2016 Basketball Recruiting Thread

[Duke95]

Frank Jackson to Duke.

http://www.scout.com/college/basketb...uke-commitment

[Pghdukie]

Great job by Mr Scheyer.

[CarmenWallaceWade]

Love it. And this:

@clintjackson1: More good news for Duke fans -- after a conversation with a credible source today; Duke is gonna be tough to beat for Wenyen Gabriel too.

[djp10]

Love it. And this:

@clintjackson1: More good news for Duke fans -- after a conversation with a credible source today; Duke is gonna be tough to beat for Wenyen Gabriel too.

uksportszone thinks differently apparently—https://twitter.com/UKSportsZone/sta...46823659139072:

Frank Jackson commits to Duke.

Its unlikely now for Duke to get Marques Bolden &/or Wenyen Gabriel. Plus, Harry Giles is still visiting UK.

[Duke95]

LOL @ uksportszone

[OldPhiKap]

LOL @ uksportszone

That is a prodigious amount of Bud Light cans. Don't tell devildeac, fuse or Mattman91, they'll go into convulsions.

[djp10]

uksportszone thinks differently apparently—https://twitter.com/UKSportsZone/sta...46823659139072:

haha it's been deleted

[mattman91]

That is a prodigious amount of Bud Light cans. Don't tell devildeac, fuse or Mattman91, they'll go into convulsions.

Have mercy! Such poor taste.

Saw this pic and immediately had to rush to the fridge to pull out a Dogfish Head 90 Minute IPA.

Stoked to have Frank on board, here's to Harry Giles being the next commit!

[Duke95]

haha it's been deleted

He/she got owned on twitter for that nonsense.

Our Blue Devils are looking good with both Giles and Gabriel...and Bolden as well!

[devildeac]

That is a prodigious amount of Bud Light cans. Don't tell devildeac, fuse or Mattman91, they'll go into convulsions.

Not to worry, there's a place in Hades, err, special thread for that:

http://forums.dukebasketballreport.c...8179-Ycch-Beer!

[JasonEvans]

So, I keep on hearing all the experts say that 2016 is a much better class than 2015 in terms of the talent of the players. While it is far, far, far from perfect, I found that ESPN's rankings help articulate this difference and the strength of the 2016 class.

ESPN, as you may have noticed, goes beyond the very basic #1, #2, #3... rankings of players. It assigns a simple numerical score or grade to each player. Because these grades fall outside the normal realm of a simple ranking, it allows us to compare how a player with a certain grade would be ranked in different years* by ESPN. But, before we look at that, as a point of reference, here is the page on ESPN that explains how the grades are determined.

90-100: High-major plus prospect (5 stars)
Player demonstrates rare abilities. He should have an immediate impact at a national program with the potential for early entry into the NBA.

Ok, so an easy first way to determine the strength of a class would be to look at how many guys in each class get a score of 90 or higher -- how many guys ESPN identifies as immediate impact players and likely one-and-done prospects. Here is a list of the number of 90+ athletes in recent years and into the future:

2013 - 22
2014 - 29
2015 - 19
2016 - 28
2017 - 29
2018 - 25+ (ESPN only has 25 guys ranked at this time, but all of them are 90 or higher. Obviously, ranking rising sophs is going to be very inaccurate compared to guys who are older)

As you can see, 2015 sorta sticks out like a sore thumb as a class that is weaker than others. It would be even worse if Derryck Thornton had not reclassified (for some reason, Jamal Murray is not in ESPN's rankings, probably because he is considered a foreign player). But, it is not just about how many 90+ players are in the class of 2015, there are other ways of measuring this. Frank Jackson, for example, is ESPN's #14 prospect in the 2016 class with a grade of 94. That same grade would make him the #8 or #9 player in the 2015 class.

--Jason "All of this is not to say that I am not thrilled with the kids we are getting in 2015, but to explain why 2016 and 2017 excite me so much!" Evans


* - ESPN changed the way their rankings were graded in 2013. As a result, numerical grades from years prior are not relevant.

