The Portal and Recruiting Rankings

I know we have always debated the accuracy and importance of recruiting rankings. Not trying to restart that debate, but a new flaw I see now is the effect of the portal on rankings.

For example, We are 27th in the 247 rankings with 23 commits. But that ranking does not include four immediately eligible transfer guys, one a high four star (kJ) and one a solid four star (lashley). I know other schools have incoming portal guys too, but None of the 5-6 teams directly above us in the rankings have the number of highly rated immediately eligible guys we do.

Will be interesting to see if 247 starts to include immediately eligible portal guys in their class rankings.

The recruiting rankings don't change with transfers but 247 roster talent will change.

Problem is that since that ranking is released in August, no one talks about it when it's waaaaayyyyy more important than recruiting rankings.

I wish 247 would keep updating that list throughout the season so that you could see how things really are.

Here is the link to that ranking

https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Fo...lentComposite/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

The recruiting rankings don't change with transfers but 247 roster talent will change.

Problem is that since that ranking is released in August, no one talks about it when it's waaaaayyyyy more important than recruiting rankings.

I wish 247 would keep updating that list throughout the season so that you could see how things really are.

Here is the link to that ranking

https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Fo...lentComposite/

---

Good stuff. So that accounts for transfers and assigns them their high school rating? That is what looks like looking at the link because it assigns Tommy Stevens his high school rating.

This ranking which is based solely on recruiting, has om at 25 and Arkansas at 26. We are 23 USCe is ranked ahead of us and UT and Fla are ranked next to each other. This ranking was last updated 9/29/19.

My question is if Om and Arky have top 25 teams based on their recruiting for the last 4 years, how did they finish the year with such terrible records? IMO this is an excellent example of why the value of recruiting rankings is questionable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by confucius say

Good stuff. So that accounts for transfers and assigns them their high school rating? That is what looks like looking at the link because it assigns Tommy Stevens his high school rating.

---

Correct.

What 247 really needs to do is a re-ranking on transfers for the purposes of the transfer portal

247 needs to improve on rankings of both JUCO transfers and also taking into account grad transfers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DawgPoundtheRock

This ranking which is based solely on recruiting, has om at 25 and Arkansas at 26. We are 23 USCe is ranked ahead of us and UT and Fla are ranked next to each other. This ranking was last updated 9/29/19.

My question is if I?m and Arky have top 25 teams based on their recruiting for the last 4 years, how did they finish the year with such terrible records? IMO this is an excellent example of why the value of recruiting rankings is questionable.

---

Recruiting rankings are very important at the top & are meaningful tiers after that.

However, talent only accounts for about 70% of this thing. Talented teams with poor coaching will still suck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todd4State

247 needs to improve on rankings of both JUCO transfers and also taking into account grad transfers.

---

247 needs a talent ranking & a VALUE recruiting ranking.

The issues with JUCOs & transfers is that they get docked stars & points due to only having 1 or 2 eligible seasons. That's fine & makes sense in recruiting rankings, but it distorts what the guy's actually talent level is & how that effects the immediate roster.

Think about WAR in baseball as a comparison. WAR is a very good evaluation tool when considering position players & starting pitchers, but really sucks when it comes to relievers because they don't pitch enough innings.

However, due to that, Josh Hader & Zach Davies end up with the same WAR yet it's completely clear which player is more impactful in competing for a World Series.

I think we just need to accept that there are obvious limits to any sort of recruiting ranking, and just take them for what they're worth. I don't care a whole lot about someone's recruiting ranking once they've been in college for a couple years, so I don't really care about a transfer's HS recruiting rating. And I don't know that I really care to see any sort of updated 247 rating for a transfer. JUCO's are one thing because there's no real way for a fan to gauge a JUCO player's potential impact otherwise. But for guys who have already played at the D1 level, just look at what they've done and decide for yourself.

Take Jamie Newman for example. He was a middling recruit, but then he went to WF and played really well. His HS rating doesn't mean anything at this point, and what good does it do me to see that 247 gives him 4 stars or something? I know what he's done without a ton of talent around him, and I can assume from that he will probably be pretty good at UGA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

Recruiting rankings are very important at the top & are meaningful tiers after that.

However, talent only accounts for about 70% of this thing. Talented teams with poor coaching will still suck.

---

I agree. The point I was trying to make is that recruiting rankings are only part of the equation. Coaching, injures, suspensions, chemistry and other factors all contribute to team success.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

247 needs a talent ranking & a VALUE recruiting ranking.

The issues with JUCOs & transfers is that they get docked stars & points due to only having 1 or 2 eligible seasons. That's fine & makes sense in recruiting rankings, but it distorts what the guy's actually talent level is & how that effects the immediate roster.

