An Honest Look at Recruiting

[RUChoppin]

For me it's not the stars. It's the offers. Here's why. Offers represent decisions by coaches in the business who have their livelihoods on the line. They're not amateurs. It's their job. And if they fail, they're fired. So, in the aggregate, offers reflect decisions by the entire NCAA basketball world on which recruits are worth offering. The better the schools and coaches offering, the better the recruit. This is a generality, and sure there are exceptions--both ways and maybe many. But this is the best method we have to rate recruits.

I don't credit fans. I don't credit analysts on websites--other than that they report offers by professionals (I hope accurately). They're thousands of analysts and reporters, and I'm sure it's fun to be involved in reporting on the college sports business. But they aren't the professionals with their livelihoods riding on it. They're much more like us, amatuers who watch a lot.

So I look at offers. Not stars. Now, they often match. And that's because the recruiting website guys generally know what I just said. Offers are the best way to rate recruits.

Offers are also an incomplete picture. For one thing, players that commit on the earlier end of the recruiting cycle stop reporting new offers. Coaches will also be less likely to offer players who are strong and vocal commits to another program. Offers are also reliant on self-reporting by players, not announced by programs, so the accuracy is suspect in some ways, and the strength of those offers is unknown.

Harper is a good example. He committed early, before he was really on very many people's radar. After he committed, his stock rose quite a bit during his senior year at which point he would have gotten a lot more attention. But after his commitment, his offer sheet on the recruiting sites was no longer updated. Had he waited longer to commit, his offer sheet would almost surely have looked much different. So, was his offer sheet an accurate assessment? Or was it just another partial data point like rating agency scores are.

Both stars and offers are limited views into perceived recruiting success. Actual recruiting success can't be determined until later in these players' careers, once the guesswork is gone and performance becomes the metric.

 

[willisneverrana43]

This is an incredibly outcome focused analysis. You'll have to do better than a limited analysis that the team fared better when one of its starter's minutes were vaguely limited.

 

[RUChoppin]

This is an incredibly outcome focused analysis. You'll have to do better than a limited analysis that the team fared better when one of its starter's minutes were vaguely limited.

You can compare it across all of the starters. The difference between Johnson being on the floor or off was much wider across a couple different metrics (wins/losses, points scored/min, points allowed/min) than any other starter.

 

[RUChoppin]

Johnson also plays into the other topic. He joined the team the same year as Doucoure, and by perceived recruiting measurements (stars and offers) was the less regarded player. Looking back in time without any reference to on court production, one would see Doucoure as a recruiting win and Johnson as a reach or a project. In this case, reality didn't align with either stars or offers, showing how limited perceived (predictive?) recruiting analysis can be.

 

[willisneverrana43]

Offers are also an incomplete picture. For one thing, players that commit on the earlier end of the recruiting cycle stop reporting new offers. Coaches will also be less likely to offer players who are strong and vocal commits to another program. Offers are also reliant on self-reporting by players, not announced by programs, so the accuracy is suspect in some ways, and the strength of those offers is unknown.

Harper is a good example. He committed early, before he was really on very many people's radar. After he committed, his stock rose quite a bit during his senior year at which point he would have gotten a lot more attention. But after his commitment, his offer sheet on the recruiting sites was no longer updated. Had he waited longer to commit, his offer sheet would almost surely have looked much different. So, was his offer sheet an accurate assessment? Or was it just another partial data point like rating agency scores are.

Both stars and offers are limited views into perceived recruiting success. Actual recruiting success can't be determined until later in these players' careers, once the guesswork is gone and performance becomes the metric.

This analysis contains things that are true, things that are not, and things that are speculative nonesense. It is an attempt to reject the good and the best because it's not perfect--but mostly becauses its not the speculation approach that you and others on message boards prefer.

Offers isn't a perfect method. It's just by far the best. It relies on professionals, not you. Not the kid on an internet site that picks the number of stars. Not anecdotal stories that can be spun however you want, like you just did. Sure it can be discounted for reporting mistakes--maybe even some of the nonsense that you mention, but I have serious reasons why that stuff has limited importance. But it's far better than anything you have to "offer" otherwise. Which really is nothing other than an entryway to internet speculation.

