Lewis on Rankings

[glenn]

Mark Lewis' take on player rankings:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/recruiting/basketball/womens/columns/story?columnist=lewis_mark&id=3544379

[intelligenthoodlum]

1. It is OPINION, rooted in COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS.

2. It is about the PERSPECTIVE FROM WHERE THE EVALUATOR SEES THE GAME OF BASKETBALL.

[ClayKallam]

The very elite kids want to be ranked in the top 25 or 30 so that they can have a shot at the McDonald's and WBCA games -- which are great honors and lots of fun, as well as being a nice reward for years of effort (in most cases). Those games, and the postseason all-American teams, are influenced by rankings.

That said, college success and a professional career depend entirely on what happens on the court, and there's no guarantee a Mickey girl will get to the WNBA, and no reason an underhyped girl who winds up at Louisville can't be the number-one overall pick in 2009.

But even as far as the rankings go, parents and coaches who are upset that their girl is number 62 and should be number 43 are really arguing about nothing. There's little at stake except pride, and I have to say if my daughter were 62nd best in the nation at anything, I'd be pretty happy -- and I wouldn't be complaining that she was really 55th.

Every player in the top 100 is a very good player. For that matter, every player in the top 125 is a very good player, and if numbers 75-100 (in any ranking) were to play a series of games against numbers 101-125, the outcomes would probably be a lot closer than people think.

It's a cliche, but what matters is the journey. Did you daughter have fun playing high school and summer basketball? Is she a better person for it? Did you enjoy the process? These are the important questions, even more important than if she got the scholarship to the exact school she wanted -- and much, much more important than whether she got bumped out of the 81st spot by a girl she schooled in a summer tournament two years ago.

[ClayKallam]

The very elite kids want to be ranked in the top 25 or 30 so that they can have a shot at the McDonald's and WBCA games -- which are great honors and lots of fun, as well as being a nice reward for years of effort (in most cases). Those games, and the postseason all-American teams, are influenced by rankings.

That said, college success and a professional career depend entirely on what happens on the court, and there's no guarantee a Mickey girl will get to the WNBA, and no reason an underhyped girl who winds up at Louisville can't be the number-one overall pick in 2009.

But even as far as the rankings go, parents and coaches who are upset that their girl is number 62 and should be number 43 are really arguing about nothing. There's little at stake except pride, and I have to say if my daughter were 62nd best in the nation at anything, I'd be pretty happy -- and I wouldn't be complaining that she was really 55th.

Every player in the top 100 is a very good player. For that matter, every player in the top 125 is a very good player, and if numbers 75-100 (in any ranking) were to play a series of games against numbers 101-125, the outcomes would probably be a lot closer than people think.

It's a cliche, but what matters is the journey. Did you daughter have fun playing high school and summer basketball? Is she a better person for it? Did you enjoy the process? These are the important questions, even more important than if she got the scholarship to the exact school she wanted -- and much, much more important than whether she got bumped out of the 81st spot by a girl she schooled in a summer tournament two years ago.

[akacusefan]

clay thats a good idea but the biggest issue with rankings is that they don't include everyone.

[ClayKallam]

A good point about not including everyone -- but I don't know how that can be overcome, really. I'm not that familiar with the boys' side, but I know there's a lot more coverage, and I would guess they miss some people too.

Any suggestions from anyone on how to make sure that post player in Maine doesn't get left out?

[grandma215]

everyone is worrying about a ranking? i seen some of these kid(boys&girls) and who ever are ranking these kids are going by rep.these kids need a lot of work , these rankings are not good for youth basketball, people are just going nuts with this ranking stuff.,these rankings means nothing ,you better learn how to play the game first! meaning learn the fundamentals first and your god given talent will do the rest.

[akacusefan]

A good point about not including everyone -- but I don't know how that can be overcome, really. I'm not that familiar with the boys' side, but I know there's a lot more coverage, and I would guess they miss some people too.

Any suggestions from anyone on how to make sure that post player in Maine doesn't get left out?

thats my point clay, rankings are silly because not everyone is ranked and its absolutely unavoidable.

here are the problems with rankings in no order

-Not every kid is seen, an unavoidable problem

-The kids that are ranked are ranked with different things in mind by different people.

an example: player A, gets the the basket easier then player B but player B is a better shooter. So which kid is rated higher?

