New Bluestar rankings

[Lwrc]

Blue Star Basketball

www.bluestarbb.com

Thoughts? Can’t believe Oregon has 3 in Top 10. If UConn can land Reese/Cardosa and another top 20 they could still have the number one recruiting class. But otherwise it’s unlikely any school over takes them.

 

[CocoHusky]

Brink, Andrews, Gusters have been top 10 players since I started tracking this class three years ago. Don't know why all three would suddenly be out. Kylee Watson is ranked too high-even with her being a Philly Belle. There is still many ways to get over Oregon being ranked number one & not just by UCONN. For example, Andrews and VanLith could join Gusters at Baylor.

 

[soxfan23]

Blue Star Basketball

www.bluestarbb.com

Thoughts? Can’t believe Oregon has 3 in Top 10. If UConn can land Reese/Cardosa and another top 20 they could still have the number one recruiting class. But otherwise it’s unlikely any school over takes them.

Those rankings are laughable at best! Watson and Scherr are NOT Top 10 players! Where is Brink, Andrews, Gusters, Kapinus, Edwards, etc.

 

[Lwrc]

Those rankings are laughable at best! Watson and Scherr are NOT Top 10 players! Where is Brink, Andrews, Gusters, Kapinus, Edwards, etc.

I’ve watched a lot of girls basketball, followed it for a long time. Know ALOT of college coaches. It’s pretty well known that Bluestar is the most reliable scouting service. Used by a majority of colleges. Another top service used by a majority of colleges including UConn is ASGR. ASGR has Watson at number 9 and Scherr at number 7. Not sure where your getting you evaluations from (have you ever even seen these girls play?) but you don’t sound very knowledgeable in this matter. If your basing your thoughts off ESPN or Prospects Nation that would be unwise as both are considered very unreliable.

 

[Lwrc]

Brink, Andrews, Gusters have been top 10 players since I started tracking this class three years ago. Don't know why all three would suddenly be out. Kylee Watson is ranked too high-even with her being a Philly Belle. There is still many ways to get over Oregon being ranked number one & not just by UCONN. For example, Andrews and VanLith could join Gusters at Baylor.

All three are in the 11-20 rankings. Having watched all three girls this spring I would agree with dropping them. None of them looked strong at Boo Williams in April.

Given the past years commitment choices it’s hard to imagine Andrews and VanLith going to the same place. Very similar players. But I guess it’s possible

 

[Alydar]

Blue Star Basketball

www.bluestarbb.com

Thoughts? Can’t believe Oregon has 3 in Top 10. If UConn can land Reese/Cardosa and another top 20 they could still have the number one recruiting class. But otherwise it’s unlikely any school over takes them.

Didn't Tenn have the top class recently?

 

[willtalk]

I don't see what the obsession with having recruits ranked high is. They are what they are and if they are already committed ranking them higher will not make them better. Fans seem to take it personally if the players committed to their teams are not ranked high enough. A players ranking is just a general evaluation and does not necessarily reflect what they will accomplish on the next level. Ranking means little once they get on the court. Will all see what they do once they start playing for their respective teams.

 

[Carnac]

I’ve watched a lot of girls basketball, followed it for a long time. Know ALOT of college coaches. It’s pretty well known that Bluestar is the most reliable scouting service. Used by a majority of colleges. Another top service used by a majority of colleges including UConn is ASGR. ASGR has Watson at number 9 and Scherr at number 7. Not sure where your getting you evaluations from (have you ever even seen these girls play?) but you don’t sound very knowledgeable in this matter. If your basing your thoughts off ESPN or Prospects Nation that would be unwise as both are considered very unreliable.

Welcome to the Boneyard WBBfolllwer. We look forward to your comments in the future.

 

[Sluconn Husky]

If your basing your thoughts off ESPN or Prospects Nation that would be unwise as both are considered very unreliable.

I don't see any particular reason those outlets would be considered unreliable, or any more so than Blue Star. Fact is, all the outlets have the same group of players in the same general vicinity with a few exceptions. I don't know who exactly does the ranking at BS but there is no doubt that Mike Flynn tends to give extra credence to players who are in his stable, so to speak.

You could probably make a case for players 10-30 being in any order in that grouping. Same for other groupings further down.

 

[oldhusky]

I am curious as to which rating services have the best track record of success. Someone could compare players high school rankings with their draft position four years later as one way to do that.

It also seems to me that Uconn or other top program interest is of itself part of these rankings. When word comes out that a player is of interest to Uconn, Notre Dame, Baylor, Louisville etc. their ratings seem to get an immediate bump. So I am sometimes not sure how much of those ratings are independent analysis, and how much is who is chasing who? If great programs are in the hunt, the player must be good and gets raised.

Nika's recruitment was interesting. Uconn was relatively late to the party. Did they know about her all along? Or was it more a case of if Oregon and Louisville are after her we better take a look? By the way that case and Anna's makes it appear that Uconn has a bigger edge in foreign recruiting than domestically.

Every young girl playing basketball outside our borders knows Uconn, the other top US programs probably not so much. Here there are a half dozen or so programs that might be considered nearly our equal, but to girl's overseas Uconn is probably the Holy Grail. Nika had a short list without Uconn and was apparently going to take her time. When Uconn joined the hunt she committed without even visiting. That is really strong brand power.

I like Edwards from Canada, and a couple of the foreign bigs look as interesting as the domestic options, so while I don't think we will go as far as South Florida, it may be that the foreign option has increased dramatically for Uconn, and our success ratio against our domestic competitors could be much higher there than here in the US.

 

[soxfan23]

All three are in the 11-20 rankings. Having watched all three girls this spring I would agree with dropping them. None of them looked strong at Boo Williams in April.

