Rankings, so what do they mean?

[red_n_black_attack]

I love UC basketball, and have been a loyal fan since the stall ball game against UK. Over the years, having never played the game, I am learning about some of the subtle differences between a players ability and talent and their high school rankings. I am seeking here to further my education.

Where would you say are the talent break-outs? For example, Wright is the 11th best PG in the nation. I think that the top 2-4 at a position (according to ranking) are interchangeable with exception of the top player at a position in any given year e.g. Oden at Center couple years ago was the talent break point)

Are the top five interchangeable then the next ten? Top 2-3 then the next 30-50. I would love to hear perspective ofthose of you who have been doing this a lot longer than I have.

P.S. I think the Xth best overall player rankings hold little value to me. If the need is PG or PF, then go after a top five recruit in that area of need, to **** if there are 40 small forwards "ranked" ahead of the PG or PF.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Steve Logan was not highly ranked in HS.

Nick Van Exel was not highly ranked in HS.

Corie Blount was not highly ranked in HS.

Herb Jones was not highly ranked in HS.

Kenyon Martin was not highly ranked in HS.

Dontonio Wingfield WAS highly ranked in HS.

Rankings mean diddly squat.

[CincyBearcat95]

Steve Logan was not highly ranked in HS.

Nick Van Exel was not highly ranked in HS.

Corie Blount was not highly ranked in HS.

Herb Jones was not highly ranked in HS.

Kenyon Martin was not highly ranked in HS.

Dontonio Wingfield WAS highly ranked in HS.

Rankings mean diddly squat.

I wouldn't neccessarily agree with that. More aptly - rankings are someones opinion. More often than not, they are the educated opinion of someone who has been analyzing the kid. To 58's point though - they can be wrong as no one knows how a player will do once they get on the floor - unlocked potential, mental strengths present or not present, ability to be taught the game at the next level, etc.

These rankings, I believe are more based on how they play currently - whether they are a good match with the next level coach has a lot to do with whether they will be successful.

Just my two cents.

[IKnowMoreThanYou]

What I've noticed is that the major scouting sites generally have players ranked at the top based on their performance against other top players at the major AAU tournaments and skills academies in the spring and summer. There will always be players who exceed expectations and kids who are ranked in the top 100 but below 50 can have the light turn on and become elite players. One specific example is Ben Gordon a few years back who was seriously looking at Cincinnati and Seton Hall but chose UConn. He was ranked between 60 and 100 on most major recruiting sites but worked hard and in 3 years became a lottery pick.

Plus, for some recruits, being ranked lower than what they feel they should be can act as motivation. I always felt watching Eric Hicks that he was out to prove every time out that he was the toughest post player on the floor regardless of how tall he was.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

What I've noticed is that the major scouting sites generally have players ranked at the top based on their performance against other top players at the major AAU tournaments and skills academies in the spring and summer. There will always be players who exceed expectations and kids who are ranked in the top 100 but below 50 can have the light turn on and become elite players. One specific example is Ben Gordon a few years back who was seriously looking at Cincinnati and Seton Hall but chose UConn. He was ranked between 60 and 100 on most major recruiting sites but worked hard and in 3 years became a lottery pick.

Plus, for some recruits, being ranked lower than what they feel they should be can act as motivation. I always felt watching Eric Hicks that he was out to prove every time out that he was the toughest post player on the floor regardless of how tall he was.

Ditto Emeka Okafor (same year). Not highly ranked in HS. Very high NBA draft pick.

Rankings mean nothing. Never have, never will. Coaches pay no attention to them. Zero. Nada. Squadoosh.

[Bearcat Cafe]

Laughable. Gotta tell ya 58, I'm on a few different boards and noone rubs me the wrong way with blanket statements of fact and phrasing things like they are the final word on the matter like you do.

Rankings mean plenty. In terms of getting player commitments before they have ever set foot on the court, , I'll trade you a Logan for a Downey all day long.

[Nerf]

Just an observation:

Steve Logan was not highly ranked in HS.

Nick Van Exel was not highly ranked in HS.

Corie Blount was not highly ranked in HS.

Herb Jones was not highly ranked in HS.

