Post Reply
1 of 1
ESPN Girls Rankings
3,341 Views |
18 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by Chibears2
South Carolina is here to stay! They are a recruiting machine.
I wouldn't put too much faith in recruiting rankings [especially women's BB]. Without regard to sport or gender, recruiting services are wrong as often as they are right. Even the best coaching staffs would be elated to be right 65-70% of the time.
Some of the "misses" are bad analysis, some are bad timing [in person observation when a player is sick, etc.], some are bad processes [not valuing the right characteristics in the right weighting], some are bad luck [injury], and some are bad comparisons [competition levels vary widely].
Even if rankings are correct, fit varies. Notre Dame wants to outscore people [defense is an afterthought]. Baylor and South Carolina are defensive focused. A player ideal for one system may be a bad fit for another. How can anyone fairly rank recruits under many different value systems?
One of the biggest problems is Correction Bias. If a recruiting service heavily over ranks a point guard from rural Alaska one year, they are prone to "adjust" their valuation model and can easily heavily underrank the next similar player. That is what I see happening with Dauda. The services "over ranked" a 2020 player from rural Missouri [compared to the recruiting push she got from major programs]. I think they are "correcting" expectations and Dauda is undervalued as a result. Be honest, her level of HS competition is poor and her Summer team didn't play the top level events. But she should still be a National Top Ten recruit. She is that good [skill and athleticism].
I think most services have similar values on players from the top Summer teams playing in the top Summer events. It is the other players that are difficult to rank. Covid means that the 2021 and 2022 rankings are likely to be worse than usual. Too many events not occurring, too many players missing events, etc. Fortunately for Baylor, I think the staff had already identified 98% of their targets. There are a few "wait and see" players. Does this post stop growing at 6'3 or does she reach 6'6? How much does that player improve her athleticism? A shooting guard I don't like at 5'7 I might love at 6'1. And, to be fair, some players blossom later [but that is becoming more rare with year round sport specific training].
Some of the "misses" are bad analysis, some are bad timing [in person observation when a player is sick, etc.], some are bad processes [not valuing the right characteristics in the right weighting], some are bad luck [injury], and some are bad comparisons [competition levels vary widely].
Even if rankings are correct, fit varies. Notre Dame wants to outscore people [defense is an afterthought]. Baylor and South Carolina are defensive focused. A player ideal for one system may be a bad fit for another. How can anyone fairly rank recruits under many different value systems?
One of the biggest problems is Correction Bias. If a recruiting service heavily over ranks a point guard from rural Alaska one year, they are prone to "adjust" their valuation model and can easily heavily underrank the next similar player. That is what I see happening with Dauda. The services "over ranked" a 2020 player from rural Missouri [compared to the recruiting push she got from major programs]. I think they are "correcting" expectations and Dauda is undervalued as a result. Be honest, her level of HS competition is poor and her Summer team didn't play the top level events. But she should still be a National Top Ten recruit. She is that good [skill and athleticism].
I think most services have similar values on players from the top Summer teams playing in the top Summer events. It is the other players that are difficult to rank. Covid means that the 2021 and 2022 rankings are likely to be worse than usual. Too many events not occurring, too many players missing events, etc. Fortunately for Baylor, I think the staff had already identified 98% of their targets. There are a few "wait and see" players. Does this post stop growing at 6'3 or does she reach 6'6? How much does that player improve her athleticism? A shooting guard I don't like at 5'7 I might love at 6'1. And, to be fair, some players blossom later [but that is becoming more rare with year round sport specific training].
Great explanation Adriacus Peratuun...thanks!
AP
When you start talking, many of us need to remain quiet and listen. Thanks, well said as always.
When you start talking, many of us need to remain quiet and listen. Thanks, well said as always.
I wonder if this is the situation with Maddie? I think I saw updated heights of her and Sammie at 6'3 and 6'2.Adriacus Peratuun said:
I wouldn't put too much faith in recruiting rankings [especially women's BB]. Without regard to sport or gender, recruiting services are wrong as often as they are right. Even the best coaching staffs would be elated to be right 65-70% of the time.