 

[willisneverrana43]

Johnson also plays into the other topic. He joined the team the same year as Doucoure, and by perceived recruiting measurements (stars and offers) was the less regarded player. Looking back in time without any reference to on court production, one would see Doucoure as a recruiting win and Johnson as a reach or a project. In this case, reality didn't align with either stars or offers, showing how limited perceived (predictive?) recruiting analysis can be.

Again, another absurd analysis of an overall metric. Hey, I've got examples where this method didn't work. So therefore any method is the same, and I can use the one I want and its every bit as good as yours.

 

[RUChoppin]

This analysis contains things that are true, things that are not, and things that are speculative nonesense. It is an attempt to reject the good and the best because it's not perfect--but mostly becauses its not the speculation approach that you and others on message boards prefer.

Offers isn't a perfect method. It's just by far the best. It relies on professionals, not you. Not the kid on an internet site that picks the number of stars. Not anecdotal stories that can be spun however you want, like you just did. Sure it can be discounted for reporting mistakes--maybe even some of the nonsense that you mention, but I have serious reasons why that stuff has limited importance. But it's far better than anything you have to "offer" otherwise. Which really is nothing other than an entryway to internet speculation.

My argument is that there is no good method to gauge the success of a recruiting class before they've seen the floor, though I do agree that offers is the best of the poor methods we have, though it has to be taken with several grains of salt.

There are countless examples of under recruited or underrated players that excel, and countless examples of overrated players with huge offer lists that fall flat. Or players who's performance is based on fit with a program, appropriate coaching, or their supporting cast (like Young or Gettys). The best performing players in the conference are the best recruits in the conference, regardless of what people thought of them before they ever put on a college uniform. Offer lists are the most directionally accurate, I agree, but all predictive recruiting evaluations become meaningless once a player actually suits up.

 

[RUChoppin]

Again, another absurd analysis of an overall metric. Hey, I've got examples where this method didn't work. So therefore any method is the same, and I can use the one I want and its every bit as good as yours.

I get that you think metrics are useless pretty much overall, but there is plenty of evidence to support a position that Johnson was the most important player to have on the court for us last year. You may disagree, but you're not bringing anything to support that argument either.

Who do you think the most important player was last season? And be sure to keep metrics or outcomes out of your answer, lol

 

[willisneverrana43]

You can compare it across all of the starters. The difference between Johnson being on the floor or off was much wider across a couple different metrics (wins/losses, points scored/min, points allowed/min) than any other starter.

I "can compare"? No, maybe you should. I'm guessing (which is all I can do) that the analysis has serious flaws and is, again, outcome driven, like the one you just somewhat described. Is this a War stat equivalent? And whatever player by player analysis you've been doing should run reliable, properly scrubbed comparisons to Harper, Geo, Jacob, etc. and confirm that, for each, the games when they were absent occured against similar competition while no other key players were absent and skewing the analysis. This just smells (since I can't see it) like unreliable data mining to find a predetermined outcome.

 

[willisneverrana43]

There are countless examples of under recruited or underrated players that excel, and countless examples of overrated players with huge offer lists that fall flat. . . .

This is where you often arrive, after an almost reasonable start. No. They are not the same. Over a, say, 5 year period, you get the group of all the recruits who had offers that got them a one or two star. And I'll take the group that had offers that got them four and five stars. Mine will be, in the aggregate, a way more successful group. And yet there will be examples in each of huge busts and huge suprises.

Just another analyis intended to open the "equally valid" door to admit rank internet speculation.

 

[willisneverrana43]

I get that you think metrics are useless pretty much overall, but there is plenty of evidence to support a position that Johnson was the most important player to have on the court for us last year. You may disagree, but you're not bringing anything to support that argument either.

I gave stats. I haven't seen anything from you, just a general description of something that you like.

 

[RUChoppin]

I "can compare"? No, maybe you should. I'm guessing (which is all I can do) that the analysis has serious flaws and is, again, outcome driven, like the one you just somewhat described. Is this a War stat equivalent? And whatever player by player analysis you've been doing should run reliable, properly scrubbed comparisons to Harper, Geo, Jacob, etc. and confirm that, for each, the games when they were absent occured against similar competition while no other key players were absent and skewing the analysis. This just smells (since I can't see it) like unreliable data mining to find a predetermined outcome.