Kenyon Martin was not highly ranked in HS.


All played 4 years.



Dontonio Wingfield WAS highly ranked in HS.


Played 1 year.


Ditto Emeka Okafor (same year). Not highly ranked in HS. Very high NBA draft pick

Also played 4 years.

My point being that one of the downsides of the highly-ranked HS player is that he's often got a bug in his ear talking to him about moving 'to the next level' before he's played a game in college. And while I certainly have no issues with players going pro if they're ready, it can be a distraction.

[Bearcat Jeff]

Laughable. Gotta tell ya 58, I'm on a few different boards and noone rubs me the wrong way with blanket statements of fact and phrasing things like they are the final word on the matter like you do.

Rankings mean plenty. In terms of getting player commitments before they have ever set foot on the court, , I'll trade you a Logan for a Downey all day long.

Wow, you would trade a guy who had a decent freshman season for an all-american? Can't say I understand that.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Laughable. Gotta tell ya 58, I'm on a few different boards and noone rubs me the wrong way with blanket statements of fact and phrasing things like they are the final word on the matter like you do.

Rankings mean plenty. In terms of getting player commitments before they have ever set foot on the court, , I'll trade you a Logan for a Downey all day long.

Could not possibly care less.

Rankings mean 0. Ask Cronin. Kennedy. Huggins. Any coach you want.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Just an observation:



All played 4 years.




Played 1 year.



Also played 4 years.

My point being that one of the downsides of the highly-ranked HS player is that he's often got a bug in his ear talking to him about moving 'to the next level' before he's played a game in college. And while I certainly have no issues with players going pro if they're ready, it can be a distraction.

Regardless none of the former were highly ranked. That's the topic at hand.

[Nerf]

Regardless none of the former were highly ranked. That's the topic at hand.

No, the topic at hand is:

"Rankings, so what do they mean?"

The point of my observation was that it CAN mean you've got a player with one eye on the door during his entire tenure at your institution. As I recall, Damon Flint (highly ranked) and James White (highly ranked) both talked about leaving early at some point and had to be talked out of it by their coach. Then when you've got guys who leave early when they're NOT yet ready (Satterfield, highly ranked), you've got to recruit someone to fill that void, and now risk damage to your APR.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Tony Yates. Tom Thacker. Roland West. Dean Foster. John Howard. Gordon Smith. Don Hess. (Names from the 1960's)

None were highly ranked. All were solid to excellent Bearcats.

Ron Krick. **** Haucke. (Ditto from the 60's)

Both were very highly ranked. Neither did much as a Bearcat.

[SLMadiCat]

Tony Yates. Tom Thacker. Roland West. Dean Foster. John Howard. Gordon Smith. Don Hess. (Names from the 1960's)

None were highly ranked. All were solid to excellent Bearcats.

Ron Krick. **** Haucke. (Ditto from the 60's)

Both were very highly ranked. Neither did much as a Bearcat.

1958, I agree that ranking don't mean anything to coaches. But it is still a decent indicator of talent, especially to the casual fans. Yes, you mention Kenyon, Logan, and so forth as examples, but do you honestly believe that there are more successful players ranked in the 100-200 range then players ranked in the 1-100 range? If so, you've lost all credibility. I doubt anyone is arguing that you can't be successful unless you are ranked top-100, but I'll take the #1 ranked player over the #100 ranked player every single time without even having to see either of them play.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

1958, I agree that ranking don't mean anything to coaches. But it is still a decent indicator of talent, especially to the casual fans. Yes, you mention Kenyon, Logan, and so forth as examples, but do you honestly believe that there are more successful players ranked in the 100-200 range then players ranked in the 1-100 range? If so, you've lost all credibility. I doubt anyone is arguing that you can't be successful unless you are ranked top-100, but I'll take the #1 ranked player over the #100 ranked player every single time without even having to see either of them play.

Yep - there are successes in both the Top 1-100 and 101-200 categories.

Only need to review the RSCI Top 100 (consensus) ratings of the past 10 years to prove that.

Rankings may be interesting to the casual fan but coaches know better. That's why they ignore rankings altogether.

[james jr]

Steve Logan was not highly ranked in HS.

