Top prospects for 2021....ESPN | Page 4 | The Boneyard

Top prospects for 2021....ESPN

mbr33ct said:
I have just finished slicing, dicing and sorting out a new ranking list of 2021 recruits. Took info that was provided in this thread, Prospects Nation, Blue Star top 30 and HoopGurlz and put it to new spreadsheet. Averaged out new scores for recruits and the following is/are results.

Disclaimer: At no time was money exchanged for this list.

View attachment 58527
Expand ...


ASGR's list from February:

ASGR Basketball - Women's Basketball Recruiting & Scouting Services

Comprehensive basketball scouting services for high school players nationwide.
asgrbasketball.com asgrbasketball.com


PrepGirlsHoops list:

2021 National HS Girls Basketball Player Rankings | Prep Girls Hoops

Who are the best high school girls basketball players from the class of 2021? Check out the Prep Girls Hoops 2021 National Player Rankings.
www.prepgirlshoops.com www.prepgirlshoops.com
 
Sluconn Husky said:
ASGR's list from February:

ASGR Basketball - Women's Basketball Recruiting & Scouting Services

Comprehensive basketball scouting services for high school players nationwide.
asgrbasketball.com asgrbasketball.com


PrepGirlsHoops list:

2021 National HS Girls Basketball Player Rankings | Prep Girls Hoops

Who are the best high school girls basketball players from the class of 2021? Check out the Prep Girls Hoops 2021 National Player Rankings.
www.prepgirlshoops.com www.prepgirlshoops.com
Expand ...

Below is updated spreadsheet with ASGR and PrepGirlsHoops rankings added with average rank and sorted from low to high for this new ranking. Per my early post, I used Blue Star and the 30 players, they are the only service ranking Ava Learn at 29. Could probably remove that player but it's there so I left it.

Another disclaimer: Ideally I should have taken each ranking services top 30 and go from that..but as stated used the Blue Star top 30 as master list...I took the easy way out.

1599733116217.png
 
Last edited:
At the risk of alienating those here that feel rankings mean ANYTHING after the first “few“ players (that number obviously varies somewhat year to year), “ranking gurus” have formed a lucrative cottage industry for themselves and profit from those that PT Barnum spoke of. And coming from one who coached high school for a decade and has scouted for much longer, don’t anyone kid themselves that players after that first “handful“ paying for “evaluations and rankings” is a rarity.
 
TerpWomenFan said:
The best thing Saylor could have done was transfer to a powerhouse program like Riverdale Baptist. Many players from public schools have gone this route. But compared to other public school systems, Frederick County is probably 7th/8th on the list in the state of Maryland.
Expand ...

Actually, I find it refreshing that it seems like she wants to be a normal high school kid and play on her local school's team with her friends. This decision doesn't seem to have hurt her basketball prospects.
 
.-.
Its all compiled from which AAU teams you play for who is coaching those teams who is watching those teams. If you dont play in the top AAU tourneys your not seen thus not ranked. Geno knows how to evaluate talent and thats all that matters.
 
mbr33ct said:
Below is updated spreadsheet with ASGR and PrepGirlsHoops rankings added with average rank and sorted from low to high for this new ranking. Per my early post, I used Blue Star and the 30 players, they are the only service ranking Ava Learn at 29. Could probably remove that player but it's there so I left it.

Another disclaimer: Ideally I should have taken each ranking services top 30 and go from that..but as stated used the Blue Star top 30 as master list...I took the easy way out.

View attachment 58567
Expand ...

I greatly appreciate and respect your hard work. However, I offer the following opinion:

Rankings 1-18 are valid rankings. These prospects are in the Top 30 of all five rankings. Therefore, this is a true cumulative ranking. (Though the average ranking score of Saniya Rivers should be adjusted to 3.3 because she is ranked #2 by Prospect Nation.)

Rankings 18-30 are invalid as a cumulative ranking. Why? There are two reasons. First, these rankings are biased in favor of Blue Star. Second, 4 of these players are unranked by one or more of the services.

