Wasted time...

[Spaceytoyz]

Well can we at least play the season and see if he is a 10/10 guy?

 

[FlaTarHeel]

So rather than be 5 or 4 stars, they were actually more 3 stars, no matter what they were ranked as prior to college, they all needed a lot of development time in order for the NBA to be ready to draft them. Not one of those 3 were big time players for us as freshmen, Justin was the only 1 that started for us and he was a role player as a frosh.

Spoken like a "real" coach, or at the very least someone that has a real clue about this game.

 

[shun1]

SMILE

!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU GO ROY WILLIAMS !!!!!!!!!!!! shun1 is pulling for you

!!!!!!!!!!!! GO TAR HEELS !!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[gauchoheel]

I will take what I see in a player before I get worried about star ranking prior to playing in college. Find it interesting, I see Hicks used in this argument as a 5 star guy, I as well see Theo used also as a 5 star guy, Justin as well. But by definition a 5 star guy is supposed to be a guy touted as being a 1st round pick after4 a freshman season in college, that is the basis of the ranking. Truth is not one of those fellas were able to do that. A 4 star from my understanding is expected to be a 2nd round pick after their frosh season, maybe Justin at most and that is a stretch could have been drafted at all after their frosh seasons.

So rather than be 5 or 4 stars, they were actually more 3 stars, no matter what they were ranked as prior to college, they all needed a lot of development time in order for the NBA to be ready to draft them. Not one of those 3 were big time players for us as freshmen, Justin was the only 1 that started for us and he was a role player as a frosh. I am not dumping on these kids but to say Roy needs big time talent in order to win just isn't proven by using star rankings, Roy has not had a clear 1 and done kid since Barnes and even Barnes stayed for a soph season, only because the NBA strike was a concern for him.

Tony went 1 & done but really, he was fortunate to get that 1st round spot, he was more a clear 2nd rounder by most and by definition would have been 4star. These star rankings do not always tell you exactly what you are getting is my point, they should all come with the word potential before the number, as in potential 5 star but to be 5 star you have to actually end up 5 star, drafted 1st round after your frosh season.

I don't think the idea you're pushing here is correct. Five-star does not equate to OAD first rounder, nor does four-star equate to 2nd round pick. At the very least these are far from the "definitons" you pose.

Most years there are about 25 five-star recruits, and 110-120 four-star recruits. Up until the 2017 draft, most classes only had 1-3 guys outside the top 10 drafted as OADs. The majority of five-star players stayed for their sophomore seasons, and many stayed all four years.

Most four-star players never get drafted at all, let alone the "second round pick after freshman year" idea. There are only about 45 American players drafted every year, and with 140 guys ranked at either 4 or 5 stars coming into college basketball every season... well, there's just nowhere near enough spots. I would bet fewer than 25% of four-stars ever get drafted. with a large majority of players staying 4 years in college.

Three-stars often aren't good enough to start on a high-level college team. There are 300+ three-star players every year; For one of them to be a starter on a top team is usually a nice success story (see Luke Maye). Usually only a few of these guys will ever get drafted.

Hicks and Pinson might not have quite lived up to their #15-16 overall rankings (with ACC POY I'll say Jackson lived up to #9), but at the least they performed like four-stars (Pinson of course has had injuries and still has another year). All ACC teams fill their lineup with three-stars and above at a minimum pretty much, so I'd say above average ACC starter is "four-star caliber".

I like to think of the rankings this way:

3-star = average high-major D-1 talent for their age group
4-star = 1 standard deviation above the average high major D-1 talent for their age group
5-star = 2 standard deviations above the average high major D-1 talent for their age group
Top 3-5 recruits or so = 3 standard deviations above the average high major D-1 talent for their age group

Notice I said "talent": coaching, development, and age come into play when determining actual output at the college level. There's also variance in the rankings, as scouting websites aren't perfect by any means. And obviously the cutoffs are arbitrary and don't hold true at the margins most likely; a "five-star" ranked #25 overall is likely not a significantly better talent than the "four-star" ranked #26 overall. But the #2 overall player is probably significantly more talented than the #25 overall player, and the #25 overall player is probably significantly more talented than the #100 overall player.

