Scouting and Rankings of High School players

[Godfather]

What does the BY think of this subject?

What is your evaluation of these players? and what make one a better player than the other in your evaluations

Durr, KLS, Collier, Boykin

 

[JS]

What does the BY think of this subject?

What is your evaluation of these players? and what make one a better player than the other in your evaluations

Durr, KLS, Collier, Boykin

Godfather, thanks for being creative on topics. However, I doubt the Boneyard will be amenable to ranking UConn's recruits, committed and uncommitted, against each other as to who's a "better player."

At this stage, when they're new and we're as hopeful of the success of every one of them as they are, such a general question is sort of like asking someone "Which of your children do you like best?"

And down the line, when there's a track record here and not just elsewhere, and their roles come more into focus, we'll tend to keep comparisons specific, as in "Player A is a stronger rebounder than Player B, but B gives the line-up more speed."

Or we'll just recognize one's strengths without comparing her to (and some would say putting down) another.

Just so you're forewarned of the nature of the beast.

 

[EricLA]

Well that's a very loaded and interesting question.

Evaluating the young women while in high school is very subjective. Sometimes it's easy to look at a player like Maya or Stewie or Griner or Ogwumike and realize that they are not only the most talented in their class, but they also probably have the most potential. Other times you look at a player like McCaughtry, or Beard, or Dolson, or all the other players that the recruiting evaluators got "wrong" and say "they don't have any idea what they are doing".

I don't know the exact order of importance, and they are many on here who are smarter than I, but there is an incredibly long list to look at, and some of it changes depending on the position they play.

But in general, I'd be looking at a players' size, athleticism, potential, and skills.

Size - to me these aren't skills, but fairly obvious physical observations of the players' physical gifts:

1. How tall is the player for the position they play?
2. What is their body type?
3. Does the player have the ability to gain or lose weight, depending on the need, to maximize her potential
4. Does the player know how to use her size to her best advantage?
5. Can they be effective in traffic?
6. What about if they are double or triple teamed?

Athleticism - also seem like they would be fairly obvious - some kids just "look" athletic

1. What is her leaping ability?
2. What is her lateral movement?
3. What are her reflexes like?
4. How quickly can she get up to full speed?
5. Can she accomplish skills at full speed or does she lose control?

Potential - probably the most subjective, but what is the players' ceiling?

1. How coachable are they?
2. How do they react to criticism?
3. How do they react to adversity?
4. What is their general attitude?
5. Are they "team players" or "all about me"?
   
6. Are they good, or bad, leaders?
7. Do they encourage teammates or do they criticize?
8. If things don't go their way, do they try even harder, or sulk and/or give up?
9. Just how good can they realistically be?

Skills - what can they accomplish at this time in their careers?

1. Can they use both hands equally effectively?
   
2. Outside shooting? 3-point shooting?
3. Mechanics - do the have good form in shooting?
4. Do they have good court vision?
5. Do they possess high BB IQ?
6. What role are they best at?

I'm sure there are many more questions that I'm missing, but it's not just about looking for the most talented kids in the class. I can't tell you which of those 4 is the "best" player because they are all so different. Diana won 2 NPOY awards, but neither time was she close to being the highest scorer, nor was she tops is assists, or any other guard categories. But she had leadership qualities all in one body that no other UCONN player has ever had all together. My point is a player can be great without really putting up "great" numbers day in and day out...

 

[hoophuskee]

What does the BY think of this subject?

What is your evaluation of these players? and what make one a better player than the other in your evaluations

Durr, KLS, Collier, Boykin

Have a lot of points to make on something like this. Can PM if you want to go back-and-forth because I'd ask you the same. Though I don't see high school basketball other than the rare vidoes some put on here. I do think there is no point rating Durr whose a prbbalble pg/sg and compare her to the three you mentioned. They're in different worlds in terms of what they need to do.

 

[Godfather]

Have a lot of points to make on something like this. Can PM if you want to go back-and-forth because I'd ask you the same. Though I don't see high school basketball other than the rare vidoes some put on here. I do think there is no point rating Durr whose a prbbalble pg/sg and compare her to the three you mentioned. They're in different worlds in terms of what they need to do.

what do you mean by different worlds?

 

[hoophuskee]

Based on from what I've read and posts from you and many others I believe KLS, Collier, Boykin are frontcourt players. You think so too? I do have a slight twist to this thinking but anyhow to Durr. Generally speaking Durr's passing is a must for a guard. She could be a sub-par rebounder. IMO it's pointless to compare her potential sub-par rebounding vs a frontocourt player comparing their sub-par passing. How do you rate who has "the edge" in that category? Do you even bother?

What about if Durr can get in the lane- create for teammates by making a good pass that leads to another pass that leads to another pass in which then KLS then hits the 3? How would you rate that if KLS goes 4-7 from 3? Does the defense collapse because of Durr's penetration or do they extend because of KLS's shooting? Is there a player they (the opposing team) doesn't want to get into foul trouble which will influence their decision on how to play defense? In other words in Durr's world she is not only going to score but she is going to be the ball-handler and probable penetrator. Who's to say her ability to get in the lane vs KLS's potential knockdown shooting is more important without seeing them play for a time in college going against other ultra-great competitors and competitive coaching?

Point is- Durr may have an objective to run the offense and much of that could be penetration. KLS objective could be move without the ball and knock down three's thereby forcing the defense to extend therby allowing Durr to give other players more opportunties. So who do you rate higher while they have different objectives? The chicken or the egg? The penetration or the shooting? Durr gets in the lane because she is super quick lets say. KLS is able to get off 3's with ease because her size. Two different bits of expertise/strengths from potentially two great players. I don't know how to rate this w/o seeing them play in college. I haven't seem them play in h/s.

But at least I would have an idea on the frontcourt players. Though w/o seeing them in UCONN games - it's just an idea that could be garbage. It is fun for me to think how they will be.