ESPN re-ranks the Class of 2017... Megan and Evina fall just a bit...

[CTtoSanDiego]

I can't argue too much with the re rankings.... but if Megan plays as well as I expect this year, she can definitely move back up a bit...

Reranking the Class of 2017 in women's hoops

Chennedy Carter and Satou Sabally are among the top juniors whose stocks have risen since they were high school recruits.

www.espn.com

 

[j66kicker]

I'm OK with this, although I wouldn't have put Carter #1. UConn has 2 of the (re-ranked) top 5. A team should be able to win an NC with that.

 

[Kaizen]

I am curious where is Rellah Boothe rank now? Dan Olson put her #3 in 2017 ranking.

 

[soxfan23]

I'm OK with this, although I wouldn't have put Carter #1. UConn has 2 of the (re-ranked) top 5. A team should be able to win an NC with that.

IMHO, Chennedy Carter is the most overrated player in WCBB! She plays ZERO defense and she is a gunner!

 

[oldude]

I’m not quite sure what the purpose is if re-ranking HS classes. If Megan averages 20 & 10 this year and earns 1st team AA honors, will ESPN re-rank the class again as seniors? Whatever the players class ranks were coming out of HS, we don’t need to be shown that hindsight is 20/20.

 

[eebmg]

In Megan's blurb, they aggregated all her statistics instead of seperating the Freshman and Sophmore years. Other candidates were written up illustrating growth from freshman to sophomore years

Walker, the national player of the year out of Virginia in 2017, was sensational as a high schooler. However, she hasn't put up the statistics that some other players have, largely because she was the fourth option on a Huskies team that featured All-Americans Katie Lou Samuelson and WNBA Rookie of the Year Napheesa Collier. Still, Walker has averaged 9.1 points per game in 68 games for perennial national championship contender UConn.

 

[cohenzone]

I’m not quite sure what the purpose is if re-ranking HS classes. If Megan averages 20 & 10 this year and earns 1st team AA honors, will ESPN re-rank the class again as seniors? Whatever the players class ranks were coming out of HS, we don’t need to be shown that hindsight is 20/20.

They have nothing better to do with their time.

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

I’m not quite sure what the purpose is if re-ranking HS classes. If Megan averages 20 & 10 this year and earns 1st team AA honors, will ESPN re-rank the class again as seniors? Whatever the players class ranks were coming out of HS, we don’t need to be shown that hindsight is 20/20.

They have nothing better to do with their time.

With all due respect to these venerable Boneyard posters, I have to disagree.

First of all, it is interesting to go back and see where players were ranked.

Now, to be fair (insert Letterkenny's "To be fair"), I have been consistent in my position:

All recruiting/rating services have had issues (not just Blue Star) in terms of having "missed" on good players. What I do not like, however, is when [board posters and fans] go back to dispute a high school ranking many years later and using a player’s college performance as support for their positions. Evaluations are largely based on present performances, with subjective analysis component (and in some cases, factoring in upside/potential). But the evaluators are not supposed to be The Amazing Kreskin; they cannot make predictions the future as to how a player may develop years into the future (based on evaluations that largely occurred before players’ senior seasons).

This, however, is different, in my estimation. This is Dan Olson re-examining his own rankings 2.5 years later (from his spring 2017 update of the HS Class of 2017 rankings) and looking where players stand. This is not someone attacking a recruiting service (Dan Olson, Blue Star, ASGR, or Prospects Nation) for "missing" on a player's ranking or being "wrong" in an evaluation from a few years ago.

Second -- and more importantly -- this is ESPN treating women's college basketball in the same manner that it treats men's college basketball. ESPN has plenty of these features for men's hoops. It is a sign of ESPN's commitment to producing substantive content (not fluff pieces) for a sport.

Sure, it can be argued that this is to drive traffic and ratings. But how is that different from any other sports website?

Instead of criticizing the biggest sports media outlet for posting substantive content on a worldwide platform, perhaps we could celebrate ESPN for treating women's basketball in a similar manner to its male counterpart in this regard (not saying there are not legitimate criticisms of ESPN; I just do not believe this feature is one of them).

@EricLA , @ucbart , @vowelguy , @CocoHusky

 

[oldude]

With all due respect to these venerable Boneyard posters, I have to disagree.

First of all, it is interesting to go back and see where players were ranked.