You tell me what data you want to see, and I'll crunch it for you, provided the numbers are available. Overall outcomes are important, though, because so many things done on the court are not captured in individual metrics (like defense). But take a stand, tell me who you feel the most important player is so we can do a comparison. If you disagree with Johnson as the most important player, you must then have an opinion of at least one player who was more important. Throw out a name and support it. Or do you only snipe?

 

[willisneverrana43]

You tell me what data you want to see, and I'll crunch it for you, provided the numbers are available. Overall outcomes are important, though, because so many things done on the court are not captured in individual metrics (like defense). But take a stand, tell me who you feel the most important player is so we can do a comparison. If you disagree with Johnson as the most important player, you must then have an opinion of at least one player who was more important. Throw out a name and support it. Or do you only snipe?

I don't want to see anything. You are perfectly free to continue to show nothing. That's fine with me. On to the next.

 

[RUChoppin]

I gave stats. I haven't seen anything from you, just a general description of something that you like.

You gave a handful of stats on why you think Johnson is not most important. I'm sure I could find a cherry picked handful of stats on any other player to snipe, which it seems like all you are good for. And when asked to take a stand, or to give some measurement criteria that would be valid for you, you retreat. As expected.

What I'm hearing from you is "I don't agree with your position, and discredit any support you might provide, but I have no position of my own, so let's move on".

I guess your screen name is on point. Just a disagreement with a number, lol

 

[willisneverrana43]

I'm sure that there are analyses that you "could" do too. Keep on truckin'.

 

[rubjk]

My argument is that there is no good method to gauge the success of a recruiting class before they've seen the floor, though I do agree that offers is the best of the poor methods we have, though it has to be taken with several grains of salt.

There are countless examples of under recruited or underrated players that excel, and countless examples of overrated players with huge offer lists that fall flat. Or players who's performance is based on fit with a program, appropriate coaching, or their supporting cast (like Young or Gettys). The best performing players in the conference are the best recruits in the conference, regardless of what people thought of them before they ever put on a college uniform. Offer lists are the most directionally accurate, I agree, but all predictive recruiting evaluations become meaningless once a player actually suits up.

There’s only one method that can gauge recruiting/development. Record on the court.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

I gave stats. I haven't seen anything from you, just a general description of something that you like.

If we had access to plus/minus that would be the best stat to show his value.

you glossed over leading team in rebounds and blocks. If there are any individual stats that show what he means those would be it. You declined to mention his FG%.

 

[willisneverrana43]

If we had access to plus/minus that would be the best stat to show his value.

you glossed over leading team in rebounds and blocks. If there are any individual stats that show what he means those would be it. You declined to mention his FG%.

If by glossed over you mean mentioned, sure. And he had a strong field goal percentage. But some many are dunks. I'd like to see his non-dunk percentage, which would more closely track his postup game, which was one of the weakest in the league. I'd also like to see his percentage of turnovers per times holding the ball, because he got stripped and turned it over a lot. And, again, yes, he was very good on D and rebounding. His O, however, was below average.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

If by glossed over you mean mentioned, sure. And he had a strong field goal percentage. But some many are dunks. I'd like to see his non-dunk percentage, which would more closely track his postup game, which was one of the weakest in the league. I'd also like to see his percentage of turnovers per times holding the ball, because he got stripped and turned it over a lot. And, again, yes, he was very good on D and rebounding. His O, however, was below average.

All I know is when he went out of the game we were a different team. Different not in a good way.

 

[willisneverrana43]

He was important to the lineup.

 

[Mr. Magoo1]

I thought Johnson was our most important player last year and I didn’t think it was even close. The games often changed for the worset when he was off the court. IMO, Young was a distant 2nd.

 

[RUDead]

It depends. I think Turgeon and Hoiberg would be able to recruit anywhere they go,
So I think both can win here. I realize Hoiberg hasn’t won at Nebraska yet but I do expect that to change. Not so sure about Gard but I still think he’s a better Xs and Os guy than Pike. It would be interesting to see if Pike’s recruiting would pick up at bigger basketball school like Maryland but hope we never find out.

