Recruiting rankings are pretty good indicators

[hoyainla]

*edit -so this looks great and formatted wheni type it out but when i hit submit it all goes to crap. Sorry but Im not fixing it. I think you can discern the info.

I got sick of enough people saying recruiting rankings dont matter so I put together this chart. I knew because I follow our recruits pretty closely that the rankings were pretty good but this chart shows it. Are they 100% of course not but I would say looking at the list they have been pretty good as far as our recruits go. I did the past 10 classes because A. i got sick of doing more and B. the rankings have got better as AAU and national HS tournaments have got more relevant. If a kid didnt play on the AAU ciruti or was late to the circuit they are likely to being ranked a little lower just because less of the "experts" see them. I think we have 3 players that fall into that from my research, Otto, Greg, Bradley but could be more. I use 247 composite numbers.

Name Rank Rating
Jamorko Pickett 75 0.9676
Antwan Walker 223 0.8752
Jahvon Blair 235 0.8725
Chris Sodom 265 0.8675

Jagan Mosely 159 0.8953

Jessie Govan 46 0.9814
M. Derrickson 80 0.9629
Kaleb Johnson 180 0.8787

Isaac Copeland 24 0.9901
Paul White 55 0.9794
L.J. Peak 65 0.9748
Tre Campbell 107 0.9309
Trey Mourning 277 0.8385

Reggie Cameron 91 0.9526

DSR 36 0.9858
Bradley Hayes NA
Stephen Domingo 59 0.9783
Brandon Bolden 164 0.893

Otto Porter 31 0.9819
Jabril Trawick 137 0.9029
G. Whittington 213 0.8866
Tyler Adams 71 0.956
Mikael Hopkins 100 0.9461

Nate Lubick 44 0.9818
Hollis Thompson 54 0.9787
Markel Starks 79 0.9698
Moses Abraham 122 0.9152
Aaron Bowen 141 0.9076

Vee Sanford 222 0.8903
J. Benimon 316 0.8587

Greg Monroe 8 0.996
Henry Sims 30 0.9858
Jason Clark 46 0.9788

Austin Freeman 9 0.9956
Chris Wright 44 0.9837
Nikita M. 295 0.8556
Omar Wattad 366 0.8368

I also went ahead and looked at the last 3 All American 1st and 2nd teams to see where they were rated coming out. I also included the year they made it. You will notice only 3 kids have been ranked higher than 150 and 2 of them only played 1 year of travel AAU and the other was a non qualifier who most services dont worry about ranking.

Lonzo Ball 3 0.9988 FR
Josh Hart 79 0.9655 SR
Justin Jackson 9 0.9967 JR
Frank Mason 118 0.916 SR
Caleb Swanigan 19 0.9931 SO

Dillon Brooks 59 0.9771 JR
Luke Kennard 21 0.9916 SO
Malik Monk 11 0.9964 FR
John Motley 127 0.9082 JR
Williams-Goss 33 0.9872 JR


Brice Johnson 45 0.9828 SR
Malcolm Brogdon 98 0.9494 SR
Buddy Hield 156 0.8959 SR
Ben Simmons 1 0.9998 FR
D. Valentine 112 0.9329 SR
Tyler Ulis 19 0.9922 SO

Kris Dunn 16 0.9935 JR
Perry Ellis 32 0.9884 SR
Georges Niang 71 0.9741 SR
Jakob Pöltl foreign
Jarrod Uthoff 114 0.9346 SR


W. Cauley-Stein 43 0.9835 JR
Jerian Grant 111 0.9199 SR
Frank Kaminsky 242 0.8698 SR
Jahlil Okafor 1 0.9995 FR
D. Russell 16 0.9932 FR

Malcolm Brogdon 98 0.9494 JR
Seth Tuttle 149 0.8965 SR
Bobby Portis 17 0.9934 SO
Karl Towns 5 0.9986 FR
Kyle Wiltjer 20 0.9888 JR
Delon Wright 5 (JC) 0.9028 SR

