Link to the Re-Rank Results is LIVE

[kh83]

Top 5! I'm like the Oregon of HH...good enought to be in the conversation but not quite good enough to win.

 

[H_D]

Average score given by each participant.

I like how you got 5 decimals deep and decided, "screw it, add four more decimals!"

gotta have those extra numbers mang

also... here is an unweighted variation of how far participants were from the average for each player (doesn't correct for standard deviation and other factors...)

Smaller number means closer to the average... on average.

Statistics Superiority Guy

 

[Swaye]

And @Swaye‌ wtf dude, I love ya but Jamaal a 4???

Either I was shitpoopfaced or that was a misclick. No way I gave that scrub a 4. I do notice I was the third lowest overall score...which means I am sort of a dick jerk I guess.

 

[Dennis_DeYoung]

DeYoung being the highest average rater? I'd have put that at 100-1

I think I see why this happened. I didn't really use the 0 unless people actually never enrolled. People gave Josh Banks a 0! He played!

I stuck to this criteria:

0 = Never enrolled
1 = Never contributed
2 = Contributor or bad starter
3 = Good/Multi-year Starter
4 = All Pac-12 level player (a guy that other teams would want on their team)
5 = All-American level player, first round pick, etc.

 

[chuck]

DeYoung being the highest average rater? I'd have put that at 100-1

I think I see why this happened. I didn't really use the 0 unless people actually never enrolled. People gave Josh Banks a 0! He played!

I stuck to this criteria:

0 = Never enrolled
1 = Never contributed
2 = Contributor or bad starter
3 = Good/Multi-year Starter
4 = All Pac-12 level player (a guy that other teams would want on their team)
5 = All-American level player, first round pick, etc.

I went into it with a pretty much identical scale. I just didn't stick to my guns throughout, for a number of reasons. One of those was that I couldn't always remember whether or not a guy played. I definitely handed some zeros to guys who were on the field at times, but I think they deserved them in most cases.

 

[Dennis_DeYoung]

DeYoung being the highest average rater? I'd have put that at 100-1

I think I see why this happened. I didn't really use the 0 unless people actually never enrolled. People gave Josh Banks a 0! He played!

I stuck to this criteria:

0 = Never enrolled
1 = Never contributed
2 = Contributor or bad starter
3 = Good/Multi-year Starter
4 = All Pac-12 level player (a guy that other teams would want on their team)
5 = All-American level player, first round pick, etc.

I went into it with a pretty much identical scale. I just didn't stick to my guns throughout, for a number of reasons. One of those was that I couldn't always remember whether or not a guy played. I definitely handed some zeros to guys who were on the field at times, but I think they deserved them in most cases.

I just think it puts a weird bias to it if you can call a guy who played a 0. Look, I don't think Josh Banks was a great player, but Josh played 2 years here, started some games and contributed. Even calling him a 1 is disingenuous. Otherwise you end up with rankings all over the place...

People gave Kasen a 2! I mean, a 2? I can understand a 3, but a 2?!?

No players should have 3 rankings among the raters. Des Trufant should either be a 4 or a 5. Kasen should be a 3 or a 4. Callier should be a 2 or a 2. Etc.

 

[chuck]

DeYoung being the highest average rater? I'd have put that at 100-1

I think I see why this happened. I didn't really use the 0 unless people actually never enrolled. People gave Josh Banks a 0! He played!

I stuck to this criteria:

0 = Never enrolled
1 = Never contributed
2 = Contributor or bad starter
3 = Good/Multi-year Starter
4 = All Pac-12 level player (a guy that other teams would want on their team)
5 = All-American level player, first round pick, etc.

I went into it with a pretty much identical scale. I just didn't stick to my guns throughout, for a number of reasons. One of those was that I couldn't always remember whether or not a guy played. I definitely handed some zeros to guys who were on the field at times, but I think they deserved them in most cases.

I just think it puts a weird bias to it if you can call a guy who played a 0. Look, I don't think Josh Banks was a great player, but Josh played 2 years here, started some games and contributed. Even calling him a 1 is disingenuous. Otherwise you end up with rankings all over the place...

People gave Kasen a 2! I mean, a 2? I can understand a 3, but a 2?!?