Turgeon might be able to recruit at Rutgers, but that's it. and Turgeon has underperformed almost every year he has been at Maryland. Hoiberg hasn't shown much yet and don't think he would be able to recruit at the Rutgers that Pike inherited. Gard would have no chance and has also underperformed during his time at Wisc.

 

[Russ Wood]

I think you are off on Pike vs that group. Think about this:

Would Turgeon, Gard and Hioberg win at Rutgers? I doubt it.
Would Pike win at MD, Wisc, and Nebraska? Yes, I think he would.

I think Gard & Hoiberg would win at Rutgers but I don't think Turgeon would. Turgeon's predecessor definitely would have won at Rutgers.

I think Pike would win at Wisconsin and Nebraska I'm not sure about Maryland. I know his recruiting would put Maryland fans in therapy. In fact they're almost there with the way the 2022 cycle is going for Maryland so far.

 

[RUChoppin]

You don't like Johnson's game, that's clear. But just to paint a different picture, which I'm sure you'll ignore, here are Johnson's team rankings (among our 8 rotational players) across almost every stat available in the college-reference.com database for last year (not even including the "per 40 min" stats, where he comes out better because he only averaged 24.7 mpg):

Among our 8 rotational players:
1st - Rebounds (8.5/g)
1st - RB% (19.4)
1st - Offensive Rebounds (2.9/g)
1st - ORB% (13.2)
1st - Defensive Rebounds (5.6)
1st - DRB% (25.4)
1st - Blocks (2.4/g)
1st - BLK% (10.6)
1st - TS% (.601)
1st - BPM (9.3)
1st - DBPM (5.7)
1st - WS (3.3)
1st - DWS (1.7)
1st - ORtg (116.1)
1st - DRtg (89.5)
2nd - OWS (2.1)
2nd - FG% (.628)
2nd - eFG% (.628)
2nd - OBPM (3.6)
3rd - STL% (2.7)
4th - Steals (1.1/g)
4th - Points Produced (231)
4th - Fewest TOV (1.2)
5th - Min/game (24.7)
5th - Pts/g (8.0)
5th - Lowest TOV% (15.5)
6th - AST (0.7)
7th - AST/TOV (0.59)
7th - FT% (.381)
7th - AST% (6.1)
8th - Fewest PF (2.7)

This also isn't even getting into the lineup data, showing lineups with Johnson performed better offensively and defensively than ones without him. I'll try to dig back into the forum to find a link to that, since that's been discussed before.

If you don't think he was the most important player for us last year, who do you think is?

Edit: Had STL% included twice, and didn't have the value listed for PProd

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

I think Gard & Hoiberg would win at Rutgers but I don't think Turgeon would. Turgeon's predecessor definitely would have won at Rutgers.

I think Pike would win at Wisconsin and Nebraska I'm not sure about Maryland. I know his recruiting would put Maryland fans in therapy. In fact they're almost there with the way the 2022 cycle is going for Maryland so far.

Gard wouldn’t win at RU. My opinion.

actually I am going to call it a fact,

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

How many people would have had archie failing at IU

 

[RUJMM78]

You don't like Johnson's game, that's clear. But just to paint a different picture, which I'm sure you'll ignore, here are Johnson's team rankings (among our 8 rotational players) across almost every stat available in the college-reference.com database for last year (not even including the "per 40 min" stats, where he comes out better because he only averaged 24.7 mpg):

Among our 8 rotational players:
1st - Rebounds (8.5/g)
1st - RB% (19.4)
1st - Offensive Rebounds (2.9/g)
1st - ORB% (13.2)
1st - Defensive Rebounds (5.6)
1st - DRB% (25.4)
1st - Blocks (2.4/g)
1st - BLK% (10.6)
1st - TS% (.601)
1st - BPM (9.3)
1st - DBPM (5.7)
1st - WS (3.3)
1st - DWS (1.7)
1st - ORtg (116.1)
1st - DRtg (89.5)
2nd - OWS (2.1)
2nd - FG% (.628)
2nd - eFG% (.628)
2nd - OBPM (3.6)
3rd - STL% (2.7)
4th - Steals (1.1/g)
4th - STL% (2.7)
4th - Points Produced (points plus assists)
4th - Fewest TOV (1.2)
5th - Min/game (24.7)
5th - Pts/g (8.0)
5th - Lowest TOV% (15.5)
6th - AST (0.7)
7th - AST/TOV (0.59)
7th - FT% (.381)
7th - AST% (6.1)
8th - Fewest PF (2.7)