Some conclusions - If I were a coach I would focus around the 40-100 range for recruits, and yes we are good enough to do that. I would focus on undersized for position as well but that kind of plays into rankings anyways. These are good players who aren't quite good enough to have NBA aspirations to leave early so you get them for 3-4 years. Villanova and Xavier does a great job of operating in this range and quite frankly JT3 did as well. What he did with them well that is another story. We wont be in many 1 and done battles, which I think is a good thing. The 100-150 range can produce some good JR and SR's but the hit rate is much lower. If you have 13 kids in the 50-150 range you should have enough (9 at least) at any given time to always be a BE contender. Recruits ranked over 200 are not likely to make much of an impact on the program. Could they develop good enough to be a role player by their JR or SR year on a tournament? Yes there is a chance but the chances are low and not worth it in my opinion for a school the caliber of Georgetown. If your classes are filled with these type players you are likely going to struggle. Our 2017 class had 3 of 4 of those and our current 2018 class (Leblanc 79, Carter 232, McClung 254) has 2 of 3 of those. Combine that with Jagan from 2016 and we are in deep trouble in 2019 if Patrick doesn't pull a monster class. This is why I say he has to get 4 and 5 star players in that class and cant settle for the 3 star (200+) types. Yeah its great that these kids want to come here but we can't pretend they are going to be good enough to bring us back to any sort of prominence just because they are Hoyas. 2017 Pat was stuck with what he had and thankfully he got Pickett late. 2018 he is behind the 8 ball although there is plenty of time for late movement to get 1 or 2 that hopefully will save that class. Its also why its better to save scholarships that to give them to space fillers. Luckily due to transfers we have plenty to give out but I wouldnt sign another 2018 ranked over 150. If we are seeing most of the 2019 class made up of 3 star type kids we are in trouble. I am sorry to be a realist its just my nature, but don't tell me rankings don't matter because its simply not true.

I also agree if you have a terrible coach it doesn't matter how good of recruits you get. There are other factors as well like age when they graduate, growth spurts, lazy etc. and there will always be outliers in both the good and the bad, but I feel pretty confident saying that rankings are a pretty solid indicator of future success.

If there is a data scientist on here that wants to do a more comprehensive breakdown of this on a national level feel free but I hated doing this much lol.

[Bigs"R"Us]

I personally like undersized players who are athletic and score a ton. The type of player that folks don't believe will produce at the college level due to their lack of desired height.

[HometownHoya]

Nice post, thanks for putting this together.

I do think that our 2017 class is better then their rankings indicate. Walker was a late bloomer and should be in about the 100-200 range, not the 200s. Blair did play AAU but most of the Canadian squads are unheralded except for one or two of the powerhouses, I think he should have been in the 75-150 range. Sodom is another very late bloomer (didn't come to basketball until late in his career), his height alone should have pushed him up 50 spots (especially since recruiting rankings often are ranking based on NBA potential).

I think a good comparison for Blair and Walker is Greg W: unheralded recruit, with athleticism that blows up in their Senior year. Just wish Walker would have been more ready to play after his post-grad year. Sodom reminds me of a Hayes: physical size, just needs maturity and PT.

Also, congrats to Benimon for outplaying his ranking by so much.

[hoyainla]

Nov 27, 2017 18:00:53 GMT -5 HometownHoya said:

Nice post, thanks for putting this together.

I do think that our 2017 class is better then their rankings indicate. Walker was a late bloomer and should be in about the 100-200 range, not the 200s. Blair did play AAU but most of the Canadian squads are unheralded except for one or two of the powerhouses, I think he should have been in the 75-150 range. Sodom is another very late bloomer (didn't come to basketball until late in his career), his height alone should have pushed him up 50 spots (especially since recruiting rankings often are ranking based on NBA potential).

I think a good comparison for Blair and Walker is Greg W: unheralded recruit, with athleticism that blows up in their Senior year. Just wish Walker would have been more ready to play after his post-grad year. Sodom reminds me of a Hayes: physical size, just needs maturity and PT.