-coaches aren't always looking for what people trying to make money of their website are looking for. People who rates kids on sites are looking to put things on their sites that are going to allow them to get paid. Coaches are looking to put teams together that win games(so they can get paid lol), two very different things.

[quedash]

Ms. Whalen, Ms. Armintie Price, Ms. Sophia Young, and others make a living doing a sport they love despite being missed by the experts. This is still America, and hard work and determination negate the experts when given enough time, talent,and effort.

[frankiebaby]

I hear that a lot and kinda grin because I may be in the minority of those that believe that they do mean something to an extent. I will agree that being ranked #17 as opposed to #3 means nothing and I would also agree that being ranked #76 as oppossed to #45 means nothing. But being ranked #17 as oppossed to #45 or not at all can mean a lot to certain people. Here are some case points. First of all players ranked outside of 30 will be long shots for WBCA or McDonalds All-American teams, why does that matter? Aside from personal goals and a great four day experience in which you get the royal treatment it goes on your resume, your complete resume is what marks your earning potential and could be the difference in book deals, public speaking engagements, endorsements event after your playing days. People that want your product care more about your resume than your knowledge and the resume is what separates equal prospects.
We had a men's coach that was in his last 2 years of a 5 year contract with 3 losing seasons that was able to recruit a McDonald's All-American ranked #12? and the #63? ranked player. This coach was all but assured to get fired but was given a 5 year extention after getting those committments although neither boy worked out for different reasons he stayed employed bucause of his incoming class rankings and potential. Another case one the girls end where a school constantly boasted about getting its first McD AA and the AD had told me that the player had a million dollar smile and would be on their media guide cover. He said that along with her being the first McD AA would tripple the attendance from the previous year and he had neverseen her play or heard of the girl before her visit. Boosters want to know what are your incoming players ranked. Money.
In all of this the assumption is that if the is in the top 120 she can play and if she is in the top 60 she is probably as good as most of the others. Parents get way too caught up in rankings as opposed to the players skill level and her continued improvement and most seem to be willing to have a girl who is not that talented manipulated into a top whatever ranking over having an unranked child that has major skill with a lot of potential and work ethic to get better.
My feeling is that in a more perfect world we would have ranking but that they would not be made available to the general public. I love the fact that media outlets such as ESPN Hoopgurlz makes their rankings public, but I hate the behavior that comes in the weeks that follow.
Many girls are tagged by their rising junior season as one of the best in their class and usually the lable sticks reguardless of how they perform on the court. If they play substandard it is because of a sickness or something and if they are subperb that is what was expected. Evaluators usually follow these girls and there teams from major event to major event. They typically have other talented top girls playing with them and the teams they play have a similar scenario. Therefore a lot of times an evaluator will see a top athlete 4-8 times in a season in various events and miss another kid in the same event playing three courts over or in the other gym or state that may be just as or more talented because with only two eyes and a human nature your going to spend most of your time looking at what you know is good.
I was at a Nike Skills Event and saw a girl in the mist of about 40 girls toss a tennis ball in the air, crossover three times and catch the ball with her opposite hand. The instructions was to try and crossover one time and catch the ball. In the congestion of players it seemed to me as if one other person noticed what she was doing. The two people that I knew that were evaluating players were caught up in conversation. When actual games had started the player seemed to always end up on the losing team and was on the little court. Most of us was watching the big court but at times I looked over and saw her doing some very good stuff. Wish I would have got her name but maybe she got noticed but it seemed like her whole team was in the shadows. But I guess if she was there somebody know who she is.

[glenn]

-coaches aren't always looking for what people trying to make money of their website are looking for. People who rates kids on sites are looking to put things on their sites that are going to allow them to get paid. Coaches are looking to put teams together that win games(so they can get paid lol), two very different things.

I don't know how you'd explain us then. We're not trying to sell subscriptions or a service or anything. We have a ton of experience in evaluation, including one of the top (former) recruiting coordinators in the country. I've always said rankings are not - and will never be - the end-all, be-all on this site. But since we're doing them, we're doing them to the best of our abilities.