Nick Van Exel was not highly ranked in HS.

Corie Blount was not highly ranked in HS.

Herb Jones was not highly ranked in HS.

Kenyon Martin was not highly ranked in HS.

Dontonio Wingfield WAS highly ranked in HS.

Rankings mean diddly squat.

I believe by his senior year in high school Kenyon Martin was top 50-75.

[93cat]

the approriate way to look at this is , for the last x years is the cohort of players ranked high (pick your range here) , ON AVERAGE, more or less " successful " than the cohort of players ranked "not as high" (pick your second range here). "Successful" might be defined as % of players on the first 3 teams all league, or play professional ball at some level, or whatever you like.

I would say that it is suggestive anecdotally that rankings on average say "something" about the prospects of a player, otherwise powerhouses like Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky, etc.. would not perenially have serval top 50 players in each class (though you might argue the fact that Duke selects them influences their ranking equally).

Wingfield or Dermarr Johnson or even Satterfield , even if their collegiate impact was not big over a long period , would still have to be considered reasonably "successful" players (when measured against a large cohort of players nationwide) as they all played at some level professionally (and in the limited years they played for UC all 3 were impact players).

Also, while I suspect AAU basketball may be on average negative for the players , it probably improves the rankings since observers get to see players many times (large sample) over many diferent competitive conditions reducing the odds that a highly rated player is a total fluke or had a lucky run.

[Bearcat Cafe]

Wow, you would trade a guy who had a decent freshman season for an all-american? Can't say I understand that.

If you didn't follow that, try reading it again. Note the before they step foot on the court statement and connect the dots.

If rankings are such bunk and are not a general indicator of talent, wonder why almost every kid UC is currently chasing are top 150 players. Mick must have it all wrong. 58, set him straight that they need to forget these kids and find the handfull of David Wests, Steve Logans and Chris Loftons that come along every couple of years. You are trying to use the exceptions to disprove the rule.

Exact rankings #'s don't mean squat since its subjective....However, being included in the discussion of top 150 players in a class certainly does....I give up. I feel like I'm arguing that water is wet.


Oops. I just noticed Lofton made the Rivals top 150 in 2004. So I guess take him out of the discussion....rankings seemed to have worked with him.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

I believe by his senior year in high school Kenyon Martin was top 50-75.

HoopScoop had him in that range.

He didn't make any HS A-A teams, nor even All-State teams in Texas. All-District was his highest HS accolade.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

If you didn't follow that, try reading it again. Note the before they step foot on the court statement and connect the dots.

If rankings are such bunk and are not a general indicator of talent, wonder why almost every kid UC is currently chasing are top 150 players. Mick must have it all wrong. 58, set him straight that they need to forget these kids and find the handfull of David Wests, Steve Logans and Chris Loftons that come along every couple of years. You are trying to use the exceptions to disprove the rule.

Exact rankings #'s don't mean squat since its subjective....However, being included in the discussion of top 150 players in a class certainly does....I give up. I feel like I'm arguing that water is wet.


Oops. I just noticed Lofton made the Rivals top 150 in 2004. So I guess take him out of the discussion....rankings seemed to have worked with him.

Bob Gibbons had Lofton #88 in 2004 - highest of any guru.

Lofton is the Poster Boy for not highly ranked in HS but plenty good in college.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

the approriate way to look at this is , for the last x years is the cohort of players ranked high (pick your range here) , ON AVERAGE, more or less " successful " than the cohort of players ranked "not as high" (pick your second range here). "Successful" might be defined as % of players on the first 3 teams all league, or play professional ball at some level, or whatever you like.

I would say that it is suggestive anecdotally that rankings on average say "something" about the prospects of a player, otherwise powerhouses like Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky, etc.. would not perenially have serval top 50 players in each class (though you might argue the fact that Duke selects them influences their ranking equally).

Wingfield or Dermarr Johnson or even Satterfield , even if their collegiate impact was not big over a long period , would still have to be considered reasonably "successful" players (when measured against a large cohort of players nationwide) as they all played at some level professionally (and in the limited years they played for UC all 3 were impact players).