This also isn't even getting into the lineup data, showing lineups with Johnson performed better offensively and defensively than ones without him. I'll try to dig back into the forum to find a link to that, since that's been discussed before.

If you don't think he was the most important player for us last year, who do you think is?

Young was more effective on offense and his defense was stellar at crunch time.

 

[fluoxetine]

If by glossed over you mean mentioned, sure. And he had a strong field goal percentage. But some many are dunks. I'd like to see his non-dunk percentage, which would more closely track his postup game, which was one of the weakest in the league. I'd also like to see his percentage of turnovers per times holding the ball, because he got stripped and turned it over a lot. And, again, yes, he was very good on D and rebounding. His O, however, was below average.

Last year he was 32/39 dunks and 79/110 close 2's, so 47/71 (66%) on non-dunk close 2's.

 

[Russ Wood]

How many people would have had archie failing at IU

I didn't think he'd be gone after his 4th season but I'd heard that he's stubborn (like he knows everything), let's players get away with a lot and he is a lazy recruiter.

I got the impression that the Indiana donors weren't happy with his hire because the AD listed a criteria of what he was looking for in candidates and Archie didn't check all of the AD's boxes.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

I didn't think he'd be gone after his 4th season but I'd heard that he's stubborn (like he knows everything), let's players get away with a lot and he is a lazy recruiter.

I got the impression that the Indiana donors weren't happy with his hire because the AD listed a criteria of what he was looking for in candidates and Archie didn't check all of the AD's boxes.

I guess he wasn’t lazy at Dayton.

 

[RUChoppin]

Young was more effective on offense and his defense was stellar at crunch time.

I think Young would probably be 2nd on my "most important" list for last year.... though I think I'd put Young as a better individual performer, especially offensively. But the way we were structured last year, Johnson was more important to the team's success within our offensive/defensive philosophy.

Young brought a pace that others just didn't have, an offensive spark at times when we were stagnating, and strong defense on the opponent's best guard. But that was also counterbalanced at other times by turnovers, gambling for steals, and frequently just playing out of control and trying to do too much (hero ball). Sometimes this worked out in our favor (Minnesota) and other times it didn't.

Looking at some of the trends around W/L outcomes, you don't see as stark a difference with Young being on/off as you do with Johnson. When Johnson was below his average (in minutes, rebounds, or points), we struggled much more than when Young was below his averages.

For instance, if you sort by minutes played on Johnson, and among high major teams, we were 1-9 in games where he played 25 or fewer minutes (he averaged 25.7), and 12-3 when he played more. When Johnson grabbed 8 or fewer boards (he averaged 8.5), we were 3-10, while when he grabbed 9 or more we were 10-2. When Johnson scored 8 or more points (his average was 8.0), we were 11-5, while when he scored less we were 3-7.

Looking at Young, we did better when he played more minutes and assisted more, and a bit worse when he had fewer turnovers and scored more points. When looking at minutes among high major teams, we were 5-7 in games he played 30 minutes or fewer (he averaged 30.1), and 8-5 when he played more. In games where he had 2 or fewer assists, we were 6-7, and when he had 3 or more we were 7-5. In games where he had 3 or more turnovers we were 10-4, and when he had fewer we were 3-8. In games where he had more than 14 points (he averaged 14.1), we were 5-5, and we were 8-7 when he scored fewer.

 

[RUChoppin]

Found a couple other threads.

This one talks about lineup data: https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/threads/2020-21-lineups.215098/

Specifically, for the games where lineup data is available, the biggest dropoff in the delta between points scored/points allowed per minute for a player being on/off the floor was Johnson (breakdown is in the first post in that thread).