[joemontes]

To me, the biggest challenge is how to rank top post players (PF/C) vs. top wing players (SF/SG) vs. top point guards (PG). We're talking about totally different positions requiring mostly different crucial skill sets.

[grandma215]

4listen, You Can't See Everyone And You May Eval Different Than Others. Some Say Get Amazed By A Crossover And Others Eval By Be Able To Use Your Left Hand And Being Able To Defend Man To Man.so What Is Being Said Is This Ranking Thing Is Out Of Control Along With The Overcharged ,over Ranked, And The Coaches Who Coach Some Of These Aau Teams Who Do Not Have A Clue Or Knowledge Of What The Game Of B-ball Is About Or What It Takes To Excel At The Next Level Because They Are And Their Clubs Are Just Out For Reputation.if You Think This Is Not True Or You Think I Am Lieing To You You Should Look At Yourself In The Mirror Because You All Are Lieing To These Kids And Stealing Money From Their Parents! Thanks And Enjoy You Day!

[akacusefan]

I don't know how you'd explain us then. We're not trying to sell subscriptions or a service or anything. We have a ton of experience in evaluation, including one of the top (former) recruiting coordinators in the country. I've always said rankings are not - and will never be - the end-all, be-all on this site. But since we're doing them, we're doing them to the best of our abilities.

I don't doubt that any service is doing the best of their abilities, in fact I am counting on it.

"we are not trying to sell subscriptions or a service or anything"....

-so what was that $50.00 for? I think we paid for evaluations and content correct? that would fall under all of those, "subscriptions", "services", "anything". Lets also not forget the clothing you tried to sell for a sponser on the board. There was something financial in it for hoopgurlz(you)

-So I am assuming each of the contributors have jobs outside of hoopgurlz, right?

[lboogie]

Exhibit A: EDD--too much hype
Exhibit B: Angel McCoughtry--no hype

[CoachLewis]

The intent of this column was simply to make the point that rankings really don't carry weight to any knowledgeable recruiter or evaluator. They're going to like or dislike an athlete's game regardless of their ranking. While I don’t have much of a reputation, I’ll stake what little I’ve got on that as fact. Sure they're interesting to read and make for great debate, but the stock being placed in them by parents, coaches and athletes is way out of perspective.

Another point I'd reemphasize is that mom, dad and coach calling or writing about rankings is way over the top. If a kid isn’t ranked or ranked low, let’s get back to telling them to work harder and if they still don't like your game, go out and prove them wrong on the court. Rankings don’t need to be addressed on the phone. Those who rank players are entitled to their opinion whether you agree with them or not. The fact that you might be disappointed or angry about their work means you give those individuals a lot of credibility. If they're not creditable in your eyes then there's no reason to get upset.

Last point. In reference to an earlier post, drills really are not a very good indicator of a player’s ability to play the game. I can't begin to tell you how many great drill players I've seen over the years that couldn't play a lick. When some camps do have some drill work coaches may glance around looking for someone maybe to note and check out later when the games are played, but in the end they're going to evaluate based on game competition. Today's players need more skill work, absolutely, but not for evaluation reasons. That’s part of the reason that camps faded from the summer recruiting circuit when they used to be a main staple.

[glenn]

I don't doubt that any service is doing the best of their abilities, in fact I am counting on it.

"we are not trying to sell subscriptions or a service or anything"....

-so what was that $50.00 for? I think we paid for evaluations and content correct? that would fall under all of those, "subscriptions", "services", "anything". Lets also not forget the clothing you tried to sell for a sponser on the board. There was something financial in it for hoopgurlz(you)

-So I am assuming each of the contributors have jobs outside of hoopgurlz, right?

No, you are way, <i>way</i> off-base, here. The money collected for subscriptions, which we haven't sold since the first of the year <i>maybe</i> covered a few trips. The "clothing (I) tried to sell for a sponser (sic)" was a tradeout with a friend who produced HoopGurlz logo wear for us, so people would know who we were. Whatever financial was "in it" for me was offsetting costs so our readers (you included) could enjoy content that was 90 percent free. That figure has increased to 100 percent.