Also, while I suspect AAU basketball may be on average negative for the players , it probably improves the rankings since observers get to see players many times (large sample) over many diferent competitive conditions reducing the odds that a highly rated player is a total fluke or had a lucky run.

I'd rather have Logan (or even Stokes) for 4 years than Satterfield for 2.

DJ was the reverse of Dontonio Wingfield. He excelled in 2000.

[Bearcat Cafe]

Of course, in hindsight everyone would rather have Lo for 4 over Satt for 2. Today, would you take Chris Wyse over Cashmere Wright?

Also, can't tell from your post...are you saying Wingfield didn't excell in 1994? Did you watch him play? If you did and think he did not excell, take another look at his stat line.

[jeffto]

I would guess that overall the odds that a player will be a bust tend to decrease as the ranking increases, and, vice-versa. But there are tons of exceptions, so hanging your hat on rankings is very risky.

But I have to say that rankings do matter - fan interest goes up, media attention increases, other potential recruits pay attention. These are significant factors in growing a program, so a blanket statement that rankings don't mean diddly is ludicrous.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Of course, in hindsight everyone would rather have Lo for 4 over Satt for 2. Today, would you take Chris Wyse over Cashmere Wright?

Also, can't tell from your post...are you saying Wingfield didn't excell in 1994? Did you watch him play? If you did and think he did not excell, take another look at his stat line.

No. Johnson was the reverse of Wingfield because he excelled even after playing 1 year at UC.

DJ was a lottery pick. Wingfield was barely a 1st round pick.

No comparison. DJ > Wingfield (in terms of basketball results) even though both suffered injuries in car accidents.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

I would guess that overall the odds that a player will be a bust tend to decrease as the ranking increases, and, vice-versa. But there are tons of exceptions, so hanging your hat on rankings is very risky.

But I have to say that rankings do matter - fan interest goes up, media attention increases, other potential recruits pay attention. These are significant factors in growing a program, so a blanket statement that rankings don't mean diddly is ludicrous.

Player ratings are meaningless in terms of whether he is (going to become) a good player or not.

Ask any college coach you know. None recruits based on rankings.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Of course, in hindsight everyone would rather have Lo for 4 over Satt for 2. Today, would you take Chris Wyse over Cashmere Wright?

Also, can't tell from your post...are you saying Wingfield didn't excell in 1994? Did you watch him play? If you did and think he did not excell, take another look at his stat line.

Wyse is SG and Wright PG - either/both are capable players. Wyse has academic hurdles. Absent those, I'd take either (or even both).

[93cat]

No. Johnson was the reverse of Wingfield because he excelled even after playing 1 year at UC.

DJ was a lottery pick. Wingfield was barely a 1st round pick.

No comparison. DJ > Wingfield (in terms of basketball results) even though both suffered injuries in car accidents.

Well, by that standard great player like Herb Jones or Eric Hicks were not drafted at all or very late so they must have been total failures. You only know WITH HINDSIGHTwhich players will leave early and which ones you will have for four years. DJ being a lottery pick had more to do with being a 6'9 guard that could shoot it (on paper the perfect 2 guard) rather than his on court performance being better than Wingfield's(who was reasonably skilled but not that great of an athelete like KMart or Max).

Another good objective test would be minutes per game since coaches are no fools (this would also tell you IN PRACTICE whether coaches' ACTIONS show that high ranked players are on average "better"). I'll bet you would find that top 150 ranked players (HS) or top 10 Jucos have averaged more minutes per game than players outside those groups.

[93cat]

No don't ask any coach. That is meaningless. They also say "this rivalry game is no important than any other" and "we don't look at the coaches poll rankings" and a lot of other self serving nonsense that they are expected to spout. Look at what THEY DO. When coach K does not reload with a few McD All Americans each year I'll believe he puts no stock in ratings. Looking at how people allocate their resources ( such as scholarships to the highest rated players available who fit their program and needs) , money, etc.. is a direct way to judge their beliefs - not what they say for public consumption. Such as when Billary does not believe in school choice and holds forth on the mertis of public education, but sends the kid to a private school.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

No don't ask any coach. That is meaningless. They also say "this rivalry game is no important than any other" and "we don't look at the coaches poll rankings" and a lot of other self serving nonsense that they are expected to spout. Look at what THEY DO. When coach K does not reload with a few McD All Americans each year I'll believe he puts no stock in ratings. Looking at how people allocate their resources ( such as scholarships to the highest rated players available who fit their program and needs) , money, etc.. is a direct way to judge their beliefs - not what they say for public consumption. Such as when Billary does not believe in school choice and holds forth on the mertis of public education, but sends the kid to a private school.