This one talks about production in the last 5 minutes of games: https://rutgers.forums.rivals.com/threads/last-5-minute-stats.221601/#post-5202640

Some interesting things in here about production in clutch endgame situations (close games under 5 minutes) vs. production at the end of games that were not close. For instance, Young was more productive at the end of games where there was a double-digit differential with 5 minutes left vs. at the end of closer games, while Baker had much better production at the end of close games than games with double-digit differentials.

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

I think Young would probably be 2nd on my "most important" list for last year.... though I think I'd put Young as a better individual performer, especially offensively. But the way we were structured last year, Johnson was more important to the team's success within our offensive/defensive philosophy.

Young brought a pace that others just didn't have, an offensive spark at times when we were stagnating, and strong defense on the opponent's best guard. But that was also counterbalanced at other times by turnovers, gambling for steals, and frequently just playing out of control and trying to do too much (hero ball). Sometimes this worked out in our favor (Minnesota) and other times it didn't.

Looking at some of the trends around W/L outcomes, you don't see as stark a difference with Young being on/off as you do with Johnson. When Johnson was below his average (in minutes, rebounds, or points), we struggled much more than when Young was below his averages.

For instance, if you sort by minutes played on Johnson, and among high major teams, we were 1-9 in games where he played 25 or fewer minutes (he averaged 25.7), and 12-3 when he played more. When Johnson grabbed 8 or fewer boards (he averaged 8.5), we were 3-10, while when he grabbed 9 or more we were 10-2. When Johnson scored 8 or more points (his average was 8.0), we were 11-5, while when he scored less we were 3-7.

Looking at Young, we did better when he played more minutes and assisted more, and a bit worse when he had fewer turnovers and scored more points. When looking at minutes among high major teams, we were 5-7 in games he played 30 minutes or fewer (he averaged 30.1), and 8-5 when he played more. In games where he had 2 or fewer assists, we were 6-7, and when he had 3 or more we were 7-5. In games where he had 3 or more turnovers we were 10-4, and when he had fewer we were 3-8. In games where he had more than 14 points (he averaged 14.1), we were 5-5, and we were 8-7 when he scored fewer.

I don’t think it’s fair to rely on the last part to say we were “better when JY played 30+ min) because in JY’s case, the reason why he sat was typically because he was having a bad day with those wtf type turnovers - rendering him to be more of a liability than an asset on the floor. In MJ’s case, he almost always was off the floor because of foul trouble, not because Pike thought he was causing more harm than good.

people are confusing individual player productivity with the most important player to the team. We had lots of options at guard. What were our non-frosh options to play the 4 or the 5? MJ and RHJ. We could get away with Caleb at the 4 for short periods (didn’t even have him at the beginning of the year). We had no wings either which made MJ’s role even more important. When JY subbed out we at least had other proven guards who could bring up the ball.

 

[Scarlet83]

Would never say Pike is doing a bad job. I'm saying I think it's reasonable to expect this program to take the next step on the recruiting front. Do I expect a top 40 recruit every year? Absolutely not. However, programs like Xavier, Creighton, etc. pick up 1-3 top 100-150 guys every class. Why should I not expect that?

What do you call Cliff and Jaden?

 

[RUDead]

I think Gard & Hoiberg would win at Rutgers but I don't think Turgeon would. Turgeon's predecessor definitely would have won at Rutgers.

I think Pike would win at Wisconsin and Nebraska I'm not sure about Maryland. I know his recruiting would put Maryland fans in therapy. In fact they're almost there with the way the 2022 cycle is going for Maryland so far.

Ha. You are right about PIke and Maryland.

I still don't think Gard and Hoiberg would win at RU. It took someone who was relentless with positivity like Pike to dig out of the hole we were in. Gard just doesn't have the charisma and Hoiberg would bail after a couple years, or never take the job. LOL.

 

[RUChoppin]

I don’t think it’s fair to rely on the last part to say we were “better when JY played 30+ min) because in JY’s case, the reason why he sat was typically because he was having a bad day with those wtf type turnovers - rendering him to be more of a liability than an asset on the floor. In MJ’s case, he almost always was off the floor because of foul trouble, not because Pike thought he was causing more harm than good.

people are confusing individual player productivity with the most important player to the team. We had lots of options at guard. What were our non-frosh options to play the 4 or the 5? MJ and RHJ. We could get away with Caleb at the 4 for short periods (didn’t even have him at the beginning of the year). We had no wings either which made MJ’s role even more important. When JY subbed out we at least had other proven guards who could bring up the ball.

