Basketball All-B1G Team study

Matthew O'Haren-USA TODAY Sports

Thanks to the constructive feedback in the All-freshman team study, I take a further step to investigate talent evaluation+development, specifically condition on the player's final Rivals star-rating. I look at the last 6 years of all-B1G first, second and third team for both coaches and media (6 years x 2 lists x 3 teams x 5 players on each team + 3 ties) for a total of 183 names (not unique). I use the last 6 years and Rivals rating b/c the data are most easily available. If you can have easy access to further history, feel free to extend this research project.

Also, I couldn't find Northwestern's Craig Moore's star rating. Looks like he is unrated, but since there is a football recruit also named Craig Moore who is a 2-star, I assume Craig Moore is a 2-star recruit. Yeah, very scientific here :-) (Anyway, this Craig Moore guy who is a 3-pt specialist like Ryne Smith actually made all-B1G third team, so I give him props for that)

I aggregate a assign points with a 3rd-team placement getting 1 point, 2nd-team 2 points, and 1st-team 3 points. As you can see, the 3-star and 4-star guys make up >80% of the 3rd team and 2nd team, but the 5-star guys take the 3-star guys' share in the 1st-team. So star-rating matters here. However, note that there are actually MORE 3-stars ending up being 1st-team All-B1G (e.g. Trey Burke, Draymond Green, Jordan Taylor, Tim Frazier, Tim Hardaway, Aaron Craft, Talor Battle, John Shurna, Victor Oladipo) than 5-stars (Eric Gordon, Brian Butch, Jared Sullinger, Cody Zeller, Deshaun Thomas). Star-rating is not the be all, end all. Also, note how consistently the 4-stars are, and in fact, they make up almost half of the 1st-team. Keep that in mind b/c I believe the 4-stars are the key battle ground, and we'll go over that further down.

Star Rating 3rd team 2nd team 1st team Pts total
2 3% 0% 0% 2
3 44% 40% 28% 127
4 44% 42% 48% 165
5 8% 18% 23% 69

Let's look at the individual schools. OSU leads the pack with 63 points, but Purdue is 2nd and actually leads in all-B1G number of first teamers. It is also interesting to note that, as good as Iowa is turning 3-star recruits into all-B1G freshman team, they just don't make it to the all-B1G team. Can we argue that Iowa is good at identifying diamond in the rough, but not good into developing those diamonds? Meanwhile, Wisky is the exact opposite, as Sam Dekker was their only all-freshman team selection yet they are #4 in the all-conf ranking overall. They are very good in developing their players:

School Score 1st Team 2nd Team 3rd Team
Ohio State 63 12 9 9
Purdue 58 14 6 4
Michigan State 53 7 12 8
Wisconsin 41 6 9 5
Michigan 38 5 8 7
Indiana 32 8 2 4
Penn State 24 4 5 2
Northwestern 21 2 4 7
Illinois 18 2 1 10
Minnesota 9 0 3 3
Iowa 6 0 1 4

Now, let's break down each school by star-rating. Only 4 schools (OSU, Michigan, Wisky, IU) get 5-star players into all-Conf team. OSU and IU are especially into 5-stars, with 52% and 69% of their total points coming from 5-star players:

School Score 1st Team 2nd Team 3rd Team
Ohio State5 33 6 5 5
Purdue5 0 0 0 0
Michigan State5 8 0 4 0
Wisconsin5 6 2 0 0
Michigan5 0 0 0 0
Indiana5 22 6 2 0
Penn State5 0 0 0 0
Northwestern5 0 0 0 0
Illinois5 0 0 0 0
Minnesota5 0 0 0 0
Iowa5 0 0 0 0

The most interesting part to me are the 4-stars. They are the most consistent across the 1st, 2nd and 3rd team. They are usually the 3-year or 4-year players. Here, Purdue *DOMINATES*. Ninety-eight percent of Purdue points come from the 4-stars (the other 2% comes from a 3-star guy named Chris Kramer). We are more than OSU and MSU COMBINED here. Michigan, Wisky, and Illinois also target 4-star players and turn them into stars.

