mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-30-21 04:34 PM - Post#322645
In response to OldBig5
Fired up the model again. Here's the class-by-class Win Share projections at present (win shares projected, rank among all classes since 2002, out of 160):
1. Harvard 2019 (28.3, #6)
2. Harvard 2018 (24.3, #10)
3. Harvard 2020 (22.8, #14)
4. Princeton 2018 (21.3, #21)
5. Penn 2019 (20.9, #25
6. Columbia 2021 (17.9, #43)
7. Yale 2020 (16.9, #49)
8. Princeton 2019 (16.3, #51)
9. Dartmouth 2019 (15.4, #62)
10. Cornell 2020 (14.7, #69)
11. Princeton 2021 (14.5, #74)
12. Columbia 2019 (13.4, #84)
13. Penn 2021 (13.0, #89)
14. Brown 2021 (12.8, #92)
15. Brown 2020 (11.6, #109)
16. Columbia 2018 (10.7, #115)
17. Brown 2018 (10.7, #116)
18. Columbia 2020 (10.5, #119)
19. Penn 2020 (10.2, #120)
20. Princeton 2020 (10.2, #121)
21. Cornell 2019 (10.0, #123)
22. Dartmouth 2020 (10.0, #124)
23. Yale 2021 (9.3, #131)
24. Penn 2018 (9.0, #133)
25. Cornell 2021 (8.8, #137)
26. Dartmouth 2021 (8.8, #138)
27. Yale 2018 (8.3, #140)
28. Harvard 2021 (7.1, #143)
29. Brown 2019 (7.0, #145)
30. Dartmouth 2018 (6.6, #146)
31. Cornell 2018 (6.0, #149)
32. Yale 2019 (5.9, #150)
And at a total team level, here's where the predicted win shares stand for the 2018-2021 classes:
Harvard 83
Princeton 62
Penn 53
Columbia 52
Brown 42
Yale 41
Dartmouth 41
Cornell 40
The top and bottom two are pretty unsurprising, but the middle is incredibly interesting. Brown and Yale dramatically underachieve for two different reasons. The model hates small classes, so Yale gets dinged in 2019 and 2021 (2 and 3, so far, respectively). And despite Brown's classes having some heft, there is a tremendous mismatch for how those classes are viewed in New England versus by the national recruiting services.
Meanwhile, Princeton and Penn recruited four more players in the past three classes than Yale and Columbia recruited six more, which is much of the reason why two of Yale's last three classes are among the six worst over these four years while only Penn 2018 is in the Bottom 10 from those three schools from 2019-2021.
Then, if you look at just the two classes we haven't seen (2020 and 2021), here are the expected Win Shares:
Harvard 31
Columbia 28
Yale 26
Princeton 25
Brown 24
Cornell 24
Penn 23
Dartmouth 19
Clearly, if you take out Penn's substantial 2019 class, it sinks quickly. Yale's two-person 2019 class gets removed, so it subsequently rises.
The watchout, though, is that the average win share year across the sample is 13.7, so only two teams are seen has having recruited "above average" for this cycle. I don't think that matches reality, and I do think that there are two reasons for it:
1) Many ratings systems just aren't going as deep as they used to, leading to a lot more "0s" that would have been 1 or 2 stars when, say, Future150 and ESPN were more active. For instance, from 2010 to 2017, ESPN recognized 240 out of 298 Ivy recruits (many as NR, but at least recognized). But it pivoted its strategy to only focus on the top 200 or so in 2018, and since has only recognized 48 over 139. This has a slight impact on the model, as the model rewards team for the sum of average recruit scores and the difference between a half-star and zero-star rating over a handful of recruits can meaningfully change expected WS.
2) Ivies aren't loading classes as much as they used to be. The Ivies recruited 39 kids per class over the first six years of the 2010s, but only 35 per class during the 2018-2021 cycle. Since the model sees value in having more D1 credible recruits to choose from, lowering the number of recruits lowers the average number of win shares.
For these reasons, I think the model can still be a useful relative assessment tool, but it struggles at comparing across cohorts given the changes in the ratings systems strategies. All previous caveats apply, including, most importantly, the notes that regional recruiting rankings and true offers would lend a LOT more predictive ability to this model if they could be reasonably attained.
Edited by mrjames on 04-01-21 11:52 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