Now, to be fair (insert Letterkenny's "To be fair"), I have been consistent in my position:

All recruiting/rating services have had issues (not just Blue Star) in terms of having "missed" on good players. What I do not like, however, is when [board posters and fans] go back to dispute a high school ranking many years later and using a player’s college performance as support for their positions. Evaluations are largely based on present performances, with subjective analysis component (and in some cases, factoring in upside/potential). But the evaluators are not supposed to be The Amazing Kreskin; they cannot make predictions the future as to how a player may develop years into the future (based on evaluations that largely occurred before players’ senior seasons).

This, however, is different, in my estimation. This is Dan Olson re-examining his own rankings 2.5 years later (from his spring 2017 update of the HS Class of 2017 rankings) and looking where players stand. This is not someone attacking a recruiting service (Dan Olson, Blue Star, ASGR, or Prospects Nation) for "missing" on a player's ranking or being "wrong" in an evaluation from a few years ago.

Second -- and more importantly -- this is ESPN treating women's college basketball in the same manner that it treats men's college basketball. ESPN has plenty of these features for men's hoops. It is a sign of ESPN's commitment to producing substantive content (not fluff pieces) for a sport.

Sure, it can be argued that this is to drive traffic and ratings. But how is that different from any other sports website?

Instead of criticizing the biggest sports media outlet for posting substantive content on a worldwide platform, perhaps we could celebrate ESPN for treating women's basketball in a similar manner to its male counterpart in this regard (not saying there are not legitimate criticisms of ESPN; I just do not believe this feature is one of them).

@EricLA , @ucbart , @vowelguy , @CocoHusky

I’m sorry. Dan Olson shouldn’t be entitled to a do over. His initial ratings, good or bad, should stand on their own. Furthermore, we all know that the manner in which a player develops in college has a whole lot to do with factors beyond the talent they displayed in HS such as: work effort, coaching, injuries and how good a team they played on.

In college POY, all-conference and AA awards are ubiquitous. IMO, there is no reason to go back and re-rank HS recruiting classes.

 

[Reypl21]

The disrespect that everyone seems to be giving Onyenwere. She's easily better than Walker and Westbrook.

 

[bballnut90]

I’m sorry. Dan Olson shouldn’t be entitled to a do over. His initial ratings, good or bad, should stand on their own. Furthermore, we all know that the manner in which a player develops in college has a whole lot to do with factors beyond the talent they displayed in HS such as: work effort, coaching, injuries and how good a team they played on.

In college POY, all-conference and AA awards are ubiquitous. IMO, there is no reason to go back and re-rank HS recruiting classes.

It's not a do over that overwrites the initial rankings, it's just analyzing where the players are at now vs how he projected them back then. I personally think it is great that he's doing this and enjoyed reading it.

I don't agree with some of the picks though. Westbrook at 5 is over-ranked, especially over Onyenwere and Davis. I'd also hands down but Sabally #1 over Carter. Weak class overall but glad he did this.

 

[CocoHusky]

I’m sorry. Dan Olson shouldn’t be entitled to a do over. His initial ratings, good or bad, should stand on their own. Furthermore, we all know that the manner in which a player develops in college has a whole lot to do with factors beyond the talent they displayed in HS such as: work effort, coaching, injuries and how good a team they played on.
In college POY, all-conference and AA awards are ubiquitous. IMO, there is no reason to go back and re-rank HS recruiting classes.

Dan Olson has got you and others talking about him today. His mission is accomplished. You wouldn't be talking about him today if he didn't redo 2017 class. He's in the media business not how accurate can I be business.

 

[oldude]

It's not a do over that overwrites the initial rankings, it's just analyzing where the players are at now vs how he projected them back then. I personally think it is great that he's doing this and enjoyed reading it.

I don't agree with some of the picks though. Westbrook at 5 is over-ranked, especially over Onyenwere and Davis. I'd also hands down but Sabally #1 over Carter. Weak class overall but glad he did this.

But you illustrate my point. How would Westbrook be ranked if she hadn’t played with a knee injury last season or she had attended OR or UConn right out of HS instead of playing for HW at TN? In some ways, Olson’s re-ranking is as arbitrary as the initial HS ranking.

 

[Kaizen]

Dan Dolaon has a web site for collegiate girl basketball. You have to pay between $500 -$1500 to log in and view. I don't know how many people here supporting Dan and also paying those money.

Not me.

 

[CTtoSanDiego]

Old Dude, you are getting crotchety is your old age. There is not a do-over aspect to this. Just an interesting (or semi-interesting) look and where players were and where the might be now. We need stuff like this to help pass the time until the season starts! Can't get here soon enough, in my humble opinion.

 

[cohenzone]

With all due respect to these venerable Boneyard posters, I have to disagree.

First of all, it is interesting to go back and see where players were ranked.

