forums

Legs Race Part III- (Roster Analysis)

View as article
Advertisement
i don't know what kind of analytics manny was using when he was DC under richt but his side of the ball is stacked with super athletic underclassmen at all three levels. hopefully this is a sign of things to come across the board.
 
brock said:
Lance just a quick question but in the listings you used the players best recorded times at the opening from freshman to senior years correct? Because i know cam Davis ran a 4.50 as a sophomore but he didn’t run that as a senior at the event
Click to expand...

I scrubbed for the data, which generally comes from the camps themselves. Nike Opening or Under Armour camps use lasers, so that's where I grab them from. I take their highest score that I can find. Minkah Fitzpatrick and and Antonio Alfana (both Bama kids) are two players who improved their overall scores in a major way during their high school careers.
 
Advertisement
Probably a lot of work, and it is touched on a bit in a way, but I'd really be interested in seeing a starter added from the current champs roster as a quick comparison.
 
Lance Roffers said:
All weights are from when they were coming out of high school unless otherwise noted. This way all comparisons are to the same situations.
Click to expand...
Some of these athletes tested at different points in their HS careers, no? Did you grab all the testing from, say, Junior Year Opening numbers? Some of them come into those testing situations with different training than others, too.

A case that stands out is Ahmmon Richards being labeled a 43 percentile athlete. When he was on campus, his testing numbers were supposedly far different. And, during his healthy year, he obviously played and produced at a different percentile.
 
Incredible stuff, as usual.

I was most surprised by Nigel Bethel's numbers. They seem out of whack for guy who ran 10.7 100M as a sophomore. I think he could be a guy who improves his testing with technique, strength and conditioning.
 
So basically if you test as a high athlete you have a good chance of performing well, BUT it’s not guaranteed whereas if you test poorly it’s very difficult to perform at a high leve UNLESS you improve those athletic testing numbers?
 
Advertisement
Lance Roffers said:
I scrubbed for the data, which generally comes from the camps themselves. Nike Opening or Under Armour camps use lasers, so that's where I grab them from. I take their highest score that I can find. Minkah Fitzpatrick and and Antonio Alfana (both Bama kids) are two players who improved their overall scores in a major way during their high school careers.
Click to expand...

Nike Open testing (Orlando) was outside in the rain while (Miami) tested inside the dolphins bubble, so there’s a lot of misleading info there as well from the conditions.
 
LuCane said:
Some of these athletes tested at different points in their HS careers, no? Did you grab all the testing from, say, Junior Year Opening numbers? Some of them come into those testing situations with different training than others, too.

A case that stands out is Ahmmon Richards being labeled a 43 percentile athlete. When he was on campus, his testing numbers were supposedly far different. And, during his healthy year, he obviously played and produced at a different percentile.
Click to expand...

Their best numbers are used, yes. Richards was not a true burner though.

And, as the data shows, the WR position is unlike any other in terms of athleticism translating. It leads me to believe strong hands, hand-eye, route running are what is truly important.
 
Advertisement
Tweed said:
Nike Open testing (Orlando) was outside in the rain while (Miami) tested inside the dolphins bubble, so there’s a lot of misleading info there as well from the conditions.
Click to expand...
These are the types of things I'm talking about. Besides weather, there are countless other little inconsistencies in data collection. Of course, Lance can't control that and simply needs to scrub and do the best he can with the data available, but there's more to be said about some of this stuff as it relates to data in evaluations.
 
Lance Roffers said:
Their best numbers are used, yes. Richards was not a true burner though.

And, as the data shows, the WR position is unlike any other in terms of athleticism translating. It leads me to believe strong hands, hand-eye, route running are what is truly important.
Click to expand...
Had he stayed healthy, I'd suspect his NFL Scouting combine numbers, at least based on what we had heard from internal UM testing, would be substantially different. Then the data story becomes different. Again, it's crystal clear what you're aiming at here and I think, as everyone has mentioned, it's a fantastic job overall. I'm commenting on the thread to push discussion and hopefully add context for some people who might draw overreaching conclusions.
 