[gam7]

Ok, so an easy first way to determine the strength of a class would be to look at how many guys in each class get a score of 90 or higher -- how many guys ESPN identifies as immediate impact players and likely one-and-done prospects. Here is a list of the number of 90+ athletes in recent years and into the future:

2013 - 22
2014 - 29
2015 - 19
2016 - 28
2017 - 29
2018 - 25+ (ESPN only has 25 guys ranked at this time, but all of them are 90 or higher. Obviously, ranking rising sophs is going to be very inaccurate compared to guys who are older)

Interesting way to compare guys from different classes. One point of clarification though - the language you quoted says that the 90+ guys have the potential for early entry, not that they are likely one-and-done. There were 14 OADs eligible for the 2015 draft (http://www.nba.com/2015/news/04/28/e...or-2015-draft/), and I believe that was the most ever. Identifying 29 potential early entries from the class makes more sense. Has anyone done a quick analysis on how many total early entries there are per class? I'd be interested in seeing that. I bet it's way more than 29.

gam "in the 2015 draft, there were 18 early entry juniors last year and 15 early entry sophomores!" 7

[superdave]

So, I keep on hearing all the experts say that 2016 is a much better class than 2015 in terms of the talent of the players. While it is far, far, far from perfect, I found that ESPN's rankings help articulate this difference and the strength of the 2016 class.

ESPN, as you may have noticed, goes beyond the very basic #1, #2, #3... rankings of players. It assigns a simple numerical score or grade to each player. Because these grades fall outside the normal realm of a simple ranking, it allows us to compare how a player with a certain grade would be ranked in different years* by ESPN. But, before we look at that, as a point of reference, here is the page on ESPN that explains how the grades are determined.



Ok, so an easy first way to determine the strength of a class would be to look at how many guys in each class get a score of 90 or higher -- how many guys ESPN identifies as immediate impact players and likely one-and-done prospects. Here is a list of the number of 90+ athletes in recent years and into the future:

2013 - 22
2014 - 29
2015 - 19
2016 - 28
2017 - 29
2018 - 25+ (ESPN only has 25 guys ranked at this time, but all of them are 90 or higher. Obviously, ranking rising sophs is going to be very inaccurate compared to guys who are older)

As you can see, 2015 sorta sticks out like a sore thumb as a class that is weaker than others. It would be even worse if Derryck Thornton had not reclassified (for some reason, Jamal Murray is not in ESPN's rankings, probably because he is considered a foreign player). But, it is not just about how many 90+ players are in the class of 2015, there are other ways of measuring this. Frank Jackson, for example, is ESPN's #14 prospect in the 2016 class with a grade of 94. That same grade would make him the #8 or #9 player in the 2015 class.

--Jason "All of this is not to say that I am not thrilled with the kids we are getting in 2015, but to explain why 2016 and 2017 excite me so much!" Evans


* - ESPN changed the way their rankings were graded in 2013. As a result, numerical grades from years prior are not relevant.

It is interesting that Okafor, Myles Turner and Cliff Alexander were all 97s and ranked 1-2-3 in the 2014 rankings. They had such vastly different freshmen years. Okafor was 1st team All-America. Turner averaged 10 and 6 off the bench for Texas. Alexander averaged 7 and 5 for Kansas. I would love to hear scouts explain why all three were 97s given the big discrepancy.

This gives more creedence to the RSCI average, in my opinion.

[yancem]

So, I keep on hearing all the experts say that 2016 is a much better class than 2015 in terms of the talent of the players. While it is far, far, far from perfect, I found that ESPN's rankings help articulate this difference and the strength of the 2016 class.

ESPN, as you may have noticed, goes beyond the very basic #1, #2, #3... rankings of players. It assigns a simple numerical score or grade to each player. Because these grades fall outside the normal realm of a simple ranking, it allows us to compare how a player with a certain grade would be ranked in different years* by ESPN. But, before we look at that, as a point of reference, here is the page on ESPN that explains how the grades are determined.



