Do Stats Matter In Recruiting

In this new world of recruiting high school student athletes do stats really matter?  Now these days with so many message boards, websites and blogs you can get the latest news and information on just about any high school player’s games and their stats sometimes written up minute by minute in real time.

Think about this one for a minute: do stats help you get recruited for college or not? I have seen many high school football games where it’s a blow out by half-time and the coach takes out all the starters. One may be a quarterback or running back whose numbers may not look too overwhelming. If it’s a quarterback and he passes for just 200 yards in the game, if he’d played until the 4th quarter he may have passed for 300 or maybe 400 yards in that game.

When you read about that game in the Sunday paper, that team won but that quarterback only passed for 200 yards some would think he had just an average game and others may think that he’s not as good as some other player across town.  Did this quarterback’s stats really tell the full story or can these numbers be somewhat misleading?  You be the judge.

What about the basketball player who, just like in football, does not play the whole game and their numbers are down but with more playing time could have a 20 point or higher game average. Sometimes the numbers don’t tell the true story. I have seen high school basketball players who average 30 points per game in high school and when their stats are published in the newspaper you would think that this player can really play ball and that they are on their way to a major college program. Big numbers really catches everyone’s attention because if you didn’t see the game that’s all you would have to go on, right?

There are factors involved that the average person or fan of high school sports may not truly understand. What kind of competition are they playing against? What is the talent level of the other players? Often, the numbers don’t tell the story and should not always be used to make it seem like one player is better than another player. The numbers or stats, if you will, cannot really tell if that player can play at a high level college program.

Here’s something that will not make since to you at all about stats and recruiting. Most of the time recruiting is done by mailing or emailing information to college coaches about players. And most college recruiters will see the numbers. That is one way to get the college coaches attention. If a player was rushing for 250 yards per game or scoring 30 points per game coaches would take notice right away because the numbers have gotten their attention.

The numbers cannot always be used in getting a player recruited for college or trying to get a college coach’s interest. In my many years as a college recruiter I try to tell the story about that player’s story; about what he or she is capable of as an athlete not the numbers. The thing is that college coaches want to see more of than numbers and stats is ability and skill and heart and passion for the sport. Can they really play?

Many times the real followers of high school sports will know that it’s about that player’s talent level, can they play at the college level and are they any good? Many high school players with big numbers sometimes get more hype because of message boards, websites and blogs, the sports page and T.V.–because they have great numbers.

It’s always a better story to cover a basketball player who scored 50 points in a game or the football player who rushes for 300 yards in a football game. They make for better sports news. The player who only gets 100 yards passing or 15 points in a basketball game will not be mentioned anywhere. My point here is seeing is better than reading the numbers.

Many years ago there were two brothers who played on a good high school basketball team coached by their father. These players were very good. Both were about 6’5 maybe 6’6 and they played at a school just outside of Cleveland, Ohio. Every day I would read the paper and see their stats which read like 30 points, 20 rebounds and other items as well each week. The numbers were very good and sometimes good and often better than the week before.

Back in those days I use to attend a lot of ballgames to scout players for my business. It was a great way for me to meet players and their parents. I would go and see these guys play and they seemed to be very good and I, as a college recruiter, wanted to see what was really going on.

They were that good! When I got to the game these two brothers, coached by their father, really had game! But the points they scored were true; they got those points if it was 30 points or the other brother got 40 points, those numbers were real. But when I read the sports page the next day the other stats were not so real; 20 rebounds or 15 assists and I said to myself- I know they did get those other numbers but if I hadn’t seen the game  with my own eyes, I would be lead to believe that they didn’t it all. 

Come to find out, there were deeper issues with this family and the father who was their coach. The family acted as though they were free agents in pro sports moving from school to school, team to team. Their reason for doing this was to create buzz about themselves only.

