No..not for what he needed to provide us. He filled his role. A good pickup for a juco
Jury is out on Caleb..your expectations are low here. Caleb is playing 35 minutes a game here not 10
Carino on Derek Simpson
- Thread starter gregkoko
- Start date
No..not for what he needed to provide us. He filled his role. A good pickup for a juco
Jury is out on Caleb..your expectations are low here. Caleb is playing 35 minutes a game here not 10
Really important to note that we truly don’t know how many of those offers were commutable, which definitely matters.
I think it’s safe to say Cliff had his pick except for maybe a school like Kentucky (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong).
I also think it depends on what you’re recruiting the player for. Not every guy is dropping 20 points and an offensive weapon.
Unlike most here, I liked Mathis a lot. Streaky offensively, but was good slashing to the bucket when he had it going. He was very solid for us defensively. I just never got the sense he was happy here.
Yeah - which is to say that offers can also be a crapshoot. A prospect might have picked up a handful of offers early on, but then those schools filled those spots with players higher on their list before the prospect pulled the trigger... or they may have cooled on the prospect some time after making the offer... after their senior year, or an injury, or whatever.
On the flip side, a player can commit earlier on and then have a strong senior season (see: Harper, Ron) and they don't get any more offers because they're already committed somewhere. Some players reopen their commitment and then we see new offers pop up for them that weren't there earlier on.
Offers are an indicator - but as we've seen, not always a strong predictor of performance.
It’s just levels of interest.
A committable Kentucky offer is different vs a non-committable Kentucky offer vs no Kentucky offer.
Isn’t Carino the reporter who had the article or tweet on RU’s great off season shooting improvements?
I hope the kid is good.
But I am DONE, we articles about incoming recruits or preseason reports. Especially from Carino
But I am DONE, we articles about incoming recruits or preseason reports. Especially from Carino
Top programs remain top programs over the years because they offer and then get top players. Year after year. Simple. Collecting the offers and who gave them is the best predictor of success. Maybe the collection isn't perfect, or maybe there are other weaknesses, but it's still way better than anything else you got. Don't let perfect obscure your view of best.
P.s., distrust every single thing you hear about a player's supposed improvement in the offseason. They've been in the gym at 3:15 am every day shooting. They've been in the weight room. They've matured mentally. You should see these guys organizing their own unscheduled practices every day. They are really bonding and going at it. Yada, yada, yada. Then the real games tip off.
P.s., distrust every single thing you hear about a player's supposed improvement in the offseason. They've been in the gym at 3:15 am every day shooting. They've been in the weight room. They've matured mentally. You should see these guys organizing their own unscheduled practices every day. They are really bonding and going at it. Yada, yada, yada. Then the real games tip off.
Last edited:
Agree that offers are generally a better indicator than stars, but both are trying to get a view of a player through a keyhole. The fact that offers are a slightly larger keyhole and give a slightly better view doesn't change the fact that it's still a keyhole.
Your last comment is exactly the thing - once the real games tip off, you get to see what you really have. At that point, all the ratings, offers, and preseason chatter fade away and it's about results and production.
On balance, it's better to have higher rated kids than not, with more/better offers than not, and with more positive preseason chatter than not.... but that all becomes meaningless once they roll the balls out. After the season starts, Carino's view on Simpson may very well end up having about as much value as Doucoure's offers from Oregon, SHU, or GTech did.
We've been through this, and I disagree with all of it. Top teams aren't remaining top teams by making offers through a keyhole. If there are weaknesses to the offers approach, and there are, it doesn't turn it into a key hole. By the way, I think stars are often pretty close to offers as a predictor. Not because I think recruiting sites are as good as the professionals. It's because I believe that they generally base their star ratings on offers and what coaches say. They know what they don't know.
Also, "then the games begins" is a comment about how meaningless opinions of message board posters and reporters during the offseasons are. That, of course, has nothing to do with offers and whether they are the best predictor of how a player will peform in college. Nice try.
You are consistent. Every argument you make tries to shrink the validity gap between the analyses and predictions of message board posters and those of professionals. It'll never sell, no matter how you try to change it or manufacture gotcha moments. It's simple stuff.
You misunderstand what I'm saying - the programs aren't looking through a keyhole, the fans are. Programs don't make offers to players based on stars or the offer they've already received from other schools - I'm sure that has zero influence on their decisions. Programs review hours of game film, see the players in person at games and clinics, have the players on campus, talk to their coaches/families, etc... and they generally do this over years. Fans don't get all of that input. We can only see ratings, offers, media, and coachspeak - and we make gross assumptions based on that.
So far, both stars and offers have turned out to be bad predictors of performance for Rutgers during Pikiell's run.
You're right that I'm consistent, though, but not in the way you're describing. I don't think rando posters have validity at all, and I think stars/offers are much more valid... but I also don't put them a pedestal. Professional insights have value, but people put way too much stock in them. They are directional.
Pick 50 players with stars/offers/hype and more of them will be successful than 50 players without.... but that doesn't mean any given player will be a success. Hit rate on 5 star/25+ offer guys is much higher than hit rate on 4 star/12 offer guys, which is in turn much higher than 3 star/2 offer guys... but stars/offers aren't really predictive at the individual level. Rolling a die 6 times doesn't guarantee you're going to get a 6, or even that you're going to get better than a 3 half the time... but I've got better odds trying for a 3 or better on a 20 sided die than a 6 sided die.
I've gotten to the point where I'm not buying the hype around any given player until they suit up - whether that hype comes from media (Carino, Weiss), offers, stars, coachspeak or idiot posters on a message board. People may want to puff up offers and stars, and that's fine - I don't buy it, given our track record on guys with more offers and stars.