Coaches know (and recruit) talent, not ratings. K doesn't land "a few McD A-A" every year, nor does anyone else.

NCAA champion Florida had exactly ONE McDonalds A-A on each of its NC teams the past 2 years. Just 1.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Well, by that standard great player like Herb Jones or Eric Hicks were not drafted at all or very late so they must have been total failures. You only know WITH HINDSIGHTwhich players will leave early and which ones you will have for four years. DJ being a lottery pick had more to do with being a 6'9 guard that could shoot it (on paper the perfect 2 guard) rather than his on court performance being better than Wingfield's(who was reasonably skilled but not that great of an athelete like KMart or Max).

Another good objective test would be minutes per game since coaches are no fools (this would also tell you IN PRACTICE whether coaches' ACTIONS show that high ranked players are on average "better"). I'll bet you would find that top 150 ranked players (HS) or top 10 Jucos have averaged more minutes per game than players outside those groups.

Jones and Hicks are good examples of recruiting TALENT, not rankings.

Herb was/is a 6-3 F. Were he a 6-7 F, he'd be a 10 year NBA veteran. But he was VERY talented on the court. Unheard of as HS player.

Hicks was/is a 6-5 post player. Were he a 6-8 post player, he'd be in the NBA right now. Once again, VERY talented player. Not all that highly rated in HS.

[Nator]

We are arguing the left and right absolutes of this issue when the truth surely lies somewere in the middle. I never knew I had an opinion on this but now feel forced to so here it is.

Ratings are one source of information that coaches, media, fans use to evaluate players. Some rating sources are better than others and I expect the professionals gravitate to the ones that feel have consistently provided good information and they have grown to trust.

I would go on to argue that it makes sense these services are less valuable for higher rated players since everyone is aware of them and we are talking about fractions of a difference in someones system and/or opinion of the players relative worth to the others. I would also expect early in the recruiting processes coaches look more at ratings to see if there is some validation that they have the correct players on their radar or if they feel they have a diamond in the rough they likely look to see when the rest of the world cathes up.

We all know the staffs spend a jaw-dropping amout of time away from the families watching these players develop over years and have extensive networks of people they trust for information.

Ratings are about the only method we as lay fans of addressing the potential of our recruiting classes over other schools. Noone is saying its perfect but its far from worthless. Its true that only time will tell and many players surpass and fall short of the recruiting rankings but if we could wait for the end result and that was all we needed, none of us would read, post and argue here.

[93cat]

Jones and Hicks are good examples of recruiting TALENT, not rankings.

Herb was/is a 6-3 F. Were he a 6-7 F, he'd be a 10 year NBA veteran. But he was VERY talented on the court. Unheard of as HS player.

Hicks was/is a 6-5 post player. Were he a 6-8 post player, he'd be in the NBA right now. Once again, VERY talented player. Not all that highly rated in HS.

they are equally a case of recruiting rankings since Jones was a highly rated Juco (top 5 I recall) and Hicks was a highly regarded hs player (easily top 100). You are saying there is no correlation between rankings and talent, yet all the heroes you bring forth were highly rated AT THE TIME OF SELECTION.

Let me put it another way, let's say one could take the players rated 25 -50 and let some coach put together a team , and practice for 6 months. We then could also put together a team of players chosen from the 150-175 ranked players with a different coach (or equal caliber) and let them practice for 6 months. Then the 2 teams would then play each other 100 times. I would suggest that the 25-50 team would win a statistically significant number of games against the lower ranked team. If you think the results would be near random (basically very near 50/50 ) then you believe rankings are meaningless. Otherwise you believe rankings are correlated with performance.

[richard k.]

