Need Some New Metrics for Adjusted Value of Recruiting Classes

quote:

---

Tiger Ryno

---

You're my favorite poster. You always bring it, unlike, Prominentwon.

Awwwwweeeesssooommmmeee

If you wanted to take the analysis further than that, it gets a little fuzzy for me.

I think what you are saying is that you would like to compare the relative impact of a particular class IN ITS REGION OR CONFERENCE to the relative impact of another team across the country in a different region or conference.

I think that is where it gets tricky, because in the end you have to compare things that aren't equal, and most statistics would assume that they were.

You could attempt to use a system of weighting, I suppose, but that necessarily involves bias.

One thing you could do is to look at each team within its own group, to see if the points accumulated represent a statistically significant proportion of the entire pool of players in that conference or region.

That would be affected by the number of good teams, for instance, so Bama's "value" would be lower than "Texas'".

But you still couldn't compare these recruiting classes directly to each other without running into issues.

I can't believe th overanalysis of ranking these classes. There are way too many variables involved. These kids are given stars based on physical attributes and how they fare against HS competition. There is absolutely no way to determine how their physical attributes will change in those crucial years between 17 and 22 and how well these kids will adjust to D-1 competition. But they take all of these "stars" for 25 kids and try to figure out who recruited better than who? What I would love to see is how they rank 4 years later.

So if you play a crappy schedule, your class ranking goes up? Counterintuitive.

quote:

---

can't believe th overanalysis of ranking these classes

---

yea, and now we have "socialism" injected in the guise of mathematics. adjust the statistical ratings based on competition. in other words, bring up the lower and bring down the higher based on the level of competition. this is a perfect example of why statisticians are in a staff position in companies as oppossed to executive management. they love playing with their numbers don't they?

...huh? ... say, wha ? ..

quote:

---

You are too dumb to get the point of sabermetrics. You probably still think Home runs rbi and batting average are the best way to evaluate hitters

---

Are you too dumb to understand that how a player or how a class is ranked BEFORE they ever set foot on a D-1 football field is already overanalyzed and now you have some hair brain scheme to complicate it further. As for how scouts evaluate a hitter's ability, I could go on for days about how much conjecture goes into that and rant for weeks about the highly drafted prospects that never panned out and the overlooked players that went late in the draft or undrafted that went on to long productive major league careers.

quote:

---

Variable to multiply player value/ranking points based on team need. I.e. More points for signing a 5 star player to a position being vacated by a Starter. We'd get points for La'El and Freak.

---

......makes more sense,.....but the only ranking I care about is how that signing class translates to wins on the field over the next 3-4 years. Everything thing else is overanalyzed bullshite.