Now, to be fair (insert Letterkenny's "To be fair"), I have been consistent in my position:

All recruiting/rating services have had issues (not just Blue Star) in terms of having "missed" on good players. What I do not like, however, is when [board posters and fans] go back to dispute a high school ranking many years later and using a player’s college performance as support for their positions. Evaluations are largely based on present performances, with subjective analysis component (and in some cases, factoring in upside/potential). But the evaluators are not supposed to be The Amazing Kreskin; they cannot make predictions the future as to how a player may develop years into the future (based on evaluations that largely occurred before players’ senior seasons).

This, however, is different, in my estimation. This is Dan Olson re-examining his own rankings 2.5 years later (from his spring 2017 update of the HS Class of 2017 rankings) and looking where players stand. This is not someone attacking a recruiting service (Dan Olson, Blue Star, ASGR, or Prospects Nation) for "missing" on a player's ranking or being "wrong" in an evaluation from a few years ago.

Second -- and more importantly -- this is ESPN treating women's college basketball in the same manner that it treats men's college basketball. ESPN has plenty of these features for men's hoops. It is a sign of ESPN's commitment to producing substantive content (not fluff pieces) for a sport.

Sure, it can be argued that this is to drive traffic and ratings. But how is that different from any other sports website?

Instead of criticizing the biggest sports media outlet for posting substantive content on a worldwide platform, perhaps we could celebrate ESPN for treating women's basketball in a similar manner to its male counterpart in this regard (not saying there are not legitimate criticisms of ESPN; I just do not believe this feature is one of them).

@EricLA , @ucbart , @vowelguy , @CocoHusky

With all due respect, what matters to the players is how their career works out.

 

[soxfan23]

The disrespect that everyone seems to be giving Onyenwere. She's easily better than Walker and Westbrook.

Nonsense!

 

[oldude]

Old Dude, you are getting crotchety is your old age.

I resemble that remark.....

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

But you illustrate my point. How would Westbrook be ranked if she hadn’t played with a knee injury last season or she had attended OR or UConn right out of HS instead of playing for HW at TN? In some ways, Olson’s re-ranking is as arbitrary as the initial HS ranking.

The ranking is a look back at prior (HS) recruiting rankings and seeing who the top ten performers in the class have been, based on what they have accomplished on the court. It is not arbitrary at all; to the contrary, it is analysis and an examination based on what they actually have done, to date, on the basketball court for their respective programs.

As an aside, I have seen many women's basketball fans complaint about the lack of media coverage of a sport that they love -- and how various media outlets, including the largest sports one, often ignore women's basketball or give it scant attention with the bare-minimum coverage (especially when compared to its male counterpart).

But here, we have a situation where ESPN treated women's basketball in the same way that it does men's basketball -- with a "lookback" to recruiting rankings and assessment of the top ten players in that class, two years into their respective basketball careers. Yet there are those who are dissatisfied, stating that ESPN has "nothing better" to do or that this is somehow a "do over" (which it is clearly not, based on the content of the piece) of the initial rankings (not attempting to intentionally targeting or personally attacking the two individuals whom I quoted in my initial post in this thread; just trying to highlight the contrary position to mine, as set forth in this thread).

We live in a digital world, with media outlets measuring clicks, mentions, likes, tweets/re-tweets, posts, etc., in order to demonstrate to advertisers in order to secure advertising to fund the various outlets. Having substantive content -- including that which is exactly/nearly the same as its MCB counterpart, in this case -- should be celebrated (and be worthy of our clicks) so that ESPN provides even more analysis and WCB coverage.

 

[Reypl21]

With all due respect, what matters to the players is how their career works out.

You're right that these things don't matter to the players. These articles are for the fans, and people who are interested in these things.

I'm sure a "re-ranking" of the 2019 class would be more welcomed if Aubrey Griffin was in the new top 10. (Two years from now)

Are some of you salty that Walker and Westbrook moved back? Or is it really because this content really makes you that mad? That's what I'm trying to figure out. It baffles me that people will complain about WBB getting more exposure, considering it needs help to grow.

 

[oldude]

The ranking is a look back at prior (HS) recruiting rankings and seeing who the top ten performers in the class have been, based on what they have accomplished on the court. It is not arbitrary at all; to the contrary, it is analysis and an examination based on what they actually have done, to date, on the basketball court for their respective programs.

As an aside, I have seen many women's basketball fans complaint about the lack of media coverage of a sport that they love -- and how various media outlets, including the largest sports one, often ignore women's basketball or give it scant attention with the bare-minimum coverage (especially when compared to its male counterpart).

