Apologies for the ridiculously long post, but as some of you know I am wont to write overly-detailed analyses of Stanford recruiting when I get a few free hours as I had this morning. I thought it might be interesting to slice recruit ranking data to get a sense of how well Stanford has recruited over the Harbaugh/Shaw era and to see if we can discern any interesting observations.
For the purposes of this analysis, I looked at the 2009-2015 classes. I think that's the most interesting snapshot of the Harbaugh/Shaw era on the recruiting trail. While the 2008 class was part of that era and undeniably critical in launching Stanford to prominence, I tend to think it is less interesting as a case study of recruiting rankings because it was such a smashing success; while most classes have some players who under-perform and over-perform, in my view the 2008 class is one of the most striking incidents in college football history of a staff hitting a home run as close to across the board as you can come. As such, I really don't think it can be viewed as a representative class for evaluating recruiting rankings. The kinds of analysis I do slicing recruiting rankings would not be very illuminating if applied to the 2008 class, in my opinion. Also, I had to pick a cutoff somewhere as the process of accumulating data for this post was somewhat labor-intensive.
My methodology for this post was to look at Rivals' ratings and tabulate how many recruits Rivals rated each year in the 5.6-6.1 range, the high end of the spectrum on Rivals that includes medium-tier 3-star recruits and above, and how many recruits Stanford got in each rating tier each year. Illustratively, in 2015 Rivals had 631 recruits rated at 5.5 (the majority of the 3-stars), 328 rated at 5.6 (above-average 3-stars), 274 rated at 5.7 (high 3-stars) , 214 rated at 5.8 (the majority of the 4-stars), 100 rated at 5.9 (high 4-stars), 39 rated at 6.0 (uber-high 4-stars), and 36 rated at 6.1 (the 5-stars). I tabulated this data for each year from 2009-2015. There are fluctuations in the size of each category each year, presumably reflecting the Rivals staff's subjective evaluation each year of how many players in the country warrant a given rating.
In order to count up the Stanford players, it was a straightforward counting exercise for 2009-2014. For 2015, it would
probably make sense to wait until the ink is dry next Wednesday, but I'm impatient and wanted to see what the data indicate now, so I made an assumption that Stanford will close with Bryce Love (5.9), Quenton Meeks (5.8), and Justin Reid (5.6). Regardless, I will have to revisit this next week to make sure my count for 2015 is accurate. Counting those guys as part of the class, Stanford would have 6 recruits rated at 5.6, 6 rated at 5.7, 2 rated at 5.8, 4 rated at 5.9, 0 rated at 6.0, and 1 rated at 6.1.
There were two main questions I wanted to look at in this exercise:
1) How many above-average 3-stars and above did Stanford get each year?
2) How many high 4-stars and above did Stanford get each year?
These questions interested me because as I tabulated the data I noticed that the differences in the Rivals system between 5.5 and 5.6 and between 5.8 and 5.9 were significant. It's a big jump between those tiers, so I thought it might be interesting to evaluate classes based on how well they did getting the more elite players. This approach also comports with my long-held view that recruiting a significant volume of quality players (here defined as 5.6+) and recruiting a critical mass of difference-makers (here defined as 5.9+) is the key to success. [There are lots of assumptions embedded here that we've debated/validated ad nauseum on various fan boards over the years. In this post I just wanted to explain my approach]
For both of these questions, I wanted to get a sense not only of the sheer number in each category but also the proportion of players Stanford got in each category, as I noticed that the year-to-year fluctuations in the numbers rated nationally in each category may be significant enough to skew the analysis if I made this simply a counting exercise. What did I find?
Above-Average 3-Stars and Above
2015: 19 of 991 (1.92%)
2014: 17 of 964 (1.76%)
2013: 12 of 1099 (1.09%)
2012: 19 of 1166 (1.63%)
2011: 15 of 1195 (1.26%)
2010: 18 of 1382 (1.30%)
2009: 15 of 1163 (1.29%)
I think this will probably shock some people who have been underwhelmed by this recruiting class for whatever reason. If we close out with three more 5.6+ guys, this will be tied for our most above-average 3-stars and above ever. But more significantly, the proportion of quality guys we're getting is arguably the best in our history. If it's not the best, it's tied or slightly behind last year. I hadn't realized this until slicing the data, but it turns out that Rivals has gotten stingier in calling people high 3-stars and above the last couple of years. This class may be better than we think if classes nationally have fewer highly-rated guys. [The question I'd be interested in is whether Pac-12 teams are having any more trouble getting 5.6+ guys] In any case, I think we should put to bed the notion that this is a small class lacking in quality volume. That cheery observation aside, the 2013 class continues to stick out like a sore thumb for its disastrous lack of volume. But if three of the last four years are our best ever in getting good volume of highly-rated guys, a good case can be made that Shaw and Co. are doing what they can to mitigate any problems caused by the 2013 class.
