Blue Star over ESPN all day everyday!!!

[SVCBeercats]

Blue Star.........ESPN......Prospect Nation
#1......................#1...........#1..........Azzi Fudd
#4......................#15........#3..........Amari DeBerry
#7......................#5..........#11........Caroline Ducharme
#10...................#30........#6...........Saylor Poffenbarger

 

[chrissaran]

It's not objective; it's subjective. What one scout sees, another scout sees differently. Depends on what you're looking for. Just because Blue Star has UConn players ranked higher, doesn't necessarily mean they're write. Just because ESPN has UConn players ranked lower doesn't mean they're right. Depends on what you're looking for.

 

[Huskee11]

Looks like they all agree on someone.

 

[oldhusky]

I'm certainly not going to do it, but if we wanted to take a retro look at how accurate the rating services were, and who was the best, we could compare player's high school ratings to their WNBA draft position four years later. I think that would be a sound way to judge their respective abilities.

 

[j66kicker]

I'm certainly not going to do it, but if we wanted to take a retro look at how accurate the rating services were, and who was the best, we could compare player's high school ratings to their WNBA draft position four years later. I think that would be a sound way to judge their respective abilities.

Not sure that methodology would be a sound way to judge their high school abilities. But it might give justification to the rating services’ “UConn bump” ("Your rating should improve if you commit to UConn because playing at UConn improves your WNBA draft prospects," or something like that).

 

[Tonyc]

I have talked to people who have seen all 4 play and their all top 10. Caroline and Saylor are really really good. Amari is strong and plays with her back to the basket as well as hitting the 15 footer consistently. Azzi is a dream. This group is the number 1 recruiting class..no kidding

 

[donalddoowop]

I'm certainly not going to do it, but if we wanted to take a retro look at how accurate the rating services were, and who was the best, we could compare player's high school ratings to their WNBA draft position four years later. I think that would be a sound way to judge their respective abilities.

The draft position is not a good measuring stick. Some great high school players bomb out in college. Some lower ranked high schoolers are outstanding in college. It would be better to measure how they do in college. I believe the rankings are based on how well a player will play in college, not the WNBA. jmo.

 

[CocoHusky]

Blue Star.........ESPN......Prospect Nation
#1......................#1...........#1..........Azzi Fudd
#4......................#15........#3..........Amari DeBerry
#7......................#5..........#11........Caroline Ducharme
#10...................#30........#6...........Saylor Poffenbarger

Uhm.. If you are looking for UCONN affirmation why wouldn't you pick Prospect Nation above Blue Star?

 

[soxfan23]

It's not objective; it's subjective. What one scout sees, another scout sees differently. Depends on what you're looking for. Just because Blue Star has UConn players ranked higher, doesn't necessarily mean they're write. Just because ESPN has UConn players ranked lower doesn't mean they're right. Depends on what you're looking for.

It also has EVERYTHING to do with $, these recruiting services don't put out these rankings out of the kindness of their heart.

 

[visitingcock]

Uhm.. If you are looking for UCONN affirmation why wouldn't pick Prospect Nation above Blue Star?

Blue Star, Prospect Nation and Prep Girls have not updated their rankings based upon Summer/Fall competition and camps. Their are indicators that Prep Girls is going to release updated ranking before the end of the year.

Hoopgurlz/ESPN and ASGR have updated their rankings since Summer ended. The rather new service, World Exposure, released their rankings after Summer. All three of those services showed a dramatic rise in rankings for Gamecock commit, PG Raven Johnson, into the top 5.

Of course, their are always accusations of SEC bias with Hoopgurlz/ESPN, and World Exposure has no track record. Therefore, I chose to follow ASGR based on updated rankings, track record and better certainty of no bias.

ASGR:


1 Azzi Fudd SG5'11
St. John's College (DC)
GTS Fusion
UConn


2 Saniya Rivers
SG
5'11
Ashley (NC)
Carolina Flames
South Carolina



3 Amari DeBerry
PF
6'5
Williamsville South (NY)
Philly Belles
Connecticut



4 Raven Johnson
PG
5'9
Westlake (GA)
FBC United
South Carolina

5 Sania Feagin
PF
6'4
Forest Park (GA)
GA Pearls
South Carolina


9 Caroline Duchame
SG
6'2
Noble Greenough (MA)
Exodus
Connecticut



27 Saylor Poffenbarger
SG
6'2
Middletown (MD)
Fairfax Stars
Connecticut

29 Bree Hall
WF
5'11
Huber Heights (OH)
Sports City U
South Carolina

Ain't a lick of difference between UCONN and SCar. Both schools have a cumulative ranking of 40. for an average player ranking of ten. Quantity and quality match. I'm going with ASGR. SCar and UConn tie with two superlative classes.

Now, we have five years to argue about this class.

