mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-21-18 07:33 PM - Post#254034
In response to SomeGuy
I've looked at this before, and where I think you see the most effect is in the number of recruits that are rated now versus in the early years, but not necessarily the max rating a recruit can receive.
In 2003, we had four 3 star average recruits or better enter the league. That's 20% of all recruits in the model. At the same time, there were 16 recruits in that class that got absolutely zero rating out of the 115 overall. That's about 14%.
The recent classes have had 5 zeroes in 2018 (could decrease), 2 in 2017, 1 in 2016 and 6 in 2015. Those four classes have contributed 9 of the 20 3+ star average recruits.
But the median recruit ranking hasn't really changed. Here's the median by year:
Group.1 x
1 2002 0.1666667
2 2003 0.1666667
3 2004 0.3333334
4 2005 0.5000001
5 2006 0.3333334
6 2007 0.5000001
7 2008 0.3750001
8 2009 0.5000001
9 2010 0.5000001
10 2011 0.6250001
11 2012 0.6250001
12 2013 0.5714288
13 2014 0.1666667
14 2015 0.2500001
15 2016 0.4166668
16 2017 0.4000001
17 2018 0.4000001
So, while there seem to be a lot fewer recruits getting zero, the shift seems to be that now those recruits are getting a star or two here and there.
The other thing to note is that while we have a LOT more recruits at the top now, the league is also a lot, lot better now. If the recruiting rankings improved a ton at the top and the league didn't improve, that would lead me to believe something happened to the rankings themselves.
It's really hard to parse out what is ranking inflation and what is just signal of an improving league, but I tend to believe it's really the latter effect we're observing.
|
