3 star super bowl players

[anon1787432961]

25 out of the 44 projected starters for Super Bowl 53 were 3-star or less recruits coming out of high school.

 

[aTotal360]

That just proves stars matter. 4+ star athletes only account for a sliver of the talent pool, and it looks like they are representing 43% of the starters.

 

[HD6]

This is the correct way to interpret that stat.

 

[Jeffreauxdawg]

That just proves stars matter. 4+ star athletes only account for a sliver of the talent pool, and it looks like they are representing 43% of the starters.

Correct. From the 2013 recruiting class 66% of 5*'s, were drafted, 23% of 4*'s, 5% of 3*'s, and 1.1% of 2*'s. So that's 2 out of 3 for 5*'s, 1 of 4 of the 4*'s, 1 out of 20 3*'s, and 1 out of 100 2*'s.

So based on current 247 composites for the 2019 class Mississippi State has 1-5*, 5-4*'s, and 14-3*'s that will statistically produce 2.61 draft picks. Alabama has 3-5*'s, 24-4*'s, and 1-3* that will statistically produce 8.03 draft picks.


I will take Alabama's croots if Saban reads the OP's post and decides he needs more 3*'s based on fools data.

 

[anon1787432961]

I think it proves that hard work works. The majority of those that move up from college worked harder. Many of the 4 and 5 stars were out worked maybe because they thought they didn't need to

 

[jack daniels dog]

I think it proves that I should become a bigger fan of baseball, because we ain’t never gonna get into the big leagues in football. Call it defeatist attitude if you want, but we will never consistently sign majority four and five star players

 

[Ishmael]

Correct. From the 2013 recruiting class 66% of 5*'s, were drafted, 23% of 4*'s, 5% of 3*'s, and 1.1% of 2*'s. So that's 2 out of 3 for 5*'s, 1 of 4 of the 4*'s, 1 out of 20 3*'s, and 1 out of 100 2*'s.

So based on current 247 composites for the 2019 class Mississippi State has 1-5*, 5-4*'s, and 14-3*'s that will statistically produce 2.61 draft picks. Alabama has 3-5*'s, 24-4*'s, and 1-3* that will statistically produce 8.03 draft picks.


I will take Alabama's croots if Saban reads the OP's post and decides he needs more 3*'s based on fools data.

But isn’t this almost the reverse fallacy of the original post. If there are more 3* players than 4* or 5*, of course a larger percentage of 3* won’t be drafted since most college players won’t be drafted.

 

[Jeffreauxdawg]

But isn’t this almost the reverse fallacy of the original post. If there are more 3* players than 4* or 5*, of course a larger percentage of 3* won’t be drafted since most college players won’t be drafted.

View attachment 12185

 

[Bulldog from Birth]

Yes. It's just the reverse fallacy. The correct way to assess this is to group all 5-star players together and ask what % of them are (drafted, make the Super Bowl, make the Pro Bowl, insert metric of choice). And then do the same thing for 4-stars and then 3-stars. Honestly, the fair thing to do, since there is a BIG gap in 3-stars from top to bottom is to only consider a major conference or group of major conferences. That would be an interesting analysis. I'm sure it would probably tell you that stars do in fact matter.

 

[anon1787432961]

Yes they matter. But they are greatly over hyped in college recruiting

 

[Crazy Cotton]

Base rate fallacy is a real thing.

Example: If a test to detect a disease whose prevalence is 1 out of 1,000 has a false positive rate of 5 percent, what is the chance that a person found to have a positive result actually has the disease?

If you think the answer is more than 2%, you ain't thinkin right.

 

[Jeffreauxdawg]

Yes. It's just the reverse fallacy. The correct way to assess this is to group all 5-star players together and ask what % of them are (drafted, make the Super Bowl, make the Pro Bowl, insert metric of choice). And then do the same thing for 4-stars and then 3-stars. Honestly, the fair thing to do, since there is a BIG gap in 3-stars from top to bottom is to only consider a major conference or group of major conferences. That would be an interesting analysis. I'm sure it would probably tell you that stars do in fact matter.

Are you talking about the inverse fallacy. If so it's a terrible example..

Example of Inverse Fallacy
If you are a ski instructor, then you have a job.
You are not a ski instructor
Therefore, you have no job.

If it barks it is a dog.
If it doesn't bark, it is not a dog.


In our case Inverse Fallacy would look more like this:
Most of the SB starters were 3* or lower croots.
Since Most SB starters are 3*, you are less likely to be a SB starter since you are 4* or 5*.

This is exactly what I am arguing against. Statistically speaking you are 5 times more likely to get drafted as a 4* and 15 times more likely to get drafted when you are a 5* vs a 3*. I am taking a leap of faith that being drafted is good jumping off point for making a Superbowl.


Second
Read my above post... All 5 stars were grouped together (2013 recruiting class only) and 66% of them were drafted. Same with 4* and 3*. It's very simple. 2 out of 3 recruits rated 5* we're drafted. 1 out of 4 recruits rated 4* we're drafted.1 out of 20 rated 3* we're drafted.

I provided logical data which means it is not any kind of fallacy, it's fact.... 4* and 5* croots are much more likely to be drafted and as a population are much more significantly represented in the Superbowl.

Don't use big words you don't understand.

 

[Bulldog from Birth]

We are on the same page. I just read your post too quick and misinterpreted what you were saying and the data you gave. But you grouped them into their individual categories (5-star vs 4-star vs 3-star) and took the percentages from within each group. This is correct.

Are you talking about the inverse fallacy. If so it's a terrible example..

Example of Inverse Fallacy
If you are a ski instructor, then you have a job.
You are not a ski instructor
Therefore, you have no job.

If it barks it is a dog.
If it doesn't bark, it is not a dog.


In our case Inverse Fallacy would look more like this:
Most of the SB starters were 3* or lower croots.
Since Most SB starters are 3*, you are less likely to be a SB starter since you are 4* or 5*.

This is exactly what I am arguing against. Statistically speaking you are 5 times more likely to get drafted as a 4* and 15 times more likely to get drafted when you are a 5* vs a 3*. I am taking a leap of faith that being drafted is good jumping off point for making a Superbowl.


Second
Read my above post... All 5 stars were grouped together (2013 recruiting class only) and 66% of them were drafted. Same with 4* and 3*. It's very simple. 2 out of 3 recruits rated 5* we're drafted. 1 out of 4 recruits rated 4* we're drafted.1 out of 20 rated 3* we're drafted.

I provided logical data which means it is not any kind of fallacy, it's fact.... 4* and 5* croots are much more likely to be drafted and as a population are much more significantly represented in the Superbowl.

Don't use big words you don't understand.