Some of the "misses" are bad analysis, some are bad timing [in person observation when a player is sick, etc.], some are bad processes [not valuing the right characteristics in the right weighting], some are bad luck [injury], and some are bad comparisons [competition levels vary widely].
Even if rankings are correct, fit varies. Notre Dame wants to outscore people [defense is an afterthought]. Baylor and South Carolina are defensive focused. A player ideal for one system may be a bad fit for another. How can anyone fairly rank recruits under many different value systems?
One of the biggest problems is Correction Bias. If a recruiting service heavily over ranks a point guard from rural Alaska one year, they are prone to "adjust" their valuation model and can easily heavily underrank the next similar player. That is what I see happening with Dauda. The services "over ranked" a 2020 player from rural Missouri [compared to the recruiting push she got from major programs]. I think they are "correcting" expectations and Dauda is undervalued as a result. Be honest, her level of HS competition is poor and her Summer team didn't play the top level events. But she should still be a National Top Ten recruit. She is that good [skill and athleticism].
I think most services have similar values on players from the top Summer teams playing in the top Summer events. It is the other players that are difficult to rank. Covid means that the 2021 and 2022 rankings are likely to be worse than usual. Too many events not occurring, too many players missing events, etc. Fortunately for Baylor, I think the staff had already identified 98% of their targets. There are a few "wait and see" players. Does this post stop growing at 6'3 or does she reach 6'6? How much does that player improve her athleticism? A shooting guard I don't like at 5'7 I might love at 6'1. And, to be fair, some players blossom later [but that is becoming more rare with year round sport specific training].
Possibly. But I think there is enough family data to project her future growth.UBBY said:I wonder if this is the situation with Maddie? I think I saw updated heights of her and Sammie at 6'3 and 6'2.Adriacus Peratuun said:
Does this post stop growing at 6'3 or does she reach 6'6?
I think players like Jada Malone - 2021 and Christeen Iwuala - 2022 are clearer examples. Mobility levels mean they need to reach 6'5 plus. The downward spiral of Malone's recruiting ranking is fairly indicative of what happens when posts stop growing earlier than expected.
Yes Excellent analysis !!!BUatbirth said:
Great explanation Adriacus Peratuun...thanks!
AP, I love your analysis. I am not a worthy challenger to your wbb wisdom. I trust Kim's evaluations more than ESPN or other sources. I will say, however, that BG, Sims, and Cox were all highly ranked players that lived up to their ranking. And UConn is often chasing the top recruit. At the same time, we could all point to disappointments from recruits' performances. But I don't want to state the negative.
This serves as points of discussion and opinions,right or wrong, until the next playing season begins. But it is far from a subjective league of its own.
HUH? Say what?
HUH? Say what?
Adriacus Peratuun said:
I wouldn't put too much faith in recruiting rankings [especially women's BB]. Without regard to sport or gender, recruiting services are wrong as often as they are right. Even the best coaching staffs would be elated to be right 65-70% of the time.
Some of the "misses" are bad analysis, some are bad timing [in person observation when a player is sick, etc.], some are bad processes [not valuing the right characteristics in the right weighting], some are bad luck [injury], and some are bad comparisons [competition levels vary widely].
Even if rankings are correct, fit varies. Notre Dame wants to outscore people [defense is an afterthought]. Baylor and South Carolina are defensive focused. A player ideal for one system may be a bad fit for another. How can anyone fairly rank recruits under many different value systems?
One of the biggest problems is Correction Bias. If a recruiting service heavily over ranks a point guard from rural Alaska one year, they are prone to "adjust" their valuation model and can easily heavily underrank the next similar player. That is what I see happening with Dauda. The services "over ranked" a 2020 player from rural Missouri [compared to the recruiting push she got from major programs]. I think they are "correcting" expectations and Dauda is undervalued as a result. Be honest, her level of HS competition is poor and her Summer team didn't play the top level events. But she should still be a National Top Ten recruit. She is that good [skill and athleticism].