Given the past years commitment choices it’s hard to imagine Andrews and VanLith going to the same place. Very similar players. But I guess it’s possible

What are you talking about? Andrews was dominating at Boo Williams, will have to check my notes, but I think she averaged around 20pts/gm. Watson, who you feel is a Top 10 player, was constantly outplayed and I think averaged around 4pts/gm. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your argument.

 

[SCspur]

I’m sure BlueStar ranks the Oregon recruits that high because they’re regular attendees of the BlueStar 30 camps. Rankings are very political when it comes to different sites that sees certain kids more than others. Another example would be Prospects Nations check me out showcases that take place in Texas and the West Coast. A lot of East Coast kids aren’t in attendance so Chris Hansen doesn’t really get to see everyone to make an exact prediction on his ranking process.

I was at Boo a couple of months ago and both Andrews and Gusters impressed as usual as did Brink. Parrish did well but I’m not convinced she and Watson are top 5 players in the Class. Scherr has a good argument as her Kentucky Premier team nearly played in the platinum championship game but I’m not sold on the other two. Just my inference on everything.

 

[Lwrc]

What are you talking about? Andrews was dominating at Boo Williams, will have to check my notes, but I think she averaged around 20pts/gm. Watson, who you feel is a Top 10 player, was constantly outplayed and I think averaged around 4pts/gm. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your argument.

So I’m guessing throwing out FALSE facts is even worse in your book than ignoring facts?

Andrews did not average 20 points a game. And Kylee did average 10 points a game on only 20 minutes of playing time per game. No doubt Andrews played significantly more minutes each game. Neither the Philly Belles or Pro Skills played strong basketball. If a team has a top 10 PG and a top 10 big (like ProSkills does) then how come they finished Boo 3-2 with losses DFW and Exodus? Two not top EYBL teams themselves this year.

You still didn’t acknowledge the fact that ASGR has Kylee and Scherr in the top 10 also? Is ASGR “laughable”? I don’t mind differing opinions on who the top players are but when you take VERY reasonable rankings and demean girls by saying it’s “laughable” I find that foolish. But hey, don’t let anyone else’s opinions have validity, I’m sure you’ve got it figured out for all of us.

 

[Lwrc]

I don't see any particular reason those outlets would be considered unreliable, or any more so than Blue Star. Fact is, all the outlets have the same group of players in the same general vicinity with a few exceptions. I don't know who exactly does the ranking at BS but there is no doubt that Mike Flynn tends to give extra credence to players who are in his stable, so to speak.

You could probably make a case for players 10-30 being in any order in that grouping. Same for other groupings further down.

Completely agree that a case can be made for a lot of players to be in different places. There are many top 10 players that never even make a dent in college. Things will shake out more then. However, I do think services like ASGR and Bluestar which keep their evaluations private are trusted by colleges more than other sources. Bluestar is known for having a team of evaluators that compile information. ESPN is just one person. No doubt he is good at what he does, but one person can’t cover what many can.

As you mentioned it’s likely all scouting service give some preference to players that they know, or see more often.

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

It’s pretty well known that Bluestar is the most reliable scouting service. Used by a majority of colleges. Another top service used by a majority of colleges including UConn is ASGR. ASGR has Watson at number 9 and Scherr at number 7. Not sure where your getting you evaluations from (have you ever even seen these girls play?) but you don’t sound very knowledgeable in this matter. If your basing your thoughts off ESPN or Prospects Nation that would be unwise as both are considered very unreliable.

I have to respectfully disagree --- and I have dozens of examples that I can cite from over the years.

Putting aside issues of accuracy and the lack of up-to-date information on its website (e.g., Blue Star still lists Deja Kelly as having committed to Texas, despite the fact she de-committed in October 2018), this is one of the best examples of Blue Star missing the mark in a big way -- Alana Beard.


BLUE STAR Rankings (HS Class of 2000)
1. Ashley Robinson
2. Diana Taurasi
3. Ebony Hoffman
4. Cherisse Graham
5. Nicole Powell
6. Iciss Tillis
7. Chandi Jones
8. Ebony Felder
9. Shereka Wright
10. Aminata Yanni
_________________
17. Ashley Battle
21. Morgan Valley
30. Alana Beard


ASGR Rankings (HS Class of 2000)
1. Diana Taurasi (UConn)
2. Ebony Hoffman (USC)
3. Ashley Robinson (Tennessee)
4. Erika Valek (Purdue)
5. Alana Beard (Duke)
6. Cherisse Graham (Purdue/Virginia)
7. Anne O'Neill (Illinois)
8. Morgan Valley (UConn)
9. Nicole Powell (Stanford)
10. Sese Kelm (Kentucky)
11. Iciss Tillis (Duke)

And here is another example, with respect to the HS Class of 2002 (note -- Brooke Smith transferred from Duke to Stanford):

Again, I could go through dozens of examples.

A few years ago, I commented that Blue Star is based in the Northeast, is sponsored by Nike, and is run by individuals with strong ties to the old Big East. Blue Star's rankings are handled by Mike Flynn, who tended to bump up the rankings for players from the Northeast, players who attended Nike camps, and/or players who give verbal commitments to one of the old Big East schools.

As I have discussed with @ucbart , @EricLA , and @HuskyNan on multiple occasions, evaluation HS players and projecting them for four years into the future after they finish college is tricky business. Is the evaluation done based on where they rank now (how they are playing now)? Is there an allowance for potential/upside? What about a player's on-court demeanor? Is it a combination of these things -- and, if so, what are the percentages for each category? And how does a rating service factor in a player seen 3-5 times as compared to one seen 10-12 times?

But to state that it is "pretty well known" that Blue Star is "the most reliable scouting service" is simply not factually supported.

