Yasss! HoopGurlz Rankings Updated!

[kat0189]

Lol, I love rankings!!!

Neither Kyla Irwin nor Molly Bent (UConn verbals) cracked the top 100 for 2016 (but based on their position rankings, it APPEARS Irwin was the next post in line while Bent had just one guard ahead of her after the top 100).

Crystal Dangerfield stayed at #3 for 2016. In fact, I don't think the top 25 for 2016 changed much at all. There was a bit of movement in 25-60, but I think the main update was expanding from a top 60 to 100.

Class of 2016 - Top 100
http://espn.go.com/high-school/girls-basketball/recruiting/rankings/_/class/2016

Andra Espinoza-Hunter checks in at #53 for the c/o 2017. Again, the top of the rankings look pretty much the same, with the main update being the expansion from 25 to 60.

Class of 2017 - Top 60
http://espn.go.com/high-school/girls-basketball/recruiting/rankings/_/class/2017

Then this is HoopGurlz's debut rankings for 2018 (before was just a list of "prospects"). At first glance, I spot a lot of differences between HoopGurlz's 2018 top 25 and Prospect Nation's.

Class of 2018 - Top 25
http://espn.go.com/high-school/girls-basketball/recruiting/rankings/_/class/2018

HAVE FUN!!! lol!

 

[meyers7]

Thanks, needed those.

 

[Raoul]

Lol, I love rankings!!!

Neither Kyla Irwin nor Molly Bent (UConn verbals) cracked the top 100 for 2016 (but based on their position rankings, it APPEARS Irwin was the next post in line while Bent had just one guard ahead of her after the top 100).

This is a common misreading of the espnW position rankings. Take a look at this page, which is a list of all post players in the espnW database in the 2016 class. You'll see a bunch of players, including Irvin, listed as the #17 post player. Basically, all the post players with a grade of 90 are tied as the #17 post player, so no one player can be identified as being just outside the top 100.

The same is true of the guards, with Bent tied with a number of others as the #28 guard.

 

[CocoHusky]

This is a common misreading of the espnW position rankings. Take a look at this page, which is a list of all post players in the espnW database in the 2016 class. You'll see a bunch of players, including Irvin, listed as the #17 post player. Basically, all the post players with a grade of 90 are tied as the #17 post player, so no one player can be identified as being just outside the top 100.

The same is true of the guards, with Bent tied with a number of others as the #28 guard.

I don't think it's a mis-reading. All the players (including Irwin) listed as the #17 post player are outside the top 100 players as ranked by ESPN. kat0189 reading is correct. To be among the top 100 player Irwin grade needed to be at 91 or above.

 

[kat0189]

This is a common misreading of the espnW position rankings. Take a look at this page, which is a list of all post players in the espnW database in the 2016 class. You'll see a bunch of players, including Irvin, listed as the #17 post player. Basically, all the post players with a grade of 90 are tied as the #17 post player, so no one player can be identified as being just outside the top 100.

The same is true of the guards, with Bent tied with a number of others as the #28 guard.

Ahh yes, my bad. I clicked another '16 post player "Faustine Aifuwa," and like Irwin, she is listed as #17 for her position. So in other words, Irwin is not necessarily the next best post after "Manaya Jones" (who is ranked #100 overall and the #16 post player).

Sorry guys, but I can't edit my original post as it's well beyond 15 minutes ago.

Indeed, while the top 100 players are given proper position rankings, after the top 100, there seems to be sort of like "tiers" where prospects are tied with the same grade & position ranking.

 

[Raoul]

I don't think it's a mis-reading. All the players (including Irwin) listed as the #17 post player are outside the top 100 players as ranked by ESPN. kat0189 reading is correct. To be among the top 100 player Irwin grade needed to be at 91 or above.

Kat0189 said, "it APPEARS Irvin was the next post in line while Bent had just one guard ahead of her after the top 100." Neither of those things are definitely true, given that both players are tied with numerous others in their position rankings.