Blue Star Top 30 Bias: You start with only the Top 30 of Blue Star. This eliminates a number of Good Prospects who are ranked below 30 by that service.
Example: Laila Phelia (Michigan). She is ranked 31 by Blue Star, 54 by Prospect nation, 28 by HoopGurlz, 61 by ASGR, and 33 by PGH for a total of 207. Thus, her average score would be 41.4. That places her cumulative ranking above the player that Blue Star ranks as #20, Jada Walker. The same problem applies to Bree Hall (SCar) and perhaps a few others.

Players unranked by other some or all other services: The BlueStar bias is clearly apparent in Example one below.
Example One: Ava Learn (Purdue) is ranked #25 by Blue Star. However, NONE of the other services appear to have her ranked! Thus, she cannot have a "cumulative" score. The other services rank either 75 or 100 prospects. To be fair, let's assume that the other services rank her 76. That would give her a cumulative score of 329 and a cumulative ranking of 65.8. A similar problem exists with Macie James.
Example Two: Jada Walker. She is unranked by Prospect Nation who ranks 75 prospects. She has a total score of 167 from the 4 other services. To be truly cululative in relation to the other players, you should assign her a theoretical Prospect Nation ranking of 76. Thus, her cumulative score should be 243. That makes her cumulative ranking 48.6. Yeah, this one is more picky than example one.

Again, I salute your effort and it has been a great contribution to this board (the best their is). However, I only consider the first 18 to be truly cumulative rankings. To be perfectly cumulative beyond that point, it would need to compare the top 75 of all 5 services.

Thank you for your hard work!
 
Tonyc said:
Its all compiled from which AAU teams you play for who is coaching those teams who is watching those teams. If you dont play in the top AAU tourneys your not seen thus not ranked. Geno knows how to evaluate talent and thats all that matters.
Expand ...

And the services recognize that. Thus, a prospect who is being actively pursued by UConn and the other Top contenders is going to be more highly rated when that interest becomes apparent. Let's call it "the contender bump." UConn is the prime contender, but it applies to SCar, Baylor, Maryland, Notre Dame, Stanford.etc. Maybe even Oregon now.

I will freely admit that the recent ESPN ranking's rise of Scar's commits was a "contender bump." I've seen it in football for decades with Bama, Ohio State, etc where it's not just ESPN bumping but powerful recruiting services like 247 and Rivals. But, let's keep in mind that ESPN is biased toward teams that it will be televising
 
visitingcock said:
I greatly appreciate and respect your hard work. However, I offer the following opinion:

Rankings 1-18 are valid rankings. These prospects are in the Top 30 of all five rankings. Therefore, this is a true cumulative ranking. (Though the average ranking score of Saniya Rivers should be adjusted to 3.3 because she is ranked #2 by Prospect Nation.)

Rankings 18-30 are invalid as a cumulative ranking. Why? There are two reasons. First, these rankings are biased in favor of Blue Star. Second, 4 of these players are unranked by one or more of the services.

Blue Star Top 30 Bias: You start with only the Top 30 of Blue Star. This eliminates a number of Good Prospects who are ranked below 30 by that service.
Example: Laila Phelia (Michigan). She is ranked 31 by Blue Star, 54 by Prospect nation, 28 by HoopGurlz, 61 by ASGR, and 33 by PGH for a total of 207. Thus, her average score would be 41.4. That places her cumulative ranking above the player that Blue Star ranks as #20, Jada Walker. The same problem applies to Bree Hall (SCar) and perhaps a few others.

Players unranked by other some or all other services: The BlueStar bias is clearly apparent in Example one below.
Example One: Ava Learn (Purdue) is ranked #25 by Blue Star. However, NONE of the other services appear to have her ranked! Thus, she cannot have a "cumulative" score. The other services rank either 75 or 100 prospects. To be fair, let's assume that the other services rank her 76. That would give her a cumulative score of 329 and a cumulative ranking of 65.8. A similar problem exists with Macie James.
Example Two: Jada Walker. She is unranked by Prospect Nation who ranks 75 prospects. She has a total score of 167 from the 4 other services. To be truly cululative in relation to the other players, you should assign her a theoretical Prospect Nation ranking of 76. Thus, her cumulative score should be 243. That makes her cumulative ranking 48.6. Yeah, this one is more picky than example one.

