Recruiting Rankings

[CamrnCrz1974]

Scout (remember that site?) just released its rankings for the Class of 2014. Knowing that rankings are subjective and each service uses different criteria in its evaluations, I asked the Scout evaluators (Brian Snow, Evan Daniels, etc.) what they considered in ranking players and giving out "stars."

Giving recruiting rankings are the subject of much debate on this board, I thought I would share the response I received with you. Obviously, the Scout rankings are only one set and there will be several other times that the 2014 class is evaluated, but I thought some of you might be interested in the comments from one recruiting service:

My question:
How much do you factor in potential/upside in the rankings? Are the rankings more of a reflection of where a player is now (relative to his peers), with a small allowance factored in for upside/potential? Is that even a consideration?

I always seem to get into debates with people who question rankings several years ex post facto. Obviously, your rankings cannot account for things like how a player develops under a certain college coach (and, conversely, how a player fails to respond or improve while working under another coach), whether a player is able to adjust to the college environment, the maturation process, etc.

Response (from Brian Snow):
We aren't ranking what a player is now and we aren't ranking what a player could be. We are ranking what we think a player will be. Does that take potential into account, of course, but it isn't all about potential. You have to be productive as well.

 

[caw]

Response (from Brian Snow):
We aren't ranking what a player is now and we aren't ranking what a player could be. We are ranking what we think a player will be. Does that take potential into account, of course, but it isn't all about potential. You have to be productive as well.

HUH? I do get the linguistic difference but to say this is an actual difference is absurd.

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

Follow-up Question (from another poster):
Quick follow up and thanks for answering so dutifully, Brian. When you say you are ranking what you think a player WILL be, you mean you are projecting what that player will be on the COLLEGE level, correct?

Response (from Brian Snow):
We make no distinction, when you are as good as you can be, whether that means college or pro, we don't care. Quite simply we just say to ourselves, who from this class will be the best basketball players when they are done playing basketball. We don't subscribe to the theory that you can magically be better in the NBA than you are in college. It is easier to be better in college than the NBA, now for whatever reason some guys excel in college that don't in the NBA, and some guys tend to bloom later and become better in the NBA than maybe they projected in college, but we just define it as who will be better.

 

[UCONNfan1]

so basically it sounds like they rank them by who they think the best over all player will be. #1 is not necessarily the best in the class now, but should be during college and into the pros. i'm sure there are many different ways to slice what they said, but that seems to make sense to me. i think each service does it a little differently and often there's not much difference beween the guy who's #20 and the guy who's #50.

 

[auror]

I would look at it this way: Will be = Could be - work ethic.

 

[UCONNFAN179]

Well I guess that helps explain why Drummond was #2. He could be something years from now. I couldn't see what would make ANYONE say he was a top recruit for 2011. #2..ha! He wasn't even 202 for last year.

 

[johnhuskies95]

Well I guess that helps explain why Drummond was #2. He could be something years from now. I couldn't see what would make ANYONE say he was a top recruit for 2011. #2..ha! He wasn't even 202 for last year.

I'm not sure why I'm even responding, but can you list the freshmen last year who averaged 10 points and 8 rebounds on over 50% shooting?

I'll wait.

 

[jleves]

I'm not sure why I'm even responding, but can you list the freshmen last year who averaged 10 points and 8 rebounds on over 50% shooting?

I'll wait.

You got there before me but that was pretty my response to that ridiculousness. 202 freshman were better than AD last year? Only on the boneyard.

 

[caw]

Over 7.6 RPG:

1. Anthony Davis 10.4 - UK
2. Jalen Cannon 8.8 - St Francis
3. Moe Harkless 8.6 - SJU
4. LaDontae Henton 8.6 - PC
5. TaShawn Thomas 8.2 - Houston
6. Jonathan Holton - 8.1 - URI
7. Andre Drummond 7.6 - UConn

Of those seven above by FG% and PPG:

1. Moe Harkless 15.5 - SJU @45%
2. LaDontae Henton 14.3 - PC @45%
3. Anthony Davis 14.2 - UK @62%
4. TaShawn Thomas 10.7 - Houston @58%
5. Jonathan Holton 10.2 - URI @41%
6. Andre Drummond 10.2 - UConn @54%
7. Jalen Cannon - 8 - St Francis @56%

That puts Andre at 3rd overall just looking at PPG, FG% and RPG combined.
Of those by BPG:

1. Anthony Davis 4.7 - UK
2. Andre Drummond 2.7 - UConn
3. TaShawn Thomas 2.1 - Houston
4. Moe Harkless 1.4 - SJU
5. LaDontae Henton 1.1 - PC
6. Jonathan Holton - 1.1 - URI
7. Jalen Cannon .5 - St Francis

This TaShawn Thomas kid had a good year. Drummond is behind him and Davis, unless you include BPG, then it's Davis and Drummond.
Drummond had a very good freshman year. Davis was quite literally the only player to average a RPG/PPG double double as a freshman.