OT: 2nd to none

[STL Hoops Insider]

http://realgm.com/src_feature_article/184/...und_draft_team/

I just thought this was interesting.

[Taj79]

Happens all the time .... what round was Tom Brady drafted in? Keith Hernandez? Johnny Unitas? Ben Wallace? I think it will always happen many times over --- once again proving that the draft is an unexact science. "Can't miss" prospects do. I think it also happens now at the high school level. A four-star recruit. A five-star recruit. Was Jimmy Clausen the greatest high school quarterback available that year? If Mitch Mustain was so great, why can't he beat out Mark Sanchez? Who cul dhave predicted Spud Webb was going to last that long in the NBA? Manue Bol?

The thing I can't seem to get around is how all these NBA teams throw oodles of money at these 17- and 18-year-old kids -- well, not the 17-year-old now. But it takes a couple years for most to develop, and in the first round they get near $3 million a year for three years and never see the light of day off the bench. So then they're left out of a contract at a time when the maturity usually kicks in. I really thought Kwame Brown would blossom with the Lakers much more than he did with the Wizars. He didn't but that too is also typical. Portland is in the second year of Oden's three-year deal and got what out of year one? Anyone argue that was a bad pick? No, not yet, but if he breaks something this year? Its more likely to be a bad pick then than now. But it is truly a crap shoot.

As just another option for my entertainment dollar, the NBA gains no consideration on my part. But these kinds of stories are typical. And interesting to some.

[STL Hoops Insider]

Happens all the time .... what round was Tom Brady drafted in? Keith Hernandez? Johnny Unitas? Ben Wallace? I think it will always happen many times over --- once again proving that the draft is an unexact science. "Can't miss" prospects do. I think it also happens now at the high school level. A four-star recruit. A five-star recruit. Was Jimmy Clausen the greatest high school quarterback available that year? If Mitch Mustain was so great, why can't he beat out Mark Sanchez? Who cul dhave predicted Spud Webb was going to last that long in the NBA? Manue Bol?

The thing I can't seem to get around is how all these NBA teams throw oodles of money at these 17- and 18-year-old kids -- well, not the 17-year-old now. But it takes a couple years for most to develop, and in the first round they get near $3 million a year for three years and never see the light of day off the bench. So then they're left out of a contract at a time when the maturity usually kicks in. I really thought Kwame Brown would blossom with the Lakers much more than he did with the Wizars. He didn't but that too is also typical. Portland is in the second year of Oden's three-year deal and got what out of year one? Anyone argue that was a bad pick? No, not yet, but if he breaks something this year? Its more likely to be a bad pick then than now. But it is truly a crap shoot.

As just another option for my entertainment dollar, the NBA gains no consideration on my part. But these kinds of stories are typical. And interesting to some.

Well, it just kind of proves that the braintrust, including experts and former ball players can be wrong all the time. That year I think you had 4 high school guys go top 8. Two of them have lived up to their or exceeded their expectations in Chandler, an Olympian and top-notch defender and rebounder and finisher, and Curry who is a blackhole but productive on offense and usually shoots a great FG%. The other two Diop and Brown, Diop did start on an NBA finals team and is known for defense. Brown started on a couple of Lakers playoff teams, but has been a bust. Its just funny how two people can look at the exact same thing and see something totally different

[Guest BillikenReport]

Like Taj said, it happens all the time — in every sport.

People get paid a lot of money to evaluate players and they are wrong often. Look at the previous thread about the Rams and their past drafts. It happens at all levels of sports, including high school and even youth sports.

[STL Hoops Insider]

Like Taj said, it happens all the time — in every sport.

People get paid a lot of money to evaluate players and they are wrong often. Look at the previous thread about the Rams and their past drafts. It happens at all levels of sports, including high school and even youth sports.

So why is there always a measure of a player on this board often determined by his offers instead of by those who've actually seen the player play?

[Guest BillikenReport]

So why is there always a measure of a player on this board often determined by his offers instead of by those who've actually seen the player play?