It’s absolutely part of the evaluation, no doubt. That said, if you start using outside influencers , you’ll be finding ways to justify what you want your eyes to tell you based on internal biases.

Am I aiming to say, “you can’t take this guy because he tested __, even though he’s a killer on the field.” No, of course not. I am saying that the data does tell us a certain picture for athletes and certain positions show some areas in particular to be hugely important. I would do my own testing when players visit and test them indoors in the same conditions and build my data profile into the evaluations.
 
Advertisement
Tweed said:
Still not sure where this Lo can’t catch the ball stuff comes from. LOL
Click to expand...

Hadn't seen that.

To me there’s a difference between can’t catch and hasn’t been thrown many passes.

In HS, if I recall correctly, their offense rarely threw to the RBs (correct me if I’m wrong)

And of course his freshman year, he really only played much in one game, before his injury.

So I don’t know how anyone can say he can’t catch. There is no empirical evidence of it.
 
Lance Roffers said:
It’s absolutely part of the evaluation, no doubt. That said, if you start using outside influencers , you’ll be finding ways to justify what you want your eyes to tell you based on internal biases.

Am I aiming to say, “you can’t take this guy because he tested __, even though he’s a killer on the field.” No, of course not. I am saying that the data does tell us a certain picture for athletes and certain positions show some areas in particular to be hugely important. I would do my own testing when players visit and test them indoors in the same conditions and build my data profile into the evaluations.
Click to expand...
Eh. It's similar to using selected points of the data to justify what an analyst thinks is the fairest or most reasonable conclusion. In my world (education), I watch cherry-picked data presented all the time. The conclusions are valid, but the data sets were formed to fit a story.

I'm not saying you're doing that here, because I can see from your methodology you're aiming at "best possible" in terms of the data to be compared, but I think your last line is where it's at: we still need a case-by-case analysis under far more objective testing grounds at the lower levels (e.g. HS). Completely agree with that. The NFL scouting combine begins to go in that direction.

Your analysis still remains very, very useful as a beginning point of a lot of evaluations, conversations and perhaps even a few exclusions.
 
Lance Roffers said:
It’s absolutely part of the evaluation, no doubt. That said, if you start using outside influencers , you’ll be finding ways to justify what you want your eyes to tell you based on internal biases.

Am I aiming to say, “you can’t take this guy because he tested __, even though he’s a killer on the field.” No, of course not. I am saying that the data does tell us a certain picture for athletes and certain positions show some areas in particular to be hugely important. I would do my own testing when players visit and test them indoors in the same conditions and build my data profile into the evaluations.
Click to expand...

@Lance Roffers, or anyone else for that matter, are you aware of any colleges doing such a thing? It seems like such a no-brainer and obvious thing to do, especially in the data age, to isolate out the variables by testing your recruits in standardized conditions (in the IPF) that you can control, build the database, and analyze it over time. You're going to end up with data on tons of kids that go to other schools that way as well. I could see this being helpful in evaluating your S&C as well as position coaches over time also, in addition to recruiting.

Is this something that is done? Would it push recruits away by asking them to test? Is this already done under the guise of on-campus camps, such as Paradise Camp, etc? The more data, the better.
 
g8rh8rMD said:
@Lance Roffers, or anyone else for that matter, are you aware of any colleges doing such a thing? It seems like such a no-brainer and obvious thing to do, especially in the data age, to isolate out the variables by testing your recruits in standardized conditions (in the IPF) that you can control, build the database, and analyze it over time. You're going to end up with data on tons of kids that go to other schools that way as well. I could see this being helpful in evaluating your S&C as well as position coaches over time also, in addition to recruiting.

Is this something that is done? Would it push recruits away by asking them to test? Is this already done under the guise of on-campus camps, such as Paradise Camp, etc? The more data, the better.
Click to expand...

Personally, I do not know the answer to this. My guess is most of the time you're sucking up to the kids when they're on campus more than testing them, but I could be wrong.

It would absolutely be a part of my Paradise Camp etc. though. I'd probably make it a semi-requirement for an offer to be extended as well. You aren't withholding an offer from the major targets, of course, but it would eventually just become a part of the fabric of your offers and many would see it as a source of pride.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top