 

[Fairfield Fan]

Blue Star Basketball

www.bluestarbb.com

Thoughts? Can’t believe Oregon has 3 in Top 10. If UConn can land Reese/Cardosa and another top 20 they could still have the number one recruiting class. But otherwise it’s unlikely any school over takes them.

Is there a list of Bluestar rankings beyond the top 10?

 

[Lwrc]

I have to respectfully disagree --- and I have dozens of examples that I can cite from over the years.

Putting aside issues of accuracy and the lack of up-to-date information on its website (e.g., Blue Star still lists Deja Kelly as having committed to Texas, despite the fact she de-committed in October 2018), this is one of the best examples of Blue Star missing the mark in a big way -- Alana Beard.


BLUE STAR Rankings (HS Class of 2000)
1. Ashley Robinson
2. Diana Taurasi
3. Ebony Hoffman
4. Cherisse Graham
5. Nicole Powell
6. Iciss Tillis
7. Chandi Jones
8. Ebony Felder
9. Shereka Wright
10. Aminata Yanni
_________________
17. Ashley Battle
21. Morgan Valley
30. Alana Beard


ASGR Rankings (HS Class of 2000)
1. Diana Taurasi (UConn)
2. Ebony Hoffman (USC)
3. Ashley Robinson (Tennessee)
4. Erika Valek (Purdue)
5. Alana Beard (Duke)
6. Cherisse Graham (Purdue/Virginia)
7. Anne O'Neill (Illinois)
8. Morgan Valley (UConn)
9. Nicole Powell (Stanford)
10. Sese Kelm (Kentucky)
11. Iciss Tillis (Duke)

And here is another example, with respect to the HS Class of 2002 (note -- Brooke Smith transferred from Duke to Stanford):

View attachment 43727

Again, I could go through dozens of examples.

A few years ago, I commented that Blue Star is based in the Northeast, is sponsored by Nike, and is run by individuals with strong ties to the old Big East. Blue Star's rankings are handled by Mike Flynn, who tended to bump up the rankings for players from the Northeast, players who attended Nike camps, and/or players who give verbal commitments to one of the old Big East schools.

As I have discussed with @ucbart , @EricLA , and @HuskyNan on multiple occasions, evaluation HS players and projecting them for four years into the future after they finish college is tricky business. Is the evaluation done based on where they rank now (how they are playing now)? Is there an allowance for potential/upside? What about a player's on-court demeanor? Is it a combination of these things -- and, if so, what are the percentages for each category? And how does a rating service factor in a player seen 3-5 times as compared to one seen 10-12 times?

But to state that it is "pretty well known" that Blue Star is "the most reliable scouting service" is simply not factually supported.

Great post. I agree and disagree some. I agree that Bluestar can be bent towards players they know (Philly Belles) and see at things in the Northeast. I also agree that Bluestar has “missed” on some good players, especially if your going to go back 20 years! I would, however, argue that all the services have these issues, not just Bluestar. And some worse than others. We don’t have to go back 20 years to find countless “misses” by all the scouting services. Megan Gustafson being a prime example.

The fact that you can go back over two decades of Bluestar scouting services is a gentle reminder of the longevity and solid standing Bluestar has within the college coaches. In the end, if the coaches find the evaluations poor they will move on to other services. Like him or not, it would be hard to argue that Mike Flynn is not the “godfather” of girls basketball and one of the most influential people in the sport. In the circles I know Bluestar is widely used/bought amongst college coaches. But most colleges use more than one. It is fair to say that I overstated my comment. To revise, I would say, “to the best of my understanding of college coaches and the services they use, Bluestar is the most widely used and reliable resource”

I very much agree that the scouting and rankings not easy. Especially when your talking about the top 20-30 players. Comparing positions, competition level, character, team play vs selfish play, there are so many variables that everyone gives different weight too. I love that UA is gaining momentum and has invested in girls basketball! But it will be even harder to rank because of splitting up the competition. After seeing Hailey Van Lith in Nike I would say she benefitted in many rankings because of playing Adidas and showcasing her talent at USA (which is a poor sample size and has their own subjective problems. It’s a whole other issue as far as USA and how influential they are in rankings based on such a minuscule amount of evaluation). Don’t get me wrong, VanLith is a top player and I applaud her willingness to spend her last AAU summer in the harder Nike league. But she didn’t show well against the harder competition and has already been sliding in rankings as a result. Just an example of how hard it is accurately rank players.

 

[Lwrc]

Is there a list of Bluestar rankings beyond the top 10?

Blue Star Basketball

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

Great post. I agree and disagree some. I agree that Bluestar can be bent towards players they know (Philly Belles) and see at things in the Northeast. I also agree that Bluestar has “missed” on some good players, especially if your going to go back 20 years! I would, however, argue that all the services have these issues, not just Bluestar. And some worse than others. We don’t have to go back 20 years to find countless “misses” by all the scouting services. Megan Gustafson being a prime example.

@WBBfolllwer , thank you for responding. I agree with you that all recruiting/rating services have had issues (not just Blue Star) in terms of having "missed" on good players.

I disagree about Megan Gustafson, however. There is a difference between showing up to college on dominating as a freshman (e.g., Alana Beard at Duke) and slowly developing over the years, in the course of natural player development as a result of talent and hard work.

