Mid-Season Analysis of Verbal Commits Top 150 for the Class of 2013

The Class of 2013 has often been touted as the best class of players to arrive on the basketball scene in years.  Earlier in the week Jeff Goodman of ESPN did a report highlighting his Top 25 freshman as he sees it 15 to 20 games into the season.   Goodman’s report was very well done and included players from “non-BCS” as well as the power conferences.  The article prompted me to take survey of how the “projected” top players coming into the season are faring in their freshman campaign.

This report is an analytical breakdown of www.verbalcommits.com Top 150 from the class of 2013.  I used Verbal Commits because this rankings system took into account an average of the Big 3 Prospect Player Rankings Media Outlets (ESPN.com, SCOUT.com, and RIVALS.com).  I researched each player and did a statistical analysis of how their 2013-14 season was going based on games and minutes played, along with their points per game.  I broke the players in the categories of low impact, role player, contributor, high impact, and star player.  I gave each of these terms a statistical definition and put together the data.

In compiling this data, a couple of points need to be made on the front end.  First of all, I am well aware that these young men are very early into their college basketball careers.  I realize that they attend some of the top basketball schools in the country and that their roles can and probably will change in the years to come.  I am also aware that 1) I set the definitions of the categories and 2) minutes and points per game don’t tell the full story on the impact a player may be having on the court.

THE FINDINGS

Based on my analysis, the majority of players fall into the categories of “Role Player” and “Low Impact Player”.  I defined Role Players (42 of the 150) as those scoring between 6.9 – 4.0 points per game and playing at least 10 minutes a game.  Low Impact Players (48 of the 150) are defined as those scoring less than 4.0 points per game and playing less than 20 minutes a game.  Role Players and Low Impact Players combined made of exactly 60% of the population.

Of the Top 150, 20 of these young men (13.3%) have yet to take the floor for their college teams in the 2013-14 season (although Chris Walker (Florida) and Jordan Bell (Oregon) are due to make returns very soon). The reasons for the players not suiting up range from eligibility issues due to grades, coach’s decision to redshirt, injury, and one player on a Mormon mission.

While in the minority, the analysis does show the 23.7% of the top 150 fall into the categories of Contributor (19 out of 150), High Impact (16 out of 150), and Star Player (5 out of 150).  In Goodman’s report, he does find another 3 High Impact Player and 4 Star Player Freshmen from around the country.  These 7 players were not included in Verbal Commits Top 150.

THE BREAKDOWN

While taking nothing away from all of the projected Top 150 players, the power of this class is at the top. Of the projected Top 20, half of the players fall into either the Star Player or High Impact Player categories.  4 of the projected Top 10 (Wiggins, Randle, Parker, and Young) are 4 of only 5 Star Players in the entire 150.

Only 2 of the projected Top 10, Chris Walker and Kasey Hill, both of Florida, do not fall into the Star or High Impact categories.  Walker will be on the court very soon and Hill is getting the minutes of Star Player.

The most fascinating finding in this report is the fact that 20 of the 150 players or 13.3% of the players have yet to start their freshmen campaign.  It is projected that nearly 8,000 boy seniors played varsity high school basketball in 2013.  The projected Top 150 represent the 2% of the players in the country.  The fact 13% of the best of best have yet to play in 2013-14 is a very interesting discovery.

Goodman’s report also provided some interesting analysis.  There are 7 players on Goodman’s top 25 list that were not in the projected Top 150 players on Verbal Commits.  Throw in Jon Severe (#149/150) who was near the bottom of the projected list and there are 8 Star or High Impact Players that were maybe overlooked.

Goodman may also point to flaws in my analysis.  Goodman’s top player is Tyler Ennis of Syracuse.  According to my statistical definition, Ennis along with Goodman’s #3 Joel Embid (Kansas) and #5 Aaron Gordon (Arizona) would not fit into my Star Player categories.

THE INTERPRETATION

My overall conclusion to this data is a cowardly one in that it is still probably too early to tell.  Freshmen are freshman whether they were projected Top 150 players are not.  And freshman only 50-70% into their first season are often yet to discover themselves.

There a couple of observations of my own that I have to mention.  The first observation is how similar the projected lists of Scout, Rivals, and ESPN look.  Their projected Top 20 lists are almost identical and they rarely stray too far from each either the entire way down the list.  The fact that Goodman found 7 players with good freshmen campaigns that did not make any of the 3 lists is perplexing to me.

The seven players on Goodman’s list that did not make the projected Top 150 list attend the following universities:  Kansas State, Texas, Oklahoma, Marshall, San Jose State, Virginia Military Institute (VMI), Rice, and let’s include Jon Severe at Fordham.  While they might not be considered perennial basketball institutions, Kansas State, Texas, and Oklahoma are all found in power conferences.  These are legitimate schools with these legitimate freshmen that these prognosticators “missed” on.

My next observation is just how difficult the transition from high school basketball to NCAA Division 1 basketball can be.  There was a lot of hype around the class of 2013 and there were a lot of expectations on the Top of this list.  In most cases, the cream has risen to the top and star players are playing like stars.   Outside of the top 20 players, the list from #21-150, one can really see how hard it is to contribute as a freshman at the top schools in the country.

Based on my observations, the question can be posed is that is better to be Isiah Hicks or Marcus Lee who are playing at North Carolina and Kentucky respectively, or is it better to be having the seasons of Jon Severe or QJ Peterson of Fordham and VMI respectively.  Hicks and Lee were both Top 20 players coming out of high school, but neither is playing more than 9 minutes a game, nor averaging more than 3.0 points per game.  On the other hand, Severe and Peterson are stars on their respective team both averaging more than 20 points per game.  Severe and Peterson were either at the bottom of the Top 150 or off of the list.

The current Top 7 teams of NCAA Division 1 basketball represent 7 different conferences.  Two of the teams, Wichita State and San Diego State are representatives of “non-BCS” power conferences.  My point to mentioning this is that the landscape of college basketball has changed and maybe these “next tier” schools could crack the Top 150 more often.

CONCLUSION

As I have already stated in this piece, there are little to no conclusions that can be made to this study, but there are some interesting observations that can be made.

It is difficult to project the success of players at any level.  There have been countless tales of players that don’t reach the level of their expectations of at all levels of all sports.  Basketball fans can site countless high NBA draft picks that have busted or esteemed high school players who don’t quite pan out in college.  However, at the highest levels there are consequences to recruiting the wrong player or wasting a draft pick.

My point to addressing this issue is not to put a knock on guys who do high school player rankings.  Instead, my point is to encourage these prognosticators be diligent in their work on the front end and accountable for their work on the back end.  My hope is that talent scouts are putting in the time with film study, interviews, transcripts, and in person interactions with these players as much as possible.  As stated earlier, the job of these media sources is only to rank the top 2% of players from around the country.   Athletic directors, coaches, fans, and the kids themselves set levels of expectations that are contrived by these rankings.  These adults lose their jobs, kids lose scholarships, and schools lose money when these projections and their own assessments are wrong.

I beg the questions, what is the consequence to the media source or prognosticator that was wrong?  Are they the same people putting together next year’s list?  What happens if and when players do start to get paid in college and college basketball is seen as more of a business?  Is that the time where being wrong matters?

My final is to the people who rank 150 players.  Don’t be wrong.  If you are a confident is your assessment of 10 high school players that you have interviewed, watched on film, watched in person, and know inside and out then put together only a Top 10 list.  The stakes are too high on the projection of the other 140 players.  Be honest with your own evaluations and don’t be afraid to take a stand on an unpopular view on a player.