HoopGurlz 2020 Final Rankings

[huskyd]

Less concerned about where the girls are ranked and more interested to see if they play at all this year. Am I allowed to speculate on the effect Covid-19 might have on the season? The rules are fluid.

 

[DEpup]

Unfortunately they penalized her for being on a team without a lot of talent. Hoopgurlz is such a racket..... The other services rank her much differently.

 

[hoophuskee]

That list is not to be evaluated as who is best. You can't use their analysis for that because they use their projections for "player ceilings" too which jumps "player performances." It's not they are wrong. It's "who cares who they have as number 1 team." They can't possibly be even an iota close.

For example - you can go back in the history for Maya Moore and Brianna Stewart. Hoopgurlz rated them as "98." So what they are doing here is building up other players ceilings if everything goes "absolutely perfectly" for them and putting them in the same tier as these 2. That is just an example. One player basketball is a huge huge impact. Maya and Steiw were a cut above the others. But HG doesn't recognize that in their ratings. In some manner, they can't.

And this will be similar Paige. She'll be one of the great 10 huskies of all time after 1-3. Think of when Kelly Faris was rated at hoogurlz as "34." Yet the end of her senior year she was 2nd team all-american. Kelly played with the all-time greats. For what she was-- the superstars allowed her to be excellent. Paige is going to have a super-great affect on all her teammates as well. Just because a player can't create her own shot that well, doesn't mean she won't perform at an extremely high level. You could have one main player that breaks down the defenses. You don't need 5.

There are 19 other players with the same rating as Paige. That might be "ceiling / fantasy" but it's not reality.

 

[Gus Mahler]

It might be wishful thinking on my part, but Nika should be able to pick Anna's brain on how her transition was this year given a similar background and that could also assimilate her quicker. Again, that's my naivety on the European inter-relations, I mean they are all related right? (Cue the obnoxious American music)...

In addition to your point, Nika, like Anna, will have the advantage of already being 19 when she starts her UConn journey.

 

[Steelerone]

Like my mama used to say, "Recruits are lak a box of chocolates. You just never know what you;re gonna get".

 

[willtalk]

What's amazing to me is how many kids now rate in the high 90's compared to what I remember reading just a few years ago. It seems like either they are using a different scale or that the quality of women's basketball is going through the roof. I know the talent is better but it sure seems like it's really escalated. McLean is rated at 97 which is pretty awesome and yet she's nowhere near the top of the ratings chart. I don't think anyway is demeaning her but suggesting that there's just so much talent across the country.

If you go back even farther you will see an even bigger difference in ratings of the top recruits. I remember in the class of 2009 a point guard who was in the top ten with a rating of 92. There were few, if any rated as 96's. The difference is that more players are coming out of high school with more developed individual skill sets. Most players have been working with individual trainers since at least Jr high. They also play AAU ball, so almost all are year-round players. They pretty much come to college much closer to their skill development ceilings than they were in the past. This is a major reason that the high school recruit dynamic has changed. The individual skill level of players is much higher and except for post players ( who typically develop slower ), more players are less concerned with picking developmental programs in college. Generally, college has become more for learning to integrate their individual skills into a team concept.

Remember the thread on Mo'ne Davis on this site? I was trying to explain to some posters that she had no chance of ever playing for UConn and a slim chance to even get a D1 scholarship in basketball. What her basketball advisors did not realize was that her competition was so far ahead of her because they were totally focused on basketball and not playing other sports in the off season. The skill level had changed so much in such a short time that they were clueless. Being a good athlete was not enough unless you were a tall post player with a high ceiling. Girls now days train year-round developing basketball skills. This also has a negative effect. Sometimes they get tired of training and want a break and unless they have an obsessive love for the game it might keep them from committing to high-intensity programs.

 

[MSGRET]

Like my mama used to say, "Recruits are lak a box of chocolates. You just never know what you;re gonna get".

Is that you Forrest?

 

[Watchdog]

These are hilarious. I call them the Oprah Winfrey ratings, everybody gets 5 stars. All this research this guy does to tell us some kid named Lexi Donarski is as good as Paige Bueckers as a PG? How does he give them the exact same grade of 98? He couldn’t see a difference?

