So the 2017 class now consists of 3 players who are 4* in at least one service each, plus a JUCO.
This may be far more true than you realize. Walking the halls of Mackey regularly, this is a very wise and true post. PLUS, for that player that may struggle with being the best young man, Matt will do everything in his power to help him become one. And yes, at times, they choose to leave rather than become one. I suspect those will be fewer from now on.
I think JJJ might be the only real loss in this class. He will probably be a real stud at MSU.
he is physically weak, but is skilled and can get up and down the court
You mean Coach Painter might be a little ahead of the recruiting gurus when it comes to judging talent? But weren't we all told that if he isn't at least a 4 star when he commits, then he isn't worthy of a scholarship?
I'm setting the bar at only 6 star recruits going forward.You mean Coach Painter might be a little ahead of the recruiting gurus when it comes to judging talent? But weren't we all told that if he isn't at least a 4 star when he commits, then he isn't worthy of a scholarship?
But I thought these "leftovers" all sucked?
And most people's really. After all only 4 teams make it to the Final Four, but those that don't, aren't bad teams nor have bad recruits or a bad coach. It's generally the fans that set that expectation based on their own individual perception.
I like haarms' potential, but let's keep in mind that ESPN is a lot more generous giving out four stars then rivals is.
Actually, from a predictive measure in some form of regression, the model in his view would only consist of Matt. With that perspective..assuming it was valid, the models for other predictors (other coaches success as measured) would only be the coach as well...again assuming the other variables were insignificant. The obvious conclusion would be that the sum of squares for the model (coach) would make up a very high percentage of the total sum of squares...leaving no interest to consider other variables in the model for investigation. Personally, I have a hard time believing that model is that predictive, creating that small of a standard error, but I'm just one with an opinion.
I agree that generally speaking a higher star ranking is a positive correlation to a player's abilities. I don't question that it is an indicator. My question is what is the proper weighting of star power generally? Do we look at top five, top 8, star player position and is that weighed against various individual metrics, team success and so on and so on. How do I accurately know that six other big ten teams really got better players, because someone not coaching and maybe not familiar with needs for particular team spots and tendencies listed them? In the blind, sure I would rather day in and day out have an average of 3.8 stars than 2.5 stars. I doubt anyone disagrees, but there is a lot of error for a lot of reasons in comparing star power as a means of indicating individual success and team success. In a way we can replace star power with IQ and look at academic success adn I say that not knowing the standard errors of the two for comparison, but rather say it only as a thought.
damn, and now I'm off by a factor of 7!
So even coach K is no good 60 or 70 percent of the time? I know what you mean but that's a really high bar to set.