Alana Beard was a "miss" by Blue Star, in terms of evaluating where she was at the time; she showed up and dominated the ACC from the jump. This is what Alana accomplished her rookie year:

• Earned USBWA, Sports Illustrated for Women, Sports Illustrated, CBS Sportsline and Women’s Basketball Journal National Freshman of the Year honors
• Garnered Basketball Times Freshman All-America, Kodak District II All-America, Associated Press All-America, Women’s Basketball News Service third team All-America and Women’s Basketball Journal first team Freshman All-America honors
• Selected to the West Regional All-Tournament team
• Named ACC Freshman of the Year
• Named First Team All-ACC, becoming the first freshman to ever be selected to the First Team
• Named to the All-ACC Tournament First Team

In the summer after HS and before Beard arrived at Duke, she led USA Basketball Women’s Junior World Championship Team to a 5-0 record and the gold medal, averaging 15.4 points and 4.4 rebounds. In other words, Blue Star had her ranked very low, but it was clear before she even started college that BS's ranking was, well, BS.

Gustafson averaged 10.7 ppg and 6.8 rpg her first year and was named to the Big Ten All-Freshman Team. But she was not the best player on her team (Ally Disterhoft had that honor for 2015-16; Disterhoft was also named Second Team All-Big Ten that year), nor was she the best freshmen in the Big Ten (Nebraska's Jessica Shepard earned that honor and Shephard and Penn State's Teniya Page were the only two unanimous selections to the Big Ten All-Freshman Team). And in terms of immediate impact, the Big Ten comparable player to the ACC's Alana Beard was Ohio State's Jantel Lavender, who became the first Big Ten player, male or female, to be named the Big Ten Player of the Year four times (winning the coaches' award, the media award, or both) and the only women’s basketball player in a Power Five conference to accomplish that feat.

Gustafson improved her sophomore season and was named to the 2016-17 All-Big Ten First Team (both coaches and media), as was teammate Ally Disterhoft. But neither was a unanimous selection to either First Team (coaches or media); Maryland's Shatori Walker-Kimbrough and Brionna Jones, Michigan State's Tori Jankoska, and Ohio State's Kelsey Mitchell were the only unanimous selections for both (with Mitchell winning POY).

Gustafson really improved by the team her junior year rolled around and turned into a dominating offensive force around the rim. But to say she was a recruiting "miss" is a bit difficult for me, only because she accomplished this a few years after the fact, under the tutelage of college coaches, thousands of hours of workouts, etc. The difference with Beard is that Alana was dominating USA Basketball before she started college, then went on to tear up the ACC during her first year.

As an aside, Blue Star did not have Gustafson ranked among its top 300 prospects for the HS Class of 2015.

The fact that you can go back over two decades of Bluestar scouting services is a gentle reminder of the longevity and solid standing Bluestar has within the college coaches. In the end, if the coaches find the evaluations poor they will move on to other services. Like him or not, it would be hard to argue that Mike Flynn is not the “godfather” of girls basketball and one of the most influential people in the sport. In the circles I know Bluestar is widely used/bought amongst college coaches. But most colleges use more than one. It is fair to say that I overstated my comment. To revise, I would say, “to the best of my understanding of college coaches and the services they use, Bluestar is the most widely used and reliable resource”

Blue Star and ASGR both go back that long, as I have archived the ratings for two decades. And yes, there is something to be said for longevity.

But part of the reason as to why there are more recruiting/rating services now is that there is more money in doing so for women's college basketball. It is nowhere near that of the men (or the level of fan interest in such rankings/ratings of HS players), but there more services now, more opportunities to be seen, and, to be frank, better evaluators of talent (both new people coming in to do the evaluations and experienced evaluators who have improved in terms of their talent assessment abilities).

As for your comment about what is most widely used and reliable...while it may be to the best of your knowledge, it is not to the best of mine. But I agree that most coaches/schools of which I am aware use more than one recruiting/rating service.

I very much agree that the scouting and rankings not easy. Especially when your talking about the top 20-30 players. Comparing positions, competition level, character, team play vs selfish play, there are so many variables that everyone gives different weight too. I love that UA is gaining momentum and has invested in girls basketball! But it will be even harder to rank because of splitting up the competition. After seeing Hailey Van Lith in Nike I would say she benefitted in many rankings because of playing Adidas and showcasing her talent at USA (which is a poor sample size and has their own subjective problems. It’s a whole other issue as far as USA and how influential they are in rankings based on such a minuscule amount of evaluation). Don’t get me wrong, VanLith is a top player and I applaud her willingness to spend her last AAU summer in the harder Nike league. But she didn’t show well against the harder competition and has already been sliding in rankings as a result. Just an example of how hard it is accurately rank players.

In my previous post, I stated:
A few years ago, I commented that Blue Star is based in the Northeast, is sponsored by Nike, and is run by individuals with strong ties to the old Big East. Blue Star's rankings are handled by Mike Flynn, who tended to bump up the rankings for players from the Northeast, players who attended Nike camps, and/or players who give verbal commitments to one of the old Big East schools.

Reading your post about "splitting up the competition" and Nike/adidas, I should add the following.

A few years ago, I commented (when I made the above statements regarding Blue Star/Nike/Flynn) that ASGR is based in the Southeast, is sponsored by adidas, and is run by individuals with strong ties to the ACC. ASGR''s rankings were/are handled by Mike White (White now works with Bret McCormick and others), who tended to bump the rankings for players who gave verbal commitments to ACC schools.

As an example, this is how ASGR analyzed UConn's HS Class of 2002 -- and notice the discrepancies (some of them extreme) for UConn's class in terms of the ASGR rankings as compared to the others.

But like said above --- and putting aside any geographic or sneaker/apparel bias -- evaluating HS players and projecting them for four years into the future after they finish college is tricky business. The same questions are there:
--- Is the evaluation done based on where they rank now (how they are playing now)?
--- Is there an allowance for potential/upside?
--- What about a player's on-court demeanor?
--- Ability to be coached? Interactions with teammates? (I added this one, as I neglected to include it in my initial post.)
--- Is it a combination of these things -- and, if so, what are the percentages for each category?
--- And how does a rating service factor in a player seen 3-5 times as compared to one seen 10-12 times?

