draft/recruiting trivia question

Other people around the web have done studies on this before, but due to HR's awesome downloading ability I was able to quickly link up the Rivals recruiting data with NFL draft results, going back to the 2007 NFL draft. Anyway, here's the question. Feel free to guess.

What percentage of 1st-to-3rd round draftees (drafts 2007-2010 inclusive) were Rivals rated 3-stars or lower coming out of high school?

Tags:
draft

locked

1944 views

Could you compare the hit rate for the Top100 to the first three rounds? They're a similar size so that'd be a good comparison to draw.

locked

1649 views

- No text -

locked

1675 views

I'll take my chances with 25%-40%

Here's where I came up with my number:

There are approximately 200 schools that play reasonably high level football, each signs an average of 20 per year = 4000 players per year.

Approximately 250-300 kids are R4+*s each year.

So R4+*s make up about 300/4000 = 7.5% of each class.

Let's assume that a R4+* is 3x as likely as a non-R4+* to make it -- that brings us to 19.5%.
If we assume that a R4+* is 5x as likely as a non-R4+* to make it -- that brings us up to 28.8%

But even though it isn't supported by the raw independent trials type analysis, let's assume that some of the population can be thrown out. If we fudge a little to say that 1000 of those 4000 simply have no shot of going pro, and can be immediately eliminated from the pool of possible eventual draftpicks:
Let's assume that a R4+* is 3x as likely as a non-R4+* to make it -- that brings us to 25%.
If we assume that a R4+* is 5x as likely as a non-R4+* to make it -- that brings us up to 35.7%

I think that's reasonable. Anything beyond that would start to invalidate those who claim "stars don't matter!" (as though this doesn't in and of itself when looking at percentage of draftees)

locked

1704 views

I'll show my work a little bit later. I will say that I find this interesting not from a "is Rivals f*cked or not" predictive kind of inquiry (I think Rivals does as good as job as anyone can at identifying high school talent). I think it's doubly interesting from the NFL point of view; the idea that draftable talent can come from anywhere (even Division IAA), and it isn't always manifest when a kid is an 18-year old senior in high school. There's a hell of a lot of development that can take place over the next four years.

locked

1702 views

"scoff at 3-star recruits at your own peril"

locked

1659 views

at your peril" based on Butler and VCU? The problem is identifying ex ante which of the low seeds/three stars will turn out to be Butler/Marcell Dareus.

locked

1718 views

(and this may be a blindingly obvious thing to point out) that the while the ratings services identify a certain select number of probable successful players, they will not identify the majority of successful players who will eventually rise out of the pack.

locked

1709 views

There's no option to "bet the field" in recruiting. Each recruit is an individual wager, and the cost of each wager is the same (one scholarship). So even knowing that a majority of early round picks will not be 4/5 stars, you still can only offer individual 3 stars. Then the comparison becomes spending a scholarship on a 5-star prospect with a 20% chance of becoming a first-round pick, a 4-star with a 5% chance of becoming a first-round pick or a 3-star with a 1% chance of becoming a first-round pick (or whatever the numbers turn out to be).

locked

1658 views

other than providing message board trivia.

locked

1647 views

Rivals does a fine job with "precision" (the percentage of relevant documents of retrieved documents), but lacks when it comes to "recall" (the percentage of relevant documents which are retrieved).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_and_recall

locked

1666 views

It might be fairly uniform for "4's + 5's" versus "3 or fewer", but I wonder if further filtering might lend any insight, particularly as it relates to skill guys versus linemen.

locked

1635 views

It'll cost ya

locked

1654 views

Did you just get back from the Magumba Bar in Drambui?

locked

1667 views

Ah, fuck the cup. Jus' pour it in my hands for a dime.

locked

1699 views

- No text -

locked

1648 views

The issue, as I see it, isn't the raw numbers, but the percentage of 5-star players who are drafted in rounds 1-3 versus the corresponding percentages for 4 and 3 star players. I believe I've read that the numbers are just as you'd expect: the percentage of 5 stars is significantly higher than the percentage of 4 stars, which is significantly higher than the percentage of 3 stars.

locked

1731 views

- No text -

locked

1647 views

- No text -

locked

1663 views

- No text -

locked

1708 views

Are we playing Price Is Right rules?

locked

1697 views

- No text -

locked

1634 views

I hope I get to play the Mountain Climber game with the yodeling.

[image]

locked

1752 views

- No text -

locked

1695 views

- No text -

locked

1650 views

locked

1654 views

For a GD arbor (what the hell is an arbor).

locked

1694 views

- No text -

locked

1676 views

- No text -

locked

1664 views

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Recruiting-stars-in-the-dra...

locked

1764 views

Reliable Rivals data only goes back to 2002 (and 2002 is a bit spotty), so at the time, Hinton was looking at 3 drafts' worth of data (2006-2008, with the earliest year being somewhat unreliable).

I looked at Drafts 2007-2010 and the results are a bit different.

locked

1673 views

the Polo Grounds

draft/recruiting trivia question

as another exercise

are you a fellow PERL Monk now?

Let's see ...

I come up with 60%

I forgot to make my main point, which is

Isn't that like saying, "Scoff at 8 seeds and below

I think it's more reinforcing

I get your point, I was just challenging its utility

oh, I don't think there's any real utility

sounds like "precision" versus "recall"

Can you carve that up by position?

yeah, I got all that shit

What's with all the salty language today?

Well, I just want one rib.

I sho am hungry

Your last point is the key

The article I posted below agrees (with charts).

That's probably the one I'm remembering then

78%

79%

I knew I should have gone with 100%

I was going to go with 45.1% for that reason.

Plinko

ONE DOLLAR!

420

999?

45%

higher

By the way, here's an old Doc Saturday examination of this

it's probably time to refresh that study