Clash of the Rankings: Analyzing Others Transfer Evaluations

The stats see all games, and we approach our rankings from this point of view, factoring in per possession value and efficiency ratings adjusted for the strength of schedule. We once tried to rank players individually without this guidepost, and it’s undeniable how challenging it is. Managing a multitude of statistics and evaluations manually is no small feat. With numerous inputs, it’s easy to struggle to keep organized what matters alone. Depending on the player, there’s a risk of overvaluing or undervaluing certain aspects, and built-in confirmation or recency bias exists. By amalgamating all stats into a single, objective per possession value and adjusting for schedule strength, the process becomes significantly streamlined.”

Past Analysis

Looking back over the past two years in an attempt to continue tweaking and improving, our rankings have held up well upon retrospective analysis. For instance, most of the outliers were anomalous, like Dalton Knecht, who didn’t show overwhelming evidence to warrant a higher position last year. He would improve his stats while transitioning up to the SEC from the Big Sky. Predicting such shot in the dark outliers are low odds. Generally, transitioning from mid-major to Power conferences entails about a 25% dip in counting stats and efficiency per possession from what we’ve found. Players from conferences ranked 20th plus typically struggle to jump directly to the power conferences as well.

Years Old High School Rankings

Some of the major outlets rankings tend to lean heavily on outdated, years-old high school recruiting rankings, despite the more recent lackluster collegiate performances. They reference these antiquated opinions from high school development versus other high schoolers, overshadowing the present realities that forced these types of players into the portal, most of the time.

The number of players in the transfer portal itself is a market correction, typically indicating that the player wasn’t playing and/or the coach is ready for them to move on after a year. While having outlets and coaches who once thought highly of you offer can be valuable, they should complement, not replace the actual numbers. All information is good, but it’s more like the cherry on top that suggests upside. Substance should precede accolades from yesteryears in high school.

Our past research delved into the careertrajectories of former top 100 recruits the last few years who underperformed in college early in efficiency, revealing bleak outcomes. Yet, these players persistently surface in rankings, or with fans on twitter clinging to outdated outdated recruiting evaluations as foundational evidence even when the sample is hundreds of minutes in some cases.

The Biggest Differences

Andrej Stojakovic

One major outlet has ranked Andrej Stojakovic near the top 10. It seems they are still relying on the genetics of a famous father to project potential, as well as high school accolades. The reality is, this is a player who averaged 7.8 PPG, 3.4 RPG with a 9.8 PER and .484% true shooting, and nearly a negative 20 net differential with a defensive rating of 110. The one skill you expected him to bring the most, three-point shooting; he shot 32%

Illogically the same outlet ranked his teammate, who is a similar size and plays a similar role, around 75th. Brandon Angel averaged 13 PPG, 4.7 RPG, a 16.9 PER, on an elite .675 true shooting percentage powered by shooting 45% from three. He was a winning player with a +12-point differential despite playing for a 14-18 losing team. Yet, Stojaković is ranked near the top 10 as a role player on this losing team, and 50 spots higher than the guy getting the minutes over him and actually performing at a high level on his own team.

Bronny James

In another outlet’s rankings, Bronny James surfaces likely for similar reasons as Stojakovic, but it’s at least near the bottom of the top 100. I’m more okay with this ranking than the previous simply because James had a health scare that disrupted his season and caused him a later start later. However, the main problem remains: he’s a shooting guard who can’t shoot, and that was always the most questionable aspect coming into college. I don’t think you could fully blame the health scare for that aspect.

B.J. Omot

B.J. Omot, ranked around the top 50 by one outlet, just isn’t at that level of player given the evidence we have. He posted a 17 PER against one of the worst strengths of schedule in the nation. He barely had a .500 true shooting percentage with his sub-30% three-point shooting. He’s played 2 seasons of D1 ball, and his career numbers, as well as his defensive ratings, are consistently bad.

Jordan Derkack

Another player in the top 70 by an outlet,Jordan Derkack, played a strength of schedule ranked 354th in the nation per Kenpom. He put up good counting stats and had a 20 PER, but when you play at this level of a team, you need to put up elite statistical value to project at this level as a guard. Also, he shot extremely poorly from three at 27% last season, and a career 26% shooter’s suggests he’s got a long ways to go there. As a guard, that’s problematic.

Garwey Dual

Garwey Dual was a top 35 recruit in high school, and one major outlet ranks him as a top 65 transfer. This is a player who averaged 3.3 ppg, with a 7.9 PER, and a .412 true shooting percentage in a not small 600+ minutes played sample. The odds of him actually becoming a top 65 transfer in this class are pretty low, given our research into this similar statistical profile.

Layden Blocker

Layden Blocker is in the top 65 of one outlet’s rankings with similarly bad stats to Dual. He played 13 minutes a game on a losing team ranked 108th. The bigger issue here is that he is a 6-2 guard that didn’t or wasn’t even allowed to take three-point shots. He played 360 minutes and took 17 threes on the season, shooting 11%. A player like this isn’t even playable in today’s game unless you build a specific kind of team to with shooting to fit around him, and even then, he’s not demonstrated he’s worth the trouble.

Weaker Cases

There is another group of transfers that consistently rank high across all outlets, who have solid resumes and stats but we feel probably shouldn’t be as high as they are given who they put them up against. These are players we could see reaching these heights but we would have plenty of others ranked higher at this point that don’t have the same question marks and who have posted similar stats already at major conference levels.

Malik Mack

Mack is showing up highly in all of the rankings between 5th and 10th in some. His biggest selling point is that he was a freshman and presumably can make a bigger leap than older players from years one to two. That’s something coaches say, but I’ve yet to see a study that backs it up. He did have mono during the season, but it happened between the out-of-conference (OOC) and league play in basketball. It’s important to not that Harvard played the 256th OOC team on KenPom, significantly worse than what he saw in league. When he played against better teams in the conference, he struggled, particularly with a negative net differential in conference play of -12 and a terrible 110 defensive rating. The stats overall are okay, but I don’t think he has a top 10 to 20 transfer resume with a 20 PER and .536 true shooting on the 228th ranked team vs a near 200th ranked SOS. Jordan Dingle and Chris Ledlem were Ivy League players last year who were a lot better statistically and were just guys on St. John’s. When ranked at that level you need to project as an all conference type of player.

Zeke Mayo

Mayo is ranked as high as top 3 on one outlet and consistently in the top 20 across the board. He’s going to Kansas, so I assume they are factoring that in, but he’s from Lawrence. It feels to me like he could have wanted to come home, got word to Bill Self, and he took the commitment as low-hanging fruit after seeing what the lack of depth caused last year.

Mayo certainly could be a good player, but there are plenty of players I would rank higher at this point than one who put up a 20.8 PER in the Summit League. The one skill he seems to have is strong three-point shooting, so at least he probably has that to fall back on. However, our model didn’t rank Nicolas Timberlake highly last year, and we see how that worked out. You could have said the same about his shooting as well, which was more proven with multiple seasons with 40%+ from three.

Tyrese Hunter

Hunter is one of the most consistently over valued players the last few years. After his freshman year people nationally were talking about him as an All American caliber player and even last season some were still ranking him in the top 40 players nationally even as recently as last year. This for a guy that had a .475 true shooting percentage that season. The numbers at Texas haven’t been much better either.