Updated ESPN Rankings | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Updated ESPN Rankings

Rankings definitely matter. Every year underperforming freshmen get drafted in the first round-- partly because of the fact that they were 5 star HS recruits.

There is no doubt in my mind that if Castle had committed to Kentucky, he'd be in the top 30 right now.
 
uconngb said:
I stand corrected. Boatright was 74th in ESPN rankings. Napier was not in their top 100. The Harrison twins meanwhile were #5 and #9 in their class. I rest my case. And that's just one of a hundred examples I could give.
Expand ...

You rest what case? You talking nonsense. Yes there are tons of examples of lower ranked being better than higher, whats you're point? I said "Also, saying someone is ranked 56th instead of being a borderline 5 star can get people wondering" which is why we asking questions.

If you don't care about rankings then by all means ignore the thread.
 
Last edited:
t8per said:
Rankings definitely matter. Every year underperforming freshmen get drafted in the first round-- partly because of the fact that they were 5 star HS recruits.

There is no doubt in my mind that if Castle had committed to Kentucky, he'd be in the top 30 right now.
Expand ...
Which is exactly why rankings don't matter. Thanks for making my point for me.
 
Candyman34 said:
They actually were both top 100 players.

Regardless what anyone says here rankings matter. It matters to the players and it matters to the coaches. Tell me you weren't excited to see UConn ranked in the teens again and if you say no you're lying.

Also, saying someone is ranked 56th instead of being a borderline 5 star can get people wondering. I have't seen one person here flipping out or all upset. There are more people saying calm down and so forth then those actually sweating it.
Expand ...

To a certain extent they do. The Duke/UK treatment is real, another case in point is Flip. The only time I ever heard of this kid was when people here were talking about recruiting him. He was under the radar and ranked in the 100s if I remember correctly, then top 40-50 range, then Duke interest and he is now top 10. Am I going to say he's overrated, no, but we will see how he lives up to that

I think rankings are funny, but I pay attention to general top 100 and happy with anyone wanting to come here. It doesn't matter where you're ranked on draft boards either...ask Jaden Ivey, Benedict Mathurin, Keegan Murray, Johnny Davis, Blake Wesley....
 
If they didn’t matter we wouldn’t be having the argument. That inherently means it matters to those on that side of the argument.
 
t8per said:
Rankings definitely matter. Every year underperforming freshmen get drafted in the first round-- partly because of the fact that they were 5 star HS recruits.

There is no doubt in my mind that if Castle had committed to Kentucky, he'd be in the top 30 right now.
Expand ...
I know absolutely nothing about the NBA, but I doubt this is true. I refuse to believe people who are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to evaluate talent are that lazy and/or bad at their jobs.

Now, it might appear that way to you, but that's a different story. Of course an underperforming freshman that gets drafted will have been highly ranked coming out of high school. That is how they fell into the "underperforming" category. And of course most of the early-drafted US players will have had a high ranking coming out of high school. But a player's high school rank or star rating, in and of itself, cannot be relevant to scouts and GMs, if anything I know about the world is true.
 
Get a Job said:
I know absolutely nothing about the NBA, but I doubt this is true. I refuse to believe people who are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to evaluate talent are that lazy and/or bad at their jobs.

Now, it might appear that way to you, but that's a different story. Of course an underperforming freshman that gets drafted will have been highly ranked coming out of high school. That is how they fell into the "underperforming" category. And of course most of the early-drafted US players will have had a high ranking coming out of high school. But a player's high school rank or star rating, in and of itself, cannot be relevant to scouts and GMs, if anything I know about the world is true.
Expand ...
It absolutely happens, just off the top of my head Zaire Williams was drafted in the lottery last year after stinking it up at Stanford. We can argue if it was because of his top 5 rankings or his obvious potential, but scouts only were very aware of him due to his ranking in the first place.
 
Huskyforlife said:
It absolutely happens, just off the top of my head Zaire Williams was drafted in the lottery last year after stinking it up at Stanford. We can argue if it was because of his top 5 rankings or his obvious potential, but scouts only were very aware of him due to his ranking in the first place.
Expand ...
You know what happens to scouts who only look into players based on their published rankings? They don't get hired by the NBA, because there are more savvy people out there. Come on guys, you can't be serious with this argument, or I must be misunderstanding you.
 
huskyfan224 said:
To a certain extent they do. The Duke/UK treatment is real, another case in point is Flip. The only time I ever heard of this kid was when people here were talking about recruiting him. He was under the radar and ranked in the 100s if I remember correctly, then top 40-50 range, then Duke interest and he is now top 10. Am I going to say he's overrated, no, but we will see how he lives up to that

I think rankings are funny, but I pay attention to general top 100 and happy with anyone wanting to come here. It doesn't matter where you're ranked on draft boards either...ask Jaden Ivey, Benedict Mathurin, Keegan Murray, Johnny Davis, Blake Wesley....
Expand ...