These very good high school basketball players did not need to embellish their stats. They were looking for major college programs to come and see them play. That was their only goal. These two did end up at mid-major basketball programs and really went no further than that. They both had just typical college careers, nothing more. Stats mean something but they’re not always the true test of a player’s ability.

When it comes to recruiting, it’s about size and speed and what players can really do out there in the games against other good high school athletes. College coaches will recruit with their eyes and try to use good common since and not only see the numbers.

Many times, parents will put pressure on high school coaches to play their kid more or play them the entire game just to get their numbers higher. Most high school coaches want to win the game but also give the other players a chance to play as well.

The difficulty with stats is when it comes to being recruited, what should you use to measure one’s playing ability? Is the player who scores 12 points per game less of a player than the one who scores 20 points per game? Or what about the football player who gets 150 yards rushing per game and some other player gets 250. Who’s really better?

With stats, it’s a hard thing to measure one player over another or even use in recruiting. Think about the players who may not get as much playing time but are very talented or the players who are in the dog house with the coach and get no playing time.

Just remember: stats are not everything when it comes to who’s better, who’s not, who can play in college or even the level of college. Just look at the player. Can he or she really play?

If you like this blog post, then please sign up for my weekly newsletter. It’s free! We also offer college recruiting tips and information along with reviews on sports athletic products and gear.

GMs and Goalie Stats

The 1994-95 NHL regular season was very unusual. A lengthy lockout shortened the schedule to just 48 games per team, and to make the scheduling work every team only played against opponents within their own conference. The condensed schedule also gave teams fewer off-days, meaning they had less of an opportunity to catch up with the goings-on around the rest of the league.

The short season made it tough for all awards voters to identify the league’s best, but it had to have been especially difficult for the league’s general managers required to vote on the 1995 Vezina. Many of them would not have seen much at all of the other conference, and likely would only have seen the best goalies in their own division 3-4 times. Based on this I expect that 1994-95 was probably the season where GMs were most likely to rely on statistics when filling out their award ballots.

If that’s true, then looking at the voting results should give some insight on how general managers rate goalies based on their performance numbers (the full Vezina ranking can be found here). How did they fare? In my opinion, not very well. Most of them voted for Dominik Hasek, but that shouldn’t have been a very difficult choice at all given that Hasek was the defending Vezina winner and led the league in GAA, shutouts and of course save percentage, where he crushed the field by .013. The other rankings were less clear, and some of the choices left something to be desired.

In particular, there were three voters that seem to have completely failed the test, the trio of league decision-makers who rated Mike Vernon as the best goalie in the league.

Compare the stats:

Vernon: 19-6-4, 2.52, .893, 1 SO
Hasek: 19-14-7, 2.11, .930, 5 SO

I really hope those were Western Conference GMs who just saw Vernon really good against their own teams and didn’t feel comfortable ranking Eastern goalies that they hadn’t seen play. Even in that event they still made a very poor decision, but it would have been completely embarrassing for them if they actually looked at everyone’s numbers and decided that Vernon had the best season based on wins and losses.

Detroit had a terrific team as usual that season, with a defensive unit led by Nicklas Lidstrom, Paul Coffey, Slava Fetisov and Vladimir Konstantinov, plus their usual strong group of forwards. Backup Chris Osgood actually had better numbers than Vernon (14-5-0, 2.26, .917). On the other hand, when Hasek wasn’t in net Buffalo’s goaltending numbers were 3-5-0, 3.86, .864.

Any given shot was 67% more likely to go in against Vernon than against Hasek. Vernon allowed 3.21 goals per 30 shots against compared to Hasek’s 2.10. If you were to swap Vernon’s goal support in Detroit with Buffalo’s goalscoring during Hasek’s first 30 games of the season (excluding one short relief appearance), it would have had a dramatic effect on the records of both goalies. Vernon would have had a losing record at 11-15-4, while Hasek would have improved to a spectacular 22-3-5. And that’s based on raw goals against without even taking into account the fact that Vernon faced nearly 7 fewer shots against per game.