No players should have 3 rankings among the raters. Des Trufant should either be a 4 or a 5. Kasen should be a 3 or a 4. Callier should be a 2 or a 2. Etc.

I agree with all of the above except fuckeff you on the bolded.

I gave Banks 1* but wouldn't argue with someone who gave him 2. He wasn't completely worthless. I feel like I underrated a few guys by a star and I MIGHT include him in that group. Half stars, if available, would have definitely raised my average stars awarded.

 

[RoadDawg55]

@Dennis_DeYoung, you were a little more generous giving out 2's then others. Potoa'e was a 1 to me. He played a little, but he never did anything and was pretty much a liability when he was on the field. Same with Hartvigson.

 

[RoadDawg55]

Big time disagree with those that ranked Peters a 5. He had 5 talent. He never fully displayed that at Washington. He was an all-conference caliber as a sophomore. All-Conference to me is a 4. He could have been an All-American ... but he decided to get kicked off the team instead. Even if he was a 5-star in ability, I think you have to knock him down a bit for being a knucklehead.

He got a 5 from me because he was good as a freshman, all conference as a sophomore, and the best CB in the conference as a junior. The season was already over when he was kicked off the team and I didn't need to see 5 more games to see he was an elite player.

 

[79smoothdawg]

Average score given by each participant.

I like how you got 5 decimals deep and decided, "screw it, add four more decimals!"

gotta have those extra numbers mang

also... here is an unweighted variation of how far participants were from the average for each player (doesn't correct for standard deviation and other factors...)

Smaller number means closer to the average... on average.

Clearly science is on my side.

 

[RoadDawg55]

The Pepsi family, why the 4 for Kikaha? Very good freshman season before the injuries. Then he comes back a few years later and has 13.5 then 18.5 sacks. He's the all time leading sacker in UW History, made two all conference teams, and one All American.

 

[Alexis]

The Pepsi family, why the 4 for Kikaha? Very good freshman season before the injuries. Then he comes back a few years later and has 13.5 then 18.5 sacks. He's the all time leading sacker in UW History, made two all conference teams, and one All American.

I think you are thinking of Jamora. Common mistake.

 

[whatshouldicareabout]

I should've given Banks a 1 instead of a 0.

I only saw he played in 3 games in 2013 with one of those being Idaho St. Didn't realize he played in 9 games in 2012.

 

[Dennis_DeYoung]

@Dennis_DeYoung, you were a little more generous giving out 2's then others. Potoa'e was a 1 to me. He played a little, but he never did anything and was pretty much a liability when he was on the field. Same with Hartvigson.

@RoadDawg55, I gave 2s off the criteria I stated: 'contributor' or bad starter. Sione was a border 1/2, but I thought in his last year he was a backup. It wasn't like you NEVER heard about him. I think, again it was a case of me only using 0s as 'never enrolled'.

I think the 0 ranking is justified in that it's a total waste of resources to recruit a guy who will never come on campus. So if that happened, then I'm fine with @CokeGreaterThanPepsi's punishment of a 0. But once they enroll, the lowest they can be is a 1. Nick Montana was a 1.

But, if you are around all 4 years and play a good amount (contribute), you're a 2. Sione was close to that... but I think if Sione'd come in as a 3 star kid, people would've been nicer to him in the rankings. Once people think you're a bust, they de-value you.

I think that happened with Kasen, too.

Also, I think Peters was a 5 because he was a All-America level for most of last year.

 

[CokeGreaterThanPepsi]

Gave Kikaha a 4 because he was pretty inconsistent until this year. He had GREAT games last year as a junior, but he also disappeared in games. I love Kikaha, but I just couldn't pull the trigger on the 5. Now I am kinda doubting myself, but whatever.

 

[MrsPetersen]

What @CokeGreaterThanPepsi‌ said. I really went back and forth on it with (Danny too), 4.5 would have been right. But he only had one season where I was fearing for the life of opposing QB. I also didn't really remember his FR season.

FWIW, we argued about including an option of 0 for guys that actually enrolled. I gave in to Poopsi and included it.

But I guess a 0 fits for guys like Gilliland/Enewally/Lavon Washington who did set foot on campus but were non-existant or got kicked off right away.