Side note --- I believe @HuskyNan can shed light on the years she was part of a team of evaluators for Scout (2006 for sure; not sure about other years), in terms of how talent evaluators/assessors consider some of these things. As I recall, Epiphanny Prince was widely regarded as a very talented and elite recruit with a good amount of upsdie, but received a slightly lower ranking/rating (#10 overall) from that Scout rating team, as a result of things like on-court attitude, ability to play team basketball, interactions with teammates/coaches, etc.

My personal preference is Dan Olson's Collegiate Girls Basketball Report (which I believe started publishing rankings in/around 2011). Olson constantly updates his rankings on his site; as an example, one of Duke's commitments for the HS Class of 2019 had her ranking change (both up and down) five times over the summer of 2018, as Olson saw that player more and saw other players more. Olson's subscription service also has player assessments (usually 3-4 sentences about each player's skillset and strengths/weaknesses). But again, that is my personal preference -- and Olson has "misses" just as the others do.

In any event, @WBBfolllwer , I am really enjoying this discussion with you --- and I hope the rest of the Boneyard finds this topic interesting.

 

[jonson]

I don't have access to either Bluestar or ASGR and don't pretend to be as knowledgable about recruiting services as are the folks who have already posted here, but it does seem to me that the numerical rankings promise a degree of accuracy that is simply not possible for all sorts of reasons. And that means that each of the services has its share of "misses," not to mention the discrepancies between one service and another. I'll add just a couple of examples from my team. ESPN has recently listed Ruthy Hebard as one of the top 10 seniors for the coming season. She was on the Pac 12 all-freshman team the year she arrived, and then all Pac 12 as a sophomore and junior. She also won a national award as a sophomore. Her 2016 rankings? #40 in Hoopgurlz and #77 on Prospects Nation. Another Oregon recruit that year (basically at the same position) was ranked #14 by Hoopgurlz and #136 by Prospects Nation. She transferred after two very mediocre seasons. That's a 37 slot difference in one case and 122!! in the other. (I have no idea what the Bluestar and ASGAR ratings were.) So--I think we are dealing with a very inexact science at best--maybe usually educated guesses is one way to put it--with different evaluators having different criteria, different degrees of familiarity, and, ultimately, no way to know with any degree of accuracy how a given player will progress/develop after high school. But that's just fine for boards like this one.

 

[HuskyMJ]

I don't have access to either Bluestar or ASGR and don't pretend to be as knowledgable about recruiting services as are the folks who have already posted here, but it does seem to me that the numerical rankings promise a degree of accuracy that is simply not possible for all sorts of reasons. And that means that each of the services has its share of "misses," not to mention the discrepancies between one service and another. I'll add just a couple of examples from my team. ESPN has recently listed Ruthy Hebard as one of the top 10 seniors for the coming season. She was on the Pac 12 all-freshman team the year she arrived, and then all Pac 12 as a sophomore and junior. She also won a national award as a sophomore. Her 2016 rankings? #40 in Hoopgurlz and #77 on Prospects Nation. Another Oregon recruit that year (basically at the same position) was ranked #14 by Hoopgurlz and #136 by Prospects Nation. She transferred after two very mediocre seasons. That's a 37 slot difference in one case and 122!! in the other. (I have no idea what the Bluestar and ASGAR ratings were.) So--I think we are dealing with a very inexact science at best--maybe usually educated guesses is one way to put it--with different evaluators having different criteria, different degrees of familiarity, and, ultimately, no way to know with any degree of accuracy how a given player will progress/develop after high school. But that's just fine for boards like this one.

Not excusing scouting services here, but Hebard being from Alaska probably made it much harder for scouts to see her much, even if she did play in tournaments in California or wherever.

 

[nwhoopfan]

@jonson that class was interesting for Oregon w/ 4 post players. Hebard obviously proved to be head and shoulders above the rest. 2 have transferred out. McGwire was a solid contributor for 2 years before she left. Didn't get much of anything from Campisano and Giomi has had a fairly limited impact.

 

[Lwrc]

@WBBfolllwer , thank you for responding. I agree with you that all recruiting/rating services have had issues (not just Blue Star) in terms of having "missed" on good players.

I disagree about Megan Gustafson, however. There is a difference between showing up to college on dominating as a freshman (e.g., Alana Beard at Duke) and slowly developing over the years, in the course of natural player development as a result of talent and hard work.

Alana Beard was a "miss" by Blue Star, in terms of evaluating where she was at the time; she showed up and dominated the ACC from the jump. This is what Alana accomplished her rookie year:

• Earned USBWA, Sports Illustrated for Women, Sports Illustrated, CBS Sportsline and Women’s Basketball Journal National Freshman of the Year honors
• Garnered Basketball Times Freshman All-America, Kodak District II All-America, Associated Press All-America, Women’s Basketball News Service third team All-America and Women’s Basketball Journal first team Freshman All-America honors
• Selected to the West Regional All-Tournament team
• Named ACC Freshman of the Year
• Named First Team All-ACC, becoming the first freshman to ever be selected to the First Team
• Named to the All-ACC Tournament First Team

In the summer after HS and before Beard arrived at Duke, she led USA Basketball Women’s Junior World Championship Team to a 5-0 record and the gold medal, averaging 15.4 points and 4.4 rebounds. In other words, Blue Star had her ranked very low, but it was clear before she even started college that BS's ranking was, well, BS.

