With all due respect to
@jonson (and others who have posted on this topic) -- and as I have previously posted on
June 7, 2019 and
July 18, 2019 --
I find the discussion of "underrated" and "overrated" and recruiting "misses" a bit misleading, in the sense of examining the HS Class of 2016 rankings (largely completed in the fall of 2015, after the previous HS season and summer AAU events) and looking at them through 2019 lenses.
Recruiting rankings involve evaluations of where a player
IS at that particular moment in time, in terms of skills and abilities -- with some measure/allowance for potential (e.g., an uber-athlete who is just getting by on instinct and athleticism, having a metric to assess potential to correct shooting form, etc.).
Recruiting rankings CANNOT predict how a player -- likely 17 years old at the time of the last major evaluation and the rankings release before the fall signing period -- will respond to a particular coach, will adjust to college, will interact with her teammates, will overcome injuries, etc. It is a present sense impression assessment with a certain metric component for future potential; it is not a be-all, end-all prediction of college performance, nor can it be.
I do not believe that a player cannot be considered "overrated" simply because she was a very highly ranked player in the fall 2015 rankings but did not become a superstar three years later while others passed her, in terms of accolades, accomplishments, etc.. It simply means that other players improved a lot more and surpassed expected performances for their respective rankings. "Living up/not living up to expectations for the ranking" might be a better characterization.
Similarly, I do not believe a player can be considered "underrated" or "underranked" by a recruiting service (thereby characterizing the recruiting service as "wrong" or having "missed") simply because she was rated at a certain spot in the fall of her senior year in high school, then far surpassed any expectations or potential in college.
But looking at this nearly FOUR years later (again, focusing on the last major rating/evaluation occurring in the fall before a player's senior year), without accounting for all of the variables (and them some) that I listed above, then going back to critique the original rankings and determining who was/is "overrated" or "underrated" by the recruiting services and whether the under-ranking was the result of the recruiting service's "lack of knowledge"? Sorry, I do not see the requisite foundation for such an argument/assessment.
)
redirect.viglink.com