People (like yourself) who are critical of financial aspects of any endeavor have a cockeyed view of how things work. It costs money to have a Web site developed. It costs money to have a Web site, especially one that had as many working parts as ours did, hosted on a monthly basis. There is equipment costs (computers, laptops, phones, cameras, audio recorders, video recorders). There is software. The biggest costs are travel and personnel. Are we not supposed to eat? It would be nice if the world were full of Microsoft millionaires who could do stuff like this so people (like you) could enjoy all of this for free. I've made no secret of the fact that I put a good $75,000 to $85,000 of my own money into building this site.

Not to mention that the very message board on which you are spouting your views continues to be hosted by the old HoopGurlz because we insist on having a higher feature set than the ESPN boards, plus we didn't want all of you to have to move. Yes, this looks like the ESPN site, but, guess what, we're pretty good at dressing things up.

Again, why are you taking your personal time (and mine) to point out (incorrectly, I might add) all of these things? Are you mad at HoopGurlz (seems like me, actually) for something? There are a lot of people who actually understand why I get so defensive about posts like yours; it's for all the reasons outlined above. A lot of things came to our readers (you) straight out of my pocket, so I don't expect to get criticized for selling a couple hundred subscriptions, then finding a way (ESPN) to provide it all for free.

I know some people think this is a "private" matter, but someone (you) called us on publicly, so I feel justified in responding thusly. Besides, I know a lot of people are entertained by the back-and-forth, soap-opera aspect of these forums.

[kimmco]

Face it there is no perfect science to rankings. But I know for me I try to get to see at least the top 10 play, and the rankings give me a good starting point. And the rankings won’t suit everyone’s taste. But if there wasn’t an attempt, I believe there would be more grumbling and reason why they should be ranked than opposed the criteria of the ranking.

[arbitraryj]

So why are you here? and what do the ranking mean to you?

Are you a coach with love for the game or your rising/falling career?
Are you a recruiter searching for the right player or the afterparty?
Are you a parent supporting your kid or salving your own dream deferred?
Are you a player who craves attention or one who would play the game in a danky stanky gym in the middle of easternwestern nowhereville when no one was looking?
Are you playing for schollys or for a good run before college?
Are you a scout shining light on the hidden gems or a hypeman keeping your charge's name out there like your wages get garnished if we forget it?
Are you a superfan quitely using your CO-nects to help kids get a free education or are you a hustler loudly marketing gold-plated futures?
Are you a casual fan who wants to look like you're in the know or are you a specator with eyes for yourself?

and to dem angry Haters, Next time you are tempted to get upset about where player ABC is ranked, firmly grab your underwear & untwist.

Big ups to the ones who bring us a cyberspace for GBB to call home. Effumall, u know why u do what u do.

[grandma215]

touchy no, parent no,observer yes! everything comes to the light and the truth shall be told. as far as summer camps being forgotten all the bloodsucking aau money guru's ran them out of the business!so let the truth be told,by whom I don't know . luv ya all enjoy your day!:)

[intelligenthoodlum]

As an Interpreter And Dispenser Of Logic, the IH has always been highly amused by any debates about player rankings.

First, very few parents, school/club coaches, and fan-club members understand ranking science.
Second, there are certainly enough scouts and pundits--in the IH's humble opinion--who don't understand ranking science, THEMSELVES.
Any sports fan who has spent time in the average grocery-store produce section, COMPARING AND CONTRASTING fruit and vegetables by sight and by feel, would understand what the IH is talking about...

It should be clear what an evaluator sees when he/she watches the game of basketball; what he/she values in a player, and at her position.
Does the evaluator favor a wide-open game, with a lot of movement on both sides of the ball? Or a game that is more connect-the-dots, with players more going to specific spots on the floor?
Does the evaluator favor players who fill the stat-line, and are The Infamous 'Tweener? Or players who may only do one thing, but do that one thing extremely well?
Would the evaluator prefer a point guard who is "pure"? Or one who can play the shooting guard position equally as well as she can play the "pure" point guard position?
Does the evaluator recognize players who are defensive forces, and assign them VALUE? Or does the evaluator value more the offensive talent who plays NEGATIVE DEFENSE?
How important is athleticism, with MOVEMENT, to an evaluator, in a girls-basketball culture where ATHLETICISM is still a vulgar and so-misunderstood word?