Gustafson averaged 10.7 ppg and 6.8 rpg her first year and was named to the Big Ten All-Freshman Team. But she was not the best player on her team (Ally Disterhoft had that honor for 2015-16; Disterhoft was also named Second Team All-Big Ten that year), nor was she the best freshmen in the Big Ten (Nebraska's Jessica Shepard earned that honor and Shephard and Penn State's Teniya Page were the only two unanimous selections to the Big Ten All-Freshman Team). And in terms of immediate impact, the Big Ten comparable player to the ACC's Alana Beard was Ohio State's Jantel Lavender, who became the first Big Ten player, male or female, to be named the Big Ten Player of the Year four times (winning the coaches' award, the media award, or both) and the only women’s basketball player in a Power Five conference to accomplish that feat.

Gustafson improved her sophomore season and was named to the 2016-17 All-Big Ten First Team (both coaches and media), as was teammate Ally Disterhoft. But neither was a unanimous selection to either First Team (coaches or media); Maryland's Shatori Walker-Kimbrough and Brionna Jones, Michigan State's Tori Jankoska, and Ohio State's Kelsey Mitchell were the only unanimous selections for both (with Mitchell winning POY).

Gustafson really improved by the team her junior year rolled around and turned into a dominating offensive force around the rim. But to say she was a recruiting "miss" is a bit difficult for me, only because she accomplished this a few years after the fact, under the tutelage of college coaches, thousands of hours of workouts, etc. The difference with Beard is that Alana was dominating USA Basketball before she started college, then went on to tear up the ACC during her first year.

As an aside, Blue Star did not have Gustafson ranked among its top 300 prospects for the HS Class of 2015.



Blue Star and ASGR both go back that long, as I have archived the ratings for two decades. And yes, there is something to be said for longevity.

But part of the reason as to why there are more recruiting/rating services now is that there is more money in doing so for women's college basketball. It is nowhere near that of the men (or the level of fan interest in such rankings/ratings of HS players), but there more services now, more opportunities to be seen, and, to be frank, better evaluators of talent (both new people coming in to do the evaluations and experienced evaluators who have improved in terms of their talent assessment abilities).

As for your comment about what is most widely used and reliable...while it may be to the best of your knowledge, it is not to the best of mine. But I agree that most coaches/schools of which I am aware use more than one recruiting/rating service.



In my previous post, I stated:
A few years ago, I commented that Blue Star is based in the Northeast, is sponsored by Nike, and is run by individuals with strong ties to the old Big East. Blue Star's rankings are handled by Mike Flynn, who tended to bump up the rankings for players from the Northeast, players who attended Nike camps, and/or players who give verbal commitments to one of the old Big East schools.

Reading your post about "splitting up the competition" and Nike/adidas, I should add the following.

A few years ago, I commented (when I made the above statements regarding Blue Star/Nike/Flynn) that ASGR is based in the Southeast, is sponsored by adidas, and is run by individuals with strong ties to the ACC. ASGR''s rankings were/are handled by Mike White (White now works with Bret McCormick and others), who tended to bump the rankings for players who gave verbal commitments to ACC schools.

As an example, this is how ASGR analyzed UConn's HS Class of 2002 -- and notice the discrepancies (some of them extreme) for UConn's class in terms of the ASGR rankings as compared to the others.

View attachment 43741

But like said above --- and putting aside any geographic or sneaker/apparel bias -- evaluating HS players and projecting them for four years into the future after they finish college is tricky business. The same questions are there:
--- Is the evaluation done based on where they rank now (how they are playing now)?
--- Is there an allowance for potential/upside?
--- What about a player's on-court demeanor?
--- Ability to be coached? Interactions with teammates? (I added this one, as I neglected to include it in my initial post.)
--- Is it a combination of these things -- and, if so, what are the percentages for each category?
--- And how does a rating service factor in a player seen 3-5 times as compared to one seen 10-12 times?

Side note --- I believe @HuskyNan can shed light on the years she was part of a team of evaluators for Scout (2006 for sure; not sure about other years), in terms of how talent evaluators/assessors consider some of these things. As I recall, Epiphanny Prince was widely regarded as a very talented and elite recruit with a good amount of upsdie, but received a slightly lower ranking/rating (#10 overall) from that Scout rating team, as a result of things like on-court attitude, ability to play team basketball, interactions with teammates/coaches, etc.

My personal preference is Dan Olson's Collegiate Girls Basketball Report (which I believe started publishing rankings in/around 2011). Olson constantly updates his rankings on his site; as an example, one of Duke's commitments for the HS Class of 2019 had her ranking change (both up and down) five times over the summer of 2018, as Olson saw that player more and saw other players more. Olson's subscription service also has player assessments (usually 3-4 sentences about each player's skillset and strengths/weaknesses). But again, that is my personal preference -- and Olson has "misses" just as the others do.

In any event, @WBBfolllwer , I am really enjoying this discussion with you --- and I hope the rest of the Boneyard finds this topic interesting.

Great post again, thanks for sharing. I also enjoy the discussion. Your research and details are great, appreciate the diligence.

Megan Gustafson was just a first thought, off the top of my head “miss” by scouting services. The differences with Alana Beard is noted, I see your point. I think we all seem to agree that no service is without some “misses” along the way. Again somewhat off the top of my head, Rhyne Howard and Taylor Mikesell. Both were outside of Olson’s top 30 (similar to Alana Beards BS ranking). Howard was WBCA National rookie of the year, and Mikesell was Big 10 ROY. That was just examples from this past season that fit more with your example. I tend not to prefer Olson and the ESPN rankings. I think he misses on girls with more college potential (like Howard and Mikesell) and leans into girls that show a lot of fancy stuff on the court but don’t translate into good college players (like Chasity Patterson ranked #4 overall and Anastasia Hayes ranked #7 overall). I knew back in their high school days that both those players would not have major success at a major D1 school, but Olson kept them ranked high. I also think he’s influenced by social media, people get very “excited” for underdog (smaller) players. And some girls get a lot of undeserved hype. There are five girls 5’8” or under in Olsen’s current 2020 top 25 and from what I’ve seen I believe three of them won’t do well at a major D1 school. Lastly, and mostly, I think he’s too influenced by USA basketball. The U16 trials just happened and watch where all 18 of the final girls end up ranked by Olsen. USA basketball trials are a complete joke in my opinion. They take 150 or so 14-15 year olds and in 3 days of observation determine the best 18 players? As an example Angel Reese was never picked and as a result was ranked low for awhile until she was just too dominant in the summers to not be ranked high. But USA passed her over cause it’s just not possible to assess that many girls. And interestingly, she’s still never repped for USA?