School Score 1st Team 2nd Team 3rd Team
Ohio State4 24 5 3 3
Purdue4 57 14 6 3
Michigan State4 31 5 6 4
Wisconsin4 15 1 5 2
Michigan4 21 2 5 5
Indiana4 2 0 0 2
Penn State4 0 0 0 0
Northwestern4 0 0 0 0
Illinois4 15 2 0 9
Minnesota4 0 0 0 0
Iowa4 0 0 0 0

Finally, the 3-stars. Here is where PSU, NW, Minnesota and Iowa get all their points from. MSU, Wisky, Michigan are also good at finding diamond in the rough and develop them:

School Score 1st Team 2nd Team 3rd Team
Ohio State3 6 1 1 1
Purdue3 1 0 0 1
Michigan State3 14 2 2 4
Wisconsin3 20 3 4 3
Michigan3 17 3 3 2
Indiana3 8 2 0 2
Penn State3 24 4 5 2
Northwestern3 19 2 4 5
Illinois3 3 0 1 1
Minnesota3 9 0 3 3
Iowa3 6 0 1 4

I want to point out the different recruiting strategy by the top three schools. Ohio State is clearly dominating the 5-star market. They look for the elite recruits and have great success. Purdue goes after the 4-star guys and have very good success with them. MSU is a lot more balanced. They have 5-star guys who succeed, as well as 3-star guys, and they are also big in the 4-star market. For that, as much as I dislike him, Izzo really deserves some praise.

School Score 3-stars 4-stars 5-stars
Ohio State 63 10% 38% 52%
Purdue 58 2% 98% 0%
Michigan State 53 26% 58% 15%

Lastly, just my take on Purdue. After doing this exercise, I feel very good and I gain an appreciation of Painter's strategy. We currently have seven Rivals 4-star guys (TJ, Hammons, RJ, RayD, Scott, Stephens, Basil) and I think multiple of them will make all-conf when it is all said and done. Painter continues to dominate the 4-star market, which is the most important battle ground for all-conf team (and by extension, be elite in the conference). I think compared to other top tier schools (MSU, UM, Wisky) our 3-star guys aren't getting to the elite level, but that should change with Simpson, Edwards and Mathias. Obviously if we can become more balanced and get more production from 5-stars that would be even better, but to those who criticize Painter's recruiting and/or talent evaluation/development, I say he is doing a pretty damn good job that is comparable to the tops in the conference. Paraphrasing KB in another thread, I'd rather have players who produce like a Top 20 guy than having a Top 20 HS recruit. People keep getting fixated on the latter, like focusing on the tree rather than the forest.

Of course, I can still hear complaints like "Well, it's great to have players making the all-conf team, but what I want is a FF/NC." I get that. But when we can have pipelines of all-conf players, that increases our chance of a deep tourney run. And really, if you wanna whine, at least do some research to see if the whining has merits. I don't think CMP is beyond criticism, but I just feel that he gets an unfair amount, and it is through digging into the numbers that one begins to appreciate the depth of his work.

Items in the FanPosts is entirely at the discretion of those that post them. They do not represent the views of Hammer & Rails, SBNation, or Purdue University in any way.

Log In Sign Up

Log In Sign Up

Please choose a new SB Nation username and password

As part of the new SB Nation launch, prior users will need to choose a permanent username, along with a new password.

Your username will be used to login to SB Nation going forward.

I already have a Vox Media account!

Verify Vox Media account

Please login to your Vox Media account. This account will be linked to your previously existing Eater account.

Please choose a new SB Nation username and password

As part of the new SB Nation launch, prior MT authors will need to choose a new username and password.

Your username will be used to login to SB Nation going forward.

Forgot password?

We'll email you a reset link.

If you signed up using a 3rd party account like Facebook or Twitter, please login with it instead.

Forgot password?

Try another email?

Almost done,

By becoming a registered user, you are also agreeing to our Terms and confirming that you have read our Privacy Policy.

Join Hammer and Rails

You must be a member of Hammer and Rails to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Hammer and Rails. You should read them.

Join Hammer and Rails

You must be a member of Hammer and Rails to participate.

We have our own Community Guidelines at Hammer and Rails. You should read them.




Choose an available username to complete sign up.

In order to provide our users with a better overall experience, we ask for more information from Facebook when using it to login so that we can learn more about our audience and provide you with the best possible experience. We do not store specific user data and the sharing of it is not required to login with Facebook.