Also, congrats to Benimon for outplaying his ranking by so much.

I do wonder how post grad years play into rankings and if I liked research more I would look into it. I honestly don't remember if he played AAU in between his senior and post grad year. If he didn't I doubt his ranking moved much. The extra year should move him up about 20-40 spots. As for Blair the Canadian thing is a factor but he did play for CIA Bounce which was in EYBL so he did have exposure. I think he will be solid but I think he is more of a shooter than a good player at this point. I am not as high on him as others on here yet. Sodom could be a factor by the time he is a junior or senior similar to Hayes. To expect much more I think is a reach although Ewing is the wild card here. The problem for Sodom is I think he gets recruited over very soon and his impact will be limited.

I think in general if you can find a kid that doesn't play big time AAU or if its just for his JR/SR summer you can steal some kids like Whittington. Those are few and far between at this point though with how big the AAU circuit is now.

[prhoya]

Nov 27, 2017 18:21:43 GMT -5 hoyainla said:

Nov 27, 2017 18:00:53 GMT -5 HometownHoya said:

Nice post, thanks for putting this together.

I do think that our 2017 class is better then their rankings indicate. Walker was a late bloomer and should be in about the 100-200 range, not the 200s. Blair did play AAU but most of the Canadian squads are unheralded except for one or two of the powerhouses, I think he should have been in the 75-150 range. Sodom is another very late bloomer (didn't come to basketball until late in his career), his height alone should have pushed him up 50 spots (especially since recruiting rankings often are ranking based on NBA potential).

I think a good comparison for Blair and Walker is Greg W: unheralded recruit, with athleticism that blows up in their Senior year. Just wish Walker would have been more ready to play after his post-grad year. Sodom reminds me of a Hayes: physical size, just needs maturity and PT.

Also, congrats to Benimon for outplaying his ranking by so much.

I do wonder how post grad years play into rankings and if I liked research more I would look into it. I honestly don't remember if he played AAU in between his senior and post grad year. If he didn't I doubt his ranking moved much. The extra year should move him up about 20-40 spots. As for Blair the Canadian thing is a factor but he did play for CIA Bounce which was in EYBL so he did have exposure. I think he will be solid but I think he is more of a shooter than a good player at this point. I am not as high on him as others on here yet. Sodom could be a factor by the time he is a junior or senior similar to Hayes. To expect much more I think is a reach although Ewing is the wild card here. The problem for Sodom is I think he gets recruited over very soon and his impact will be limited.

I think in general if you can find a kid that doesn't play big time AAU or if its just for his JR/SR summer you can steal some kids like Whittington. Those are few and far between at this point though with how big the AAU circuit is now.

Ewing needs to be turning every stone to find a big/C who can step up right away next year. What happens if Govan leaves? Marcus shouldn't be forced to play starting C if that happens. Who knows what will happen next season with Trey, but he's not a C. Will Sodom be ready for 20 mpg the way he fouls? Leblanc could help, but he's not a regular C in the BE.
Looking at the ESPN class rankings, there are a few Big prospects left in the Top 100. Also, the staff should be analyzing possible Grads and immediately-available transfers who are ready and proven.
If Govan keeps playing close to how he's doing now, it could be huge for attracting Big talent.

[SFHoya99]

Recruiting rankings are fine in aggregate and en masse, but individually, there's a ton of variance. Your data proves that point. For example"

I also went ahead and looked at the last 3 All American 1st and 2nd teams to see where they were rated coming out. I also included the year they made it. You will notice only 3 kids have been ranked higher than 150 and 2 of them only played 1 year of travel AAU and the other was a non qualifier who most services dont worry about ranking.

I don't know why you'd use a standard of 150+ as surprising. There's only 10 players across four classes in on All-America team -- to make first or second team and not be a Top 25 player is a surprise. The fact that every team you listed had 4 of the Top 10 players be above outside the Top 50 and many outside the Top 100 means that individual rankings are very erratic.