One idea, in my opinion, USA should not allow the past seasons girls to come back so each year they get a fresh look at a new set of girls. This would widen their ability to observe (in actual game time overseas) more girls and give a better chance to form better teams in the older ages.

TO BE TOTALLY FAIR, every scouting service is influenced by many of the same things listed above. There seems to be 5-6 major girls scouting services that most colleges pick from, and Olsons is one of them. Dan is a great guy, works hard and provides a great product for coaches. It’s just a personal preference of mine to be skeptical about the often (and usually exclusively) quoted ESPN rankings because of the reasons listed above. Olson operates independently and has less accountability than the other scouting services because ESPN just doesn’t really care whether he’s right or not. And his ESPN platform will always (unfairly) give him credibility. Almost all other scouting services utilize a team of people (Dan can only see so much by himself) and have to perform well or they will get dropped by colleges.

Besides Bluestar I really like ASGR. I feel like Bret does an amazing job. I also think coaches like accessibility and format for the information. Another service I would recommend is PASS. Elifson has been at it a long time and does a great job in my opinion. I believe UConn utilizes both PASS and ASGR. And Geno seems like a good indicator of realizing a good product.

 

[Charliebball]

@WBBfolllwer , thank you for responding. I agree with you that all recruiting/rating services have had issues (not just Blue Star) in terms of having "missed" on good players.

I disagree about Megan Gustafson, however. There is a difference between showing up to college on dominating as a freshman (e.g., Alana Beard at Duke) and slowly developing over the years, in the course of natural player development as a result of talent and hard work.

Alana Beard was a "miss" by Blue Star, in terms of evaluating where she was at the time; she showed up and dominated the ACC from the jump. This is what Alana accomplished her rookie year:

• Earned USBWA, Sports Illustrated for Women, Sports Illustrated, CBS Sportsline and Women’s Basketball Journal National Freshman of the Year honors
• Garnered Basketball Times Freshman All-America, Kodak District II All-America, Associated Press All-America, Women’s Basketball News Service third team All-America and Women’s Basketball Journal first team Freshman All-America honors
• Selected to the West Regional All-Tournament team
• Named ACC Freshman of the Year
• Named First Team All-ACC, becoming the first freshman to ever be selected to the First Team
• Named to the All-ACC Tournament First Team

In the summer after HS and before Beard arrived at Duke, she led USA Basketball Women’s Junior World Championship Team to a 5-0 record and the gold medal, averaging 15.4 points and 4.4 rebounds. In other words, Blue Star had her ranked very low, but it was clear before she even started college that BS's ranking was, well, BS.

Gustafson averaged 10.7 ppg and 6.8 rpg her first year and was named to the Big Ten All-Freshman Team. But she was not the best player on her team (Ally Disterhoft had that honor for 2015-16; Disterhoft was also named Second Team All-Big Ten that year), nor was she the best freshmen in the Big Ten (Nebraska's Jessica Shepard earned that honor and Shephard and Penn State's Teniya Page were the only two unanimous selections to the Big Ten All-Freshman Team). And in terms of immediate impact, the Big Ten comparable player to the ACC's Alana Beard was Ohio State's Jantel Lavender, who became the first Big Ten player, male or female, to be named the Big Ten Player of the Year four times (winning the coaches' award, the media award, or both) and the only women’s basketball player in a Power Five conference to accomplish that feat.

Gustafson improved her sophomore season and was named to the 2016-17 All-Big Ten First Team (both coaches and media), as was teammate Ally Disterhoft. But neither was a unanimous selection to either First Team (coaches or media); Maryland's Shatori Walker-Kimbrough and Brionna Jones, Michigan State's Tori Jankoska, and Ohio State's Kelsey Mitchell were the only unanimous selections for both (with Mitchell winning POY).

Gustafson really improved by the team her junior year rolled around and turned into a dominating offensive force around the rim. But to say she was a recruiting "miss" is a bit difficult for me, only because she accomplished this a few years after the fact, under the tutelage of college coaches, thousands of hours of workouts, etc. The difference with Beard is that Alana was dominating USA Basketball before she started college, then went on to tear up the ACC during her first year.

As an aside, Blue Star did not have Gustafson ranked among its top 300 prospects for the HS Class of 2015.



Blue Star and ASGR both go back that long, as I have archived the ratings for two decades. And yes, there is something to be said for longevity.

But part of the reason as to why there are more recruiting/rating services now is that there is more money in doing so for women's college basketball. It is nowhere near that of the men (or the level of fan interest in such rankings/ratings of HS players), but there more services now, more opportunities to be seen, and, to be frank, better evaluators of talent (both new people coming in to do the evaluations and experienced evaluators who have improved in terms of their talent assessment abilities).

As for your comment about what is most widely used and reliable...while it may be to the best of your knowledge, it is not to the best of mine. But I agree that most coaches/schools of which I am aware use more than one recruiting/rating service.



In my previous post, I stated:
A few years ago, I commented that Blue Star is based in the Northeast, is sponsored by Nike, and is run by individuals with strong ties to the old Big East. Blue Star's rankings are handled by Mike Flynn, who tended to bump up the rankings for players from the Northeast, players who attended Nike camps, and/or players who give verbal commitments to one of the old Big East schools.

