Nelson: 2013 oozes the 'it' factor

[pap49cba]

LINK

 

[MilfordHusky]

Maya Moore had loads of "it." Bria Hartley had it. Elizabeth Williams and Kaleena Mosqueda-Lewis had it. Our entire 2012 class has it.

I like what I read about Linnae Harper. She sounds like a really tough kid.

 

[HuskyFan1125]

Harper is the real deal! Have seen her play multiple times! She is a strong guard. Her rebounding abilities are phenomenal! I hope she looks hard at coming to UCONN!

 

[alexrgct]

Harper is the real deal! Have seen her play multiple times! She is a strong guard. Her rebounding abilities are phenomenal! I hope she looks hard at coming to UCONN!

I do too!

 

[Coler]

While she looks hard at UConn, she can also look hard at Rutgers.

Anyone know which schools are on her list?

 

[UcMiami]

We all like to complain about this and that with HG, but thank goodness they are out there. They make mistakes like everyone does, but they do provide pretty comprehensive (and free) coverage of the HS WBB scene.

 

[UCONNfan1]

We all like to complain about this and that with HG, but thank goodness they are out there. They make mistakes like everyone does, but they do provide pretty comprehensive (and free) coverage of the HS WBB scene.

I have to say i agree with this. i've agreed with the people who chided them (in the past) for really missing the boat on recruits like Faris, Dolson, Hartley, Stokes, and even for a while, Tuck. but give them credit for looking hard at the kids they felt they mis-ranked from years past to try to "get it better" going forward.

for all the flaws that any of the recruiting services have, HG is the only one that's totally free and easy access for anyone who cares to look. and on top of it, they write a lot of articles that are of interest to fans of women's basketball. so Kudos to them...

 

[MilfordHusky]

Ok, now HoopGurlz, after reading this, will decide to make the rankings available by subscription only. I certainly hope not, but ESPN is not a free public service.

 

[UcMiami]

Ok, now HoopGurlz, after reading this, will decide to make the rankings available by subscription only. I certainly hope not, but ESPN is not a free public service.

 

[easttexastrash]

I've been told I'm full of "%*it" also.

 

[HuskyNan]

While she looks hard at UConn, she can also look hard at Rutgers.

Anyone know which schools are on her list?

Here's a link to an article on Linnae. It mentions her scholarship offers (no Rutgers on the list) but doesn't say if those schools are the ones she's interested in.

 

[Icebear]

Despite the high praise there are no 98 rated players and significantly fewer 97 rated players in the class of 2013 whether they have it or not. Players with 97 and 98 go 9 deep in 2012 and presently only 3 deep in 2013.

 

[MilfordHusky]

Despite the high praise there are no 98 rated players and significantly fewer 97 rated players in the class of 2013 whether they have it or not. Players with 97 and 98 go 9 deep in 2012 and presently only 3 deep in 2013.

Excellent point (no pun intended). We got two 98-rated players in 2012!

I love this story on Linnae:

"I had a girls tournament at Montini in Lombard. Then I went to the boys tournament at Whitney Young," she recalled. "We were behind 28-9 when I got there. We were playing Beasley, the No. 1 team in the city, with Tommy Hamilton. I did whatever I could do to get us back in the game. We lost by three points."

She's the new Ernie Banks: "Let's play two."

 

[MarieYLee]

Despite the high praise there are no 98 rated players and significantly fewer 97 rated players in the cMalass of 2013 whether they have it or not. Players with 97 and 98 go 9 deep in 2012 and presently only 3 deep in 2013.

I expect the Top 3 to end up being 98 when they finalize their rankings in September/October (?) after the Summer Evals are over. I think Jefferson wasn't rated 98 till after that period, though I think Bree was already a 98.

Anyone have the 2007 rankings? After reading that, curious to see how everyone ends up.

They had Vandersloot at 64, Pohlen at 22. The website only list the Top 10 for me (9 with a 97+ rating).

1. Maya Moore - 98
2. Angie Bjorklund - 97
3. Jantal Lavender - 97
4. Kayla Pedersen - 97
5. Vickie Baugh - 97
6. Italee Lucas - 97
7. Krystal Thomas - 97
8. Jasmine Thomas - 97
9. Mariah Strickland -97

 

[Icebear]

I expect the Top 3 to end up being 98 when they finalize their rankings in September/October (?) after the Summer Evals are over. I think Jefferson wasn't rated 98 till after that period, though I think Bree was already a 98.

