The simple nature of odds is what increases the odds.
The more chances you have at something the more likely you are to succeed.
Joe Wieskamp # 16 on ESPN
- Thread starter MagicCoach
- Start date
The simple nature of odds is what increases the odds.
The more chances you have at something the more likely you are to succeed.
The hope with Angle was that he would grow and be the next Mike Dunleavy- didn't happen and he wasn't good enough at a lower height to begin with to be really an effective D1 player without that growth. Anyone ranked this early is ranked on potential. With Wieskamp, he'll need some growth to stay anywhere near #16, but even without the growth he's already a good get at the height he is now.
Huh? Yes the more chances the better, but the knowledge that one failed doesn't make the next MORE likely. It doesn't change the chances for the next one at all.
That's the same logic as a gambler saying just because I lost this hand at BJ I'm more likely to win the next hand. Recruits are independent trials statistically speaking. If there is a 75% chance of a given outcome for any of them, knowing 1 didn't do it doesn't make the next more likely than 75%.
Absolutely correct Block. Amusing to see how many gamblers bump up their table bets because they are on a hot streak and truly believe odds are now more in their favor, and/or bump their bets on a cold streak because odds now should change in the favor. Go Hawks.
I think he will stick in top 25. Plays just like booker ad james blackmon. Might not wow people but really good shooter can defend well. Not many weaknesses in his game.
If you have a 75% chance of a positive outcome you are more than likely to get that outcome.
It's not necessarily a direct correlation but the more times you do something with the odds in your favor the more likely it will be that you get the desired outcome.
To the guy who compared it to cards. You can lose with pocket queens but you still play it just about every time because the odds are over the long run you will win more times than not.
Rankings can swing wildly in the 4 years. The joke we had about a kid was he was the 50th best freshman and 4 years later he was still the 50th best freshman.... Except he was now a senior.
I think you are misunderstanding the way it works. If it's 75% in your favor, it's always 75% in your favor. Missing it 4 times in a row doesn't mean the 5th time is 99% in your favor, the 5th time is still 75%. Independent trials. It's like flipping a coin. Just because it will be heads 50% of the time, doesn't mean when it's been tails the last 3 times that the next flip is more likely to be heads, it'll still be 50% chance on the next trial.
If the odds are in your favor, you continue to do something because the odds are in your favor. The fact it didn't work out previously doesn't make the odds be any more in your favor than they otherwise would've been.
Pretty much. The main issue with freshmen is that they are freshmen. None of the top 25 kids in that class could hang with anybody at the top of the 2015 class right now. Too much growth and development still has to happen. Many of them are just going through puberty. Anthony Davis was a 6'0" mediocre PG after his freshman year in high school and only 6'4" after his sophomore year. By his senior season he was 6'10" and the #1 recruit in the country and now he's an NBA super star.
There is definitely some predictive value in identifying who the best kids are in a class at that point. It's just not nearly as predictive as identifying the top kids at the end of their senior season. A lot of time and growth between now and then.
And that development remains true for many players right into their college years. And ESPN, one of (if not the) first services to come out with any rankings at all still hasn't evaluated several high school players. Weiskamp is, to them, one of the top twenty-five players in the 2018 class, so far.
To me, by the time players are among the top thirty-five or so on the last Rivals ranking for their class (right around their graduation) those players have been studied, compared, contrasted, measured, filmed, discussed...and they are very likely as good as advertised. After the top thirty-five (or there-abouts) the chances of an accurate evaluation decline with each step away from the top of the list. I think some people put too much stock in a player ranked 55th, as compared to 75th, or even 145 or unranked three star.
My opinion, I put no value in rankings at all after the top 50. And, most of these kids are being recruited and have an idea of their top choices before the rankings even come out.
They put stock in it because it's been proven to matter in the large scheme of things though for any individual recruit their ranking is far less relevant. Recruits ranked 40th (or 30th-50th) outperform recruits ranked 125th (or 115-135) in the big picture. They just do. They are more likely to be 1st round picks, they are more likely to be all conference in college. They are more likely to be starters in the NBA, etc. Though it's really only been studied for rankings at the end of HS, not freshman year. It's like the simple fact that a higher percentage of 5 star recruits get drafted than 4 star recruits and similarly 4 star recruits are more likely to get drafted than 3 star recruits. The math is undeniable over large numbers.
http://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=cps_professional
I know we've gone over this before. This study I've linked puts a little more light on the subject.
Last edited:
No. And I don't find the subject matter sufficiently interesting, important, or, frankly, debatable for me to seek one out.
It's obvious that talent has a strong positive correlation to team outcomes, however one chooses to define that. I assume you agree with that. The question then is whether and to what extent Rivals' rankings accurately reflects talent. To which I answer, somewhat; certainly better than chance.
Let's engage in a little thought experiment. Imagine two teams. Both teams can have their pick of all the HS seniors. Both teams will keep their recruits for 4 years, and because of that, both teams will take exactly three recruits each year. Lets further assume that both teams have the same level of coaching, OK? Imagine that each year, team 1 signs the #1 pg, the #1 C/PF, and the #1 wing. And each year, team 2 signs no one in the Rivals top 100. After 4 years, the two teams play. Team 1 has the #1 PG four years in a row, #1 C/PF four years in a row, and the #1 wing four years in a row. Team 2 has no player in the top 100. Which team would you rather have? Assuming equal coaching, how many times would team 2 beat team 1? 1 out of 30? 1 out of 50? 1 out of 100? Something like that, right? Can you really say that you believe otherwise?
