Jump to content

An alternative approach to assessing talent on teams


skyway
 Share

Recommended Posts

An idea I had to try to evaluate the strength of teams was to look at their rosters on hudl and count the players with a lot of views of their highlights. It's certainly not a fool-proof way to go about evaluating teams. Some great players may still be relative unknowns and some guys who aren't very good may have gamed the system to rack up a lot of views. And some schools may have some guys missing, or extra guys on who don't belong. If the player was class of 2022 (or deceased in one case) I didn't count those. But, in all, I think it may be the best way to get an idea for the mixture of talent and experience teams have (more inexperienced players have fewer views obviously). I went with a somewhat random number of 1,000 views as a minimum. So, of course players with over 950 views, but less than 1,000, get shortchanged this way. But, have to draw a line somewhere! There are some surprises, though people can obviously interpret those as proof this isn't a great way to evaluate teams. The season will reveal whether that's correct or not.

Here's what I've found so far, I will try to add more and make corrections if needed in time:

Players with at or more than 1,000 views:

IMG- 51

STA - 36

Chaminade Madonna- 23

Lakeland- 21

Clearwater Academy International- 21 (4 also over 950)   

Mater Dei- 18

Saint Frances - 17

American Heritage- 17

Cardinal gibbons- 16

Dillard- 14

Miami Palmetto- 11

Seminole- 11

Venice- 10

Miami Central- 10

Tampa Jesuit- 10

Kiss. Osceola- 9

Edgewater- 5

Miami Northwestern- 5 

Lake City Columbia- 5

Madison County- 0

St. John Bosco- error, players clearly missing

It will be interesting to see if this list ends up telling us anything about how good these teams will be or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This idea would be considered thinking outside the box.  As you posed the question does it have any validity at all.  I can only comment as it pertains to our team that you pointed out has 9 individuals with over 1,000 views.  Within that small group sample I can tell you that several with more views relative to their teammates are not the better players and in some cases it isn't even close.  Some like to be on social media thus drawing attention to themselves, more followers, more views, etc.. which may make one think he has superior talent but that is not necessarily so.  Plus you did point out younger players that may be ready to bust on the scene and be great contributors are at this point unknowns.  If this calculation to predict success has merit, then IMG should blow out Central with a 5 to 1 ratio advantage in this metric yet some people are favoring Central.   That game may provide the answer you are seeking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/7/2022 at 2:53 PM, Ray Icaza said:

This idea would be considered thinking outside the box.  As you posed the question does it have any validity at all.  I can only comment as it pertains to our team that you pointed out has 9 individuals with over 1,000 views.  Within that small group sample I can tell you that several with more views relative to their teammates are not the better players and in some cases it isn't even close.  Some like to be on social media thus drawing attention to themselves, more followers, more views, etc.. which may make one think he has superior talent but that is not necessarily so.  Plus you did point out younger players that may be ready to bust on the scene and be great contributors are at this point unknowns.  If this calculation to predict success has merit, then IMG should blow out Central with a 5 to 1 ratio advantage in this metric yet some people are favoring Central.   That game may provide the answer you are seeking. 

No doubt, there isn't any sort of direct link between page views and quality of player. There is a sense that, in general, more views equals more interest, usually among college scouts and fans. But, not always.

IF there is anything to this, it would have to be true that the likelihood of players with more views than deserved and/or players with less views than deserved is roughly equal from team to team. There are likely over-viewed and under-viewed players, but that is the case with most all teams.

You're correct, if this is a valid way of evaluating teams, IMG will blow out Central. Other predictions that would come true would be that Miami Northwestern isn't all that loaded; Dillard is still a clear underdog vs. STA; Clearwater Academy International is fairly beastly and should be favored in all its games except Lakeland, and that one looks like a toss-up; and so on.