Because college basketball coaches make a living on whether or not they can identify and recruit talent. The people on this message board, including you and I, do not.

[Clock_Tower]

So why is there always a measure of a player on this board often determined by his offers instead of by those who've actually seen the player play?

STL. How many programs offer scholarships without seeing the player play? Answer: None.

Think about it. If paid, professional expert coaching staffs watch a kid, on several occasions in person and on tape; meet with the kid, his family and his coach; talk to friends and anyone else who might have information; and based upon all of the above, decide to offer him a scholarship, then one would be foolish to not give weight or credit to scholarship offers. At the same time, however, programs (at every level) make mistakes. Just because some mistakes are made along the way does not mean opinions by experts within the recruiting community are irrelevant.

[Taj79]

Also because the whole society seems to be on a metric- and merit-based system. You're only good if you make millions a year. We're #1 --- We're #1. A perfect 10. Gold medals. Straight A student. Honors listing. Locally, Katie Hoff was dissed here in Baltimore in the post-Olympic gusher that was Michael Phelps, also from here. The poor kid did really, really well ---- went to the Olympics, won medals, etc. But she didn't win all gold or eight like Mike did. Sadly, some might argue she was a failure but I wouldn't. Perception is reality and finishing second to the whirlwind that was Phelps was a tough break. Of course, now Phelps will disappear for another four years, or an eternity if he doesn't swim in four years. There's the ten-second sound bite and what have you done for me lately nature of today's beast.

Its also engineering and mathematics. In math, two plus two always equals four. Not close to. Not sort of maybe. Always four. Hard cold facts. The ratings you are talking about have no basis in engineering validity, no basis in fact. Its all "feel." Its more emotions. An evaluator's rep and legend grow the more home runs he hits. The more kids he evaluates high that go to the next level and perform. You see a great dunk and you're impressed and you like it and you give the kid a ten. Three weeks later, you see him again and you see the same dunk and its another 10. (Not "you" as in the personal sense, but anyone.) So you think he's been doing this in the three weeks inbetween and maybe that's not the case. Maybe you've seen the only two instances where this kid has done that. It then becomes a rating based on emotion and not anything really fact-based. the kid might have got lucky twice, both times in front of the lead evaluator. So it goes. I have heard that Spoon took kids based on others evaluations. Adkins out of West Virginia comes to mind. Cranford out of NYC. Given the thread elsewhere about the recruiting budgets he must have been playing with, no wonder. I was thisclose to recommending a young lady to Tim Champion's soccer team a few years back. What if he took her and she failed? My word would never have meant much from then on.

And because its emotional and personal, other unmeasurable factors come into play. Is the kid a loner or a team player? Does he respond to discipline or does he pout? Does he get chewed out and rebel or chewed out and motivated? Was his 10 ratings achieved against inferior competition and what happens when he moves up to the D-1 level and talent starts to balance out? The human factor has always included human error. And it is the basis of things like the NFL combine and so on, despite the Combine wanting to streamline and standardize things. Tony Mandarich was in the news yesterday --- about the biggest NFL draft day bust of all time.

I know you have a goal or something to help STL kids gets to college. Your personal rating or recommendation is going to be key. Its like old bud Bonowich and his restaurant reviews. You will only be good and credible as long as the kids you support deliver. One or two or three go south ---- and for arguments sake let's say these are your first three --- your rep will never recover and you idea will be shot down forever. But good luck with all that.

I agree also with what Clock wrote on the strength of a rating based on who's offered whom. But its a two-way street --- I'd be willing to bet that some of these kids that list having scholarship offers from certain schools are being less than genuine and listing those schools on their own to maybe pump up their self-worth and the perception that they are good. Good, bad or indifferent, the rating is also immaterial in my mind. Even with a bunch of ten star recruits, can the coach still meld the talent to win? There's still only one ball on the court.

My belief is that with Majerus, we can mold three- and two-star recruits into a cohesive unit that can win year in and year out. Spoon had one year with Grawer's recruits and then hit a home run with one five-star recruit. Romar got lucky when the planets aligned in Memphis. Sodeberg never developed talent because, short of one year, he didn't recruit much in th elong run.

