Connect with us

College Basketball

Ranking Redux: Re-Ranking The 2023 Transfer Portal

As we approach the opening of the 2024 transfer portal in a couple of weeks, let’s reflect on our 2023 transfer rankings. The math is the math, and our methodology was a fusion of player efficiency metrics adjusted for the strength of schedule they faced. Undoubtedly, post players often emerge with high efficiency ratings, underscoring the value of robust post presences in collegiate basketball. Higher percentage baskets closer to the rim are still valuable. We don’t grade on a curve. Notably, the landscape of last season’s All-American teams bore testament to this trend, with an abundance of post players prominently featured. In fact, the All America first team boasted four such players. Interestingly though there are 3 guards/ wings ranked in the top 7 of the re-rankings. You can still be efficient in those positions as well.

Players such as Kerr Kriisa, Nicolas Timberlake, Jackson Paveletzke, Brandon Murray, Skyy Clark, Jaden Bradley, Andrew Rohde, MJ Rice , Jordan Minor, Jordan Dingle, JJ Starling and many others who were ranked highly by other outlets, never graded highly in our model and it seems for good reason. Even someone like Ryan Nembhard others ranked as highly as 2nd hasn’t preformed that well this season even while playing a much easier SOS in the WCC. The numbers seem ok, but he has a .517 true shooting percentage.

Below, we present our rankings from last season vs their numbers and ranking this season in our model.

2024
Rank
2023
Rank
FromToADJeff
2023
ADJeff
2024
11Hunter DickinsonMichiganKans6.25.8
22Jesse EdwardsSyracuseWVU5.55.6
395Dalton KnechtN. ColoTenn2.75.4
4149Quincy OlivariRiceXav2.45.2
523Josh OduroG. MasonProv3.65.1
624Jaylon TysonTexas TechCal3.64.7
735Grant NelsonN Dak StBama3.34.7
83Kalib BooneOkl StUNLV5.24.6
99Kel’el WareOregonInd4.24.6
1013Warren WashingtonArizona StTTU3.94.6
1127David JonesSt. John’sMem3.54.6
1259Caleb LoveUNCAriz3.04.6
134Tyrese SamuelSeton HallUF4.44.5
1461Isaac JonesIdahoWasSt3.04.5
1510Qudus WahabGeorgetownPenSt4.14.4
1612Graham IkeWyomingGonz3.94.4
17200AJ StorrSt. John’sWis2.24.4
1818Keshad JohnsonSD StAriz3.74.3
1929Fardaws AimaqTexas TechCal3.54.3
2062Aaron EstradaHofstraBama2.94.3
21145Great OsoborMontana StUtSt2.54.3
22114Tramon MarkHoustonArk2.64.2
2314Olivier NkamhouaTennesseeMich3.84.1
247Kadin ShedrickVirginiaTexas4.34.0
258Cam SpencerRutgersUCon4.24.0
2641Harrison IngramStanfordUNC3.24.0
27174Raequan BattleMontana StWVU2.34.0
2838Joseph GirardSyracuseClem3.23.9
2934Aziz BandaogoUtah ValleyCincy3.33.8
3047Rayj DennisToledoBaylo3.13.8
31128Jeremiah WilliamsTempleIlli2.53.8
32179Hunter SallisGonzagaWF2.33.8
3311Will BakerNevadaLSU4.03.7
3416LJ CryerBaylorHou3.73.7
3553Allen FlaniganAuburnMiss3.13.7
3663DJ HorneArizona StNCSU2.93.7
3782Walter ClaytonIonaUF2.83.7
3821Jordan WrightVanderbiltLSU3.63.6
3925Abou OusmaneN. TexasXav3.63.6
4057Keshon GilbertUNLVIowSt3.03.6
4168Rienk MastBradleyNeb2.93.6
4272Darrion WilliamsNevadaTTU2.93.6
4374Posh AlexanderSt. John’sButler2.93.6
44153Marcus DomaskS. IllinoisIlli2.43.6
45154Jonathan MogboMizz StSFU2.43.6
46158Ben KrikkeValpoIowa2.43.6
4717Hakim HartMarylandVill3.73.5
4831Max Abmas*ORUTexas3.33.5
4958Matthew ClevelandFlorida StMiam3.03.5
5079Ace Baldwin Jr.VCUPenSt2.83.5
19Jalen CookTulaneLSU3.63.4
22Tyler BurtonRichmondNova3.63.4
42Quincy Guerrier*OregonIlli3.23.4
85Brice WilliamsCharlotteNeb2.83.4
86B.J. MackWoffordSCar2.83.4

Dalton Knecht and Quincy Olivari have emerged as unexpected talents, demonstrating remarkable improvements in efficiency and production even while leveling up from mid and low-major conferences. Knecht, hailing from a 12-20 Big Sky team, and Olivari, from a 200th ranked CUSA, have showcased notable strides in their game. Similarly, Grant Nelson and Josh Oduro, also transitioning from comparable conferences, have shown impressive growth, although their progress may have been somewhat anticipated given their prior achievements. While some players experienced challenges in converting shots despite facing easier schedules, others made significant strides in their skill sets, rendering the level of competition less relevant. Overall, the majority of players fell within the anticipated range of outcomes, with a few standout surprises and notable improvements.

More in College Basketball

Discover more from The Resource Nexus

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading