Ursa Major,UrsaMajor said:
SFCity;
as I have posted before, your data are interesting and your methodology is sound as far as it goes. Unfortunately, you can't really evaluate what you can't have data for. In other words, defining "helping the team" as the team succeeding in one or another metric makes sense. However, a player who takes a team that would have won fewer than 10 games and helps them to win--say--17, even if they don't win a championship or get to the tournament has helped his team. I recognize that it is impossible to do that research, because you can't possibly know how many games team X would have won without player Y, so I can accept your work as a good approximation.
Most of the data you say I need to evaluate "helping the team" can be found in the spreadsheet, and the rest is easily obtained with at look at sports-reference.com for a team's performance in the year prior to signing a recruit. That site will also show who graduated from that team, so you can get a fair approximation of a team's prospects for the next season prior to the signing of the recruit. Of course, those are also just statistics, and don't tell the full story. To evaluate accurately, one would have to have seen some games, and have an opinion of how much factors like coaching affect a team's or player's performance.
In the spreadsheet, I stated that a player had to have a good individual year to have been eligible for significantly helping his team in my mind. 21 players in that top 100 did not have a single good individual season in their college careers, IMO, and another 15 players did not have a good season in their first year. So a total of 36 top 100 players did not have a good individual season in year one, which means that 64 players in the top 100 did have a good first season. Of those, by my criteria for "helping their team to a successful season," there were a total of 34 players that I judged to have helped their teams. If we subtract those 34 players from the 64 players who had a good individual season, that leaves 30 players who had a good individual season, and who may have helped their teams based on your more liberal criteria. So I looked at the successful players among the top 20 ranked recruits who might fit your criteria, for their first season, and I find these results:
#1 Derrick Favors played the 2010 season at Georgia Tech. In 2009, Tech had a record of 12-19, and lost two rotation players to graduation. With Favors, Tech finished 23-13, 7th in the ACC, and so he clearly helped his team to more success. Sounds like a good example of what you are talking about.
#7 Renardo Sidney, Mississippi State. In 2009, Mississippi State was 23-12 and finished 3rd in the SEC West, and lost no one in the rotation to graduation. in 2010, Sidney had a good year statistically, but the team finished 17-14, worse than 2009. He drew suspensions for fighting and left after 2 seasons.
#8 Lance Stephenson, Cincinnati. In 2009, Cincy was 18-14, finished 9th in the Big East, and lost one rotation player to graduation. In 2010, Stephenson was named Big East Rookie of the Year, but Cincy finished only 19-16, not an improvement.
#9 Kenny Boynton, Florida . In 2009, Florida was 25-11, finished 3rd in the SEC East, and lost one rotation player to graduation. In 2010, they finished 21-13, slightly worse.
#10 Keith Gallon, Oklahoma. In 2009, Oklahoma finished 30-6, 2nd in Big 12, and lost 2 rotation players (including Blake Griffin) to graduation. Gallon had a good season in 2010, but the team finished 13-18, and Gallon was accused of taking cash and all the team's wins were vacated.
#16 Alex Oriakhi, UConn. In 2009, UConn finished 31-5, 3rd in the Bid East, and lost 3 rotation players to graduation. In 2010, Oraikhi had a good year, but UConn finished only 18-16.
#17 Michael Snaer, Florida State. In 2009, FSU finished 25-10, 4th in the ACC, and lost 2 rotation players to graduation. In 2010, FSU finished 22-10, so perhaps Snaer made up for the loss of 2 players.
So of those seven players, by your criteria, in their first season, I'd say Favors clearly helped his team, Snaer probably helped, but for Stepehnson, Boynton, and Oraikhi, it is not really clear, and both Gallon and Sidney look like they hurt their teams with their behavior.
Even if your criteria showed all of the 30 players who had good years, but did not meet my criteria for helping their team to success, did turn out to meet your criteria, that still would only give us 64 players who helped the teams who originally signed them. That is a 64% success rate for those schools' recruiting focus, a 64% success rate for the accuracy of recruit rankings as they relate to their teams being successful. I think it is closer to 50%, which is a coin flip, but even 64% is not as accurate as fans believe it to be. If you want to look up the rest of the players and evaluate them for yourself, I make the same offer as to Oaktown, send me a PM and I'll send you the spreadsheet to start with.