No, to your last sentence. You may see all that. I see offers. Because they reflect what the programs see--their determinations as professionals. You should stop there. But you don't. Top programs stay that way for a reason. They offer (and then get) the best players and they stay top programs because enough pan out. It's simple stuff. Don't make it hard. Let's move on.
Fans as a whole only get to see those inputs - any individual fan can then pick and choose from there what they pay attention to. You look at offers and ignore the rest.... I go one step further and largely ignore offers, too.
I'm pretty much over getting excited over recruits until they're seeing minutes consistently and producing.
agreed.. with so many of the top kids just wanting the elite names on their jerseys.. Rutgers pretty much has to find the overlooked diamonds.. and I hope we got a couple coming in.
although.. if you do not offer you'll never know... MAKE THE ASK
Last edited:
Derek Simpson has his first game tonight vs. Linden at Cherokee at 5:30 PM. I am looking forward to seeing how he does. He also will go head to head again Wagner of Camden within a few weeks.
I am sorry. I made a mistake. The Lenape-Linden game at Cherokee is tomorrow (Saturday) at 5:30 PM.
Let’s both start a basketball program.
I’ll only recruit 4 star players for 10 straight years.
You can only recruit 3 star players for the next 10 years and I’ll let you sprinkle in 1 4 star every other year.
Let’s see who is more successful.
Plenty of first round busts in the NFL draft. I'd still take a first round pick over a fourth round pick.
That's the whole point, though. You have a higher hit rate when pulling from the pool of players with more stars and more offers, but stars and offers are not predictive at the individual player level. A guy with 4 stars and 12 offers from respected programs will have a better chance of being successful, but as we've seen here that frequently doesn't pan out.
Getting hyped that THIS player has THESE offers just isn't worth it for me anymore. Or getting bummed because THAT player is short on offers. A good pre-flop hand is worth betting on, but it's all just potential until you get the chips shoved your way.
Getting hyped that THIS player has THESE offers just isn't worth it for me anymore. Or getting bummed because THAT player is short on offers. A good pre-flop hand is worth betting on, but it's all just potential until you get the chips shoved your way.
That's what predictive means. If bolded is true, then it is predictive. Not having a correlation of 1 doesn't mean it's not predictive.
Nonsense. Successful programs are offering recruits every year, getting them, and mainitaining their success at a certain level. So it matters who they offer, and who they don't. Because they've been getting it right enough to be good and better than most of the remaining programs. It also matters which programs are offering the recruits that the top programs are not. And so on. It's both a good and the best measure of recruits becasue it is a decision-level metric that incorporates all the programs' scouting and evaluations on their personnel decisions. Feel free to discount the metric for yourself, be it due to past disappointment, misses that of course happen, or that you somehow personally feel that you'd be making a risky, information-less poker play. Fine. But the metric is good--the best that you have available. And if this program over the long run improves its recruiting performance based solely on that metric, the program will improve.
Predictive in aggregate, not at the individual level.
It's like the snow discussions where the prediction is 4-5 inches, but people always post "but I only got 1 in my backyard, so this is a bust". The larger a data set you use, the more accurately you can predict.... but at the single player level (or backyard level), it's just directional.
In a vacuum, KQ is a good starting poker hand.... but there are too many variables to really know the strength of that hand until you see some more cards dealt. If you got dealt KQ on 100 consecutive hands, you'd win more often than not.... but you can also get beat or have to fold 3x in a row with it fairly easily. Doesn't mean KQ isn't a desirable starting hand, or that you'd rather J3 or whatever.... just that you really don't know how good it is until you see some more cards.
The first time you play poker, AA seems magical... then you see it cracked a couple of dozen times or just win the blinds, and you just start seeing it as a hand with a lot of potential and hope you can get money in before the flop and see a max payout.
Edit: And just like cards, we fans have zero control over what cards we are dealt. We may bitch that we've had a run without any face cards or pocket pairs, and say we'd be winning more if we got dealt rockets every hand, but we have no control over that. Pike is doing everything he can to get better hands - and you either believe that, or you don't.
Last edited:
That's not a thing, if something is predictive in aggregate it is also predictive at the individual level. There's a lot of variance, sure, but it's still predictive.
@RUChoppin reading more carefully I think we agree on the math and are just arguing over words.
Yeah, I'm saying that if you roll a six-sided die 6000 times, you'll get a 6 about 1000 times But just because it's 16.7% chance doesn't mean that you can predict with any certainty the result of any single roll, or even that you'll get a 6 after 6 rolls. I'm using predictive to mean you can know something with a degree of certainty, which sounds like a more narrow definition than you are using.
We don't get to take 1000s of players, we get just a small handful every year. Our small handful of guys with offers hasn't yielded great on-court results so far. That's not saying I value guys without offers/stars equally to guys with offers/stars - just that I've started to put much less stock in offers/stars other than maybe as an indicator of potential. I'm leaning more to the camp of reserving judgement until after the balls are rolled out.
No Rutgers coach is going to get fired for lack of perceived value in incoming HS recruits... he's going to get fired for failure to get wins.
This is all becoming rapidly moot, though, anyway, as success in the transfer portal is beginning to replace success in HS recruiting as the most important thing to "get right". And we don't know the list of current offers for transfer portal guys, and they aren't re-rated on a star scale - you actually have to look at results to see if they're going to be a good fit for your team. And from what we've seen so far, we didn't get that right this year.
Point taken. All I'm saying is that we've convinced our share of All-NJ HS players
to stay home over the past 30 years and only one that I can think of (Dahntay Jones, and
he transferred to Duke) ever lived up to the billing. It's a roll of the dice more than ever
now