When people are eschewing rankings, it's because people are dismissing individual players because of rankings. I'll take non-top 100s in Roy Hibbert, Jeff Green and Jon Wallace, and you can have Isaac Copeland, Nate Lubick and Stephen Domingo.

If Ewing brings in class after class of unranked players, yes, we won't reach our potential. But saying that Mac McClung won't be any good because he's 3 star -- when we have plenty of other information -- is limiting your evaluation to something proven to have inconsistent value in individual player evaluation.

Honestly, give me a lower ranked player with work ethic over Isaac Copeland anyday.

[hoyainla]

Nov 27, 2017 21:27:20 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

Recruiting rankings are fine in aggregate and en masse, but individually, there's a ton of variance. Your data proves that point. For example"

I also went ahead and looked at the last 3 All American 1st and 2nd teams to see where they were rated coming out. I also included the year they made it. You will notice only 3 kids have been ranked higher than 150 and 2 of them only played 1 year of travel AAU and the other was a non qualifier who most services dont worry about ranking.

I don't know why you'd use a standard of 150+ as surprising. There's only 10 players across four classes in on All-America team -- to make first or second team and not be a Top 25 player is a surprise. The fact that every team you listed had 4 of the Top 10 players be above outside the Top 50 and many outside the Top 100 means that individual rankings are very erratic.

When people are eschewing rankings, it's because people are dismissing individual players because of rankings. I'll take non-top 100s in Roy Hibbert, Jeff Green and Jon Wallace, and you can have Isaac Copeland, Nate Lubick and Stephen Domingo.

If Ewing brings in class after class of unranked players, yes, we won't reach our potential. But saying that Mac McClung won't be any good because he's 3 star -- when we have plenty of other information -- is limiting your evaluation to something proven to have inconsistent value in individual player evaluation.

Honestly, give me a lower ranked player with work ethic over Isaac Copeland anyday.

If the Top 25 kids stayed in school til at least there JR year I would be willing to bet at least 9 of 10 AA every year would be one of them. The only kids ranked over 100 on the list were at least juniors (1) the rest seniors. If rankings stayed as a ongoing thing through college I would guess the average kid gains 30-50 spots a year. I am not saying Mac McClung wont be any good. I am saying the odds of him being any good are low and very low before his junior year. He has had proper exposure so I think his ranking should be pretty accurate. I am not against the Mac signing either as I think he could do some other things to help the program.

All this was meant to show is if you sign a team full of kids ranked 250 in the Big East you will suck. Rankings are a good indicator. I dont care how good their work ethic is. You also dont know work ethic when you sign these kids. You may have an idea but there are many factors that go into that as well.

Green and Hibbert were both Top 150 kids which seems to be a pretty good line of demarcation. Jeff Green is one of the all time exceptions to recruiting rankings and quite frankly rankings have gotten way better as AAU and national HS tournaments have grown. Hibbert is more a classic case of a 150 kid that grew on a more classical trajectory. I think we have a pretty clear top 2 on this team and its clear to most that Pickett is the 3rd most talented although he is raw you could argue a few older guys could be 3rd best this year. Honestly I dont think we will know that til the end of the year. It's no coincidence they are the only Top 100 kids on the roster.

[SFHoya99]

Nov 27, 2017 22:42:35 GMT -5 hoyainla said:

All this was meant to show is if you sign a team full of kids ranked 250 in the Big East you will suck. Rankings are a good indicator. I dont care how good their work ethic is.

The first part of your statement is true, but I don't think anyone is disagreeing.

The second part of your statement could not be more misguided. Recruiting rankings are people's best estimate of potential. Work Ethic is the key determinant of whether a player gets there. Yes, it is harder to measure than a vertical, but a smart coach makes sure the players he recruits are coachable and want to work. The difference between Otto Porter and Isaac Copeland has more to do with the hours that Otto has put in shooting, studying and playing that Copeland hasn't and less to do with any physical differences.