Flip was going to be top-10 regardless. He performed well this aau season
 
t8per said:
Rankings definitely matter. Every year underperforming freshmen get drafted in the first round-- partly because of the fact that they were 5 star HS recruits.
Expand ...

These guys are ranked based on their pro potential. And after a disappointing freshman year guys get drafted because of that potential, not because of the number next to their name coming out of high school.

You really think some exec is saying "well, ____, this kid stinks but he was ranked 4th in his class coming out of high school so we better draft him"?
 
uconngb said:
I stand corrected. Boatright was 74th in ESPN rankings. Napier was not in their top 100. The Harrison twins meanwhile were #5 and #9 in their class. I rest my case. And that's just one of a hundred examples I could give.
Expand ...
Napier switched classes at the last minute (summer before enrolling) so I don't know if he even was accounted for in their rankings.
 
UConNick said:
And as I recall, he was ranked about number 52 in that junior class “super 60” by ESPN before the reclass. So definitely not a true under-the-radar recruit.
Expand ...
He was 84th on 247. I remember watching him in his videos and found it hard to believe that there were that many players better than him
 
t8per said:
Rankings definitely matter. Every year underperforming freshmen get drafted in the first round-- partly because of the fact that they were 5 star HS recruits.

There is no doubt in my mind that if Castle had committed to Kentucky, he'd be in the top 30 right now.
Expand ...
No. The first sentence is as dead wrong as one can be. If you think NBA teams draft players based on what ranking services think of them, you are literally insane. What you are seeing is ranking services base their rankings on long term NBA potential, which is certainly what NBA scouts are looking for over the impact someone has as a freshman.
 
My opinion about HS/Prep player rankings is about the same as I feel about the NCAA MBB rankings in October thru January - there are a very few no brainers and the rest are meaningless.
There are maybe 10-15 kids that are no miss flat out stars and the rest are ranked according to where they play, their AAU affiliation etc.
Give me an all around solid performer who will contribute at least 2 years and you can have those 1 season wonders.
 
Rankings mean more or less depending on the stakeholder. You all are somewhat correct. Do NBA scouts care about where a kid was ranked coming out of HS? No. Not at all. But a 17 year old puts a lot of stake into where they are ranked as it's a status symbol of sorts. Also, they put a lot of value, probably too much, on rankings in who they are going to play with depending on what they are looking for. Too many highly rated recruits might mean one kid wants to go somewhere else to get more time. Another kid may see that as an opportunity to compete at the highest level and be on a team that will win a lot.

As far as coaches, it probably matters less than what people think. They want winning teams and you can build them in many ways. Role players are valuable, ranking scouts don't always get it right, there are late bloomers, and there is a limit to who you can get sometimes geographically. However, the coaches also need to appeal to the mind of the 17 year old. The rankings surely get brought up when discussing who they are going to be playing with. And when you are pushing to get a top 20 5 star kid it always nice to have a resume of having secured and developed top 20 5 star talent.

As far as fanbase, it seems most care because it is something to brag about but there are plenty of older wiser fans out there that know that a 75th or so ranked recruit like Bouk for instance could be like landing a 5 star. And conversely a 10-15 or so ranked recruit could have major bust potential. Ajou Deng rings a bell. So although its great to laud a top 5 rated class, the wise ones know that doesn't mean much if you don't develop/manage/put your players in positions to succeed because then the narrative will quickly shift to being a coach who wastes top end talent.
 
Rankings matter in multiple ways.

1) While not perfect, there is definitely a correlation between ranking and a player's performance in college. Our team will be better with higher-ranked recruits.

2) Landing a bunch of high-ranked recruits convinces other high-ranked recruits that we are a destination for top talent.
 
HooperScooper said:
247Sports.com updated 2022 rankings out today. Clingan down to 62.

247sports.com

2022 Top Basketball Recruits

The 247Sports rankings are determined by our recruiting analysts after countless hours of personal observations, film evaluation and input from our network of scouts.
247sports.com 247sports.com
Expand ...

Our staff was sure on the money with Lively. New #1. Same with whitmore. I was wrong on him.

Missed the boat on Flip. It was obvious he was a talent a year before we called
 
uconngb said:
I stand corrected. Boatright was 74th in ESPN rankings. Napier was not in their top 100. The Harrison twins meanwhile were #5 and #9 in their class. I rest my case. And that's just one of a hundred examples I could give
Expand ...
I hope you'll take the time to provide the 100 examples. I'd love to add that to my personal knowledge base.
TIA
 
HooperScooper said:
247Sports.com updated 2022 rankings out today. Clingan down to 62.

247sports.com

2022 Top Basketball Recruits

The 247Sports rankings are determined by our recruiting analysts after countless hours of personal observations, film evaluation and input from our network of scouts.
247sports.com 247sports.com
Expand ...
Flip being number 2 is a joke. And I loved the kid when I watched him play.
 

Online statistics

Members online
282
Guests online
2,631
Total visitors
2,913
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
164,274
Messages
4,390,034
Members
10,197
Latest member
Whizzlerr


.
..
Top Bottom