High 4-Stars and Above
2015: 5 of 175 (2.86%)
2014: 5 of 150 (3.33%)
2013: 2 of 168 (1.19%)
2012: 6 of 120 (5.00%)
2011: 1 of 99 (1.01%)
2010: 1 of 157 (0.64%)
2009: 2 of 200 (1.00%)
I also find this surprising. There is a clear upward trend across the Harbaugh/Shaw era in our recruiting of difference makers, on paper (all of this analysis is on paper of course). Again, the last four years have seen arguably three of the top recruiting years ever for us. That 2013 class is the ugly duckling, but this is another metric in which three out of four hits indicates a staff that is doing what it can to mitigate problems caused by 2013. And 2013 doesn't look terrible compared to 2009-2011, which of course teamed with 2008 to get us to four straight BCS bowls. If you dig even further into the individual classes there may be even more cause for optimism: the elite guys in those 2009-2011 classes were Shayne Skov, Jemari Roberts, Brett Nottingham, and James Vaughters; I'd posit that, although Shayne turned out to be key to our success, we probably got less out of that group than you'd expect from four 5.9+ guys. Since then our elite guys have been Kyle Murphy, Andrus Peat, Aziz Shittu, Alex Carter, Josh Garnett, Noor Davis, Ryan Burns, Peter Kalambayi, Keller Chryst, Soloman Thomas, Christian McCaffrey, Dalton Schultz, Casey Tucker, Trent Irwin, Frank Buncom, Cameron Scarlett, and Nick Wilson. [You can exclude the four from this year's class if you want three year window apples-to-apples comparisons]. We've already gotten more from the Rivals 5.9+ guys from the last three years than we did from their counterparts the three previous years and there is a lot of football still to be played by that group, including some guys I think already look like future stars (Murphy, Kalambayi, McCaffrey).
I have to be honest. I've been worried about our trajectory as a program. Having been away from intensive recruiting analysis of the type I used to perform regularly, my impressions have been based largely on what I read on the fan boards. I thought Shaw lacked energy and urgency on the recruiting trail and was risking squandering the legacy Harbaugh left him. But looking dispassionately at the data you have to be heartened to say the least. There may be significant concerns with scheme, coaching staff, and other aspects affecting our future trajectory, but when it comes to the recruiting pipeline, which I have long viewed as the lifeblood/crux of college football, the state of Stanford football is STRONG.
Thoughts?
This post was edited on 1/30 10:04 AM by msqueri
For the purposes of this analysis, I looked at the 2009-2015 classes. I think that's the most interesting snapshot of the Harbaugh/Shaw era on the recruiting trail. While the 2008 class was part of that era and undeniably critical in launching Stanford to prominence, I tend to think it is less interesting as a case study of recruiting rankings because it was such a smashing success; while most classes have some players who under-perform and over-perform, in my view the 2008 class is one of the most striking incidents in college football history of a staff hitting a home run as close to across the board as you can come. As such, I really don't think it can be viewed as a representative class for evaluating recruiting rankings. The kinds of analysis I do slicing recruiting rankings would not be very illuminating if applied to the 2008 class, in my opinion. Also, I had to pick a cutoff somewhere as the process of accumulating data for this post was somewhat labor-intensive.
My methodology for this post was to look at Rivals' ratings and tabulate how many recruits Rivals rated each year in the 5.6-6.1 range, the high end of the spectrum on Rivals that includes medium-tier 3-star recruits and above, and how many recruits Stanford got in each rating tier each year. Illustratively, in 2015 Rivals had 631 recruits rated at 5.5 (the majority of the 3-stars), 328 rated at 5.6 (above-average 3-stars), 274 rated at 5.7 (high 3-stars) , 214 rated at 5.8 (the majority of the 4-stars), 100 rated at 5.9 (high 4-stars), 39 rated at 6.0 (uber-high 4-stars), and 36 rated at 6.1 (the 5-stars). I tabulated this data for each year from 2009-2015. There are fluctuations in the size of each category each year, presumably reflecting the Rivals staff's subjective evaluation each year of how many players in the country warrant a given rating.
In order to count up the Stanford players, it was a straightforward counting exercise for 2009-2014. For 2015, it would
probably make sense to wait until the ink is dry next Wednesday, but I'm impatient and wanted to see what the data indicate now, so I made an assumption that Stanford will close with Bryce Love (5.9), Quenton Meeks (5.8), and Justin Reid (5.6). Regardless, I will have to revisit this next week to make sure my count for 2015 is accurate. Counting those guys as part of the class, Stanford would have 6 recruits rated at 5.6, 6 rated at 5.7, 2 rated at 5.8, 4 rated at 5.9, 0 rated at 6.0, and 1 rated at 6.1.