 

[kat0189]

This is a common misreading of the espnW position rankings. Take a look at this page, which is a list of all post players in the espnW database in the 2016 class. You'll see a bunch of players, including Irvin, listed as the #17 post player. Basically, all the post players with a grade of 90 are tied as the #17 post player, so no one player can be identified as being just outside the top 100.

The same is true of the guards, with Bent tied with a number of others as the #28 guard.

Yes, BUT this actually hasn't always exactly been the case with HoopGurlz, hence my confusion.

The reason I thought the players outside of the top 100 had proper position rankings was b/c I distinctly remembered back to 2012 when Stanford (one "my teams") signed Tess Picknell, who was not ranked in the top 100 but seemed to be just a handful of spots away from the top 100 based on her position ranking.

And indeed, back with 2012, HoopGurlz's last top 100 post player (#95 Dominique Brooks) was rated #12 at the post position w/ a grade of 92. Then, Jackie Johnson (outside the top 100) was rated #13 at the position but also w/ a grade of 92. Similarly, Kayla Montgomery (not in top 100) was rated #14 at the position also w/ a grade of 92. And finally, Tess Picknell (non-top 100) seems to have checked in at #15 at the position again w/ a grade of 92.

But strangely, at #15 in the position rankings, there are suddenly several others tied there, like we see with the current 2016 rankings (but again that doesn't appear to be the case for #13 & #14 in the position rankings, despite being non-top 100 players).

I actually must have literally misread the numbers. For some reason, I read it as though Bent was the #28 guard and the last top 100 guard being like #26 (as I originally said there was one ahead of her, but that guard was actually #27), while Irwin was the #17 post with the last top 100 post being #16. So my misreading also led to my false impression of the position rankings (b/c under my faulty understanding, BOTH would have been "next in line" at their positions).

 

[Raoul]

Yes, BUT this actually hasn't always exactly been the case with HoopGurlz, hence my confusion.

That would certainly explain it. And Olson has been doing the rankings for espnW for only the last couple of years, so it seems that he handles the position rankings different from his predecessor(s). When I said in my first post above that this was a "common" misreading, I was referring to what I've seen recently, in the last year or so.

The bigger question (and I'm sure it's been discussed here before) is why Olson thinks it makes any sense to have more than 50 five-stars in a single class.

 

[CocoHusky]

Kat0189 said, "it APPEARS Irvin was the next post in line while Bent had just one guard ahead of her after the top 100." Neither of those things are definitely true, given that both players are tied with numerous others in their position rankings.

Got it and agree-nowway to tell when they have the same numerical rating. I also agree that 50 five-stars in a single class is way too many.

 

[kat0189]

Indeed, it would be more helpful if there weren't 52 players with 5 stars (in the c/o 2016). Although 2017 and 2018 have 17 and 15 players with 5 stars, respectively. The grades range from 91-98 for 2016 & 2017, then 94-98 for 2018.

Prospects Nation is a tad better as they utilize the 1/2 star for some players, (but they lack "grades").

ESPN's boys basketball recruiting rankings have a range of grades from 80-97 for the c/o 2016 top 100, which is helpful.

Anyway, it's always funny see big disparities for a given recruit between different rankings. Without comparing too closely, the one that popped out at me was Maryland verbal Kaila Charles at #82 by HoopGurlz (whereas Prospects Nation ranks her at #11). I'm sure there are others.

Think we'll get a peak at ASGR's rankings soon? By this time last year and the year before, they shared their top 100 or top 150 for the 2014 and 2015 classes, IIRC. But I have yet to see a list for 2016, and I believe it costs around $1,000 to subscribe.

 

[TFintheMix]

I love rankings. They are fun. To me the most interesting rank are after the top 20 since there tends to be a general consensus on the top players. But I have to admit that I have found HoopGurlz to be particularly vexing over the last 2-3 years.

