The unheralded high school recruits (3 stars or less)

[Cheeks]

Our company put this together, thought it worth sharing.  These guys were 2 stars or less in high school, not only flourished in college but some made decent impacts in the NBA.

Eric Maynor, 2 star, almost 2000 college points.  Played in NBA
CJ McCollum, 3 star, 2300 college points. Played in NBA
Andrew Nicholson, 2 star, 2100 college points. Played in NBA
Issaih Canaan, 2 star, 2000 college points. Played in NBA
Dellevedova, 3 star, ~2000 college points. NBA
Nate Wolters, 0 stars, 2400 college points. Played in the NBA
Elfrid Payton, 0 stars, 1,400 college points. Played in the NBA
Norris Cole, 2 star, ~2000 college points. Played in the NBA
Isaiah Thomas, 3 star.  1700 college points.  NBA
Courtney Lee, 3 star....same
George Hill, 2 star...same
Jason Thompson, 2 star....same
Damian Lillard, 3 star...same
Steph Curry, 3 star....same

Hundreds more.   Let the coaches recruit, coach them up, practice them up, and see how it all shakes out. 


Let's also take a look at these top 100 recruits by state...at least according to the experts



https://watchstadium.com/news/ranking-every-state-in-the-u-s-by-the-college-basketball-prospects-it-produces-06-24-2019/

[Silent Verbal]

This is basically the same thing as saying, “Coach K struggled his first five years at Duke, and look at him now.  Same thing with Jay Wright at Nova.  That’s why you stick with a coach.”  Those guys are the exception.  So are the players on your list, and for every one of them, for every Oladipo and Lillard and Curry, there are a thousand others who’ve faded into basketball obscurity.

And it happens in every sport.  Tom Brady was, what, a 6th round pick?  Mike Piazza was drafted in the millionth round as a favor to Tommy LaSorda, and now he’s a HOFer.  Sometimes unheralded guys vastly overachieve.  Most of the time they don’t.  I’m not sure what else needs to be said about it.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Exposure and AAU status has a lot to do with rankings though.

Saw it happen first hand with Nader. Anyone who knew him knew that he had high major, even NBA talent when he was in high school, he just didn’t work the AAU circuit like the four star recruits did.

[Cheeks]

It’s not basically saying that....bad analogy.  Recruiting rankings are wholly subjective, coaches are judged on wins, losses, not breaking the rules, graduating kids, etc.....some of you want to judge a coach based on one game in March, not on wins and losses from Nov to March. 

[Cheeks]

Exposure and AAU status has a lot to do with rankings though.

Saw it happen first hand with Nader. Anyone who knew him knew that he had high major, even NBA talent when he was in high school, he just didn’t work the AAU circuit like the four star recruits did.

Agree, which is why the rankings are often meaningless.

[Herman Cain]

Our company put this together, thought it worth sharing.  These guys were 2 stars or less in high school, not only flourished in college but some made decent impacts in the NBA.

Eric Maynor, 2 star, almost 2000 college points.  Played in NBA
CJ McCollum, 3 star, 2300 college points. Played in NBA
Andrew Nicholson, 2 star, 2100 college points. Played in NBA
Issaih Canaan, 2 star, 2000 college points. Played in NBA
Dellevedova, 3 star, ~2000 college points. NBA
Nate Wolters, 0 stars, 2400 college points. Played in the NBA
Elfrid Payton, 0 stars, 1,400 college points. Played in the NBA
Norris Cole, 2 star, ~2000 college points. Played in the NBA
Isaiah Thomas, 3 star.  1700 college points.  NBA
Courtney Lee, 3 star....same
George Hill, 2 star...same
Jason Thompson, 2 star....same
Damian Lillard, 3 star...same
Steph Curry, 3 star....same

Hundreds more.   Let the coaches recruit, coach them up, practice them up, and see how it all shakes out. 


Let's also take a look at these top 100 recruits by state...at least according to the experts



https://watchstadium.com/news/ranking-every-state-in-the-u-s-by-the-college-basketball-prospects-it-produces-06-24-2019/

The list of players by state has some distortions, due to kids going to basketball factory prep schools.

Also the rankings are primarily a function of college interest and off the record discussions with contacts at the coaching staffs. There is a bit of group think that goes on as everyone, for the most part, attends the same recruiting  events..Every once in a while a kid will not go on the major circuits, is thus not ranked  and is discovered late in the process the way Dexter was with MU.

[Johnny B]

This doesn't mean much. the reality is the vast majority of 2 stars are not the recruits you would typically want. I also fail to give a lot of credit to coaches who find the diamond in  the rough superstar 2 star kid. Sure ill give them some credit, but a lot of the time those kids are just late bloomers and the 2 or 3 star rating is warranted

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Agree, which is why the rankings are often meaningless.

Oh good, another verifiably dumb position that will be defended to the bitter end--because once a position is staked out, no amount of evidence will ever matter...what matters is doggedly sticking to the position so one is never wrong.

[lawdog77]

Agree, which is why the rankings are often meaningless.

Clarify "often". Until then what you are saying is that rankings are meaningless, except when they are not.

[Boozemon Barro]

We should be recruiting the Dakotas more.

[BCHoopster]

We should be recruiting the Dakotas more.

I do not think coaches are looking at any stars when they go watch kids play in the summer.  There looking for kids that can play, they make there own decision.  Sure the coaches look at reports but I am sure they talk to lots of AAU coaches all the time.   On RJ Davis, the coach was a teammate of Wojo, I am sure they talk.

[Jockey]

We should be recruiting the Dakotas more.

Great post. Really the only one this silly thread deserves.

[Cheeks]

This doesn't mean much. the reality is the vast majority of 2 stars are not the recruits you would typically want. I also fail to give a lot of credit to coaches who find the diamond in  the rough superstar 2 star kid. Sure ill give them some credit, but a lot of the time those kids are just late bloomers and the 2 or 3 star rating is warranted

Generally agree, but my point is some of you lose your minds if the kid isn’t A 4 or 5 star, then some of you lose your minds when they go somewhere else.

Let the coaches recruit and coach.

[Cheeks]

Great post. Really the only one this silly thread deserves.

How are the Canadian recruits since you live there now....worth checking out?  Some diamonds in the rough?

[tower912]

Jayce Johnson was tied with Sam Hauser at #94 in the 2016 class.    Brendan Bailey was #62 in the same class.   Per Silver Warrior on the Dodds board.

[Cheeks]

Clarify "often". Until then what you are saying is that rankings are meaningless, except when they are not.

That’s the beauty of words like often or many....must be my last 20 years working with lawyers in negotiations....those words have broad latitude.

I would define it as repeatable instances in which the rankings state a player is better or worse than other players and is statistically proven to be inaccurate once their career is over. That occurs often.   At the end of the day, give me players that can play.  Example, Hank was one of the highest ranked recruits we have had and I would trade him for a dozen players we have had the last 20 years ranked worse because they were more important to the team, less selfish, stayed longer, etc.  In my opinion.

[Cheeks]

Jayce Johnson was tied with Sam Hauser at #94 in the 2016 class.    Brendan Bailey was #62 in the same class.   Per Silver Warrior on the Dodds board.

Exactly my point. 

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Jayce Johnson was tied with Sam Hauser at #94 in the 2016 class.    Brendan Bailey was #62 in the same class.   Per Silver Warrior on the Dodds board.

247 Composite Rankings were:

Sam Hauser  83
Jayce Johnson  87
Brendan Bailey  92

Not sure what Silver is using.  RSCI?

As for recruiting rankings in general, they are more accurate on a macro-level than a micro-level.  They can predict a range of likely outcomes, but cannot predict outcomes with certainty.

There will always be outliers that over perform or under perform their ranking. 

[jesmu84]

247 Composite Rankings were:

Sam Hauser  83
Jayce Johnson  87
Brendan Bailey  92

Not sure what Silver is using.  RSCI?

As for recruiting rankings in general, they are more accurate on a macro-level than a micro-level.  They can predict a range of likely outcomes, but cannot predict outcomes with certainty.

There will always be outliers that over perform or under perform their ranking.

This is all that really ever needs to be said with regards to rankings.

[tower912]

247 Composite Rankings were:

Sam Hauser  83
Jayce Johnson  87
Brendan Bailey  92

Not sure what Silver is using.  RSCI?

As for recruiting rankings in general, they are more accurate on a macro-level than a micro-level.  They can predict a range of likely outcomes, but cannot predict outcomes with certainty.

There will always be outliers that over perform or under perform their ranking.

RSCI

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

RSCI

Thanks.  I prefer the 247 composite because it factors in rankings beyond the top 100.  RSCI treats 101 the same as 102, 103... 301, etc. 

In the past, most ranking services stopped at 100, so it was the best composite ranking tool.  Now most ranking services extend well beyond 100.  247's composite factors in lists that extend to 150, 250, or even beyond.

[Cheeks]

247 Composite Rankings were:

Sam Hauser  83
Jayce Johnson  87
Brendan Bailey  92

Not sure what Silver is using.  RSCI?

As for recruiting rankings in general, they are more accurate on a macro-level than a micro-level.  They can predict a range of likely outcomes, but cannot predict outcomes with certainty.

There will always be outliers that over perform or under perform their ranking.

I would agree with much of this, problem is too many use it on the micro level.

[Marcus92]

This is all that really ever needs to be said with regards to rankings.

Another way to think of recruiting rankings is as a forecast.

A weather forecasting system takes into account current measurable data on what's happening right now: temperature, atmospheric pressure, wind, humidity, precipitation. (Think of this as equivalent to everything you know about a high school player's performance so far.)

Meteorologists then use all that data to project or forecast what will most likely happen in the future -- informed by what's happened in the past when similar conditions have been present. (This is where comps come in; high school prospect Player X looks like proven college star Player Y did at the same point in his development.)

Forecasts are useful tools. But they're far from perfect.

A five-day forecast can accurately predict the weather about 90% of the time. But even with millions of data points feeding into the world's most advanced computer simulation models, weather forecasts beyond 10 days are only right about half the time. There are too many variables at play. Too much can change.

The same holds true for high school basketball prospects. Looking at a 16-year-old -- someone who's developing their on-court skills, while at the same time developing both physically and emotionally -- you can't expect to predict with absolute accuracy what kind of player they'll be in two years and beyond.

[Cheeks]

Except weather forecasting is based on data and science (barometric pressures, wind speeds, humidity, temps, etc) and these rankings are done with subjectivity often by people who don’t even see the players.

Let me give you an example, in many cases no one service rep sees all the players, they cannot.  So they divide and conquer.  As a result you have 1 evaluator that sees 150 guys, another that sees a different 100 guys and maybe 80 that overlap the first 140, so on and so forth.  They have their scoring metrics, rating evaluation sheets and output a score.  One dude’s 8 is different than another dude’s 8.  Highly subjective. 

I get why some fans like them, just as some fans put stock in meaningless preseason rankings, but they don’t accurately tell you the 58th ranked player is actually better than the 71st, even if the output data suggests that is the case.

[Marcus92]

Subjective, absolutely. Meaningless, absolutely not.

It's true that recruiting rankings aren't a science. They're based on personal evaluations made from watching and comparing thousands of players. Who shows better shooting skills? Who's quicker? Who sees the court better and makes the right play most often? Scouts use their experience to judge the best prospects with the highest likelihood of success at the next level.

I'd agree that the difference between two players ranked #31 and #50 is minimal at best. But the fact that they're ranked Top 50 tells you something. In the eyes of those who evaluate basketball talent for a living, both are considered fringe NBA prospects with a strong chance to be very successful in Division I men's basketball.

Recruiting rankings are only part of the equation. Even if you land a highly ranked class, do the players complement one another to succeed as a team? Do they fit the style of play? Can the coaching staff develop the players to their full potential? Do the coaches put the players in position to win on the court by making the right in-game decisions?

While acknowledging that rankings are imperfect, I do think they're important. Just not all-important.