Pickett has potential -- rankings are good at that -- but he's nowhere near the third best player on the team right now. He's showing some nice flashes, but he'll need to work to actually be good.

[hoyainla]

Nov 27, 2017 23:13:41 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

Nov 27, 2017 22:42:35 GMT -5 hoyainla said:

All this was meant to show is if you sign a team full of kids ranked 250 in the Big East you will suck. Rankings are a good indicator. I dont care how good their work ethic is.

The first part of your statement is true, but I don't think anyone is disagreeing.

The second part of your statement could not be more misguided. Recruiting rankings are people's best estimate of potential. Work Ethic is the key determinant of whether a player gets there. Yes, it is harder to measure than a vertical, but a smart coach makes sure the players he recruits are coachable and want to work. The difference between Otto Porter and Isaac Copeland has more to do with the hours that Otto has put in shooting, studying and playing that Copeland hasn't and less to do with any physical differences.

Pickett has potential -- rankings are good at that -- but he's nowhere near the third best player on the team right now. He's showing some nice flashes, but he'll need to work to actually be good.

I'm sorry but you can guess on work ethic but you don't know when you sign a kid that's a junior or senior in HS. If the team environment becomes toxic like it clearly did hear all bets are off. Maybe other stuff happens like family drama, girl drama etc.

I said Pickett might not be the 3rd best right now, we are only 4 games in against some bad teams. Get back to me at the end of the year. if you tell me I have to pick a guy right now to take 3rd to roll with it's definitely him.

[GIGAFAN99]

I think the idea is your starters should be primarily top 100 types with role players mixed in and reserves can push a little further down the rankings.

But 3-4 top prospects is plenty to compete. One reason the Hoya lens is so skewed is nobody in the conference had more Top 100 guys or more eventual NBA players than JTIII (that holds even post-Green and Hibbert by the way) and yet we were constantly middling.

Seton Hall is starting #47, #81, #144, #349, and #378. Villanova has #22, #75, #81, #124, and #210.

The Hoyas are starting #46, #75, #80, #159, and #180.

Hmmmm, that doesn't appear to be a huge advantage for the top 2 teams in the league. It's almost like building a team matters.

We need another highly-ranked player or two. But we need to develop our role players just as much if not more. So I don't think we're biting our nails on a "monster class." A good one where the kids stay and work would be just fine.

[Bigs"R"Us]

In the past 10 years, we have done less with more. In order to make it to the Final Four it helps to have 3-4 NBA level prospects on your team.

[thejerseytornado]

less absolute claims, more statistically astute claims.

Rankings are associated with quality. Rankings are imperfectly associated with future quality. If they were precise, there wouldn't be disagreement across ranking sites.

It's like the SATs. A kid with a 1600 SATs is more likely to do well in college than a kid with a 1400. But sometimes the 1600 doesn't do well and sometimes the 1400 does. Sometimes we can predict that (bad/good work ethic) sometimes we can't (growth spurts). It's not uncommon to see that. It is uncommon to see a kid with a 1200 do better than a kid with a 1600.

Everyone wants the 1600 kid. We seem to be fighting over whether to target the 1450 or the 1500. At which point, trust the staff and other evaluations. The gap between #30 ranked kid and #60 isn't big. Nor is the gap between the #60 and the #90. But it does create a sense of self-fulfilling momentum, so I'd like to see highly ranked recruits for that hype that then helps get highly ranked recruits. But don't get suckered into caring too much (or too little) about actual rankings.

[hoyainla]

Nov 28, 2017 11:39:15 GMT -5 thejerseytornado said:

less absolute claims, more statistically astute claims.

Rankings are associated with quality. Rankings are imperfectly associated with future quality. If they were precise, there wouldn't be disagreement across ranking sites.

