Duke Recruits 2014 and 2015 - Report from Nike EYBL #1 Los Angeles

[MCFinARL]

Of course there are kid's in the top 40 that leave no mark but that doesn't mean they were'nt one of the top 40 high school seniors at the time. Major talent evaluators aren't always right but they genereally build an opinion of a kid based on several events and many games. They watch the players as they develope over their high school careers. Not just one game.

Yes. There are different rates of development, different issues with injury--a lot of stuff can happen. Also, just the way some players who are very effective at the college level are undersized, or not fast/quick enough, to play the same position at the pro level, some high school players have skills that don't translate well to the next level, either because they have already maximized their abilities or because they are undersized to play their position as effectively at the next level.

[tommy]

Of course there are kid's in the top 40 that leave no mark but that doesn't mean they were'nt one of the top 40 high school seniors at the time.

I don't think those lists are created for the limited purpose of stating who the top high school performers have been, in a backwards-looking fashion. I think they're created primarily as evaluations of their likelihood of success in college. I think the interest in such a list would be much less if it was just "who are the best players in high school?" Of much more interest is "who's gonna be good going forward?" and that's what those lists are for. There may not actually be all that much separation in those two concepts, practically speaking, but if there had to be one purpose which is primary, I think it's the forward-looking, not the backwards-looking.

Major talent evaluators aren't always right but they genereally build an opinion of a kid based on several events and many games. They watch the players as they develope over their high school careers. Not just one game.

Right, and I think you're helping make my point. The fact that these major talent evaluators do see these guys play as often as they do, and still are wrong as often as they are, is more of an indictment of them than it would be had they only seen the kids play once or twice.

[Ichabod Drain]

I don't think those lists are created for the limited purpose of stating who the top high school performers have been, in a backwards-looking fashion. I think they're created primarily as evaluations of their likelihood of success in college. I think the interest in such a list would be much less if it was just "who are the best players in high school?" Of much more interest is "who's gonna be good going forward?" and that's what those lists are for. There may not actually be all that much separation in those two concepts, practically speaking, but if there had to be one purpose which is primary, I think it's the forward-looking, not the backwards-looking.




Right, and I think you're helping make my point. The fact that these major talent evaluators do see these guys play as often as they do, and still are wrong as often as they are, is more of an indictment of them than it would be had they only seen the kids play once or twice.

Your first point is helping prove my point. As that would indicate they believe Allen will be one of the 40 best freshman once he starts college.

To your second point, for it being a very inexact science the scouts are right the majority of the time. Rate of error obviously increases the farther down the ranking you go. But for the thousands of high school basketball players spread out all over the country with turnover every year, they seem to do a pretty good job.