Think about WAR in baseball as a comparison. WAR is a very good evaluation tool when considering position players & starting pitchers, but really sucks when it comes to relievers because they don't pitch enough innings.

However, due to that, Josh Hader & Zach Davies end up with the same WAR yet it's completely clear which player is more impactful in competing for a World Series.

---

I actually really like WAR for that reason. It can show you that big-time RPs aren't as valuable as just good SPs. They simply don't impact wins and losses as much precisely because they don't pitch as many innings.

But recruiting rankings are nothing like WAR. WAR is actually calculated and is intended to show a player's real value on the field. Recruiting rankings are just a guess and are only relevant in comparisons to other players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DawgPoundtheRock

I agree. The point I was trying to make is that recruiting rankings are only part of the equation. Coaching, injures, suspensions, chemistry and other factors all contribute to team success.

---

100%

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smootness

I actually really like WAR for that reason. It can show you that big-time RPs aren't as valuable as just good SPs. They simply don't impact wins and losses as much precisely because they don't pitch as many innings.

But recruiting rankings are nothing like WAR. WAR is actually calculated and is intended to show a player's real value on the field. Recruiting rankings are just a guess and are only relevant in comparisons to other players.

---

I agree to some extent. WAR is great for value & determining what you would pay a free agent or trade for a player. However, there is a value to relief pitchers that is not calculated in WAR & thus it's a fuzzy stat for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

I agree to some extent. WAR is great for value & determining what you would pay a free agent or trade for a player. However, there is a value to relief pitchers that is not calculated in WAR & thus it's a fuzzy stat for them.

---

I don't agree with that, at least not over a full season, which is when WAR becomes useful. I don't think there is extra value to relief pitchers at least until you actually get into the postseason and they're facing the highest leverage situations.

One inning in May is basically the same as any other, generally speaking. Obviously a guy like Davies might not even make a team's postseason rotation, so in that case, a high-leverage RP will be more valuable. But is a late-inning RP more valuable than a guy in the rotation even in a playoff series? I can't say they are. Both become extremely valuable at that point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smootness

I don't agree with that, at least not over a full season, which is when WAR becomes useful. I don't think there is extra value to relief pitchers at least until you actually get into the postseason and they're facing the highest leverage situations.

One inning in May is basically the same as any other, generally speaking. Obviously a guy like Davies might not even make a team's postseason rotation, so in that case, a high-leverage RP will be more valuable. But is a late-inning RP more valuable than a guy in the rotation even in a playoff series? I can't say they are. Both become extremely valuable at that point.

---

RPs are certainly more valuable in the post season than regular season. So you need them to win a World Series, which increases their value. There's also an intangible factor of being able to consistently close out games. Teams become demoralized by blown saves & such. There is some value in that.

I like WAR. I'm not disagreeing with the stat. I'm just saying that it's a little light on relievers in the same way that recruiting rankings don't fully represent transfers.

You take Josh Hader 100 times out of 100 times over Zach Davies yet WAR says they are basically the same guy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DawgPoundtheRock

This ranking which is based solely on recruiting, has om at 25 and Arkansas at 26. We are 23 USCe is ranked ahead of us and UT and Fla are ranked next to each other. This ranking was last updated 9/29/19.

My question is if Om and Arky have top 25 teams based on their recruiting for the last 4 years, how did they finish the year with such terrible records? IMO this is an excellent example of why the value of recruiting rankings is questionable.

---

Also makes me wonder why people during the coaching searches acted like Ole Miss was so much easier to get talent to than Arkansas and why it's a better job when they recruit basically identically to one another.

I like the idea of adding grad transfers to class rankings but it still wouldn't be totally accurate because there are even 5* guys that bust and adding a 5* to someone's class when they obviously aren't really a 5* talent would be misleading as well. You'd have to come up with a whole new system of ranking based on how they performed in college.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

You take Josh Hader 100 times out of 100 times over Zach Davies yet WAR says they are basically the same guy

---

The reason I like WAR is because it can evaluate statements like this that seem clearly true but may not actually be. What proof do we have that Josh Hader is actually more valuable in the postseason than Zach Davies, assuming Davies is in the postseason rotation?

You need RPs to win the World Series, certainly...but you also need good SPs. I can get on board with the intangibles to a degree, but if you can't get a lead to your stud RPs, then who cares what RPs you have? The SP is just as important in that case.

I'm not knocking the value of big-time RPs. But I think WAR has it just about right in the way they value them. And WAR is simply about the regular season, it doesn't say anything about the postseason. Either way, again, WAR is an actual calculation based on something real; recruiting rating is just a subjective comparison to other players and doesn't really represent anything on the field.