It's like the SATs. A kid with a 1600 SATs is more likely to do well in college than a kid with a 1400. But sometimes the 1600 doesn't do well and sometimes the 1400 does. Sometimes we can predict that (bad/good work ethic) sometimes we can't (growth spurts). It's not uncommon to see that. It is uncommon to see a kid with a 1200 do better than a kid with a 1600.

Everyone wants the 1600 kid. We seem to be fighting over whether to target the 1450 or the 1500. At which point, trust the staff and other evaluations. The gap between #30 ranked kid and #60 isn't big. Nor is the gap between the #60 and the #90. But it does create a sense of self-fulfilling momentum, so I'd like to see highly ranked recruits for that hype that then helps get highly ranked recruits. But don't get suckered into caring too much (or too little) about actual rankings.

I agree with your notion but my problem is not with 30 or 60 or 60 or 90 its with 100 or 250. Our 8 most recent recruits (including 2018) average to 190 and only 2 were < 150. A portion of the fans (reason i did this) were clamoring for a kid ranked 200 and saying that rankings don't matter for future kids. You can t keep loading up on these kids and expect to succeed with limited scholarships available. I outlined in my post ideally you want the 40 to 100 range which would be your 1450-1500 and having a few 100-150 (say 1400) is fine as they can grown. Its when you start loading up on 1200's that there is a problem. I think the distance between 50-150 is much less than the distance between 150-250. I have reasons I believe that but thats a whole different discussion.

[hoyainla]

Nov 28, 2017 7:14:29 GMT -5 GIGAFAN99 said:

I think the idea is your starters should be primarily top 100 types with role players mixed in and reserves can push a little further down the rankings.

But 3-4 top prospects is plenty to compete. One reason the Hoya lens is so skewed is nobody in the conference had more Top 100 guys or more eventual NBA players than JTIII (that holds even post-Green and Hibbert by the way) and yet we were constantly middling.

Seton Hall is starting #47, #81, #144, #349, and #378. Villanova has #22, #75, #81, #124, and #210.

The Hoyas are starting #46, #75, #80, #159, and #180.

Hmmmm, that doesn't appear to be a huge advantage for the top 2 teams in the league. It's almost like building a team matters.

We need another highly-ranked player or two. But we need to develop our role players just as much if not more. So I don't think we're biting our nails on a "monster class." A good one where the kids stay and work would be just fine.

I think 19 needs to be a monster class based on the last 8 recruits. We only have 2 that are Top 150 but luckily they happen to be top 100. The next 5 recruits really all need to be Top 150 for the health of the program going forward. Maybe we get lucky and 2 of the >200 kids make a difference. Any more than that would probably mean one of 2 things. Our next class isnt that good and they havent been recruited over or we still stink and someone has to put up stats.

With 13 scholarships available for a team like the Hoyas I would say the goal should be
8 50-100
4 100-150
1 (2 at most) 150+ and that should be a kid that is undersized or underexposed


The obvious cavaet to this is grad and even regular transfers which Im not how Pat will approach.

[95hoya]

Nov 27, 2017 18:00:53 GMT -5 HometownHoya said:

Nice post, thanks for putting this together.

I do think that our 2017 class is better then their rankings indicate. Walker was a late bloomer and should be in about the 100-200 range, not the 200s. Blair did play AAU but most of the Canadian squads are unheralded except for one or two of the powerhouses, I think he should have been in the 75-150 range. Sodom is another very late bloomer (didn't come to basketball until late in his career), his height alone should have pushed him up 50 spots (especially since recruiting rankings often are ranking based on NBA potential).

I think a good comparison for Blair and Walker is Greg W: unheralded recruit, with athleticism that blows up in their Senior year. Just wish Walker would have been more ready to play after his post-grad year. Sodom reminds me of a Hayes: physical size, just needs maturity and PT.

Also, congrats to Benimon for outplaying his ranking by so much.

Fans always think their recruits are underrated. I don't feel any of them were really undervalued because I don't think they are better entering college than most of the kids ranked ahead of them. Some will develop, some won't. These kids will have an opportunity to play. I think we all agree we need to recruit higher ranked kids going forward. Honestly, I think our 2 most undervalued guys are the two highest ranked in Pickett and Leblanc.