But here, we have a situation where ESPN treated women's basketball in the same way that it does men's basketball -- with a "lookback" to recruiting rankings and assessment of the top ten players in that class, two years into their respective basketball careers. Yet there are those who are dissatisfied, stating that ESPN has "nothing better" to do or that this is somehow a "do over" (which it is clearly not, based on the content of the piece) of the initial rankings (not attempting to intentionally targeting or personally attacking the two individuals whom I quoted in my initial post in this thread; just trying to highlight the contrary position to mine, as set forth in this thread).

We live in a digital world, with media outlets measuring clicks, mentions, likes, tweets/re-tweets, posts, etc., in order to demonstrate to advertisers in order to secure advertising to fund the various outlets. Having substantive content -- including that which is exactly/nearly the same as its MCB counterpart, in this case -- should be celebrated (and be worthy of our clicks) so that ESPN provides even more analysis and WCB coverage.

I appreciate your detailed response. But let me attempt to make my point in a different way. In HS, all of these players were the respective stars of their teams. They all put up big numbers, won championships and made AA teams. In college, the school they end up on has at least as much to do with their production as their talent does. This involves coaching, teammates and overall team success. Olson relies very heavily on stats for his evaluation. He does point out that Megan's production was limited while playing on a team with Lou & Pheesa. So here's my hypothetical. Do we come to the same conclusion if Megan Walker is at TX A&M and Chennedy Carter is at UConn? Put another way, is Chennedy Carter the top player in the revised class of 2017 unless she ends up at TX A&M where she has carte blanche to shoot as often as she wants and play defense sometimes, when she feels like it?

 

[bballnut90]

But you illustrate my point. How would Westbrook be ranked if she hadn’t played with a knee injury last season or she had attended OR or UConn right out of HS instead of playing for HW at TN? In some ways, Olson’s re-ranking is as arbitrary as the initial HS ranking.

We dont know. All he is saying is that this is where he'd rank the players now based on collegiate performance after 2 years. I feel like we as fans make updated lists and rankings like this all the time. Not sure why it bothers you that it is coming from him and he's comparing his rankings from 2 years ago to today's.

 

[bballnut90]

I appreciate your detailed response. But let me attempt to make my point in a different way. In HS, all of these players were the respective stars of their teams. They all put up big numbers, won championships and made AA teams. In college, the school they end up on has at least as much to do with their production as their talent does. This involves coaching, teammates and overall team success. Olson relies very heavily on stats for his evaluation. He does point out that Megan's production was limited while playing on a team with Lou & Pheesa. So here's my hypothetical. Do we come to the same conclusion if Megan Walker is at TX A&M and Chennedy Carter is at UConn? Put another way, is Chennedy Carter the top player in the revised class of 2017 unless she ends up at TX A&M where she has carte blanche to shoot as often as she wants and play defense sometimes, when she feels like it?

Carter has pretty clearly been the better collegiate player between her and Walker through 2 years. The list is simply updating where players are at based off 2 years of performance in WCBB. He's just saying how theyve done so far. This list isnt set in stone nor does it have any real implications. Walker could move her way up or down depending on how her career pans out as she takes on more responsibility as an upperclassman.

 

[oldude]

We dont know. All he is saying is that this is where he'd rank the players now based on collegiate performance after 2 years. I feel like we as fans make updated lists and rankings like this all the time. Not sure why it bothers you that it is coming from him and he's comparing his rankings from 2 years ago to today's.

IMO it is a pointless exercise to re-rank players from a HS environment to a college environment. How do you take into consideration the situation that each player is in relative to coaching, teammates, offensive philosophy and so on?

Here's my poor analogy. I grew up in a family of really good bowlers. I'm just OK. I did a lot of travel to Europe on business for many years. One night in Belgium, a bunch of colleagues decided that we would all go out to bowl and drink beer. We bowled a few games and I bowled OK, except in Belgium I was a star. To their credit, when it came to drinking beer, my Belgian colleagues were exceptional.

 

[JonathanXIV]

I’m sorry. Dan Olson shouldn’t be entitled to a do over. His initial ratings, good or bad, should stand on their own. Furthermore, we all know that the manner in which a player develops in college has a whole lot to do with factors beyond the talent they displayed in HS such as: work effort, coaching, injuries and how good a team they played on.

In college POY, all-conference and AA awards are ubiquitous. IMO, there is no reason to go back and re-rank HS recruiting classes.

I agree with you that there is an element of randomness or luck in how players develop, based on the factors that you identify. Given that, I still think it's a positive that someone who creates rankings actually revisits their original rankings to see how accurate they were.