So, I think its just obvious that talent matters and that rankings at least somewhat reflect talent. Completely obvious. The question then comes to how could your study come to any other conclusion. It's must be flawed, but how? First thing I want to point out is that just cause a study appears in a peer reviewed journal, doesn't mean its true...depending on the subject matter of the study, it doesn't seem to even be more likely true than not, for more on this, see the work of John Ioannides: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
More specifically though, your study has a bunch of problems: needlessly creating categorical data through the use of quartiles, confining the response variable to brief tournament appearances, and they may be overly aggressive with multiple comparison adjustments.
The thing to remember is that the study does not say that rankings have no predictive value; it says they couldn't find sufficient evidence that rankings have predictive value. Right? If they had really wanted to, they would have found it. They could done a different study. They could have taken out the quartiles and just done a straight analysis reflecting the number of ranked players on each team, the ranking of such players, and the minutes played by those players compared to team KenPom or Sagarin ratings. But they didn't.
Anyway, this is much too much about something that just isn't that important. I like your passion Dan and I like to read your posts, but just stop linking this study
. It's not worth it.
Natty, I promise, I won't be starting any threads trying to push my views on the subject. But when discussions of the value of rankings come up, as it did on this thread, I'll express my opinions and even link that study to back them up. You don't have to agree and you have every right to point out what you see as it's flaws.
One thing I want to point out is that I've always stated that topped ranked players are very likely accurately ranked....so there's your answer for your "thought experiment".
Otherwise, I get your points. Thanks for making them. We can disagree on the predictive value of high school rankings and still both enjoy college basketball.
One thing I want to point out is that I've always stated that topped ranked players are very likely accurately ranked....so there's your answer for your "thought experiment".
Otherwise, I get your points. Thanks for making them. We can disagree on the predictive value of high school rankings and still both enjoy college basketball.
Now that the rankers see he is committed to the Hawkeyes he will probably fall down the ranks...
better ones have been done reaching the same conclusion across multiple sports
Yes, we've gone over it before. Graph 1 in that study shows better recruits = better players in college. The study was drastically underpowered to show significant differences (as they chose to define it), but the relationship is crystal clear. Table 2 is the same thing. Mean PER from Quartile 1 = 20.5, Quartile 2 = 16.9, Quartile 3 = 14.7, Quartile 4 = 13.5.
And on and on and on and on. The relationship holds in every big enough study in either football or basketball.
Folks should read the entire study and decide for themselves. If you are hoping to expand your opinion to others, you may get lucky and most will be too lazy to read it.
There is a 100% chance he may be a pretty good college basketball player.
Time will tell. Other than the coaches (whose opinions matters most) posters who have seen him play have provided fairly glowing reviews -many were shared prior to his commitment. Early commitments can be risky but it is hard to make that case with Wieskamp.
Time will tell. Other than the coaches (whose opinions matters most) posters who have seen him play have provided fairly glowing reviews -many were shared prior to his commitment. Early commitments can be risky but it is hard to make that case with Wieskamp.
If the Marquette study is the support for these claims, I'm not sure I can agree that ranking are necessarily vindicated, like this poster suggests.
First, from a statistical standpoint, rankings and stars are somewhat different things. Stars are likely to have more validity because they are meant to approximate an interval level measure. Rankings are ordinal measures and thus come with some caveats. For example, the difference in talent between a player ranked #5 and #15 might be very small; while the talent difference between #25 and #35 might be enormous. Also, rankings are relative to the talent of a particular class - a player ranked #10 one year might have been #50 in another year. And, the rankings suffer from apples-to-oranges comparisons (a 7'0" center can be ranked #10 and 5'10" point guard can be ranked #11, but in what real sense is the one player better than the other?).
Second, the Marquette study doesn't really vindicate rankings because it converts the rankings to something more like stars. Quartile 1 includes 59 players, if I've read this correctly, which means that a player ranked #1 is treated no differently from one ranked #59. That's not a very precise measure of a 'ranking' system.
Regardless, just be happy an Iowa recruit is getting positive attention, since that's bound to generate recruiting excitement.
I'm not hoping to expand facts to anybody. They can believe whatever they want. I just refute incorrect statements. The studies have been done and it's pretty conclusive. If you look at 1000s of players in each subgroup you want, the higher rated ones come out better in the long run. It holds in both football and basketball for > 10 years and the trends suggest the ratings are getting more accurate than they were 10 or 15 years ago. I'll leave it at that.
Today, I saw Joey play for the first time, and it was against strong competition - IC West. His supporting cast (Muscatine HS team) played hard but were no match for West. Going up against a team of D-I players in West and upperclassmen at that, Joey impressed me. He has versatility in his game. I've read about his 3 pt shooting, but he handled the ball well and drove it strong a few times, too. Yes, he got blocked a couple times - once by Wally Parks a 6-5 Sr. with great ups and the other time by Tanner Lohaus, another Sr. who's already committed to UNI - but he didn't back down. Joey's ups looked pretty good, too, and he battled hard on the boards. I liked what I saw!
Last edited:
