Out of Curiosity: Are Four Star WRs Really a Dime a Dozen?
by Todd on Jun 8, 2009 10:00 AM CDT
in Football
Email
Printed- Before scrolling on after the first few sentences, this isn't a post about Auburn's sudden recruiting fortunes, such as they are. This is a post (and hopefully the first in a series of posts) dedicated to reconciling my own perceptions with (admittedly crude) statistical work.
I'll give you three guesses what "4," "Receiver," and "Auburn" makes me think of first.
On Friday, Jerry of the JCCW threw his two cents in on the commitment of Four Star WR Jeremy Richardson to Auburn, noting that the Teagles have grabbed the highest profile in state recruit since '07 and have "...received commitments from three different four-star wide receivers in the five months since Chizik and Co. have been in operation." We may scoff at the notion of getting all giggly over a mere four star after Alabama's last two recruiting classes, but let's face it; the last few recruiting classes of the Tubberville era were looking positively Shula-esque, and considering we were all kinds of excited about the 2007 class that saw nary a 5 Star prospect fax his LOI to Tuscaloosa it's no surprise that the sudden influx of offensive talent to a team that hasn't had much luck there lately would get their fans all a twitter. Anyway, the reason I'm bringing this up is because of my own intitial reaction, which ran somewhere along the lines of "a four star receiver? Big deal, ALL receivers are four stars these days." Not entirely sure how I got that idea into my head, I decided I'd go through the recruiting classes of every SEC school to find out just how many four star guys sign each year and see if the numbers validate or bust my perception.
Fist, a note on the methodology. This is in no way any kind of measure in quality of recruiting classes. It completely disregards five star signees (in several cases, Florida and LSU signed only five star guys, which sucks for everyone else) and "athletes" that end up playing receiver, while also crediting the teams with players that never actually made it to campus (Melvin Ray and Destin Hood anyone?). Further, most people are very quick to remind you that three star recruits are quite often productive college players. In fact, of the ten leading receivers in the SEC (in yards per game), only half were four star or higher coming out of high school, so take this as nothing more than a measure of how many four star receivers are routinely signed in the SEC. On to the SEC West:
As you can see, over half the receivers signed by Alabama, Auburn, and LSU since 2002 were four star receivers, while Alabama and Auburn both have had only one year since 2005 where less than half of their receivers were four star players. As for the rest, not so much. Ole Miss, Mississippi State, and Arkansas combined to sign 13 total four star receivers in the same time period, one less than Auburn only one more than Alabama alone. The perception that every receiver recruit we hear about is a four star is somewhat explained by these numbers, though the reality is way off.
An interesting aside: Considering Auburn has had the highest a high percentage of four star receivers in the conference since 2002, where is the production? I said earlier it's easy to see why Auburn fans would be excited about an influx of offensive talent, but aside from 2008 (the "character" class that was at least the next to last nail in Tubby's pine box) bringing in four star receiver talent is pretty common on the plains.
ed- As noted in the comments, a typo caused a bit of a miscalculation in the numbers. Auburn actually only had 46% of their receivers rated as four stars, not the SEC leading 58% I had initially figured. The typo doesn't change the fact that, save the "character" '08 class, at least half of Auburn's receivers have been four stars every year since '05.
Now let's look at the SEC East:
Unsurprisingly Vanderbilt has signed zero four star prospects, but most suprisingly Georgia is the only Eastern division team with over 50%. Florida's lower number of four stars has more to do with their higher number of five stars and the recruiting of "athletes," though, so take that with a big grain of salt. All in all, just another exercise in perception vs reality. Alabama and Auburn have signed so many four star receivers over the past few years that it's easy for someone in this state that doesn't pay much attention to recruiting beyond his own team's efforts and the in state kids (i.e. me) to think everyone is doing so. Unfortunately for them, that's just not the case.
Suggestions for future topics are more than welcome.
17 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Just going through that should remind you that a lot of schools would be happy with “shula-esque” recruiting.
Also, i wish there was an easier way to compare the students that actually show up on campus, not just signing-day star-porn that Rivals peddles so relentlessly, I mean, this is such a small sample size that a couple of summer arrests or non-qualifiers can make a big difference.
by Alabama ManDance on Jun 8, 2009 10:54 AM CDT reply actions
One thing...
… I think you should consider is just how many receivers each year are given four-stars or higher. For example, let’s look at the number of four-star or higher wide receivers the past few years by Scout.com:
2009: 46
2008: 59
2007: 63
2006: 40
2005: 40
So what does that tell us exactly? Well, for starters, it tells you that there is nothing overly special about being a four-star wide receiver. The truth of the matter is that some positions are largely overrepresented in the recruiting rankings, while others are underrepresented, and it’s clear that the wide receiver position falls in the former category, not the latter.
In real terms, I think what it means that you can be a four-star wide receiver and still not be all that good of a prospect, relatively speaking. After all, star system be damned, exactly how good can you reasonably be if you are ranked the 60th best wide receiver in the country in any given year? You may end up as a four-star, but again, what is that really saying? All it really says is that the recruiting “experts” give out entirely too damn many four-star ratings to wide receiver prospects.
And just so no one thinks I’m being a homer and ragging on Richardson, a recent Auburn commitment, I’ll use an Alabama example to make the point. Look at Brandon Gibson… he was one of the big signees in the 2007 class and a four-star recruit, but ultimately Scout.com had him as only the #35 wide receiver prospect in the class. Perhaps we shouldn’t be too surprised then that Gibson redshirted in his first year, didn’t catch a single pass in his second year, and doesn’t look to be a factor for meaningful playing time in his third year either. That’s not to say he’s a bust or anything along those lines, mind you, because he will probably eventually earn meaningful playing time down the road, but realistically speaking how good can you expect the #35 wide receiver prospect in a given class to be?
by outsidethesidelines on Jun 8, 2009 11:00 AM CDT reply actions
You could also use the example of 4 stars Michael Crabtree and Darius Heyward-Bey to make the opposite point. You still would rather see you’re team pull in the higher ranked dudes, because on average, they’ll perform better and they get offers from better schools (i think a lot of these recruiting experts are basically offer aggregators and barely scout on their own). And hell, guys like Rueben Randle were playing QB last fall while getting 5-star WR treatment. And of course, if we don’t look at the recruiting rankings, then we just have to wait 5 years to really see how the class turns out, how boring is that?
Though really, WR has to be one of the most chaotic positions to scout, a guy has to have a decent QB, decent blocking, and be in an offense that throws, and even if all that works out, they have to compete with a lot more guys doing the exact same thing for the opportunity to even get the ball thrown their direction (along with competing for catches with TEs and RBs, who get more chances to distinguish themselves in blocking and running). Thats a lot of variables in there, especially when compared to a defensive tackle that can distinguish himself by just plowing a dude over. Hell, Auburn could have had the best WRs in the nation last year, but we’d never know cause Beavis and Butthead were looked like the worst QBs in the conference most of the time.
by Alabama ManDance on Jun 8, 2009 12:44 PM CDT up reply actions
True on Crabtree and Bey...
Those were four-stars who panned out, but in all fairness I think it should be said that both of those guys were pretty highly-touted four-stars with Rivals anyway. Scout.com missed the boat big-time on Crabtree, and were middling on Bey. Honestly, though, I think their take on Crabtree reflects their incompetence more than anything else, and truth be told I think they nailed it on Bey. They basically said he was an extremely raw guy with a ton of speed, and that is still the case ’til this day.
You are right, though, that it’s very tough to evaluate the wide receiver position. Unlike many other positions that you can evaluate, the wide receiver position is highly dependent on the surrounding talent, and truthfully as a result of that, you probably see wide receivers evaluated more based on raw athletic ability and size more than anything else.
by outsidethesidelines on Jun 8, 2009 1:13 PM CDT up reply actions
Evaluating prospects...
I will add on a bit more of an expanded note that when you are talking about evaluating prospects, it can quickly become very complicated. Truly elite prospects and truly bottom-end prospects are generally easy to say, but for kids somewhere in between it becomes much more difficult. It’s easy to call a guy a "four-star," but there are also often other ratings by other services, plus you have to factor in offer lists and the like.
