- Joined
- Mar 30, 2012
- Messages
- 8,836
- Reaction Score
- 26,242
I can't tell if this is humor. He's special at 7'0". You don't often see that ability to maneuver with the dribble and score at that size.
2025 Recruiting: Eric Reibe Commits to UConn
- Thread starter navery12
- Start date
- Status
I can't tell if this is humor. He's special at 7'0". You don't often see that ability to maneuver with the dribble and score at that size.
So’s Quantum Entanglement.
BGesus4
Running everywhere
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2016
- Messages
- 2,951
- Reaction Score
- 17,995
If he hits 7’1.5” he contractually has to marry my daughter
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2012
- Messages
- 2,230
- Reaction Score
- 14,286
Depends how he does in the preseason exhibition game…
CL82
NCAA Men’s Basketball National Champions - Again!
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2011
- Messages
- 60,041
- Reaction Score
- 225,343
In sneakers or bare feet?
Both had somewhat unusual circumstances though. Edey was very late to playing basketball full time and was super raw in high school even though he was at a powerhouse school. Clingan didn't play at a power school and lacked exposure and proof he could play that well against top level competition.
If either had gone the normal route most players go, they would have been ranked higher, IMO.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2011
- Messages
- 1,637
- Reaction Score
- 17,261
Dickenson was also rated less than his college impact because the rankings have such a big component projecting to the nba vs college. In his case he played at Dematha and at Hoophall on the big stage televised by espn he devoured the 7' kid going to USC that was rated #1. His early impact at Michigan was significant. IMO Clingan had enough exposure winning mvp in the Pittsburgh AAU event that year. Edey was also easy to see relative to college impact and I posted about him from Hoophall that year. The common denominator is that the rankings aren't geared to college impact.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2011
- Messages
- 51,448
- Reaction Score
- 185,019
In Clingan and Edey's case not geared to college or NBA impact.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2011
- Messages
- 1,637
- Reaction Score
- 17,261
The explanation of rankings specifies that projection to the nba is the major factor in the rankings, but it doesn't apply to them? There was a whole thread on the process of rankings a year or two ago and that was a key factor.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2011
- Messages
- 51,448
- Reaction Score
- 185,019
Clingan was ranked #73 and Edey was a three star. Clingan is going to be one of the best centers in the NBA and Edey is going to be very good in the NBA.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2011
- Messages
- 1,637
- Reaction Score
- 17,261
"We mirror our Top247 after the NFL Draft. There are 32 first-round picks every year, which is why we have 32 five-stars. So, if we award a prospect a fifth star, we believe that they have one of the best chances out of anyone in the cycle to eventually blossom into a Day 1 pick."
I could only find the football explanation quickly but my recollection is that the basketball rankings followed a similar reasoning projecting to the nba draft. The explanations continue to second round and other interpretations of the rankings. Clingan, Edey, Dickinson, were not 5* based on not being projected as future first round picks rather than purely a college impact projection
I could only find the football explanation quickly but my recollection is that the basketball rankings followed a similar reasoning projecting to the nba draft. The explanations continue to second round and other interpretations of the rankings. Clingan, Edey, Dickinson, were not 5* based on not being projected as future first round picks rather than purely a college impact projection
To be fair to the #1 kid who went to USC he is averaging 16 and 9 in the NBA.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2012
- Messages
- 8,836
- Reaction Score
- 26,242
Yes. I think the point is that the ranking analysts failed to project their NBA impact. If they had foreseen Clingan and Edey being lottery picks, they would have rated Clingan and Edey 5 stars.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2011
- Messages
- 1,637
- Reaction Score
- 17,261
My replies were in agreement to this. I think they were underrated, and I think there are posts of mine in those years to that effect with these guys. My point was that the reason for the underrating seemed to be their nba projection rather than their impact on a college team based on my recollection of what the rankings really mean. (If my recollection is wrong then .....nevermind)
That adds to the point I was making that Dickinson could easily be seen as underrated. Heck, Dickinson, Kalkbrenner, and others still aren't valued by the league but are All American's in college and Sanogo is in that situation as well.
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2015
- Messages
- 13,576
- Reaction Score
- 103,781
I think there's a few things going on. 1) It's really hard to rank guys so far out of the norm height-wise because here isn't much past comparison; 2) Both of them DID develop at a tremendous rate in college; 3) there's definitely some
Edey was certainly not a 5* player in high school. Clingan probably could have been, but when you play for a crappy AAU team and Bristol Central HS, it's hard for me to blame the evaluators. Most anyone 7'2 with a modicum of coordination could have done basically what DC did in high school. It wasn't until he started battling 6'10 bigs every game that we realized how great of a defensive presence and passer he was.
the thing about projected NBA potential is that archetype theory plays a lot into it. why were big men projected high and then extremely low, it's because of the theory on valuable archetypes and what kind of player/skill will be good.
but this is laggy and also discounts outliers who can actually sustain different styles of play.
take the jokic type of big for example, unless people knew about the extreme efficiency of post passing they were likely to completely miss this archetype because the imagined way a post big can be used was limited, and the player's specific elite attributes were ignored.
it's not all random as the league has been moving towards more effective play, but it's also not a smooth and linear process and edge still exists by being more imaginative about style of play and concrete about individual attributes.
but this is laggy and also discounts outliers who can actually sustain different styles of play.
take the jokic type of big for example, unless people knew about the extreme efficiency of post passing they were likely to completely miss this archetype because the imagined way a post big can be used was limited, and the player's specific elite attributes were ignored.
it's not all random as the league has been moving towards more effective play, but it's also not a smooth and linear process and edge still exists by being more imaginative about style of play and concrete about individual attributes.
- Status