[STL Hoops Insider]

Also because the whole society seems to be on a metric- and merit-based system. You're only good if you make millions a year. We're #1 --- We're #1. A perfect 10. Gold medals. Straight A student. Honors listing. Locally, Katie Hoff was dissed here in Baltimore in the post-Olympic gusher that was Michael Phelps, also from here. The poor kid did really, really well ---- went to the Olympics, won medals, etc. But she didn't win all gold or eight like Mike did. Sadly, some might argue she was a failure but I wouldn't. Perception is reality and finishing second to the whirlwind that was Phelps was a tough break. Of course, now Phelps will disappear for another four years, or an eternity if he doesn't swim in four years. There's the ten-second sound bite and what have you done for me lately nature of today's beast.

Its also engineering and mathematics. In math, two plus two always equals four. Not close to. Not sort of maybe. Always four. Hard cold facts. The ratings you are talking about have no basis in engineering validity, no basis in fact. Its all "feel." Its more emotions. An evaluator's rep and legend grow the more home runs he hits. The more kids he evaluates high that go to the next level and perform. You see a great dunk and you're impressed and you like it and you give the kid a ten. Three weeks later, you see him again and you see the same dunk and its another 10. (Not "you" as in the personal sense, but anyone.) So you think he's been doing this in the three weeks inbetween and maybe that's not the case. Maybe you've seen the only two instances where this kid has done that. It then becomes a rating based on emotion and not anything really fact-based. the kid might have got lucky twice, both times in front of the lead evaluator. So it goes. I have heard that Spoon took kids based on others evaluations. Adkins out of West Virginia comes to mind. Cranford out of NYC. Given the thread elsewhere about the recruiting budgets he must have been playing with, no wonder. I was thisclose to recommending a young lady to Tim Champion's soccer team a few years back. What if he took her and she failed? My word would never have meant much from then on.

And because its emotional and personal, other unmeasurable factors come into play. Is the kid a loner or a team player? Does he respond to discipline or does he pout? Does he get chewed out and rebel or chewed out and motivated? Was his 10 ratings achieved against inferior competition and what happens when he moves up to the D-1 level and talent starts to balance out? The human factor has always included human error. And it is the basis of things like the NFL combine and so on, despite the Combine wanting to streamline and standardize things. Tony Mandarich was in the news yesterday --- about the biggest NFL draft day bust of all time.

I know you have a goal or something to help STL kids gets to college. Your personal rating or recommendation is going to be key. Its like old bud Bonowich and his restaurant reviews. You will only be good and credible as long as the kids you support deliver. One or two or three go south ---- and for arguments sake let's say these are your first three --- your rep will never recover and you idea will be shot down forever. But good luck with all that.

I agree also with what Clock wrote on the strength of a rating based on who's offered whom. But its a two-way street --- I'd be willing to bet that some of these kids that list having scholarship offers from certain schools are being less than genuine and listing those schools on their own to maybe pump up their self-worth and the perception that they are good. Good, bad or indifferent, the rating is also immaterial in my mind. Even with a bunch of ten star recruits, can the coach still meld the talent to win? There's still only one ball on the court.

My belief is that with Majerus, we can mold three- and two-star recruits into a cohesive unit that can win year in and year out. Spoon had one year with Grawer's recruits and then hit a home run with one five-star recruit. Romar got lucky when the planets aligned in Memphis. Sodeberg never developed talent because, short of one year, he didn't recruit much in th elong run.

Well thought out post. Good points

[STL Hoops Insider]

Because college basketball coaches make a living on whether or not they can identify and recruit talent. The people on this message board, including you and I, do not.