One interesting thing is that the top 10-20 players tend to never get to their upperclassmen seasons because they enter the draft, meaning players ranked 20-50 could be undervalued. It's almost like Roy has found this Moneyball-esque inefficiency with the guys ranked #15-50 because they don't have the talent to go pro early, so we get them fully matured at age 21-22. Having Berry at PG for his age 21 and 22 seasons is probably better than two seasons of De'Aaron Fox at 19 and Quade Green at 19.

 

[UNCFan2012]

I don't think the idea you're pushing here is correct. 5 star does not equate to OAD first rounder, nor does 4 star equate to 2nd round pick. At the very least these are far from the "definitons" you pose.

Most years there are about 25 five-star recruits, and 110-120 four-star recruits. Up until the 2017 draft, it was pretty rare for anyone outside of the top 10 players to be OAD (most classes only had 1-3 guys outside the top 10 drafted as OADs). The majority of five-star players stayed for their sophomore seasons, and many stayed all four years.

Most four-star players never get drafted at all, let alone the "second round pick after freshman year" idea. There are only about 45 American players drafted every year, and with 140 guys ranked at either 4 or 5 stars coming into college basketball every season... well, there's just nowhere near enough spots. I would bet fewer than 25% of four-stars ever get drafted. with a large majority of players staying 4 years in college.

Three-stars often aren't good enough to start on a high-level college team. There are 300+ three-star players every year; For one of them to be a starter on a top team is usually a nice success story (see Luke Maye). Usually only a few of these guys will ever get drafted.

Hicks and Pinson might not have quite lived up to their #15-16 overall rankings (with ACC POY I'll say Jackson lived up to #9), but I'd say at the least they performed like four-stars (Pinson of course has had injuries and still has another year). All ACC teams fill their lineup with three-stars and above at a minimum pretty much, so I'd say above average ACC starter is "four-star caliber".

I like to think of the rankings this way:

3-star = average high-major D-1 talent for their age group
4-star = 1 standard deviation above the average high major D-1 talent for their age group
5-star = 2 standard deviations above the average high major D-1 talent for their age group
Top 3-5 recruits or so = 3 standard deviations above the average high major D-1 talent for their age group

Notice I said "talent": coaching, development, and age come into play when determining actual output at the college level. There's also variance in the rankings, as scouting websites aren't perfect by any means. And obviously the cutoffs are arbitrary and don't hold true at the margins most likely; a "five-star" ranked #25 overall is likely not a significantly better talent than the "four-star" ranked #26 overall. But the #2 overall player is probably significantly more talented than the #25 overall player, and the #25 overall player is probably significantly more talented than the #100 overall player.

One interesting thing is that the top 10-20 players tend to never get to their upperclassmen seasons because they enter the draft, meaning players ranked 20-50 could be undervalued. It's almost like Roy has found this Moneyball-esque inefficiency with the guys ranked #15-50 because they don't have the talent to go pro early, so we get them fully matured at age 21-22. Having Berry at PG for his age 21 and 22 seasons is probably better than two seasons of De'Aron Fox at 19 and Quade Green at 19.

This is an amazing post. You absolutely nail it.

I'd ague that the most valuable players in every recruiting class are the most talented players that will stay at least 3 years. Not the very best players.

The result is what a call a misfit toys style of recruiting. The very best college recruits are talented players who, for one reason or another, have a major drawback which keeps them from declaring.

Joel Berry - Too short, not athletic enough

Kennedy Meeks - Not explosive enough

Theo Pinson - Can't shoot

Justin Jackson - skinny with only moderate athleticism

Look for high level recruits with a fatal NBA flaw. Those are the best college players. They have to become excellent college players in order to secure an NBA spot, which is great for us. What it really means is we need to recruit small PGs, skinny wings, and fat/undersized post players.

Players that I see fitting this in 2018: Emmitt Williams, Devon Dotson, Aaron Wiggins, David McCormack

 

[Heelswin]

This is obviously a joke, but there's some truth to it.

The probability of us getting Zion is, based on the available information, somewhere around 1%. That number is arbitrary, but you get the idea.

With that said, the trickier question is: what is the cost? If it's just a question about how Roy uses his time, it's not a big issue. There's enough time for Roy to take every allowed visit for every player we're recruiting, plus quite a few more. So in that sense, it's not a waste of time if that's how Roy wants to use it.

If he's prioritizing Zion at the expense of a prospect we have a real shot at, that's where there's a legitimate downside. And that's hard to evaluate.

If this is do, then pray tell what is dooks chance? How bout SC? Who else?