Take a look at Richardson, for example. How do you really evaluate him? Oh sure, he’s a guy you can throw in there as a four-star because Rivals currently has him as a four-star. On the other hand, they "only" have him as the #26 WR in the country, and Scout.com has him as a three-star and the #81 wide receiver prospect. ESPN’s Scouts, Inc. gives him a grade of 78, which isn’t anything overly special, and he is not on the ESPN 150 Watch List. Early on it looked to be an Alabama v. Florida battle for him, but the bigger programs cooled and he ended up at Auburn. So exactly how does he end up? Again, it’s easy to say he’s a four-star and leave it at that, but as is usually the case it’s really far more complicated than that. You can go with one recruiting service and say he’s one of the better receiving prospects in the country, or you could go with the other and say he’s a middling kid who was passed over by the major programs. Again, it’s complicated.
Likewise, on the other hand, since you posted the picture of Maze, look at him. He was a three-star recruit by both Scout.com and Rivals. However, he was the highest rated three-star wide receiver for Scout, and after spending months as a Michigan commitment, he chose Alabama on National Signing Day over Miami and Tennessee. Perhaps we should not be too surprised then that Maze is seemingly on his way to a nice career at UA. And more to the point at hand, was there really much of a meaningful difference between him coming out of high school than your generic four-star wide receiver? I think the answer is clearly no.
At the end of the day, I think the biggest lesson is that, despite the essentially meaningless different in hype received and chest-thumping, for the most part there is no tangible difference between a lowly-rated four-star and a highly-rated three-star.
by outsidethesidelines on Jun 8, 2009 1:03 PM CDT up reply actions
Here are the lists from Auburn and from Bama:
Auburn:
Devin Aromashodu
Ben Obamanu
Montez Billings
Prechae Rodriguez
Chris Slaughter (counted twice above)
Tim Hawthorne
Terrell Zachary
Bama:
Matt Caddell
Nikita Stover (counted twice above)
Mike McCoy
Brandon Gibson
Melvin Ray
Destin Hood
Not a very overly impressive group from either school, honestly. FWIW, DJ Hall and Keith Brown were both three star wide-outs. Both ecclipse any Alabama receiver in that group, and with the exception of Aromashodu and Obamanu, any Auburn wide-out as well.
"What happened yesterday is history. What happens tomorrow is a mystery. What we do today makes a difference - the precious present moment." -Nick Saban
by HarveyBirdmanAAL on Jun 8, 2009 11:01 AM CDT reply actions
The way I look at it is needs
Auburn needs wide recievers right now. They are going hard after these kids out of need. We need DB’s so we got the best DB in our back yard. Auburn got a wide receiver out of their back yard. They are gunna have one or two recruiting victories here and there, but in recruiting there really isn’t a momentum, at least I don’t think. If there was a momentum than these actions wouldn’t even register due to the tidal wave of athletes Bama has gotten the past two years.
Answering the General Question, though...
If you ask the general question “Are four-star wide receivers really a dime a dozen?,” then I think the answer is pretty much yes.
As I posted earlier, Scout.com usually has around 50 or so receivers a year rated four-stars and above. Likewise, when you have the disparity between them and Rivals, they generally combine to have somewhere in the neighborhood of 55-75 wide receiver prospects rated four-stars and above, depending on the year in question. And, of course, that is not counting the fact that there are usually about 20-30 “athletes” each year rated as four-stars or higher, many of which will end up at wide receiver. By the time you factor those guys in, you are generally looking at each year there being someone between 70-90 wide receiver prospects who were rated as four-stars. Personally, I don’t think you can get more dime-a-dozen than that.
Again, I think it’s pretty clear that if you are just asking the general question, the answer is pretty much yes.
by outsidethesidelines on Jun 8, 2009 12:37 PM CDT reply actions
What I took from this...
….is that four stars are a dime a dozen for big time schools, but that they aren’t so abundant that the lower tier schools are pulling them in at the same rate. Also, like you said above, a good three star has just as much chance of having a productive career at the college level as does an average four star, but at the same time the “have nots” of the SEC would love to grab up some of these abundant four stars since they are generally more likely to be to produce. Again, though, I mostly just wanted to answer my question “is it really such a big deal to be landing all these four star guys when it seems like every receiver is a four star these days?” For Auburn, it really shouldn’t be since they’ve gotten their fair share over the last few years, but for a lot of schools it would be.