There were two main questions I wanted to look at in this exercise:
1) How many above-average 3-stars and above did Stanford get each year?
2) How many high 4-stars and above did Stanford get each year?
These questions interested me because as I tabulated the data I noticed that the differences in the Rivals system between 5.5 and 5.6 and between 5.8 and 5.9 were significant. It's a big jump between those tiers, so I thought it might be interesting to evaluate classes based on how well they did getting the more elite players. This approach also comports with my long-held view that recruiting a significant volume of quality players (here defined as 5.6+) and recruiting a critical mass of difference-makers (here defined as 5.9+) is the key to success. [There are lots of assumptions embedded here that we've debated/validated ad nauseum on various fan boards over the years. In this post I just wanted to explain my approach]
For both of these questions, I wanted to get a sense not only of the sheer number in each category but also the proportion of players Stanford got in each category, as I noticed that the year-to-year fluctuations in the numbers rated nationally in each category may be significant enough to skew the analysis if I made this simply a counting exercise. What did I find?
Above-Average 3-Stars and Above
2015: 19 of 991 (1.92%)
2014: 17 of 964 (1.76%)
2013: 12 of 1099 (1.09%)
2012: 19 of 1166 (1.63%)
2011: 15 of 1195 (1.26%)
2010: 18 of 1382 (1.30%)
2009: 15 of 1163 (1.29%)
I think this will probably shock some people who have been underwhelmed by this recruiting class for whatever reason. If we close out with three more 5.6+ guys, this will be tied for our most above-average 3-stars and above ever. But more significantly, the proportion of quality guys we're getting is arguably the best in our history. If it's not the best, it's tied or slightly behind last year. I hadn't realized this until slicing the data, but it turns out that Rivals has gotten stingier in calling people high 3-stars and above the last couple of years. This class may be better than we think if classes nationally have fewer highly-rated guys. [The question I'd be interested in is whether Pac-12 teams are having any more trouble getting 5.6+ guys] In any case, I think we should put to bed the notion that this is a small class lacking in quality volume. That cheery observation aside, the 2013 class continues to stick out like a sore thumb for its disastrous lack of volume. But if three of the last four years are our best ever in getting good volume of highly-rated guys, a good case can be made that Shaw and Co. are doing what they can to mitigate any problems caused by the 2013 class.
High 4-Stars and Above
2015: 5 of 175 (2.86%)
2014: 5 of 150 (3.33%)
2013: 2 of 168 (1.19%)
2012: 6 of 120 (5.00%)
2011: 1 of 99 (1.01%)
2010: 1 of 157 (0.64%)
2009: 2 of 200 (1.00%)
I also find this surprising. There is a clear upward trend across the Harbaugh/Shaw era in our recruiting of difference makers, on paper (all of this analysis is on paper of course). Again, the last four years have seen arguably three of the top recruiting years ever for us. That 2013 class is the ugly duckling, but this is another metric in which three out of four hits indicates a staff that is doing what it can to mitigate problems caused by 2013. And 2013 doesn't look terrible compared to 2009-2011, which of course teamed with 2008 to get us to four straight BCS bowls. If you dig even further into the individual classes there may be even more cause for optimism: the elite guys in those 2009-2011 classes were Shayne Skov, Jemari Roberts, Brett Nottingham, and James Vaughters; I'd posit that, although Shayne turned out to be key to our success, we probably got less out of that group than you'd expect from four 5.9+ guys. Since then our elite guys have been Kyle Murphy, Andrus Peat, Aziz Shittu, Alex Carter, Josh Garnett, Noor Davis, Ryan Burns, Peter Kalambayi, Keller Chryst, Soloman Thomas, Christian McCaffrey, Dalton Schultz, Casey Tucker, Trent Irwin, Frank Buncom, Cameron Scarlett, and Nick Wilson. [You can exclude the four from this year's class if you want three year window apples-to-apples comparisons]. We've already gotten more from the Rivals 5.9+ guys from the last three years than we did from their counterparts the three previous years and there is a lot of football still to be played by that group, including some guys I think already look like future stars (Murphy, Kalambayi, McCaffrey).
I have to be honest. I've been worried about our trajectory as a program. Having been away from intensive recruiting analysis of the type I used to perform regularly, my impressions have been based largely on what I read on the fan boards. I thought Shaw lacked energy and urgency on the recruiting trail and was risking squandering the legacy Harbaugh left him. But looking dispassionately at the data you have to be heartened to say the least. There may be significant concerns with scheme, coaching staff, and other aspects affecting our future trajectory, but when it comes to the recruiting pipeline, which I have long viewed as the lifeblood/crux of college football, the state of Stanford football is STRONG.
Thoughts?
This post was edited on 1/30 10:04 AM by msqueri
