In the last 5 years, Villanova has won 2 National Championships, 4 Big East regular season titles, and 89% of their games – the highest winning percentage in D1. Also, during this period, they’ve landed a total of zero top 10 recruits. Zero. Top 10 recruits are highly coveted by college programs and are likely to become one-and-done players. One-and-dones have long dominated recruiting conversations, preseason rankings, and media attention. Teams with multiple top recruits are often predicted to win the championship while those teams lacking this talent are overlooked and undervalued. They won’t be overlooked any longer. Jay Wright changed the game. Villanova won their 2 Championships with a rotation of upperclassman who were ranked outside of the top 10 as freshman. The numbers back Wright’s personnel strategy. Using advanced metrics from the last 5 years we can estimate the impact of these recruits on the power 6 conferences (adding in the Big East). BPM, sports-reference’s estimated box plus-minus, and NetRtg are the metrics used in this analysis to estimate on/off court impact. As expected, top 20 freshmen are the most valuable players in college basketball. However, players ranked in the top 100 as freshman are just as valuable by their junior or season year. Despite only a slight drop-off in impact and delayed returns, teams still overwhelmingly prefer the top ranked recruits. Imagine the impact of these upperclassmen if they were in a program that specialized in player development. The additional lift from development could make these players substantially more valuable than the top 20 freshman. You don’t have to imagine – this is Villanova’s blueprint. After years of early tournament losses with players that didn’t develop to Wright’s expectations, player development became his top priority. One key decision was the hiring of assistant coach Ashley Howard, now the head coach of La Salle University. Howard is known as a visionary in player development. He helped Mikal Bridges grow from a raw talented redshirt freshman into a 2018 lottery pick. Creating a culture for player development is only half of the equation. They needed to find players who desired to be coached and developed, even if that meant taking a player ranked 97th over a player ranked 33rd. The actual rank within the top 100 rankings doesn’t matter too much anyway – the graphic below shows they’re a fairly inaccurate measure. Recruiting analysts are successful at identifying the top 20 players amongst the group, but struggle to differentiate the rest. Players ranked in the top 20 definitely provide the highest average impact per season over the course of their career. Even the next group, 21-40, can be considered a distinct tier. However, there is no difference in average career value for players ranked 41-100. The Wildcats’ staff thoroughly searches for players in this range, who they believe are equally as talented as their top 100 counterparts, but are hungrier and more coachable. Over the last 5 years, players ranked in this range remained at Villanova an average of 1 year longer than rest of the top 41-100 recruits stayed at their school. This is the highest among teams with at least 4 of these recruits. The answer seems simple, right? Villanova recruits players they are looking to develop; therefore, they require more time in college to reach the same level of performance. Wrong. Actually, not only are they as good as their fellow 41-100 recruits, they are significantly better when comparing their underclassmen years. Does Villanova find the undervalued talents, or does the development process impact these players as early as their freshman and sophomore years? It’s most likely both. By their junior and senior years there’s no competition. So, why do Villanova players stay a year longer than their top 41-100 counterparts? That’s the result of recruiting hungrier players. They stay to continue improving their game. They stay to win. Bad news for the Big East and the rest of the power conferences… it’s only going to continue. Joining the 2018-19 Wildcat’s team are two prospects ranked in the 21-40 range, Jahvon Quinerly and Cole Swider, as well as 41-100 prospect in Brandon Slater. Expect more championships. So while Jay Wright and staff change the game, is anyone else paying attention? Most aren’t, but give Tony Bennett and Virginia credit. They’re close. Virginia has also had 8 recruits in the 41-100 range over the last 5 years, including Malcolm Brogdon, Justin Anderson, and London Perrantes. Similar to Villanova, they have found highly talented recruits who have dominated even in their first two seasons. The Cavaliers have also done an incredible job in developing these recruits throughout their careers. Analytically, their developmental lift is almost identical to Villanova.
Bennett and staff are reaping the benefits of recruiting De’Andre Hunter (#74) in this 41-100 range. Hunter is heading into his sophomore season after redshirting as a freshman and will be an All-American in 2018-19. He’s arguably the best two-way player returning next season. Villanova will continue, but expect Virginia to win a title in the next few years. The strategy is there. The regular season wins are there. The titles will come. The chart below shows the teams with the highest winning percentage from 2013-2018 among the power conferences. Kansas, Duke, Arizona, and Kentucky are one-and-done factories and the results have been great. Yet, by recruiting and developing the right players, Virginia is in the top 3 and Villanova is in its own tier.
7 Comments
Sean Henline
5/31/2018 05:04:43 pm
And, UVa has done it in the very strong ACC, not the top heavy BE.
Reply
David Cooper
6/1/2018 08:06:14 am
The ACC is just as "Top Heavy" but with 6 additional teams and, therefore, a lack of having to play everyone twice. If the top 10 ACC teams in a given year played only each other, the two conferences would have very similar resumes.
Reply
6/1/2018 11:29:51 am
You can make all the excuses you want about the top heavy Big East but the fact remains Nova kicked everyone’s ass this year and that,more than winning percentages is what matters.
Reply
Travis
6/1/2018 10:29:52 am
Since the realignment, the Big East has averaged 56% of the league making the tournament while the ACC has averaged 49%. There's no argument that the Big East is more top heavy.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Categories
All
Archives
January 2020
|