 

[ABCDFE]

Blue Star.........ESPN......Prospect Nation
#1......................#1...........#1..........Azzi Fudd
#4......................#15........#3..........Amari DeBerry
#7......................#5..........#11........Caroline Ducharme
#10...................#30........#6...........Saylor Poffenbarger

Blue Star AND Prospect Nation over ESPN

 

[JordyG]

It's not objective; it's subjective. What one scout sees, another scout sees differently. Depends on what you're looking for. Just because Blue Star has UConn players ranked higher, doesn't necessarily mean they're write. Just because ESPN has UConn players ranked lower doesn't mean they're right. Depends on what you're looking for.

It also depends on whether the person(s) doing the ratings have an opportunity to see the player. Much of ratings is a snapshot in time. In the case of Saylor the ESPN team had no chance to see Saylor this year, hence the drop in her rating.

 

[JonathanXIV]

The draft position is not a good measuring stick. Some great high school players bomb out in college. Some lower ranked high schoolers are outstanding in college. It would be better to measure how they do in college. I believe the rankings are based on how well a player will play in college, not the WNBA. jmo.

Your method of measurement depends on what you are measuring. If you view the player ratings as designed to predict college performance, than how players perform in college is a valid assessment. But if the ratings are intended to rank player High School performance, than college performance, while interesting, isn't particularly relevant.

 

[visitingcock]

Your method of measurement depends on what you are measuring. If you view the player ratings as designed to predict college performance, than how players perform in college is a valid assessment. But if the ratings are intended to rank player High School performance, than college performance, while interesting, isn't particularly relevant.

I would think the measure would be assessment of developed skill and athleticism to become a starter at differing levels of programs. I agree that high school performance should be a low factor due to absurdly different competition. AAU and camp performance would be more relevant than hs performance to me.

 

[JonathanXIV]

I would think the measure would be assessment of developed skill and athleticism to become a starter at differing levels of programs. I agree that high school performance should be a low factor due to absurdly different competition. AAU and camp performance would be more relevant than hs performance to me.

To clarify, when I refer to High School performance, that's short hand for ability and performance while in High School (including AAU, etc.).

 

[DefenseBB]

Unfortunately I view the title of this thread like the comparison of Tesla vs. Edison where Tesla was considered the great genius initially but Edison had all the right connections and leader influence. As ESPN is more readily available, it by default becomes the standard bearer...

 

[JordyG]

Unfortunately I view the title of this thread like the comparison of Tesla vs. Edison where Tesla was considered the great genius initially but Edison had all the right connections and leader influence. As ESPN is more readily available, it by default becomes the standard bearer...

...and the fact that Tesla said aliens communicated with him and gave him equations and ideas didn't help.

 

[chrissaran]

I screwed up. It should have been right not write.

 

[Bama fan]

Unfortunately I view the title of this thread like the comparison of Tesla vs. Edison where Tesla was considered the great genius initially but Edison had all the right connections and leader influence. As ESPN is more readily available, it by default becomes the standard bearer...

Edison had "all the right connections" . Ha! ISWYDT.

 

[Bama fan]

I screwed up. It should have been right not write.

Which right was wrong? And who wrote it?

 

[donalddoowop]

Your method of measurement depends on what you are measuring. If you view the player ratings as designed to predict college performance, than how players perform in college is a valid assessment. But if the ratings are intended to rank player High School performance, than college performance, while interesting, isn't particularly relevant.

My method of assessment was based on the post by oldhuskie, post #4. Your response is not relevant to my answer or his/her post.

 

[JonathanXIV]

Politely disagree. It’s directly responsive to the post my oldhuskie.

 

[oldhusky]

It might be nice to evaluate how the high school rankings turned out as college players, but there is no really good system for that either. All American teams have some value for at least the very top players, but even then classes are mixed together. Stats can't be taken in isolation because they should be viewed in per/minute terms and adjusted for strength of opposition, the team's pace etc.

Draft evaluators take all those things into account. Yes they may take a player higher than their college performance would suggest, if they are more athletic and still have upside potential, and take a player lower than college performance if they maximized their potential in college, but it's not like there are other great options to determine how a player did compared to expectations.

I'm sure many of you have seen and been interested when someone does a Draft redone for the NBA, where several years later they speculate based on what we know now, how would a previous draft's order change.
In a way the WNBA draft is a recalculation of the high school rankings from four year's earlier, although granted based on pro potential vs. college.

 

[Boreifs]

Geno has historically been the best at ratings. He called next year’s class perhaps the best they have ever recruited. That is incredibly high praise.

 

[and one]

Geno has historically been the best at ratings. He called next year’s class perhaps the best they have ever recruited. That is incredibly high praise.

Jordy is on the right path here. How coaches evaluate the talent is what matters. I don't get too excited about ranking polls. Other than a handful of players that really stand out, say the top 5 or 10, the rankings of the rest don't tell you much. The #15th ranked player likely isn't that much better than #50 if at all.