Did the evaluator actually see the player play? YOU CAN'T RANK AND RATE PLAYERS WHOM YOU HAVEN'T SEEN PLAY. AND IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN A PLAYER PLAY, ADMIT IT.

If you did see the girl play:
- when did you see her play;
- who was she playing with;
- who was she playing against;
- was that the only time you've seen her play?

The IH has always felt that there are tasks that are UNIVERSALLY REQUIRED for every one of the five positions, if any player at any one position is going to be considered to be COMPETENT at that position. Is this girl competent, when you're watching her play?

Athleticism. Movement. Physicality. Skill. IQ. Attitude. And then, what does the package look like, under stress...

How close is the girl to dominance at her position, amongst her positional peers? And then, how close is the girl to dominance in the particular game, where the other nine players on the court have to pay attention to what she's doing/not doing, when she's on the court?

And then there's the COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS...
Basketball is a game of height--in other words, the player who's closest to the basket, horizontally and vertically, has the advantage, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL.
So, if you have, say, a perimeter player and an interior player of EQUAL IMPACT on a game, then logic dictates that the interior player should be ranked higher, when you COMPARE AND CONTRAST the two.
But what if you have a wing-forward who gets as many rebounds and blocked/altered shots as that real-size post player, but also has a certain proficiency as a wing? Then, logic dictates that the wing-forward should be ranked higher.
And then there's the point guard who can't score, and can barely defend; but she runs a flawless game, her team almost always wins, and she rarely makes mistakes on either side of the ball. Where do you rank her, sports fans?

And then there's POTENTIAL...

And then there's POLITICS...

And we ARE talking about girls basketball--where athleticism is mis-understood; the skill sets are relatively low; and the game is more about RUNNING PLAYS, than about PLAYING BASKETBALL...

A-h-h-h, the world of the serious evaluator. It's such a difficult job...

[kimmco]

[QUOTE=grandma215;20343]. as far as summer camps being forgotten all the bloodsucking aau money guru's QUOTE]

Is it about the children, alot of people like to say that but is it. I personally think AAU is great for the game. Summer camps still exist. AAU gives the kids much more exposure. The ability to be recruited more than just regionally, to play against other kids that are supposed to be better, that they may have read about, to see how their game stack up. Are some people making a financial gain off of AAU, I am sure that there are some, just as there was some making a financial gain off of summer camps.

[ClayKallam]

Summer basketball has its good points, and its bad points. I think we'd all like to see some changes, and there are things we would like to keep the same.

From my perspective, the largest amounts of money are made by tournament and exposure event organizers, not club coaches -- though club coaches can do pretty well. A well-run tournament and a well-run club are both usually worth the money, but I've yet to be convinced that exposure camps are anything but a cash cow for the people who put them together.

[intelligenthoodlum]

But CK, what if the exposure camp is well-run, with the appropriate games and/or skill sessions, with relevent regional/national scouts in the house? Does that change your mind?

[ClayKallam]

Only slightly, because the pickup format doesn't reveal much that college coaches haven't already seen in summer ball and high school. I just don't see what can be learned in an exposure camp that isn't blindingly obvious to college coaches in other formats -- and also I've noticed that the events I've been to have not been well attended by the D-2 and D-3 coaches that most kids might need to be seen by.

Though I think pickup basketball is a tremendous way to learn the game, I don't think it is a good way for players to be showcased for college coaches. Guards dominate, with no motivation to give the ball up, a solid team player becomes invisible, and playing in a team format, one of the most attributes college coaches look for, applies not at all.

[defensewins]

I have to disagree. My daughter loved the EA Elite Sports camp. She enjoyed playing with new people and her team did share the ball during the scrimmages. Being an unknown, playing club ball late her career, she felt it was a great chance to show what she could really do. It's easy to look good when you have teammates that you know who also give you a lot of support.
You also might not be able to showcase all of your skills during your regular club games depending on what role you have with your team. The camp was an opportunity where she could show more of her range.

I guess it's all the way you look at things.