I think most services have similar values on players from the top Summer teams playing in the top Summer events. It is the other players that are difficult to rank. Covid means that the 2021 and 2022 rankings are likely to be worse than usual. Too many events not occurring, too many players missing events, etc. Fortunately for Baylor, I think the staff had already identified 98% of their targets. There are a few "wait and see" players. Does this post stop growing at 6'3 or does she reach 6'6? How much does that player improve her athleticism? A shooting guard I don't like at 5'7 I might love at 6'1. And, to be fair, some players blossom later [but that is becoming more rare with year round sport specific training].
Which misses did those recruiting services have: was it Griner? Brown? Lauren Cox? Sims? Egbo? Smith? Cooper? Mompremier (who ended up all ACC) Prince? Juicy? All were rated in the Top 30.
I'll give you Chou so far, but that sure looks much higher than "more often wrong than right" to me.
DanaDane said:
Which misses did those recruiting services have: was it Griner? Brown? Lauren Cox? Sims? Egbo? Smith? Cooper? Mompremier (who ended up all ACC) Prince? Juicy? All were rated in the Top 30.
I'll give you Chou so far, but that sure looks much higher than "more often wrong than right" to me.
For ease of use, ESPN Top 100 of most recent college senior class.
Top 50: More misses than hits for quality college careers.
Same class......#51-100
Find 5 players that had successful college careers.
Find 5 players that had successful college careers.
And that was a "good year" for evaluation. Look at a bad year. 
Hmmm... you may be right nationally after looking at the list but would you agree Baylor has had more hits than misses?
Adriacus Peratuun said:
Same class......#51-100
Find 5 players that had successful college careers.
Aari McDonald, Chelsea Dungee, Brittany Brewer, Bella Alarie, Kathleen Doyle.
I agree. But that wasn't my point. My point was that recruiting services [not Baylor's coaching staff] are not reliable in evaluating talent. Even top talent evaluators like Auriemma, Mulkey, Summitt, etc. "miss" about 30-40% of the time. Most recruiting services are lucky to hit on 35% of the Top 100.UBBY said:
Hmmm... you may be right nationally after looking at the list but would you agree Baylor has had more hits than misses?
Out of 50. 10% success rate. And.........Proves the point in reverse. Those five should have been in the Top 50 not 51-100.HoustonBear15 said:Adriacus Peratuun said:
Same class......#51-100
Find 5 players that had successful college careers.
Aari McDonald, Chelsea Dungee, Brittany Brewer, Bella Alarie, Kathleen Doyle.
Why hasn't Azzi Fudd signed?
Good breakdown, AP, but there are other factors, as well. Was it a poor evaluation, or a lack of development by coaching staff? Was it poor evaluation, or a correct evaluation at that point in time, for an athlete that later lost interest in her sport, as other opportunities opened up? And to take that further, is that likelihood that an athlete might lose interest and not work as hard something that the evaluator SHOULD have picked up on? Interesting to think about....
Generally, I agree with you, and think the percentage of hits (or misses) indicated by the numbers you presented are pretty telling, but they may be mitigated a bit by coaching, style of play at next level, teammates abilities to get them the ball, etc.
It's why high school coaches' feedback is important and why college coaches look at athletes over multiple years and many contests. Movie vs one frame from a movie
Generally, I agree with you, and think the percentage of hits (or misses) indicated by the numbers you presented are pretty telling, but they may be mitigated a bit by coaching, style of play at next level, teammates abilities to get them the ball, etc.
It's why high school coaches' feedback is important and why college coaches look at athletes over multiple years and many contests. Movie vs one frame from a movie
Featured Stories
See All
73:15
3h ago
612
The Bear Cast: Jeremy Roach Commits, Schobel Decommits, Transfer Portal Updates
by Grayson Grundhoefer
Notes from Dave Aranda's Final Spring Press Conference
by Craig Smoak
13:26
1d ago
1.8k
6:56
1d ago
1.1k
Views from the Brazos: 2024 Spring Showcase
by Jack Mackenzie
bearassnekkid
How do we build excitement around the football program?
in SicEm365 Premium Insider
49
MadvillainBear20
How do we build excitement around the football program?
in SicEm365 Premium Insider
27