Again, I salute your effort and it has been a great contribution to this board (the best their is). However, I only consider the first 18 to be truly cumulative rankings. To be perfectly cumulative beyond that point, it would need to compare the top 75 of all 5 services.

Thank you for your hard work!
Expand ...

Ok, you forced my hand! ;) will you take top 30 of each services? I realize the rankings are based towards Blue Star top 30 and yes, the other 4 services do not have the same players/names in top 30...so because you thanked me for my hard work I have gone the extra mile with this new one. I have taken top 30 players from each of the 5 services and went to work to come up with this new one. (In my earlier reply to you I said "yes divide by 3". I don't think that was a true statement...if Excel sees only 2 or 3 rankings per player I'm assuming it averages out based on them 2 or 3...but now I believe this to be more to your liking. (again this one is based on top 30 of each ranking service)

...another disclaimer: there will be no more adjustments to this composite result. :rolleyes:
1599752620443.png
 
Last edited:
mbr33ct said:
Ok, you forced my hand! ;) will you take top 30 of each services? I realize the rankings are based towards Blue Star top 30 and yes, the other 4 services do not have the same players/names in top 30...so because you thanked me for my hard work I have gone the extra mile with this new one. I have taken top 30 players from each of the 5 services and went to work to come up with this new one. (In my earlier reply to you I said "yes divide by 3". I don't think that was a true statement...if Excel sees only 2 or 3 rankings per player I'm assuming it averages out based on them 2 or 3...but now I believe this to be more to your liking. (again this one is based on top 30 of each ranking service)

...another disclaimer: there will be no more adjustments to this composite result. :rolleyes:
View attachment 58575
Expand ...


MORE than a simple "like" is due. All Hail mbr33ct! I do not expect you to do any more work. You have worked your buttocks off on this.

But, nitpicker me must admit that # 23, Taylor Bigby, has a more impressive looking ranking resume (with 5 Top 30 rankings) than #15, my beloved Bree Hall (with only one).

Thank you
Thank you
Thank you

However, I still think the Top 18 of your previous list is the best and most accurate ranking because it is purely Top 30 players by ALL services.. I will "steal" that list and use it elsewhere - with your permission.
 
Last edited:
visitingcock said:
And the services recognize that. Thus, a prospect who is being actively pursued by UConn and the other Top contenders is going to be more highly rated when that interest becomes apparent. Let's call it "the contender bump." UConn is the prime contender, but it applies to SCar, Baylor, Maryland, Notre Dame, Stanford.etc. Maybe even Oregon now.

I will freely admit that the recent ESPN ranking's rise of Scar's commits was a "contender bump." I've seen it in football for decades with Bama, Ohio State, etc where it's not just ESPN bumping but powerful recruiting services like 247 and Rivals. But, let's keep in mind that ESPN is biased toward teams that it will be televising
Expand ...

In fairness to South Carolina commits, Rivers, Johnson, and Feagin were consensus Top 20 players before they committed.

Hall's rise at ESPN to #26 also predated her South Carolina commitment.

While I think I would probably enjoy there to be a national bias towards overrating South Carolina teams and players and recruits, I'm not sure I've really seen any previous indication of that.

Maybe this is the beginning of it, but I'm not really sure who the new group doing ratings are and why they'd be especially pro Carolinas (North and South).
 
.-.
visitingcock said:
Well, this ranking does follow a (shortned) Summer of AAU competition, so re-ranking was probably in order anyway. But, yeah, you have a good point about it being different gur's/opinions.

You can bet we're gonna' "crow about it" though. It's what we do! ;)
Expand ...

Don't come in here "half-cocked" unless you're prepared to "eat crow". :rolleyes:
 
Gamecockfan77 said:
In fairness to South Carolina commits, Rivers, Johnson, and Feagin were consensus Top 20 players before they committed.

Hall's rise at ESPN to #26 also predated her South Carolina commitment.

While I think I would probably enjoy there to be a national bias towards overrating South Carolina teams and players and recruits, I'm not sure I've really seen any previous indication of that.

