the chance to succeed.

My guess would be 20-30% would have been 0-2 stars out of high school. About 40% 3 stars and 30-40% 4 and 5 stars, which would clearly represent how telling star ratings are when the percentage of D1 players is more like 60% 0-2 stars out of high school, 30% 3 stars, and 10% 4-5 stars.

 

[pittdan77]

I think "stars" are more about where a guy is at coming out of high school along with how much they've shelled out to attend the scouting camps. I also think some kids top out sooner. That's all. Work ethic and the ability to game prep means a lot to the NFL.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

I only mean to share an interesting stat that DiPaola just tweeted, not to cause a regurgitation of the same old arguments we've seen over and over again on this board. Well, here goes:

25% of the players just drafted had either 2 stars or no stars coming out of high school.

World's. Dumbest. Argument.

 

[Jpripper88]

World's. Dumbest. Argument.

Correct. Stars are clearly a reliable aggregate predictor of prospect success.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

Yeah, I guess on the most basic of levels that's probably right. I'm still not sure how that applies to Pitt but that's a different question, isn't it?

How should we use them? I get why it's important for a school like Alabama or Florida State, but I don't get how it applies to college football's vast middle class?

When people talk about ratings and Ohio State or Michigan having the number one ranking and things like that, it feels to me like when I'm watching the news and the pundits are arguing passionately about the inheritance tax. I get why it's important to the people who are arguing about it, but that is never going to apply to me so I don't really care.

So if I'm in Ohio State or an LSU fan, yeah, I would care. However, if you're a fan of most of the other 60 some odd power conference schools, it doesn't really matter much at all.

Also, what exactly do the stars project? They don't take into account position or system or depth chart or meshing with the team or coaches. So what exactly do they measure?

Mostly measurable's, that's what.

I could do that. My four-year-old son could probably do that.

Also, is this analysis based on the current state of the players or how they are projected to develop? No one ever seems able to answer that seemingly basic question and that's a little disconcerting. From my perspective, it tends to fluctuate on the prospect as well as the talent evaluator.

If it is a projection, how far are we projecting out? Again, no one can ever answer that important question.

So when somebody says that Josh Douglas is the number four safety in America and Kareem McCoy is the number 31 safety in America, what does that really mean?

Does that mean that Douglas is that much better than McCoy right now or that he is projected to be that much better than him when he grows into his body? That's a fair question, right?

Also, what if one ends up playing corner and the other one stays at free safety? What if one ends up at corner and the other one gets flipped a wide receiver? How do you measure that?

I have no idea?

Neither does anyone else.

 

[KennyTheKangaroo]

This past year. Also one in 2015.

This years' Alabama two star is a long snapper, and he also apparently had offers from FSU and Oregon.

Also vinny sunseri was a 3 star guy.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

This is a lot like the people who complain about "fake news" on either end of the political spectrum. The onus is not on the media, the onus is on the consumer.

The media is not some public service, they are a for profit industry and their primary objective is to make money.

Most of the people who complain about "liberal bias" or "conservative rhetoric" don't even know what they're talking about most of the time. It's about money, not ideology.

FOX, for example, is not some paragon of truth in a sea of media lies. They have simply positioned themselves, very wisely, as the anti-media media source. Kind of like one Coke said it was the Uncola. That's smart and classic marketing.

It's pretty ridiculous whenever the number one rated cable news network - by a mile - derisively refers to everyone else as "the mainstream media." That would be like Nick Saban derisively referring to his competitors as "the football factory programs."

If you are too dumb to understand the difference between an editorial and a straight news piece, that's on you. Similarly, if you are too dumb to differentiate between actual fake news and a news story that you don't like or agree with, again, that's your issue as a consumer.

Pro tip:

If you come across something on your Facebook feed that seems completely crazy, guess what, it almost certainly is made up BS. The Clintons are not running a human trafficking ring out of the basement of a pizza shop in Washington DC and Donald Trump did not hire Russian strippers to piss on him. Also, Barack Obama did not smoke crack in the White House and all the rest of it.

The onus is on the consumers.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

How this relates to football recruiting, again, the onus is on the consumer.

The problem is not the services. The services do a good job and their talent evaluators have an impossible job. The problems typically arise whenever this information is taken too literally and without proper scrutiny or perspective.

However, for people to put so much weight into these evaluations - especially without really understanding what exactly they are projecting - is just crazy.

Similarly, the people completely ignoring these evaluations are definitely burying their heads in the sand. At the very least, they provide a different perspective and some new information. Why on earth would you not want as much information as possible?

It is one of many metrics you should be using to gauge the overall health and trajectory of your preferred college football program.

However, it should definitely not take precedent over actual on field results and that tends to happen with some folks.

Finally, you must also understand that player development is also an enormous component to your program's ultimate success.