Anyone have the 2007 rankings? After reading that, curious to see how everyone ends up.

They had Vandersloot at 64, Pohlen at 22. The website only list the Top 10 for me (9 with a 97+ rating).

1. Maya Moore - 98
2. Angie Bjorklund - 97
3. Jantal Lavender - 97
4. Kayla Pedersen - 97
5. Vickie Baugh - 97
6. Italee Lucas - 97
7. Krystal Thomas - 97
8. Jasmine Thomas - 97
9. Mariah Strickland -97

That may well be so but they are not there yet according to Hoopgurlz most recent update.

 

[ChrisSmith]

I have to say i agree with this. i've agreed with the people who chided them (in the past) for really missing the boat on recruits like Faris, Dolson, Hartley, Stokes, and even for a while, Tuck. but give them credit for looking hard at the kids they felt they mis-ranked from years past to try to "get it better" going forward.

for all the flaws that any of the recruiting services have, HG is the only one that's totally free and easy access for anyone who cares to look. and on top of it, they write a lot of articles that are of interest to fans of women's basketball. so Kudos to them...

People that think they missed the boat on Stokes or Tuck don't understand the way recruiting rankings work. You can't get too granular. Stokes was ranked #42. She clearly wasn't a top 10 prospect. She's clearly in the top #50. Whether she was 48, 42, 34 or 22, it doesn't really matter. Tuck is clearly a top 25 player. Tuck is clearly not the top player. Whether she is 3, 6, 8, or 16 doesn't matter - Hoopgurlz has all those players as 5 stars.

These services rank players because fans eat it up. But if you're trying to actually project a player, you can't focus so much on the number. I find it more useful to look at players in the following buckets:
Consensus top player in the class (Moore, Stewart, Griner, Charles)
Top 2-3 player (DeShields, Jefferson, KML)
Top 25 player / McDonalds All-American / 5 star recruit (Tuck, Harper)
Top 100 player / 4 star recruit (Stokes, Chong)

And yes, often recruiting services are wrong. It's tough to project people from one level to the next - look at the NFL, NBA, and MLB. Dolson should have been top 25 instead of top 100. But UConn players have also been over ranked.

 

[doggydaddy]

People that think they missed the boat on Stokes or Tuck don't understand the way recruiting rankings work. You can't get too granular. Stokes was ranked #42. She clearly wasn't a top 10 prospect. She's clearly in the top #50. Whether she was 48, 42, 34 or 22, it doesn't really matter. Tuck is clearly a top 25 player. Tuck is clearly not the top player. Whether she is 3, 6, 8, or 16 doesn't matter - Hoopgurlz has all those players as 5 stars.

These services rank players because fans eat it up. But if you're trying to actually project a player, you can't focus so much on the number. I find it more useful to look at players in the following buckets:
Consensus top player in the class (Moore, Stewart, Griner, Charles)
Top 2-3 player (DeShields, Jefferson, KML)
Top 25 player / McDonalds All-American / 5 star recruit (Tuck, Harper)
Top 100 player / 4 star recruit (Stokes, Chong)

And yes, often recruiting services are wrong. It's tough to project people from one level to the next - look at the NFL, NBA, and MLB. Dolson should have been top 25 instead of top 100. But UConn players have also been over ranked.

Not saying you are wrong, but which ones?

Stokes I believe was top 10 in other recruiting services. Tuck was top 5 in other recruiting services.

ESPN is not the be all end all of recruiting sites.

 

[Icebear]

Not saying you are wrong, but which ones?

Stokes I believe was top 10 in other recruiting services. Tuck was top 5 in other recruiting services.

ESPN is not the be all end all of recruiting sites.

Exactly, Chris's argument is undermined by the other rating service rankings.

 

[alexrgct]

I also think 3-25 is too broad a net. In my estimation, there's a significant dropoff between the top 5-7 players and the players after that (if the rankings are accurate, anyway).

For instance, my excitement around Morgan is much higher than for banks when she came in. And that's not a knock on Banks; I had, and continue to have, high hopes for her. But Morgan might have her name on the wall when all is said and done.

 

[speedoo]

People that think they missed the boat on Stokes or Tuck don't understand the way recruiting rankings work. You can't get too granular. Stokes was ranked #42. She clearly wasn't a top 10 prospect. She's clearly in the top #50. Whether she was 48, 42, 34 or 22, it doesn't really matter. Tuck is clearly a top 25 player. Tuck is clearly not the top player. Whether she is 3, 6, 8, or 16 doesn't matter - Hoopgurlz has all those players as 5 stars.