For example, Andra Espinoza-Hunter at #56 for the c/o 2017 is crazy compared to Ashley Jones at #30. I've seen both many times over the past 2 years including Ashley 2 weeks ago. She is a wonderful player but there is no way that Andra who is a do it all 6'0" guard is behind Ashley who is a 5'6" PG, who is very talented shooting PG but who doesn't Andra's skill set or physical attributes. Andra is clearly a high D1 prospect while Ashley is still growing as a player.

Another pet peeve is that Adrianna Hanh (2015) who is starting at Villanova this year is not even in his top 10. Crazy. She is one of the most talented players in the north east.

 

[Sluconn Husky]

For example, Andra Espinoza-Hunter at #56 for the c/o 2017 is crazy compared to Ashley Jones at #30. I've seen both many times over the past 2 years including Ashley 2 weeks ago. She is a wonderful player but there is no way that Andra who is a do it all 6'0" guard is behind Ashley who is a 5'6" PG, who is very talented shooting PG but who doesn't Andra's skill set or physical attributes. Andra is clearly a high D1 prospect while Ashley is still growing as a player.

Prospects Nation has Espinosa-Hunter at #47. Not saying any number is anymore "right" than the other, just that HG isn't the only service with her in that area.

 

[kat0189]

Andra Espinosa-Hunter is indeed a head-scratcher. And that's even with totally discounting her #3 Blue Star ranking (which we know is due to the AAU connection. Off the top of my head, Jannah Tucker, Temi Fagbenle, and the 6'9" girl this year were also higher on Blue Star for the seemingly the same reason).

But what's perplexing is that she "only" ranked #47 & #56, yet made the USA team AND started and logged by far the most minutes in their first game, and I'm not aware of any motivation for the USA U16 team to deliberately favor her.

But I wouldn't sweat it.

One player who comes to mind that might have been a similar situation is Jeanette Pohlen (formerly Stanford). I haven't seen Espinosa-Hunter, but both are shooters and have good size for guards. In Pohlen's case, she had very deceptive athleticism. In HS, it seemed like people labeled her as a good shooter but not much else, yet in college she was also a pretty deft ball-handler and playmaker (was forced to play PG a lot for Stanford). And she was also quite fast (not something people talked about in her HS evals, perhaps something that was even labeled a weakness for her), epitomized by her winning layup going coast to coast in 4-5 seconds against Xavier in that Elite 8 game. Off the top of my head, I think she was ranked #21 or #22 by one of the major rankings then #98 by Blue Star or another major list. And I remember her eval was (paraphrasing): "You don't notice her (especially not at first), but she grows on you." Anyway, Pohlen turned out to be even better than her highest HS ranking (getting drafted at #9 in the WNBA in a fairly solid class) and IIRC leading the WNBA in 3-pt FG % as a rookie and contributed to the Fever's 2012 WNBA Championship success. Perhaps Espinosa-Hunter is like Pohlen.

 

[UcMiami]

One rating for AEH is the USA basketball one which puts her somewhere in the top 12 of U16 players - since she is starting maybe they rate her in the top 5?

When HG was independent they had a much tougher numerical grading system - some year one or two '98's some year none, and the numbers as I remember shifted pretty quickly down from there - they also had maybe 20 5 star players most years. When they sold out to ESPN there was an immediate change to a more homogenized grading and star system.

 

[UcMiami]

Also find it interesting that this year unlike 2015 (and I think previous years as well) there is 60% uncommitted in the middle of the summer for the top 10 and top 20 in these rankings. Just seems that more kids are taking more time - not a bad thing. And I don't get the sense that there is going to be a rash of commitments before September either.

 

[TFintheMix]

Also find it interesting that this year unlike 2015 (and I think previous years as well) there is 60% uncommitted in the middle of the summer for the top 10 and top 20 in these rankings. Just seems that more kids are taking more time - not a bad thing. And I don't get the sense that there is going to be a rash of commitments before September either.

In 2015, they changed the rules allowing colleges to speak directly to Juniors at the beginning of the school year. I think that many got to know colleges/coaches earlier than before and others felt the pressure to commit earlier as a result.