I'm certain that this approach, like any other approach to projecting high school teams and game, is not so accurate as to be worth betting money on. There are many variables in play with determining how good teams are, and how a game between them would turn out. IMG can't gain much if any benefit in playing 51 players in a competitive game. You never play more than about 30 kids in a close game. And, with 12 minute quarters, you can often get by in a single game with under 20 players (some going both ways of course).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, skyway said:

No doubt, there isn't any sort of direct link between page views and quality of player. There is a sense that, in general, more views equals more interest, usually among college scouts and fans. But, not always.

IF there is anything to this, it would have to be true that the likelihood of players with more views than deserved and/or players with less views than deserved is roughly equal from team to team. There are likely over-viewed and under-viewed players, but that is the case with most all teams.

You're correct, if this is a valid way of evaluating teams, IMG will blow out Central. Other predictions that would come true would be that Miami Northwestern isn't all that loaded; Dillard is still a clear underdog vs. STA; Clearwater Academy International is fairly beastly and should be favored in all its games except Lakeland, and that one looks like a toss-up; and so on.

I'm certain that this approach, like any other approach to projecting high school teams and game, is not so accurate as to be worth betting money on. There are many variables in play with determining how good teams are, and how a game between them would turn out. IMG can't gain much if any benefit in playing 51 players in a competitive game. You never play more than about 30 kids in a close game. And, with 12 minute quarters, you can often get by in a single game with under 20 players (some going both ways of course).

Keep sleeping on madison county please.  Also they beat some of them teams. But keep sleeping 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, skyway said:

No doubt, there isn't any sort of direct link between page views and quality of player. There is a sense that, in general, more views equals more interest, usually among college scouts and fans. But, not always.

IF there is anything to this, it would have to be true that the likelihood of players with more views than deserved and/or players with less views than deserved is roughly equal from team to team. There are likely over-viewed and under-viewed players, but that is the case with most all teams.

You're correct, if this is a valid way of evaluating teams, IMG will blow out Central. Other predictions that would come true would be that Miami Northwestern isn't all that loaded; Dillard is still a clear underdog vs. STA; Clearwater Academy International is fairly beastly and should be favored in all its games except Lakeland, and that one looks like a toss-up; and so on.

I'm certain that this approach, like any other approach to projecting high school teams and game, is not so accurate as to be worth betting money on. There are many variables in play with determining how good teams are, and how a game between them would turn out. IMG can't gain much if any benefit in playing 51 players in a competitive game. You never play more than about 30 kids in a close game. And, with 12 minute quarters, you can often get by in a single game with under 20 players (some going both ways of course).

Dillard being a “CLEAR UNDERDOG” vs STA , I most def disagree with that. As well as respecting your opinion. 
 

 My take on it. At worst Dillard vs STA is a pick em game. Even last year STA wasn’t the clear fav in that matchup and they were home and should’ve lost. But should’ve coudlve they got the “W”. 

add that Dillard got even better then they were last year coaching,offensively & defensively while keep the talent they already had while adding a plethora of new additions I would most def say a “pick em” type game. What Dillard does that, we will see .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, THIS_IS_DILLARD said:

Dillard being a “CLEAR UNDERDOG” vs STA , I most def disagree with that. As well as respecting your opinion. 
 

 My take on it. At worst Dillard vs STA is a pick em game. Even last year STA wasn’t the clear fav in that matchup and they were home and should’ve lost. But should’ve coudlve they got the “W”. 

add that Dillard got even better then they were last year coaching,offensively & defensively while keep the talent they already had while adding a plethora of new additions I would most def say a “pick em” type game. What Dillard does that, we will see .

Well, I haven't offered my opinion on Dillard-STA yet. And I won't until both teams have played games. The exercise detailed above just suggests STA is much more loaded throughout the roster. I do think that, once you get up to 14 or more really good players, you start to get close to being able to field a team good enough to win on any given Friday. STA doesn't figure to use all ~36 of those players in a tight game. So, this is a case where two things can be true at the same time: 1) STA has much more talent throughout its roster and 2) Dillard has enough talent to allow other factors (being more hungry, HFA, coaching, team chemistry etc) to lead them to a win in the 2022 game.

Also, feel free to check out Dillard's roster on hudl and make sure all of their ballplayers are listed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...