It opens the question of which is better, a 3-4 star who has been in the system for 3-4y (my strong preference if they can continue to improve) or a freshmen who may be athletically dominant but doesn't know how to play within a team where he's not expected to be the #1 guy.
I'd generally take the experienced angle and there are plenty of illustrations of the pieces fitting together better and better over time if you watch Wisconsin, Nova, UVA, others. Have we gotten that out of the 3s and 4s we have? Not yet, but as many others point out injuries, and various bumps in the road have made it hard to get an accurate read.
Long story short, guys like Miles Bridges (or Swanigan last year) give me very little concern b/c they don't necessarily play a particularly smart brand of basketball. Guys like Langford do. We do have a team full of talented guys who in most cases are smart and working their butt off trying to reach their potential, even into their senior years. We have a coach who many feel is great at getting guys to their potential. Some projected growth is reasonable if we give JB that credit and a pool of Maar type diamonds in the rough, and top 100 guys with this much experience should be able to hang with everyone in the league based on the combination of tenure x talent we have.
My view anyway. If time permits, I will look at the B1G rosters post draft commitments to see star rating x years tenure who has the most of this combo metric on their teams. In the B1G it has been a good predictor in years past.