 

[RoadDawg55]

Gilliland made a couple of plays at UW. He had a pick against Eastern in the terrible opener. He was a one because he left early, but I think he would have been a solid 2 if he had stayed. He didn't suck any worse worse than Timu, Fuimaono, and Kearse in 2010 and 2011.

 

[Dennis_DeYoung]

What @CokeGreaterThanPepsi‌ said. I really went back and forth on it with (Danny too), 4.5 would have been right. But he only had one season where I was fearing for the life of opposing QB. I also didn't really remember his FR season.

FWIW, we argued about including an option of 0 for guys that actually enrolled. I gave in to Poopsi and included it.

But I guess a 0 fits for guys like Gilliland/Enewally/Lavon Washington who did set foot on campus but were non-existant or got kicked off right away.

Here's my issue with this... with this criteria, a 5* player has to essentially be Steve Emtman. Once every 20 year player. By this kind of measure we might have had 3-4 5* players in the last 20 years... Dillon, Marques... who else? Jerramy Stevens?

We're dividing up performance in to quintiles... Is he in the bottom 20% of players, the lower middle 20%, the middle 20%, upper middle 20% or the top 20%?

If you were an All-American at any point, you were a 5-star. Otherwise no one will be a 5-star outside of Hall Of Fame level players. I don't see how that really makes sense as an evaluation criteria.

If Shelton wasn't a 5, who the HOLY HECK is?

 

[CokeGreaterThanPepsi]

What @CokeGreaterThanPepsi‌ said. I really went back and forth on it with (Danny too), 4.5 would have been right. But he only had one season where I was fearing for the life of opposing QB. I also didn't really remember his FR season.

FWIW, we argued about including an option of 0 for guys that actually enrolled. I gave in to Poopsi and included it.

But I guess a 0 fits for guys like Gilliland/Enewally/Lavon Washington who did set foot on campus but were non-existant or got kicked off right away.

Here's my issue with this... with this criteria, a 5* player has to essentially be Steve Emtman. Once every 20 year player. By this kind of measure we might have had 3-4 5* players in the last 20 years... Dillon, Marques... who else? Jerramy Stevens?

We're dividing up performance in to quintiles... Is he in the bottom 20% of players, the lower middle 20%, the middle 20%, upper middle 20% or the top 20%?

If you were an All-American at any point, you were a 5-star. Otherwise no one will be a 5-star outside of Hall Of Fame level players. I don't see how that really makes sense as an evaluation criteria.

If Shelton wasn't a 5, who the HOLY HECK is?

I don't know, I mean. Shelton is over a 4.5 which in my opinion is an ELITE player. Bishop, Hau'oli and Shaq were all over that (Desmond was 4.46). I think it worked fine for this study, which was determining contribution. Like I said, over 4.5 you are ELITE.

 

[Dennis_DeYoung]

What @CokeGreaterThanPepsi‌ said. I really went back and forth on it with (Danny too), 4.5 would have been right. But he only had one season where I was fearing for the life of opposing QB. I also didn't really remember his FR season.

FWIW, we argued about including an option of 0 for guys that actually enrolled. I gave in to Poopsi and included it.

But I guess a 0 fits for guys like Gilliland/Enewally/Lavon Washington who did set foot on campus but were non-existant or got kicked off right away.

Here's my issue with this... with this criteria, a 5* player has to essentially be Steve Emtman. Once every 20 year player. By this kind of measure we might have had 3-4 5* players in the last 20 years... Dillon, Marques... who else? Jerramy Stevens?

We're dividing up performance in to quintiles... Is he in the bottom 20% of players, the lower middle 20%, the middle 20%, upper middle 20% or the top 20%?

If you were an All-American at any point, you were a 5-star. Otherwise no one will be a 5-star outside of Hall Of Fame level players. I don't see how that really makes sense as an evaluation criteria.

If Shelton wasn't a 5, who the HOLY HECK is?

I don't know, I mean. Shelton is over a 4.5 which in my opinion is an ELITE player. Bishop, Hau'oli and Shaq were all over that (Desmond was 4.46). I think it worked fine for this study, which was determining contribution. Like I said, over 4.5 you are ELITE.

I'm not arguing about averages; about specific ratings.