I
think what might also be interesting is to look at how many 5 star ratings are given to WR’s. Just going off of blind memory, it doesn’t seem like too many that I can think of. Only a hand full a year if memory serves. So why such a huge gap between 4 and 5 star ratings? And I agree with OTS about rating WR’s. So much depends on surounding talent, who the QB is most importantly. So in actuality, unless a guy is playing with a highly rated QB prospect, aren’t ALL these guys really just “raw,” athletes?
There’s really no way that coaches can care about these rating services other than the publicity factor if you do well. That’s it. They really do primarily exist for the fan.
"A demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots." -H. L. Mencken
Well...
Obviously there are much fewer five-star receivers, and the number depends largely on the rating service. Scout.com gives out 50 five-star ratings a year, whereas Rivals gives out only 35, so Rivals is generally much more restrictive in that regard. Scout.com usually has 6-11 five-star wide receiver prospects a year. Rivals, on the other hand, usually has only 2-5 five-star wide receiver prospects per year.
Actually scouting these guys has a pretty good track record, though. Aside from the lower end five-stars given out by Scout, it’s a damn impressive group over the past few years. Just to name a few, they include… Calvin Johnson, Early Doucet, Fred Davis, Patrick Turner, DeSean Jackson, Percy Harvin, Arrelious Benn, Julio Jones, and A.J. Greene, just to name a few. And in fact, many of the misses weren’t on talent, but kids who couldn’t stay out of trouble, like Xavier Carter and Fred Rouse.
by outsidethesidelines on Jun 8, 2009 2:44 PM CDT up reply actions
That's
what I mean. Its odd the gap between 4 and 5 for WR’s but not so much on other positions like linemen, QB, CB etc…
"A demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots." -H. L. Mencken
Gap...
Well, I’m not really sure if the gap is really that different there from what you see at different positions. Regardless of which position you look at, the success rate of five-star players is extremely high. As long as they can stay healthy and out of jail, nearly all five-star prospects turn into very good players, and several of them turn into legendary-type players.
And honestly, the success rate is still pretty good for very highly-rated four-stars. The problem you run into is when you get into four-stars on the lower end. I mean some kid comes out and is the #37 offensive tackle prospect in the country, and the #291 overall prospect in the country, and yet suddenly homer fans start hyping him to the heavens because he is a four-star and expecting him to turn into an All-American. And, then, of course, there turns out to be a major shock when said player takes three years to crack the starting lineup, and when he does he “only” turns out to be a pretty good, serviceable player.
The problem is just one of expectations. Some people — and unfortunately, perhaps even most — have this notion that three-star players aren’t anything special, but when you get that magical fourth star you are certainly talking about a guy who is going to have a big impact and make a lot of noise. In reality, though, again, there really is no tangible difference between a highly-rated three-star and a lowly-rated four-star, and a lowly-rated four-star — despite the exponential increase in hype he will receive for that star — is likely, under normal circumstances, to “only” turn out to be a slightly above average player as he progresses.
by outsidethesidelines on Jun 8, 2009 3:52 PM CDT up reply actions
Seems to me
that if they limit the number of 5 stars, they need to limit the number of 4 stars. So if rivals only allows 2-5 five star receivers, then they should only allow 15-20 four star, 30-50 three star, etc… Because as it stands right now, at least for receivers, the star ranking doesn’t mean particularly much unless you’re a five star.
Nice analysis
I love looking at numbers like this.
I may be missing something and it doesn’t change your message, but how does Auburn have four 4-star receivers out of only one signed in 2010? Unless I’ve misunderstood, shouldn’t they be 11 out of 24 (or 46%) for this nine-year span?
Again, I love quantifying sh*t like this, so thanks for providing the info. I can’t think of a future topic off the top of my head, but keep bringing the numbers. You’re speaking my language.
Ha...typo on my part...
….they have 1 receiver signed and he is a four star, I just hit 4 instead of 1 when entering the data.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