These services rank players because fans eat it up. But if you're trying to actually project a player, you can't focus so much on the number. I find it more useful to look at players in the following buckets:
Consensus top player in the class (Moore, Stewart, Griner, Charles)
Top 2-3 player (DeShields, Jefferson, KML)
Top 25 player / McDonalds All-American / 5 star recruit (Tuck, Harper)
Top 100 player / 4 star recruit (Stokes, Chong)

And yes, often recruiting services are wrong. It's tough to project people from one level to the next - look at the NFL, NBA, and MLB. Dolson should have been top 25 instead of top 100. But UConn players have also been over ranked.

Stokes "clearly" was not a top ten PROSPECT?

I would agree that she was not a top ten HS player. But that was due primarily to the fact that she was not challenged by her HS competition.. The ranking by HG IMO did not adequately reflect her upside as a D1 college player from her size, athletic ability and skill set.. Fortunately, Geno and his staff correctly identified that upside and coached her accordingly.

 

[wallman]

The thing about Tuck is she came back from her ACL just as good as she was before, she is capable of putting points on the board without you even realizing it and has great footwork. Nirra Fields is the same way, I remember having a conversation with someone who thought she was lazy and I asked them to keep watching her. She has an effortless way of scoring the basketball, it is her efficiency of movement that surprises you. Both also have a midrange shot.

 

[HuskyNan]

The thing about rankings is that services may use different criteria. IIRC, Scout attempts to rank players as a reflection of their opinions on how the girl will finish her college career - WNBA-potential, All-Conference potential, etc. Some services may be ranking the kids on what they see today, in other words, how the girl compares to other girls her age. That may be why different services have such widely divergent opinions.

 

[EricLA]

Not saying you are wrong, but which ones?

Stokes I believe was top 10 in other recruiting services. Tuck was top 5 in other recruiting services.

ESPN is not the be all end all of recruiting sites.

Stokes was top 10 per ASGR (9), Peach State back in the day before they merged with ESPN (6) and PBR (10). she was also 13 per Blue Star. Tuck was 9 per Blue Star, 4 per ASGR, 4 per Peach State and 8 per PBR. I get Chris's point about being a 5 star or 4 star, and agree that if someone is rated a "96", there's not much difference if they are ranked 10 or 25.

However, when you rank someone in the 40's, even if you give them a 4 star 96 rating, or whatever, you are still saying there are at least 39 players in the class who are either better, or have more potential, or both. when you have a service like HG, who has in the past sometimes been a complete outlier of ranking a kid (Stokes for example at 42 when literally everyone else had her in their top 13), i see nothing wrong with questioning it. And since HG DOES indeed rank kids giving a good amount of weight to college potential, then it's totally fair to look at Kiah's play over the course of her career compared to other kids in their class and say "well, they missed the boat a bit".

anyone can defend HG all they want. most of us feel grateful for the amount of information, articles, rankings, comments, etc. that they supply, all for free to us. But when they get it wrong, fans will let them know...

 

[easttexastrash]

IMO, these services should rate them based on their performance and talent in high school, not potential, because the potential under Geno may be considerably than potential under any other coach. So Geno may take the number 25 ranked player and turn her into the number 10 player in college, yet Freese, for example, may take the number 10 player in high school and develop her into no more than the number 25 player in college. I am not picking on Freese, just using her for an example since I know she is not very highly regarded on the BY.

It may also be easier to appear to be a better talent in college when surrounded by other talented players. Some here have pointed out that some of BG's teammates may not look nearly as good if they didn't have BG to make them look better. And I cannot argue with that. Steph certainly looked like a better player when Maya was on the court to take some pressure off of her.

 

[doggydaddy]

IMO, these services should rate them based on their performance and talent in high school, not potential, because the potential under Geno may be considerably than potential under any other coach. So Geno may take the number 25 ranked player and turn her into the number 10 player in college, yet Freese, for example, may take the number 10 player in high school and develop her into no more than the number 25 player in college. I am not picking on Freese, just using her for an example since I know she is not very highly regarded on the BY.

It may also be easier to appear to be a better talent in college when surrounded by other talented players. Some here have pointed out that some of BG's teammates may not look nearly as good if they didn't have BG to make them look better. And I cannot argue with that. Steph certainly looked like a better player when Maya was on the court to take some pressure off of her.

I personally thought that Dolson looked better at the end of last season than any time in her career.