Henry Summer League

[MU82]

Huh?

Well, any of us can make a guess, but as to how educated that guess would be ...

OK, maybe my lingo isn't the best here. But I still think you know what I mean. (As Chris Chelios once said, "Don't quote what I say, quote what I meant to say.")

Right now, none of us really knows how good Henry will be. I have a pretty good idea how good Ingram will be, but I'd just be taking a stab at guessing Hank's ceiling.

[Herman Cain]

Well, any of us can make a guess, but as to how educated that guess would be ...

OK, maybe my lingo isn't the best here. But I still think you know what I mean. (As Chris Chelios once said, "Don't quote what I say, quote what I meant to say.")

Right now, none of us really knows how good Henry will be. I have a pretty good idea how good Ingram will be, but I'd just be taking a stab at guessing Hank's ceiling.

I always look at the downside and then figure the upside is gravy. If Henry can build up his body a bit, he should be a decent rebounder, can set picks and make some junk baskets.  If he ever gets a dependable shot he has good upside.

[Jay Bee]

Well, any of us can make a guess, but as to how educated that guess would be ...

OK, maybe my lingo isn't the best here. But I still think you know what I mean. (As Chris Chelios once said, "Don't quote what I say, quote what I meant to say.")

Right now, none of us really knows how good Henry will be. I have a pretty good idea how good Ingram will be, but I'd just be taking a stab at guessing Hank's ceiling.

Funny you bring up Ingram... years ago I had him far beyond the masses.. just like Henry, 6, 5,4 years ago.

#13 Brandon Ingram could wind up a top 5 guy (or better). Lanky and a little awkward, but the length and skill is there. Easily one of my favorite players to watch in this class.

That's from 2013. As people figured it out and he moved up the rankings, I noted multiple times on this very board (btw, I rarely share these type of thoughts/analysis on here.. glad you brought him up) that his #12, etc type rankings were underrating him.

I understand that you and most haven't seen some of these guys in the gym for many, many years.. I understand that you and most haven't done statistical analysis that few have done...

...but don't discount those that do.

[wadesworld]

Funny you bring up Ingram... years ago I had him far beyond the masses.. just like Henry, 6, 5,4 years ago.

That's from 2013. As people figured it out and he moved up the rankings, I noted multiple times on this very board (btw, I rarely share these type of thoughts/analysis on here.. glad you brought him up) that his #12, etc type rankings were underrating him.

I understand that you and most haven't seen some of these guys in the gym for many, many years.. I understand that you and most haven't done statistical analysis that few have done...

...but don't discount those that do.

[MU82]

Funny you bring up Ingram... years ago I had him far beyond the masses.. just like Henry, 6, 5,4 years ago.

That's from 2013. As people figured it out and he moved up the rankings, I noted multiple times on this very board (btw, I rarely share these type of thoughts/analysis on here.. glad you brought him up) that his #12, etc type rankings were underrating him.

I understand that you and most haven't seen some of these guys in the gym for many, many years.. I understand that you and most haven't done statistical analysis that few have done...

...but don't discount those that do.

I just said Ingram was going to be a good pro, and I thought he would be a great college player the very first time I saw him play for Duke. That's not good enough?

I'd appreciate your perspective on Henry. What kind of NBA career do you expect him to have?

[Jay Bee]

I just said Ingram was going to be a good pro, and I thought he would be a great college player the very first time I saw him play for Duke. That's not good enough?

I'd appreciate your perspective on Henry. What kind of NBA career do you expect him to have?

Put some repseck on it

[Herman Cain]

Put some repseck on it

Enquiring minds want to know.

[brewcity77]

Well, any of us can make a guess, but as to how educated that guess would be ...

I'd have to side with JB on this one. Granted, you would need to put the time and effort in, but if it couldn't be predicted, what would the point of recruiting be? This is why I still feel Bo is one of the most underrated recruiters of the past couple decades, because while he may not have landed the stars, he was very good at finding guys that would be very good in his system. The best recruiters can land guys that are not just highly regarded, but also are going to be good.

Now granted, not even all the experts pick them right all the time, but I definitely feel there are some that are better than others and the ones that spend time watching and evaluating these guys and looking at the numbers they put up and the competition they put it up against can give a legitimately educated guess.

[Herman Cain]

I'd have to side with JB on this one. Granted, you would need to put the time and effort in, but if it couldn't be predicted, what would the point of recruiting be? This is why I still feel Bo is one of the most underrated recruiters of the past couple decades, because while he may not have landed the stars, he was very good at finding guys that would be very good in his system. The best recruiters can land guys that are not just highly regarded, but also are going to be good.

Now granted, not even all the experts pick them right all the time, but I definitely feel there are some that are better than others and the ones that spend time watching and evaluating these guys and looking at the numbers they put up and the competition they put it up against can give a legitimately educated guess.

I think you posted this in the wrong thread.

[brewcity77]

I think you posted this in the wrong thread.

The topic at hand is player evaluation. The title may be Henry Summer League, but it's been adjacent to topic for a few posts now. Drafting, recruiting, it's all player evaluation, and if we're going back to Brandon Ingram from years ago, then I'm pretty sure it's germane.

[Herman Cain]

Henry had 14 versus pacers today. Shooting improved 4-10 2-4 from 3.

[Eldon]

Funny you bring up Ingram... years ago I had him far beyond the masses.. just like Henry, 6, 5,4 years ago.

That's from 2013. As people figured it out and he moved up the rankings, I noted multiple times on this very board (btw, I rarely share these type of thoughts/analysis on here.. glad you brought him up) that his #12, etc type rankings were underrating him.

I understand that you and most haven't seen some of these guys in the gym for many, many years.. I understand that you and most haven't done statistical analysis that few have done...

...but don't discount those that do.

Impressive.

[Eldon]

Didn't see this posted elsewhere, but Vander is playing on the Mavs summer league team

[Herman Cain]

Some commentary from Henry at the Summer League
http://www.nba.com/magic/video/teams/magic/2016/07/02/1467495587604-henryellenson722016.mp4-628392

[GB Warrior]

Didn't see this posted elsewhere, but Vander is playing on the Mavs summer league team

I'm going to operate under the illusion that this is brilliant sarcasm.

[Herman Cain]

This is an excellent article on Henry with  very detailed commentary on aspects of his game by his coaches on the Pistons:

http://www.mlive.com/pistons/index.ssf/2016/07/pistons_notes_svg_likes_first-.html

[brandx]

How did coaches recruit before all of the advanced stats?

My guess is that Wooden, Knight, and all of the other coaching legends simply put names in a hat and drew them as to which guys they would recruit. How could they possible evaluate a player without their ORtg or eFG% or Win Shares?

I don't say this to knock the advanced stats - just simply to point out that they are not the end-all and be-all of scouting.

[Brewtown Andy]

How did coaches recruit before all of the advanced stats?

My guess is that Wooden, Knight, and all of the other coaching legends simply put names in a hat and drew them as to which guys they would recruit. How could they possible evaluate a player without their ORtg or eFG% or Win Shares?

I don't say this to knock the advanced stats - just simply to point out that they are not the end-all and be-all of scouting.

Dean Smith was calculating points per possession.

[Jay Bee]

How did coaches recruit before all of the advanced stats?

My guess is that Wooden, Knight, and all of the other coaching legends simply put names in a hat and drew them as to which guys they would recruit. How could they possible evaluate a player without their ORtg or eFG% or Win Shares?

I don't say this to knock the advanced stats - just simply to point out that they are not the end-all and be-all of scouting.

There aren't a lot of stats for HS kids that are worthwhile. Those doing work in this field also keep things pretty close to the vest.

Rest assured, recruiting preps is similar today compared to years left my past for many folks

[forgetful]

How did coaches recruit before all of the advanced stats?

My guess is that Wooden, Knight, and all of the other coaching legends simply put names in a hat and drew them as to which guys they would recruit. How could they possible evaluate a player without their ORtg or eFG% or Win Shares?

I don't say this to knock the advanced stats - just simply to point out that they are not the end-all and be-all of scouting.

I think the bottom line is that advanced stats are of limited value at the HS level.  The degree of competition is highly variable, the style of play in AAU does not match that at the college level at all.

Much is still done in open gyms, where you are looking to get a feel for the kids work ethic, athletic ability and fundamentals.  The game play gives you a really solid idea of how that translates to organized competition.

The key element is having a good eye for the ability to develop.  Advanced stats are just a small element in a grand picture of evaluating talent.

[MU82]

How did coaches recruit before all of the advanced stats?

My guess is that Wooden, Knight, and all of the other coaching legends simply put names in a hat and drew them as to which guys they would recruit. How could they possible evaluate a player without their ORtg or eFG% or Win Shares?

I don't say this to knock the advanced stats - just simply to point out that they are not the end-all and be-all of scouting.

This is silly.

Everybody knows Bobby just choked the statsheet until it gave him the numbers he wanted.

[brewcity77]

How did coaches recruit before all of the advanced stats?

My guess is that Wooden, Knight, and all of the other coaching legends simply put names in a hat and drew them as to which guys they would recruit. How could they possible evaluate a player without their ORtg or eFG% or Win Shares?

I don't say this to knock the advanced stats - just simply to point out that they are not the end-all and be-all of scouting.

Well, in those days, eFG% would have had far less value. The reason it is important today is because of the three point line and evaluates the points earned per shot attempt. Prior to the advent of the three, all the shots were worth 2 points.

[brandx]

Well, in those days, eFG% would have had far less value. The reason it is important today is because of the three point line and evaluates the points earned per shot attempt. Prior to the advent of the three, all the shots were worth 2 points.

I get that, Brew. And as I said, I am not against advanced stats. But they aren't the final answer.

I am a huge fan of advanced stats in baseball and have been since the early '80s and still own all of Bill James' early books, but even there, the eye test is often enough. There is no advanced stat that can tell me anything about Mike Trout that I cannot see with my eyes watching him over a period of time. Advanced stats will only provide metrics that people can point to as proof.

The same is true in hoops. We know that a good 3 point shooter is going to have a high eFG%.

It's pretty easy to give a Top Ten NBA players list without ever looking at an advanced stat. I watched MJ. I watch Lebron. Our eyes tell us they are two of the best ever.

[Jay Bee]

Advanced stats will only provide metrics that people can point to as proof.

False. That's a personal problem of yours.

There is predictive value and there are identifiers in prep hoops (projecting to college) and in college to NBA.

Stats alone would be silly to use, but they aren't a tiny complement to the eye test. They can help identify where your eyes should be.

[brandx]

False. That's a personal problem of yours.

There is predictive value and there are identifiers in prep hoops (projecting to college) and in college to NBA.

Stats alone would be silly to use, but they aren't a tiny complement to the eye test. They can help identify where your eyes should be.

I shouldn't have used the word "only".

I also don't disagree with your last paragraph. If you look back, my original point was that stats are not the end-all, be-all. Your statement seems to agree.