It wasn’t even remotely close, that’s the point I’m trying to make.

Looking at the Vezina votes overall, they ended up being split around a number of goalies, which was perhaps to be expected given the peculiar circumstances. In addition to Hasek and Vernon five other goalies received at least one first place vote, only two of whom ended up in the top 10 in save percentage, and 15 goalies ended up with at least one vote. No other season has ever seen more different goalies get named on Vezina ballots than 1994-95.

If you remove Hasek from the sample, since he was so obviously the best goalie that even a voter who never saw him play and was just going by traditional numbers like GAA or shutouts should still have been able to figure out that the Dominator was the most deserving, here are the correlations between the Vezina voting and other statistics among all other goalies with 20+ games played that season:

GAA: -.591
Win Percentage: .589
Wins: .536
Shots/60: -.534
Shutouts: .455
Save Percentage: .290

That makes it seem pretty apparent that most early ’90s NHL general managers rated goalies based on wins and the strength of the defence in front of them. That’s scary stuff, and is yet another reminder that we should be cautious when using historical Vezina voting results to rank goalies.

Brodeur is a Fraud

Stats & Stuff: Whose Been Stepping It Up?

-RB Matt Forte has 283 rushing yards on 60 carries in his last three games after getting a total of 101 yards on 32 carries in the previous three. …

-WR Johnny Knox has at least one catch for 24 yards or longer in nine of the Bears’ 11 games, even though he’s got a total of just 40 receptions. …

-TE Greg Olsen has TD catches in three of his last four games. …

-Major Wright alternated series at strong safety last week, and the rookie was credited with a personal-best four tackles. …

-Danieal Manning saw his playing time slashed last week when he was platooned with Wright. But that allowed Manning to share the kickoff-return duties with Devin Hester, and Manning averaged 29.3 yards on three returns, even though one was significantly shortened by a holding penalty. …

-DE Israel Idonije was given full credit for a sack last week that was originally split between him and Henry Melton. Idonije now has a team-best seven sacks, one short of his career total for his first six years in the league. …

-DE Julius Peppers has six sacks, including four in the last two games, and his 87 sacks since 2002 are third in the league behind only Jason Taylor (92) and Dwight Freeney (92).

Bears Backer

UK basketball notes and stats after three games

Some notes and stats for 3-0 Kentucky:

  • Kentucky has made 28 of 64 three-point attempts thus far for a percentage of 43.8. Before you are convinced this is a better shooting team than last year, the 2009-10 Cats made 21 of 52 threes in its first three games for a percentage of 40.4.
  • Free throws are a definite problem. Through three games, Kentucky has made just 35 of 65 from the stripe for 53.8 percent.
  • Surprising free throw stat: Jon Hood is just three of seven at the line.
  • Rebounding has not been a problem, or was not against Oklahoma. The Cats got 35.3 percent of the available offensive rebounds. Oklahoma snared 28.2 percent of its available offensive boards.
  • Josh Harrellson grabbed a season-low three rebounds against the Sooners.
  • DeAndre Liggins has played 103 minutes and is still looking for his first offensive rebound.
  • Liggins did have three steals against the Sooners.

  • Terrence Jones has two double-doubles in his first three games. Patrick Patterson also had two double-doubles in his first three games. Patterson had 12 points and 12 rebounds against Gardner-Webb in his second game as a Cat. He scored 23 points and grabbed 10 rebounds against Liberty in his third game.
  • The Cats were outscored 36-34 in second half of the 76-64 win over Oklahoma. That’s the first half in six so far this year that John Calipari’s team has been outscored.
  • In its first three games, Kentucky has led at the half by 15, 14 and 14.
  • UK shot 54.9 percent vs. Portland and 50.0 vs Oklahoma. UK shot 50 percent or better in back-to-back seven times last season.
  • Oklahoma managed just six assists, the lowest total against UK since South Carolina was credited with just six assists in the Gamecocks’ upset of Kentucky last year in Columbia.
  • After making 13 of 26 shots in his first two games, Brandon Knight was just 4-of-15 vs. Oklahoma.
  • Knight also had five turnovers.
  • Doron Lamb has scored in double figures in all three games, and has hit eight of 12 three-pointers.
  • Neither Jarrod Polson or Stacy Poole played against OU.
  • UK’s offense has been pretty efficient so far, posting a 1.26 points per possession average against East Tennessee, a 1.31 vs. Portland and 1.13 versus Oklahoma. Not bad considering the Cats’ woeful free throw shooting thus far.