Maybe this is the beginning of it, but I'm not really sure who the new group doing ratings are and why they'd be especially pro Carolinas (North and South).
Expand ...

Hall's rise to 14 is new,
Johnson's rise to 2 is new.

Both rises might be described as metoric.

The bias is just now arising because of a media perception that we are now a "contender program." In 2017, that perception did not exist even though we were very good. We may have been perceived as a "contender team" for the year, but we were not perceived as a "contender program" for the coming yearS.

Oh yes, I do believe we have the best class in the country, at least until Azi commits. If she chooses UConn (as I suspect) the argument is ON.
 
Last edited:
visitingcock said:
Hall's rise to 14 is new,
Johnson's rise to 2 is new.
Both rises might be described as metoric.
The bias is just now arising because of a media perception that we are now a "contender program." In 2017, that perception did not exist even though we were very good. We may have been perceived as a "contender team" for the year, but we were not perceived as a "contender program" for the coming yearS.
Expand ...
Perhaps I'm not understanding your though here with regards to "contender program" If any part of the rise (or fall) of a player in the rankings is due strictly to the school they have signed with that is flat out wrong & absurd IMO.
 
CocoHusky said:
Perhaps I'm not understanding your though here with regards to "contender program" If any part of the rise (or fall) of a player in the rankings is due strictly to the school they have signed with that is flat out wrong & absurd IMO.
Expand ...

It might be wrong, but I believe it to be real. I have seen it all too often in football through the years. A 3 star commits to Bama or Ohio State (or now Clemson), and he becomes a high 4 star overnight.

Is it completely unjustified? Perhaps not. Saban is an outstanding talent evaluator and doesn't hand out "commitable" offers like candy. Thus, the recruiting services are trusting in his proven judgment. Same could be said for Geno. Heck, in football a relatively confirmable offer from a top 5 contender will cause a ratings jump if there is reason to believe the offer is backed up by official visits or an in home visit by a head coach.
 
visitingcock said:
Hall's rise to 14 is new,
Johnson's rise to 2 is new.

Both rises might be described as metoric.

The bias is just now arising because of a media perception that we are now a "contender program." In 2017, that perception did not exist even though we were very good. We may have been perceived as a "contender team" for the year, but we were not perceived as a "contender program" for the coming yearS.

Oh yes, I do believe we have the best class in the country, at least until Azi commits. If she chooses UConn (as I suspect) the argument is ON.
Expand ...
Now I have heard it all. Players get ranked based on who they commit to and only if that team is a contender ? That is an absurd statement at best. There were some players who did participate in summer league games and those are the ones that got to tout their advanced skills. You rate them on their performance and if some moved up, it was because there was more information to evaluate those players. The summer leagues would have reset the rankings regardless. The top players are usually about right. I would argue that Boston was the No.1 player in her class based on the year she had...but she wasn't the No. 1 player in her class....They are subjective...but only a little bit subjective....
 
CocoHusky said:
Perhaps I'm not understanding your though here with regards to "contender program" If any part of the rise (or fall) of a player in the rankings is due strictly to the school they have signed with that is flat out wrong & absurd IMO.
Expand ...
Regardless of what you think is wrong or absurd, this absolutely does happen. The most pronounced (in WBB) is with UConn commits. My (undocumented) observation/perception is that, unless you're already top 5, committing to UConn is worth up to a 50% bump (i.e #30 goes to #15, #17 goes to #8, etc.)
 
.-.
My only issue with R. Johnson being ranked #2 is Premier announced back in July that she would be top 3 at the end of the summer. How could they possibly know how the entire class was going to play this summer at the beginning of the season?
 
j66kicker said:
Regardless of what you think is wrong or absurd, this absolutely does happen. The most pronounced (in WBB) is with UConn commits. My (undocumented) observation/perception is that, unless you're already top 5, committing to UConn is worth up to a 50% bump (i.e #30 goes to #15, #17 goes to #8, etc.)
Expand ...
Let's move from these undocumented perceptions to keeping it real and naming names.
I'll start with Amari Deberry who was #2 Player in the class when she committed to UCONN. Then I want to talk about Aubrey Griffin. Followed by AEH, Lexi Gordon. Moving on to Napheesa Collier & Boykin,& Coombs.
Courtney Ekmark & Saniya Chong name should come into play also. My perception is that these players rose of ( mostly) fell for reasons unrelated to their UCONN signing.
 