Reading your post about "splitting up the competition" and Nike/adidas, I should add the following.

A few years ago, I commented (when I made the above statements regarding Blue Star/Nike/Flynn) that ASGR is based in the Southeast, is sponsored by adidas, and is run by individuals with strong ties to the ACC. ASGR''s rankings were/are handled by Mike White (White now works with Bret McCormick and others), who tended to bump the rankings for players who gave verbal commitments to ACC schools.

As an example, this is how ASGR analyzed UConn's HS Class of 2002 -- and notice the discrepancies (some of them extreme) for UConn's class in terms of the ASGR rankings as compared to the others.

View attachment 43741

But like said above --- and putting aside any geographic or sneaker/apparel bias -- evaluating HS players and projecting them for four years into the future after they finish college is tricky business. The same questions are there:
--- Is the evaluation done based on where they rank now (how they are playing now)?
--- Is there an allowance for potential/upside?
--- What about a player's on-court demeanor?
--- Ability to be coached? Interactions with teammates? (I added this one, as I neglected to include it in my initial post.)
--- Is it a combination of these things -- and, if so, what are the percentages for each category?
--- And how does a rating service factor in a player seen 3-5 times as compared to one seen 10-12 times?

Side note --- I believe @HuskyNan can shed light on the years she was part of a team of evaluators for Scout (2006 for sure; not sure about other years), in terms of how talent evaluators/assessors consider some of these things. As I recall, Epiphanny Prince was widely regarded as a very talented and elite recruit with a good amount of upsdie, but received a slightly lower ranking/rating (#10 overall) from that Scout rating team, as a result of things like on-court attitude, ability to play team basketball, interactions with teammates/coaches, etc.

My personal preference is Dan Olson's Collegiate Girls Basketball Report (which I believe started publishing rankings in/around 2011). Olson constantly updates his rankings on his site; as an example, one of Duke's commitments for the HS Class of 2019 had her ranking change (both up and down) five times over the summer of 2018, as Olson saw that player more and saw other players more. Olson's subscription service also has player assessments (usually 3-4 sentences about each player's skillset and strengths/weaknesses). But again, that is my personal preference -- and Olson has "misses" just as the others do.

In any event, @WBBfolllwer , I am really enjoying this discussion with you --- and I hope the rest of the Boneyard finds this topic interesting.

I think that having to change a player's ranking five times over the course of a summer isn't a good look for the player or the evaluator or both..................

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

I think that having to change a player's ranking five times over the course of a summer isn't a good look for the player or the evaluator or both...

Respectfully, I disagree. The summer has several AAU tournaments, plus USA Basketball trials. And there are greater opportunities to see the players go against one another.

Also, if you see players five times over the summer, but wait until the end to change or update rankings, the last performance could have a greater influence. Updated rankings after seeing players play provides more of a present sense impressive (to borrow from the Rules of Evidence).

 

[Charliebball]

Respectfully, I disagree. The summer has several AAU tournaments, plus USA Basketball trials. And there are greater opportunities to see the players go against one another.

Also, if you see players five times over the summer, but wait until the end to change or update rankings, the last performance could have a greater influence. Updated rankings after seeing players play provides more of a present sense impressive (to borrow from the Rules of Evidence).

my experience tells me that if the evaluator has to change a judgement five times during the course of three months then somebody is being inconsistent................a fundamentally sound player may not shine quite as brightly against better competition but their skills should still be evident otherwise they simply fooled the evaluator into thinking they were better then they really were........

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

my experience tells me that if the evaluator has to change a judgement five times during the course of three months then somebody is being inconsistent......a fundamentally sound player may not shine quite as brightly against better competition but their skills should still be evident otherwise they simply fooled the evaluator into thinking they were better then they really were...

Skills are one thing. How they rank compare to their peers is completely different.

Updating rankings based on number of times seen, performances against elite competition, etc. is sound strategy. Would you characterize a player based on one good game, or do you evaluate the player based on multiple games and different opponents? The answer, to me, is obvious.

 

[Charliebball]

Skills are one thing. How they rank compare to their peers is completely different.

Updating rankings based on number of times seen, performances against elite competition, etc. is sound strategy. Would you characterize a player based on one good game, or do you evaluate the player based on multiple games and different opponents? The answer, to me, is obvious.

perhaps the answer is to wait on passing judgement all together until the evaluator is confident of their findings................

 

[willtalk]

perhaps the answer is to wait on passing judgement all together until the evaluator is confident of their findings......

If they did that they would be out of business. Basically, everyone is just evaluating players based on what they see. Many undermanned rating services go entirely by what other rating services rate the players as. ESPN's Hoopgils which used to have a big staff now only has one person on WCBB. Everyone that knows basketball recognizes that players performances are expressed on a sliding scale somewhere between their best and their worst. Even normally poor shooters can have lights out shooting games and even great shooters can have off games.

It is really up to everyone to recognize the circumstances of player evaluations. Olson of ESPN usually in his evaluations will document when he viewed the players. Because of limited resources, his evaluations are based on specific major AAU events where multiple teams are present at the same time.

There is nothing wrong about giving some credence to rating services as long as we also recognize that they are limited and should not be taken at face value. Nothing wrong with using all available resources in making evaluations as long as we recognize their potential fallibilities

 

[CocoHusky]

perhaps the answer is to wait on passing judgement all together until the evaluator is confident of their findings......

So the evaluators would have to wait to rank players until after they have graduated college?
The evaluation is a continuous process. The reality is some of the ranking will always vary among the recruiting services and some players will always out perform their rankings. That is the definition of uncertainty=ranking business.