Ok, so an easy first way to determine the strength of a class would be to look at how many guys in each class get a score of 90 or higher -- how many guys ESPN identifies as immediate impact players and likely one-and-done prospects. Here is a list of the number of 90+ athletes in recent years and into the future:

2013 - 22
2014 - 29
2015 - 19
2016 - 28
2017 - 29
2018 - 25+ (ESPN only has 25 guys ranked at this time, but all of them are 90 or higher. Obviously, ranking rising sophs is going to be very inaccurate compared to guys who are older)

As you can see, 2015 sorta sticks out like a sore thumb as a class that is weaker than others. It would be even worse if Derryck Thornton had not reclassified (for some reason, Jamal Murray is not in ESPN's rankings, probably because he is considered a foreign player). But, it is not just about how many 90+ players are in the class of 2015, there are other ways of measuring this. Frank Jackson, for example, is ESPN's #14 prospect in the 2016 class with a grade of 94. That same grade would make him the #8 or #9 player in the 2015 class.

--Jason "All of this is not to say that I am not thrilled with the kids we are getting in 2015, but to explain why 2016 and 2017 excite me so much!" Evans


* - ESPN changed the way their rankings were graded in 2013. As a result, numerical grades from years prior are not relevant.

Would be interested to know what Thornton's score was prior to him reclassifying. Most services had him ranked in the top 10 and some higher than Dennis Smith who has a score of 96. I'm guessing that the score is weighted by age (class) some how so that by moving up a grade, he was compared to the older players which brought his score down slightly?

[Troublemaker]

Would be interested to know what Thornton's score was prior to him reclassifying. Most services had him ranked in the top 10 and some higher than Dennis Smith who has a score of 96. I'm guessing that the score is weighted by age (class) some how so that by moving up a grade, he was compared to the older players which brought his score down slightly?

I think what happened was Derryck was about to drop a bit in the 2016 rankings anyway due to his shaky performances at high school nationals, so most of the scouting services just worked in that correction when they slotted him into 2015.

[JasonEvans]

It is interesting that Okafor, Myles Turner and Cliff Alexander were all 97s and ranked 1-2-3 in the 2014 rankings. They had such vastly different freshmen years. Okafor was 1st team All-America. Turner averaged 10 and 6 off the bench for Texas. Alexander averaged 7 and 5 for Kansas. I would love to hear scouts explain why all three were 97s given the big discrepancy.

Because, wait for it, recruiting rankings are not perfect predictors.

WOW! Mind blown!! Pretty darn stunning analysis there

This gives more creedence to the RSCI average, in my opinion.

So, first of all, I agree that RSCI is better but it has no mechanism for comparing one year to the next. As I said from the outset, I was trying to see if there was a method (other than the eye test) to compare one class to another. RSCI provides no means for doing that.

Also, it is worth noting that RSCI had Okafor #1, Alexander #4, and Turner #6. It is not like those rankings are wildly different from the ESPN rankings. D'Angleo Russel at #16 and Justise Winslow at #1 in RSCI tells you all you need to know about how inexact the science of recruiting rankings is.

-Jason "actually, Andrew and Aaron Harrison at #5 and #6 in the 2012 class tells you even more" Evans

[Kedsy]

Justise Winslow at #1 in RSCI

You mean Justise at #13, I presume.

[JasonEvans]

You mean Justise at #13, I presume.

Yes, typo. I dunno how that happened. Thanks.

[English]

Yes, typo. I dunno how that happened. Thanks.

Tony Bradley commits to Roy (until his de-commitment, after violations; this guy's the ~26 recuit, ~4 C per ESPN).

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/re...north-carolina

[Steven43]

I think what happened was Derryck was about to drop a bit in the 2016 rankings anyway due to his shaky performances at high school nationals, so most of the scouting services just worked in that correction when they slotted him into 2015.

Please tell me more about Thornton's 'shaky' performances at high school nationals. Should Duke fans be worried? The team is expected to be quite reliant on him for the upcoming season. Do you think a Tyus part II is asking way too much? I honestly know very little about Derryck other than his recruit ranking, watching a few highlight reels, and some discussion on DBR. Any word on how he is fitting in with the team thus far?