Again, people tend to underrate that component but they are wrong. Unless you are bringing in a gaggle of elite athletes with each recruiting class – and that applies to about 5–10 schools – then player development is an essential component of your success. The University of Pittsburgh definitely falls into that category and we would be all be wise to keep that in mind during every conversation about the program and it's direction.

 

[Jpripper88]

Yeah, I guess on the most basic of levels that's probably right. I'm still not sure how that applies to Pitt but that's a different question, isn't it?

How should we use them? I get why it's important for a school like Alabama or Florida State, but I don't get how it applies to college football's vast middle class?

When people talk about ratings and Ohio State or Michigan having the number one ranking and things like that, it feels to me like when I'm watching the news and the pundits are arguing passionately about the inheritance tax. I get why it's important to the people who are arguing about it, but that is never going to apply to me so I don't really care.

So if I'm in Ohio State or an LSU fan, yeah, I would care. However, if you're a fan of most of the other 60 some odd power conference schools, it doesn't really matter much at all.

Also, what exactly do the stars project? They don't take into account position or system or depth chart or meshing with the team or coaches. So what exactly do they measure?

Mostly measurable's, that's what.

I could do that. My four-year-old son could probably do that.

Also, is this analysis based on the current state of the players or how they are projected to develop? No one ever seems able to answer that seemingly basic question and that's a little disconcerting. From my perspective, it tends to fluctuate on the prospect as well as the talent evaluator.

If it is a projection, how far are we projecting out? Again, no one can ever answer that important question.

So when somebody says that Josh Douglas is the number four safety in America and Kareem McCoy is the number 31 safety in America, what does that really mean?

Does that mean that Douglas is that much better than McCoy right now or that he is projected to be that much better than him when he grows into his body? That's a fair question, right?

Also, what if one ends up playing corner and the other one stays at free safety? What if one ends up at corner and the other one gets flipped a wide receiver? How do you measure that?

I have no idea?

Neither does anyone else.

It does matter to us, because it still differentiates the success of the rest of the programs and player success, in a big way, not just the top 2-5 teams.

There is a strong correlation between high recruiting rankings and high success on the field. There is a strong correlation between a high ranking and high achievement/drafting for the individual players. People who disregard those things or try to argue they are not true and completely ignore the statistics of the argument have their head in the sand and pretty much always have an agenda. For most here, that agenda is to point to outliers, in order to excuse recruiting which lags behind. The OP has been doing it for years.

 

[Jpripper88]

This years' Alabama two star is a long snapper, and he also apparently had offers from FSU and Oregon.

Also vinny sunseri was a 3 star guy.

Correct.

Correct.

They have taken other two stars before. However, I'm not sure how that matters. Alabama is recruiting at an extremely high level. The argument that they "never sign two stars" means essentially nothing in what the expectation for draft percentages of star ranking should be. If it shows anything, it probably highlights the fact that many of the 4 and 5 stars are so recruited over, it gives them a lesser chance of succeeding to the point of the draft proving out the stars (as a singular predictor) are important.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

It does matter to us, because it still differentiates the success of the rest of the programs and player success, in a big way, not just the top 2-5 teams.

There is a strong correlation between high recruiting rankings and high success on the field. There is a strong correlation between a high ranking and high achievement/drafting for the individual players. People who disregard those things or try to argue they are not true and completely ignore the statistics of the argument have their head in the sand and pretty much always have an agenda. For most here, that agenda is to point to outliers, in order to excuse recruiting which lags behind. The OP has been doing it for years.

I don't think you're getting it. We are mostly dealing in three star athletes, right?

We're not reeling in a bunch of elite "five star" athletes and we never will. That's just reality.

So, in reality, we are really arguing over whose three star athletes are best, medium and worst. Yeah, we might sprinkle on some four stars and the occasional once in a blue moon five star local kid, but for the most part we're talking about three-star guys on the macro level... just like almost everyone else.

If we're talking about schools like Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson, etc., that's a different deal. However we are not in their tax bracket and we never will be. We won't have a waterfall cascading in our locker room and we won't have a giant indoor amusement park as part of our training facilities. However, that doesn't make us destitute.

It also doesn't preclude us from competing with those schools if we recruit wisely and develop well. However, the people who are dreaming about us recruiting at the level of high-end Big Ten or SEC schools are going to be perpetually disappointed no matter who is coaching this program. We simply lack the basic financial infrastructure for that to ever happen.

That's why this argument is so dumb from a Pitt perspective. Almost all of this conversation is completely irrelevant and every bit as dumb as when a guy from Cranberry and a guy from Mt. Lebanon are having a heated argument about a border wall in Sierra Vista, Arizona or a bathroom in Cary, North Carolina.

It simply doesn't impact us at all.

It's an exceedingly dumb argument for about 10,000 different reasons.