Last edited:
CocoHusky said:
Let's move from these undocumented perceptions to keeping it real and naming names.
I'll start with Amari Deberry who was #2 Player in the class when she committed to UCONN. Then I want to talk about Aubrey Griffin. Followed by AEH, Lexi Gordon. Moving on to Napheesa Collier & Boykin,& Coombs.
Courtney Ekmark & Saniya Chong name should come into play also. My perception is that these players rose of ( mostly) fell for reasons unrelated to their UCONN signing.
Expand ...

Well, you need to buy a roll of aluminum foil and make some hats to protect you from the BIG CONSPIRACY. ESPN has taken over your mind. I'm safe.

1599773229146.png
 
visitingcock said:
Hall's rise to 14 is new,
Johnson's rise to 2 is new.

Both rises might be described as metoric.

The bias is just now arising because of a media perception that we are now a "contender program." In 2017, that perception did not exist even though we were very good. We may have been perceived as a "contender team" for the year, but we were not perceived as a "contender program" for the coming yearS.

Oh yes, I do believe we have the best class in the country, at least until Azi commits. If she chooses UConn (as I suspect) the argument is ON.
Expand ...

I just don't think that's really what is happening.

It'd be nice if players got vaulted to the top of the ranking (in a way) just by committing to South Carolina, but I think that's probably not at all what is happening here.

Unless there is some reason why these particular evaluators love South Carolina or Dawn Staley that I'm not aware of (and again no reason to think that they do).

Johnson and Hall have pretty documentable improvements and performances. Feagin has always been one of the best Fs to most people. Rivers is pretty much consensus where she is.

Johnson all the way to #2 is pretty surprising, but that's the only real surprise here to me. And she was MVP of two tourneys this summer and has improved her 3pt shooting dramatically. And she started from 12-20.
 
visitingcock said:
Well, you need to buy a roll of aluminum foil and make some hats to protect you from the BIG CONSPIRACY. ESPN has taken over your mind. I'm safe.

View attachment 58592
Expand ...
You are the one buying the conspiracy novel. You think because you.....someone who has no evaluation skills nor is involved in high school basketball teams or camps data.....is more informed than those who actually do it professionally ? ESPN won't get it perfect...but I would trust them and their sources over you and your boxed in views.....any day ! You are the one who is not dealing with real data...not them or CocoHusky !!!!
 
.-.
jumpstart said:
You are the one buying the conspiracy novel. You think because you.....someone who has no evaluation skills nor is involved in high school basketball teams or camps data.....is more informed than those who actually do it professionally ? ESPN won't get it perfect...but I would trust them and their sources over you and your boxed in views.....any day ! You are the one who is not dealing with real data...not them or CocoHusky !!!!
Expand ...
If you go back to first 2 or 3 pages of this thread, visitingcock wasn't the only poster that was having conspiracy theories about ESPN or Premier Basketball favoring ACC and SEC commits over others.
 
Last edited:
jumpstart said:
You are the one buying the conspiracy novel. You think because you.....someone who has no evaluation skills nor is involved in high school basketball teams or camps data.....is more informed than those who actually do it professionally ? ESPN won't get it perfect...but I would trust them and their sources over you and your boxed in views.....any day ! You are the one who is not dealing with real data...not them or CocoHusky !!!!
Expand ...


My tinfoil hat post was an attempt at SELF-DEPRECATING humor. I meant no offense to CocoHusky - who is a great poster and with whom I have enjoyed numerous conversations. I would go back and edit to blue font if I could. (Does blue font indicate sarcastic humor on this board?) Apparently you can't edit after someone has responded /quoted a post.
 
Last edited:
RockyMTblue2 said:
Changing the ratings of players who have committed is sorta like kissing your sister.
Expand ...


But in this case the previous ratings didn't represent what the PBR folks think of the class. Not surprising they'd want to post their own.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
167,962
Messages
4,546,902
Members
10,428
Latest member
CarloPFF


Top Bottom