Yeah, but the factor that is often left out is whether the player got enough exposure to be evaluated by a lot of coaches. Again, Mr. Harrellson comes up. He played for a small-time AAU team and no one saw him. That didnt make him any less good. That is the case with a lot of players. Or in some cases, a player plays on a loaded AAU team and doesn't get a lot of burn. Heck Steve Nash, 2 time NBA MVP, one D1 offer. Devean George ended up playing D3 ball. It happens

[Guest BillikenReport]

Yeah, but the factor that is often left out is whether the player got enough exposure to be evaluated by a lot of coaches. Again, Mr. Harrellson comes up. He played for a small-time AAU team and no one saw him. That didnt make him any less good. That is the case with a lot of players. Or in some cases, a player plays on a loaded AAU team and doesn't get a lot of burn. Heck Steve Nash, 2 time NBA MVP, one D1 offer. Devean George ended up playing D3 ball. It happens

Of course exposure is part of it, but generally the best players get enough exposure to be evaluated.

You can use the Harrellson example. I'll point out that as a high school senior Harrellson was good enough to get recruited by mid-major schools. There were coaches who knew about him who decided to pass. A year later, he was recruited by high-major programs. What was the difference? Exposure? Maybe the kid just got better and improved on the parts of his game that needed improvement. He was also a 6-foot-9 kid with a college-ready body with three years of eligibility left who was available at a time when most teams are trying to do whatever they can to add players to their roster. Those circumstances make him a lot more attractive to a lot more schools.

You can use the Kevin Lisch example for exposure. He didn't play on a summer team that got a lot of exposure but colleges still managed to find him. You can look at players who move, like Ruben Cotto did, and colleges saw him and evaluated him.

Steve Nash is a good example. The guy kept getting better. If he was such an amazing player, why did Dallas let him leave? They obviously didn't think he was as good as he turned out to be after he went to Phoenix and won his MVP awards. Is that exposure? No, it's evaluation. The Suns thought Nash was worth the money they were willing to pay him and the Mavericks didn't think he was worth it.

I know where you're trying to go with this. It's great you and others around the area are trying to get local kids exposure. But exposure will only take kids so far. They've got to put the work in to get better, get the grades they need to qualify and do whatever else it takes to be successful. Some kids do that and some don't.

[STL Hoops Insider]

Of course exposure is part of it, but generally the best players get enough exposure to be evaluated.

You can use the Harrellson example. I'll point out that as a high school senior Harrellson was good enough to get recruited by mid-major schools. There were coaches who knew about him who decided to pass. A year later, he was recruited by high-major programs. What was the difference? Exposure? Maybe the kid just got better and improved on the parts of his game that needed improvement. He was also a 6-foot-9 kid with a college-ready body with three years of eligibility left who was available at a time when most teams are trying to do whatever they can to add players to their roster. Those circumstances make him a lot more attractive to a lot more schools.

You can use the Kevin Lisch example for exposure. He didn't play on a summer team that got a lot of exposure but colleges still managed to find him. You can look at players who move, like Ruben Cotto did, and colleges saw him and evaluated him.

Steve Nash is a good example. The guy kept getting better. If he was such an amazing player, why did Dallas let him leave? They obviously didn't think he was as good as he turned out to be after he went to Phoenix and won his MVP awards. Is that exposure? No, it's evaluation. The Suns thought Nash was worth the money they were willing to pay him and the Mavericks didn't think he was worth it.

I know where you're trying to go with this. It's great you and others around the area are trying to get local kids exposure. But exposure will only take kids so far. They've got to put the work in to get better, get the grades they need to qualify and do whatever else it takes to be successful. Some kids do that and some don't.

First of all, check your email. 2nd of all you're right on some points. With Nash, it was them being cheap, not underevaluation, plus they didn't want to extend him because of his age. Exposure is crucial in my opinion because you can be a great player, but if no one sees you and puts you in front of those coaches, you just wont get recruited, and if you do it likely wont be the type of school you're looking for. Some players from very small school or unknown schools have done great things to get exposure. Dane Brumagin comes to mind from Warrenton Christian. He was a great high school player and has so far been a great college player, definitely a kid I think could've played for SLU and contributed. If he had played for a no name AAU team or team that didnt travel, he might've ended up playing NAIA or D3 ball. If I remember correctly he made Gateway's AAU team that lead to him getting recruited by and starring at UMKC.