 

[Dr. von Yinzer]

BTW, I think the people on both sides of this divide tend to have agendas and they also tend to grossly oversimplify the issue to the point of distorting the conversation.

I tend to be seen as anti-ratings but that's not true. I absolutely take them into consideration. However, I use them as they are intended – as a thumbnail sketch of a larger composite, not as biblical chapter and verse.

Honestly, I use them like I use WDVE's ranking of the 100 greatest rock songs of all-time every Memorial Day weekend. It's a list and people's opinions but ultimately, that's all it really is – just a list.

I think trying to pick out the sixth best offensive guard in the country is quite a bit more than merely an exercise in futility. It's a ludicrously speculative exercise in complete helplessness based on very little information. It's basically one click away from a wild guess.

How could that position possibly be incorrect?

Here, let's play a game. Who is the sixth best guard in the NFL right now? OK, now tell me who will be the sixth best guard in the NFL five years from now? That's EXACTLY what we are asking these recruiting gurus to do except we are asking them to do it with 16 and 17-year-old children rather than with grown men who play against similar competition.

It's just completely crazy to put that much stock into it – it just doesn't make common sense.

However, it definitely has its place as a conversation piece and something to consider – just like WDVE's Labor Day Memorial Day Rock 'n' Roll Extravaganza Countdown.

 

[revampedpanthers]

It would be interesting to see how many guys get a boost to their rating based solely on where they verbal as opposed to actual performance.

One thing that plays into the star system for sure. Still the percentages don't lie. There are roughly 100 5 star players a year. 400 4 stars compared to thousands of 2 and unranked players. And still out of 1500 vs 10k %75 come from that 1500.

 

[revampedpanthers]

if anything, this stat actually supports the star system. 75% of players drafter are 3 or more star players.

Yep. Its this simple if you have 20 scholly's a year and you give them to guys with a %5 chance of being stars you won't get as many as if you give out 20 with %20 chance! Doesn't mean some coaches can't find good players that are 2 or 3 star guys. Because there are just as many studs that are ranked 2 or 3 stars as there are ranked 4 or 5 but the odds are tougher because instead of 500 kids to choose from your choosing from 10k.

 

[Swervin27]

Yep. Its this simple if you have 20 scholly's a year and you give them to guys with a %5 chance of being stars you won't get as many as if you give out 20 with %20 chance! Doesn't mean some coaches can't find good players that are 2 or 3 star guys. Because there are just as many studs that are ranked 2 or 3 stars as there are ranked 4 or 5 but the odds are tougher because instead of 500 kids to choose from your choosing from 10k.

I'd like to see a breakout of how many players in one class were two stars and out of those, how many were drafted 4-5 years later. same for 3, 4, and 5 stars. I bet, percentage wise, it is obviously higher the more stars. meaning, if there were 40 recruits that were given 5 stars, that 10 were drafted, giving it a 25% "success rate" and that percentage would decrease with stars..

but, not knowing too much about rivals or espn or scout, the star rankings (I think) are a prediction of college players and not future nfl draftees. there is a bigger difference than most people think. there are great college players that are not "nfl material." think about guys like Charlie Ward. are you telling me, from a pitt fan perspective, you wouldn't rather have Charlie Ward than say someone like Blake Bortles?

 

[ThatPittGuy]

Stars and college performance are correlated.

Not perfectly coorelated, and Dr. von Yinzer has done a great job providing context to explain why that is.

Simple answer. Don't make sweeping predictions about future results based on today's star rankings. That's foolish.

But don't poo-poo the link entirely. That's equally foolish.

Right now, it seems like the optimists have a greater tendency to poo-poo statistics. Probably just a congnitive predisposition, but I can see why people think there's an agenda.

 

[revampedpanthers]

That isn't surprising. The vast majority of draft eligible players are 0-2 stars coming out of high school and they still are in the minority for draft picks. Many schools have practically 0 "3 star" players. Someone has to produce. Someone has to shine. The majority of 4 and 5 star players stack up at the same schools and, as a result, many of them do not ever get the chance to succeed.

My guess would be 20-30% would have been 0-2 stars out of high school. About 40% 3 stars and 30-40% 4 and 5 stars, which would clearly represent how telling star ratings are when the percentage of D1 players is more like 60% 0-2 stars out of high school, 30% 3 stars, and 10% 4-5 stars.

Correct. There are 65 power 5 schools(ND) %95 + of 4 and 5 star guys are going to these 65 schools, and 20 schools will have %50 + of them. Those 65 schools will take roughly 1400 hs kids a year which means that the power 5 schools are taking most of the 3 star kids as well. The other 60 FBS schools are mostly 2 and 3 star. Then you have 100 FCS and 400(guessing) D2 along with a couple hundred Juco's all of which are made up mostly of 0 or 2 star recruits.