Share/Save/Bookmark

John Clay’s Sidelines

Ten games in, 10 stats up, 10 stats down for Detroit Pistons

The Pistons are 10 games into their season, and we’re beginning to get an accurate picture of what they can do. So far, almost all statistical analysis on this site has included a disclaimer about small sample size. That’s becoming less relevant.

Of course, a lot will still change by the end of the season. So, Patrick and I are trying our hand at predicting which stats won’t hold up.

Ten numbers that will increase

Dan Feldman

Patrick Hayes

Ten numbers that will decrease

Dan Feldman

Patrick Hayes

Which numbers do you think will increase and decrease by the end of the year?

Share:

email
Twitter
Facebook
Google Bookmarks
del.icio.us
BallHype-NBA
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo! Buzz
Print




PistonPowered

The problem with Joe Morgan was not that he didn’t like stats

The baseball world is buzzing about ESPN’s recent decision to not renew Joe Morgan’s contract for Sunday Night Baseball after 21 years. Many are wondering if this has anything to do with Morgan’s near-legendary dislike and distrust of modern statistics, as satirized by the now defunct blog “Fire Joe Morgan.”

Joe Morgan was singled out unfairly, perhaps due to his prominent position on the flagship baseball program of the nation’s leading sports network, because there are certainly lots of color commentators throughout baseball who don’t like stats, or are otherwise just not very good, and many of them are much worse than Morgan ever was.

Morgan is a very genial, likeable guy, with a distinctive and warm broadcasting voice, which are two things a good color man needs, and he also happens to be a hall of famer and one of the greatest ballplayers of all time, so he certainly had some credentials.

But while I always liked Joe Morgan personally, I just couldn’t stand listening to him, and it actually didn’t come down to his distrust of stats. The main problem I had with Joe is that he just didn’t prepare enough for his broadcasts. He would routinely stumble over names, or say things about players that just weren’t true.

Sure, he new a lot about certain players, especially ones on certain teams like the Yankees and Red Sox, but whenever my Dodgers were on Sunday Night Baseball, it was glaringly obvious that Joe Morgan didn’t know anything about any of the Dodgers players at all.

Most professional broadcasters know that they have to prepare for games. Vin Scully famously does about 3 hours of research before every game, familiarizing himself with the opposing team and all of their players, and even reading the local newspaper to see what local sportswriters are saying.

Good broadcasters seem like they know everything about every player in baseball, which of course is impossible, but that’s because they actually study up before the game. Joe Morgan never did that. At least, not very much. And it was obvious.

It’s really too bad, because there are so many extremely competent broadcasters grinding out there in the minor leagues just dying to get a crack at a major league broadcaster job, but these networks always go and give the color jobs to some incompetent former major leaguer, whether it’s Joe Morgan or somebody else. And as I said, Joe was hardly even the worst case.

It’s a shame. They should let professional broadcasters broadcast, and let former major leaguers just be former major leaguers. Like I said, my main problem with Joe was not that he didn’t believe in modern stats, but rather that he was unprofessional. He didn’t prepare for games.

Tagged:  broadcasting, ESPN, Joe Morgan




UmpBump.com

Kentucky basketball exhibition stats in Excel

Put together a spreadsheet from the two UK basketball exhibition games:

Share/Save/Bookmark

John Clay’s Sidelines


Scoutme.com




Scoutme.com