In the first place it is very unusual in "modern" times for a school to win an NCAA championship without at least one Mickey D AA. Secondly, sight unseen, ask any coach in the country if he were guaranteed a balance of outside and inside players, whether he would rather have his squad made up from "consensus" top 50 players versus 150-250 players. That's putting aside balancing recruiting classes, worrying about people jumping to the pro's, etc. There are almost always exceptions to just about every rule, but in today's world, with the exposure in AAU games, national television of high school basketball stars, and so on, it's hard to hide real talent. Yes, there are always exceptions, late bloomers, kids who have been hurt, or for one reason or another don't excel in high school or play on the AAU circuit, but there is a reason why the basketball powers year in and year out sign virtually all the kids in the top 100, the middle level programs get any that are left and mostly 100-250 players, and the lower level programs, 250-1,000.

[Bearcat Cafe]

Hicks was/is a 6-5 post player. Were he a 6-8 post player, he'd be in the NBA right now. Once again, VERY talented player. Not all that highly rated in HS.


My Lord....you make up you own facts to fit your arguments, don't you? Hicks was rated #40 by Prepstars, #44 by Dave Telep and was in serious contention to make the McD's All American Team when he signed with UC.

Not all that highly rated....give me a break.

[james jr]

I'd rather have Logan (or even Stokes) for 4 years than Satterfield for 2.

DJ was the reverse of Dontonio Wingfield. He excelled in 2000.

Chances are that if Satterfield had stayed 4 years, Steve Logan would have been little more than an average player because he would never have been the starting PG.

[SLMadiCat]

Chances are that if Satterfield had stayed 4 years, Steve Logan would have been little more than an average player because he would never have been the starting PG.

I still think he would have been a great player, maybe not AA since he would have to share the load. Logan was a great scoring PG (as most SG turned PG's are), but Satterfield was a pass first PG. Not great from the outside like Logan was.

[daaphearthrob]

Devan Downey was a good player on a shitty bearcat team... dont mistake that for Logan's 4 year career here where he willed a team to a #1 seed. If Devan Downey leads S.C. to a #1 seed then I'll agree that he's a great player... but he still wont be better than Logan.

Because Logan did it as a Bearcat!

[daaphearthrob]

Favorite Logan moments:

Wrestling through 2 Memphis defenders to get an inbounds pass, then tip-toeing the sideline with only seconds on the clock... racing to the foul line to put up a shot at the buzzer that hung on the rim... then fell to tie the ball game... go to OT... and eventually win the Reg. Season Conference Crown.

Logan 41, Southern Miss 37... I dont care that Southern Miss sucks... Steve was on fire that night and it was one of my favorite moments at the Shoe.

Steve Logan 2002 Frances Pomeroy Naismith Award... Devan Downey is "technically" capable of winning this award since he is under 6 feet tall... but he hasnt yet and wont as a bearcat.

Going from a fat, slow, stand still shooter to UC's #2 all time scorer...

seriously we can stop talking about Devan Downey vs. Steve Logan... Logan means way more to me than Devan Downey ever has, or will. And as far as Satterfield goes... he didnt stay at UC for 4 years and he's no better off professionally than Logan is. I wish people stopped arguing their cases by talking about what could have happened instead of what did. Satt left and Logan stepped up. End of story.

[JerseySean]

I get chills thinking about that Memphis game... Completely agree with you re: Logan v. Downey. I wish the young man from SC all the best, but there's a difference between "potential" and "getting it done".

We'll know for sure in two years which one Downey is...

[Oldtimer_UC_fan]

I get chills thinking about that Memphis game... Completely agree with you re: Logan v. Downey. I wish the young man from SC all the best, but there's a difference between "potential" and "getting it done".

We'll know for sure in two years which one Downey is...

We may know in two years, but, will we care?

[daaphearthrob]

Exactly... D. Vaughn gets all my hope and happy thoughts these days... people can talk about how Devan tried to come back, but thats only after he left. Forget him. Have fun with Dave Odom and the NIT Gamecocks.

[shaunsimpson]

I believe rankings to be an indicator of how a player can be. there are two kinds or rankings. The player who has maxed out talent through his hard work and a player with "upside". It is a probablilty factor not a true indicator.

[JerseySean]

Nah... I won't care. But we will know! ;-)