[LCPolo18]

Nov 28, 2017 12:19:35 GMT -5 hoyainla said:

Nov 28, 2017 11:39:15 GMT -5 thejerseytornado said:

less absolute claims, more statistically astute claims.

Rankings are associated with quality. Rankings are imperfectly associated with future quality. If they were precise, there wouldn't be disagreement across ranking sites.

It's like the SATs. A kid with a 1600 SATs is more likely to do well in college than a kid with a 1400. But sometimes the 1600 doesn't do well and sometimes the 1400 does. Sometimes we can predict that (bad/good work ethic) sometimes we can't (growth spurts). It's not uncommon to see that. It is uncommon to see a kid with a 1200 do better than a kid with a 1600.

Everyone wants the 1600 kid. We seem to be fighting over whether to target the 1450 or the 1500. At which point, trust the staff and other evaluations. The gap between #30 ranked kid and #60 isn't big. Nor is the gap between the #60 and the #90. But it does create a sense of self-fulfilling momentum, so I'd like to see highly ranked recruits for that hype that then helps get highly ranked recruits. But don't get suckered into caring too much (or too little) about actual rankings.

I agree with your notion but my problem is not with 30 or 60 or 60 or 90 its with 100 or 250. Our 8 most recent recruits (including 2018) average to 190 and only 2 were < 150. A portion of the fans (reason i did this) were clamoring for a kid ranked 200 and saying that rankings don't matter for future kids. You can t keep loading up on these kids and expect to succeed with limited scholarships available. I outlined in my post ideally you want the 40 to 100 range which would be your 1450-1500 and having a few 100-150 (say 1400) is fine as they can grown. Its when you start loading up on 1200's that there is a problem. I think the distance between 50-150 is much less than the distance between 150-250. I have reasons I believe that but thats a whole different discussion.

I think most fans would prefer recruits in the range of 1-150, so you likely won't get much push back there. A couple of things to keep in mind though about your statements on the most recent recruits:

1. Ewing came in late to the 2017 and 2018 recruiting cycle, so any commits better than 150 is impressive given how few were still available or open to consider new schools. That's why 2019 is going to be a better indicator of Ewing's recruiting strategy and ability.
2. The final rankings for the 2018 players have not been set, so it's still possible for someone like Mac McClung to rise in the rankings.

[HometownHoya]

Nov 28, 2017 12:52:31 GMT -5 95hoya said:

Nov 27, 2017 18:00:53 GMT -5 HometownHoya said:

Nice post, thanks for putting this together.

I do think that our 2017 class is better then their rankings indicate. Walker was a late bloomer and should be in about the 100-200 range, not the 200s. Blair did play AAU but most of the Canadian squads are unheralded except for one or two of the powerhouses, I think he should have been in the 75-150 range. Sodom is another very late bloomer (didn't come to basketball until late in his career), his height alone should have pushed him up 50 spots (especially since recruiting rankings often are ranking based on NBA potential).

I think a good comparison for Blair and Walker is Greg W: unheralded recruit, with athleticism that blows up in their Senior year. Just wish Walker would have been more ready to play after his post-grad year. Sodom reminds me of a Hayes: physical size, just needs maturity and PT.

Also, congrats to Benimon for outplaying his ranking by so much.

Fans always think their recruits are underrated. I don't feel any of them were really undervalued because I don't think they are better entering college than most of the kids ranked ahead of them. Some will develop, some won't. These kids will have an opportunity to play. I think we all agree we need to recruit higher ranked kids going forward. Honestly, I think our 2 most undervalued guys are the two highest ranked in Pickett and Leblanc.