These articles are designed to get clicks.
Having said that, maybe it's wise to wait and see who actually plays the best at the college level. Did Megan Walker prove to be the best in her class, same for Christyn Williams? Both were supposed to be the best and they haven't shown it to date and MW won't have that fourth year to prove it.

 

[Golden Husky]

Is there one rating service that is considered the gold standard for evaluation?

 

[BobbyJ]

These articles are designed to get clicks.
Having said that, maybe it's wise to wait and see who actually plays the best at the college level. Did Megan Walker prove to be the best in her class, same for Christyn Williams? Both were supposed to be the best and they haven't shown it to date and MW won't have that fourth year to prove it.

That's my point. If future projection is the basis for his list, then that supports my point that he's just guessing. 53 kids get 5 stars jammed within 2 points of each other? More than half of them will not make a national impact and they're supposed to be the cream of the crop. That won't differentiate them from the next 50+ on the list. And he's supposedly seeing these kids in person. You and I could make a list like this watching video from home. You're right, it's clickbait.

 

[TheFarmFan]

Having followed ESPN/Hoopgurlz recruiting rankings for about a decade now, I think they, like all the recruiting services, tend to get more right than wrong, and have relatively few complete swings-and-misses that can't be attributed to injury or "effort" in college, broadly speaking.

In particular, I think they're really good at ferreting out top talent. I've certainly noticed that there is a very significant correlation between whether Stanford has one or more "top ten" ESPN/Hoopgurlz recruits and whether we are in contention for national championships. We had a stretch of top ten players that began with Candice Wiggins and continued with Jayne Appel, Kayla Pedersen, Jeanette Pohlen, Nneka Ogwumike, and ended with Chiney Ogwumike. During the stretch from Wiggins' senior year to Chiney's senior year we went to the final four in 5 out of 6 years. After Chiney graduated, we lacked a single top ten recruit until Kiana Williams, and we went to the final four once in the past 5 (completed) seasons - the one time was the senior year of Erica McCall, ranked 11th as a recruit by ESPN/hoopgurlz and our highest ranked recruit between Chiney and Williams. And sure, there may be some players ranked 40th (like Ruthy Hebard) who go on to be top ten college players, and vice versa (think Mercedes Russell). But all in all, I think the recruiting rankings are a solid approximation.

And regardless, given how little money there is in non-subscription recruiting rankings, I can assure you no one does this for "clickbait."

 

[Tonyc]

Look at the reruits UConn has had and where they were ranked? Geno offers them and the rankings usually get better. IMO all that matters is Geno's thoughts. He knows what positions he needs to fill and he knows who can fill them.

 

[TheFarmFan]

Look at the reruits UConn has had and where they were ranked? Geno offers them and the rankings usually get better. IMO all that matters is Geno's thoughts. He knows what positions he needs to fill and he knows who can fill them.

Hard for Paige Bueckers to go anywhere but down when she was already #1.

More seriously, I think Geno has an eye for player development and often gets commitments from players who go on to have exceptionally strong senior seasons (Aubrey Griffin is a great example of this). And more holistically, given how good Geno is at player development, if the recruiting services are trying to predict for top college players, then all other things equal, a recruit who commits to UConn will almost certainly end up a better player than if they had chosen to go just about anywhere else. So if you price that into your rankings, then yeah, Geno commits should rise a bit in the rankings!

 

[HuskylnSC]

Is there one rating service that is considered the gold standard for evaluation?

If Geno's opinion sets the standard, I remember another poster saying that Blue Star seemed to line up with Geno's picks better than other services.

 

[Rixxx]

I have always felt IMO the rating services were trying to somehow accurately measure potential, not so much skill levels.(100% skill level) Mercedes Russell is an example of potential not reached, but she had a high ranking.

 

[HopJim]

These articles are designed to get clicks.
Having said that, maybe it's wise to wait and see who actually plays the best at the college level. Did Megan Walker prove to be the best in her class, same for Christyn Williams? Both were supposed to be the best and they haven't shown it to date and MW won't have that fourth year to prove it.

MW not far off. She will likely be one of the top 10 drafted. Too early to know what Christyn's end performance will be.