An "on" Young had better outcomes than an "off" Young, and is reflected in part in his minutes. Same with Johnson, with "off" generally meaning he picked up too many fouls. The delta between outcomes for on/off was much bigger for Johnson, which is part of the reason I feel he was more important to the success of the team.

This is due in some ways to depth at their respective positions. Young being on the bench meant more minutes spread over Baker, Mulcahy, Mathis, and McConnell..... where Johnson on the bench led to minutes from freshman Omoruyi (except for the games he missed), Doucoure, and freshman Reiber (or no center).

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

An "on" Young had better outcomes than an "off" Young, and is reflected in part in his minutes. Same with Johnson, with "off" generally meaning he picked up too many fouls. The delta between outcomes for on/off was much bigger for Johnson, which is part of the reason I feel he was more important to the success of the team.

This is due in some ways to depth at their respective positions. Young being on the bench meant more minutes spread over Baker, Mulcahy, Mathis, and McConnell..... where Johnson on the bench led to minutes from freshman Omoruyi (except for the games he missed), Doucoure, and freshman Reiber (or no center).

The point I’m making is that there were times having JY in cost us because he wasn’t making shots and was doing dumb things that resulted in fast breaks the other way. It was rarely if ever the case that having MJ on the bench meant our best unit of 5 for that moment of the game was on the floor. Rather, he was sitting so we’d have him available later in the game. Big difference there.

 

[RUChoppin]

Went back and looked at the same rankings among rotational players for Young for last year (and added 3P%, which I didn't have for Johnson because he didn't take any):

1st - AST% (23.3)
1st - Points Produced (380)
1st - Steals (1.6/g)
2nd - Pts/g (8.1)
2nd - AST (3.3)
2nd - 3P% (.364... I excluded Omoruyi here, since he only took 2)
2nd - STL% (3.3)
3rd - Min/game (24.7)
3rd - WS (2.2)
3rd - OWS (1.1)
3rd - DWS (1.1)
3rd - BPM (4.8)
3rd - OBPM (2.4)
3rd - Fewest PF (1.9)
4th - FG% (.469)
4th - eFG% (.517)
4th - FT% (.730)
4th - TS% (.544)
5th - AST/TOV (1.04)
6th - DBPM (2.4)
6th - ORtg (99.3)
6th - DRtg (102.3)
7th - Lowest TOV% (18.6)
8th - Rebounds (1.7/g)
8th - Offensive Rebounds (0.2./g)
8th - Defensive Rebounds (1.5/g)
8th - Blocks (0.0/g)
8th - Fewest TOV (3.0)
8th - RB% (3.5)
8th - ORB% (1.1)
8th - DRB% (5.9)
8th - BLK% (0.1)

 

[Scarlet83]

Offers are also an incomplete picture. For one thing, players that commit on the earlier end of the recruiting cycle stop reporting new offers. Coaches will also be less likely to offer players who are strong and vocal commits to another program. Offers are also reliant on self-reporting by players, not announced by programs, so the accuracy is suspect in some ways, and the strength of those offers is unknown.

Harper is a good example. He committed early, before he was really on very many people's radar. After he committed, his stock rose quite a bit during his senior year at which point he would have gotten a lot more attention. But after his commitment, his offer sheet on the recruiting sites was no longer updated. Had he waited longer to commit, his offer sheet would almost surely have looked much different. So, was his offer sheet an accurate assessment? Or was it just another partial data point like rating agency scores are.

Both stars and offers are limited views into perceived recruiting success. Actual recruiting success can't be determined until later in these players' careers, once the guesswork is gone and performance becomes the metric.

This!

Offers are just one of many factors to assess how good a recruit is.

 

[Russ Wood]

I guess he wasn’t lazy at Dayton.

Ironically, I heard the "lazy recruiter" comment from someone in Ohio.