Oh I agree entirely. I just don't see how any of our '17 guys are ranked so low. Walker is the only one who never really showed much (outside of his championship winning season with Woodson). Pickett is about right but I think Blair should have been up there with him. That said, I haven't looked into Blair's HS career much but I did always see his name mentioned with CIA Bounce. Sodom should've been ranked higher solely on size and the improvement made in his short amount of time playing organized ball...especially on those services that claim to be ranking based on potential.

[SFHoya99]

Nov 28, 2017 12:19:35 GMT -5 hoyainla said:

Our 8 most recent recruits (including 2018) average to 190 and only 2 were < 150.

I think you are giving way too much weight to the accuracy of rankings over the Top 100. There's little to no real variance in talent there, and the recruiting services are largely throwing crap at a wall at this level. I think any ranker would tell you that the actual play difference at this level is tiny compared to the top of the curve.

Of course we want, all things considered, to get higher ranked players. And yes, it's a bad strategy to try and develop gems from low ranked finds over and over and over. But I also want players with fight in them, and I'll take that over a high ranking.

The staff should only give a glance to rankings -- it's a good sense check and identifier of who to look at but little more -- and even we can have a lot more info than just rankings.

I, too, was excited about our recruiting in the second half of Thompson's tenure -- we were marching towards a team of Top 100s! But injuries, lack of development and imbalance in the classes left us losing.

Now, I'm much more concerned with the fact that we *still* don't have a big man who plays with power or a real center to replace Govan.

[SaxaCD]

Nov 28, 2017 22:35:25 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

Nov 28, 2017 12:19:35 GMT -5 hoyainla said:

Our 8 most recent recruits (including 2018) average to 190 and only 2 were < 150.

I think you are giving way too much weight to the accuracy of rankings over the Top 100. There's little to no real variance in talent there, and the recruiting services are largely throwing crap at a wall at this level. I think any ranker would tell you that the actual play difference at this level is tiny compared to the top of the curve.

Of course we want, all things considered, to get higher ranked players. And yes, it's a bad strategy to try and develop gems from low ranked finds over and over and over. But I also want players with fight in them, and I'll take that over a high ranking.

The staff should only give a glance to rankings -- it's a good sense check and identifier of who to look at but little more -- and even we can have a lot more info than just rankings.

I, too, was excited about our recruiting in the second half of Thompson's tenure -- we were marching towards a team of Top 100s! But injuries, lack of development and imbalance in the classes left us losing.

Now, I'm much more concerned with the fact that we *still* don't have a big man who plays with power or a real center to replace Govan.

I honestly think that Ewing will be able to get a solid transfer or graduate transfer center next year, if he wants one, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's how he approaches it while recruiting his own "from scratch" high school guys. A year being coached by Ewing would be like a year-long elite camp for a big looking to make money playing after graduating.

[hoyainla]

Nov 28, 2017 23:32:29 GMT -5 SaxaCD said:

I honestly think that Ewing will be able to get a solid transfer or graduate transfer center next year, if he wants one, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's how he approaches it while recruiting his own "from scratch" high school guys. A year being coached by Ewing would be like a year-long elite camp for a big looking to make money playing after graduating.

I agree that any big would want to learn from Pat but really how many of those are left. The position that Pat played pretty much doesnt exist in the NBA anymore. Maybe that is because of the AAU cluture or maybe its because of the new analytics NBA. Im not really sure. I just know that the low post center doesnt really exist anymore. The ones that aren't shooting 3's are just there to rebound/block shots and catch oops off the PnR (Howard, Drummond, Jordan, Whiteside etc.). You can even look at Jessie. He will probably get to the league because of his 3 point shooting. Thomas Bryant was similar to him and now he's in the shooting 3's all over the G-League.

I think there are guys that I have seen like Kofi Cockburn who is a Ewing type player that hopefully comes. If we cant land a Jamaicain center from NYC then we are in trouble but anyways. I think those players can help at the college level like Sean May last year. I just think Ewing carries more weight simply because of who he not that teach guys low post moves or 18 foot jumpers which is the devil of the NBA now.

The good news is we should be able to get those guys, the bad news is we need guards.