[Guest BillikenReport]

With Nash, it was them being cheap, not underevaluation, plus they didn't want to extend him because of his age. Exposure is crucial in my opinion because you can be a great player, but if no one sees you and puts you in front of those coaches, you just wont get recruited, and if you do it likely wont be the type of school you're looking for. Some players from very small school or unknown schools have done great things to get exposure. Dane Brumagin comes to mind from Warrenton Christian. He was a great high school player and has so far been a great college player, definitely a kid I think could've played for SLU and contributed. If he had played for a no name AAU team or team that didnt travel, he might've ended up playing NAIA or D3 ball. If I remember correctly he made Gateway's AAU team that lead to him getting recruited by and starring at UMKC.

You don't think Dallas would have paid Nash whatever he wanted if they knew he was going to be the league's MVP twice? I know they had concerns about length of the contract, his age and the money, but they would have paid him if they thought he was worth it.

Of course you can be a great player but not be recruited because no one sees you. LeBron James might be one of the better players in the NFL, but he chose to quit playing football. There is a system in place for kids to compete at the youth level, in high school, etc. Usually the best players get noticed. Some kids don't do anything to get noticed or don't do what it takes to be successful.

Did you ever see Brumagin play in high school? He was playing against some of the worst "competition" I've ever seen. His opponents in high school in some cases weren't even good enough to make J.V. or freshmen teams at a lot of high schools. That's why he averaged a triple-double or close to it. With Gateway, he showed he could compete at the same level as everybody else. I used to hear about him playing at SLU against the team, so Soderberg and his assistants had to know about him and chose not to offer him a scholarship.

Again, there are people evaluating talent at all levels of sports. Sometimes they don't pick the right kids. You have No. 1 overall draft picks in football and basketball and baseball who are handed a lot of money based on what they've done up to that point and don't pan out for whatever reason.

[STL Hoops Insider]

Because college basketball coaches make a living on whether or not they can identify and recruit talent. The people on this message board, including you and I, do not.

He does now

[kevinfootes]

Happens all the time .... what round was Tom Brady drafted in? Keith Hernandez? Johnny Unitas? Ben Wallace? I think it will always happen many times over --- once again proving that the draft is an unexact science. "Can't miss" prospects do. I think it also happens now at the high school level. A four-star recruit. A five-star recruit. Was Jimmy Clausen the greatest high school quarterback available that year? If Mitch Mustain was so great, why can't he beat out Mark Sanchez? Who cul dhave predicted Spud Webb was going to last that long in the NBA? Manue Bol?

The thing I can't seem to get around is how all these NBA teams throw oodles of money at these 17- and 18-year-old kids -- well, not the 17-year-old now. But it takes a couple years for most to develop, and in the first round they get near $3 million a year for three years and never see the light of day off the bench. So then they're left out of a contract at a time when the maturity usually kicks in. I really thought Kwame Brown would blossom with the Lakers much more than he did with the Wizars. He didn't but that too is also typical. Portland is in the second year of Oden's three-year deal and got what out of year one? Anyone argue that was a bad pick? No, not yet, but if he breaks something this year? Its more likely to be a bad pick then than now. But it is truly a crap shoot.

As just another option for my entertainment dollar, the NBA gains no consideration on my part. But these kinds of stories are typical. And interesting to some.

I agree for the most part, and it's no different in the real world either. By and large people who are better educated (for example) tend to do better professionally. But then there are always going to be Richard Bransons.

[NH]

So why is there always a measure of a player on this board often determined by his offers instead of by those who've actually seen the player play?

for the same reason that if you put the all 2nd round kids against the all 1st round kids the 1st rounders would win in a blowout.

[Quality Is Job 1]

Why dredge up a 27-month-old thread?

[The Pelican]

Why dredge up a 27-month-old thread?

Yeah. Bizarre.

[NH]

Yeah. Bizarre.

I didn't realize how old this was. Just saw it as a new thread and read the posts.