Damian Lillard and the Cautionary Tale of Ratings Services

Donate To GopherHole
WindyCityGopher

WindyCityGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
3,703
Reaction score
2,717
Points
113
I've always found it fascinating how much weight is put into high school ratings services like Rivals and ESPN and their somewhat arbitrary assignment of stars and Top 100 to rank high school athletes, often times inaccurately, it turns out in hindsight. The story of Damian Lillard -- a little-recruited guard out of Oakland (a 2-star from Rivals) who went to Weber State basically because he had no other offers, then was nurtured and developed by a strong coaching staff and his own motivations to be better, ultimately becoming a first-round pick and the unanimous choice for Rookie of the Year in the best basketball league in the world -- should be a guide for programs like Minnesota's. We can get players here who may not be 5-star (or even 4- or 3-star) talents, but with a good young coaching staff signing players who are driven to be the best, then developing them into better players (something Tubby and staff never did), I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a sustained level of success . You don't necessarily have to have a team loaded with high school studs to win, but signing lower rated talent like Damian Lillard requires a focus on recruiting the right players, then making them better players. I believe Coach Pitino will be able to do that.

http://valleyofthesuns.com/2012/06/...-from-overlooked-point-guard-to-lottery-pick/
 

WindyCityGopher said:
I've always found it fascinating how much weight is put into high school ratings services like Rivals and ESPN and their somewhat arbitrary assignment of stars and Top 100 to rank high school athletes, often times inaccurately, it turns out in hindsight. The story of Damian Lillard -- a little-recruited guard out of Oakland (a 2-star from Rivals) who went to Weber State basically because he had no other offers, then was nurtured and developed by a strong coaching staff and his own motivations to be better, ultimately becoming a first-round pick and the unanimous choice for Rookie of the Year in the best basketball league in the world -- should be a guide for programs like Minnesota's. We can get players here who may not be 5-star (or even 4- or 3-star) talents, but with a good young coaching staff signing players who are driven to be the best, then developing them into better players (something Tubby and staff never did), I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a sustained level of success . You don't necessarily have to have a team loaded with high school studs to win, but signing lower rated talent like Damian Lillard requires a focus on recruiting the right players, then making them better players. I believe Coach Pitino will be able to do that.

http://valleyofthesuns.com/2012/06/...-from-overlooked-point-guard-to-lottery-pick/
Click to expand...

Tubby and staff never once did that huh? What leads you to believe Coach P. will be able to do that? If I were him I'd get the highest rated kids he can.
 

Ah, another accusation that Tubby and staff never improved players... something that is just not true.
 

JDGopher said:
Ah, another accusation that Tubby and staff never improved players... something that is just not true.
Click to expand...

Not to the extent that many Gopher fans would have liked. I did notice improvement in some of his players, especially at the beginning of the season (albeit it was the non-conference schedule). When Big Ten play began, the players who had shown improvement, seemed to regress.

I think some of the physical improvements were there, but mentally they weren't prepared once Big Ten play began (unless it was a big-time prime-time game like Indiana). Ultimately though, it does fall to the indivdual players, but when it seemed to happen to every player every year...you have to start to question how Tubby was handling it.

/my 2 cents
 

I'm not sure if this is a slam on Tubby or recruiting services ... However, either is misguided in the case of Damien Lilard or any 2-star recruit that went to a mid major and succeeded.

Here's why:

Recruiting services - check the total NBA draft. The majority of selections are 4 or 5 star recruits. There are exceptions of course a with any projection system. You are expecting sites to project how good a kid will be in 4 years. Not an exact science by any means.

The truth of the matter is, hindsight is 20/20. I could build a pretty solid team with 2-star recruits too if I could build said team 4 years after they all graduated college.

Coaches - no D1 schools offered Lillard. Is your point here that the Weber State coach is the greatest developer of talent of all time or that he has a better eye for talent than every BCS coach in America? Not sure which you feel is true, but I strongly disagree with both.
 


WindyCityGopher said:
You don't necessarily have to have a team loaded with high school studs to win, but signing lower rated talent like Damian Lillard requires a focus on recruiting the right players, then making them better players. I believe Coach Pitino will be able to do that.
Click to expand...

Finding undervalued gems is what a program like Weber St. must do to gain recognition. Ideally, Minnesota should gradually move into a position where they are legitimately in the conversation for some of the nation's (known) elite.
 

Stories like this are great and all but there's a reason it's a story. Most kids that get no looks from big schools and are lightly recruited are that way for a reason. There are kids on the end of the bench at mid majors around the country who only got one offer. Kids grow and develop physically and some happen to develop into great players. Sometimes it helps being at a smaller school too. Would he still be a great player if he rode the bench for 2 years and then had to share shots with talented kids? Would he have worked the same on his game? Would he have the confidence you get when you're the #1 option for your team? Who knows but my guess is there are kids playing 10 mns a game at big schools that would develop much more if they were big fish in small ponds
 

For every Damian Lillard there are hundreds of Maverick Ahanmisi's. Generally, the programs that get the higher rated kids by ESPN, Rivals, etc. tend to have more success. And for the most part, 2 star rated players aren't as athletic as the higher rated players so their ceilings are lower, so even if you develop them to their max potential it may not get you very far.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I think Pitino's best chance to be successful is to get as many 4 or 5 star kids here as possible. I think his dad even said so.
 

hidden gems

jaymil said:
For every Damian Lillard there are hundreds of Maverick Ahanmisi's. Generally, the programs that get the higher rated kids by ESPN, Rivals, etc. tend to have more success. And for the most part, 2 star rated players aren't as athletic as the higher rated players so their ceilings are lower, so even if you develop them to their max potential it may not get you very far.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I think Pitino's best chance to be successful is to get as many 4 or 5 star kids here as possible. I think his dad even said so.
Click to expand...

Agreed and I'd say it is even beyond generally, I'd say 90% of the time that a program with lots of higher rated kids will finish with a better record than one with a lower number of these players (check out ohio st's record over the last 5 years getting the highest rated recruits). The only people who make these type of points cheer for schools who cannot get the 4 and 5 star kids. I would also say for every Damian there are "thousands" of players who didn't develop. 300+ division 1 schools with 12 players +. I'd add there are some 2 star players who are athletic but go to small schools because they are seriously under weight. I think Damian was 160 lbs.
 



I completely agree that Coach P should shoot for all the 5- and 4-star talent he can get, and I hope like hell that he succeeds with that approach. But we also have to be prepared that he won't be able to consistently attract that kind of talent, either at first as he builds the program or throughout his time at the U, and let the process of player development play out over these kids' careers. My point in posting this is that people tend to overheat about what rating a 16 or 17 or 18-year-old kid has, when 5-star talent can fail (albeit at lesser rates than lower rated recruits) and 2-star talent can become a first-round pick and the NBA's Rookie of the Year. I don't know if Pitino and staff will be able to develop talent any better than the last regime -- again, I hope so -- but ultimately I'd like to see Pitino be measured by what he does with the talent he gets, rather than the arbitrary rating someone puts on them before they ever play a college game.
 

Maybe Lillard just got better? Slamming recruitng services and college coaches who missed out on players diminishes the hard work that players like Lillard put in to become much better.
 

Recruiting services are not 100% accurate. This is an earth-shattering revelation.
 

Originally Posted by oleboy41
Would he still be a great player if he rode the bench for 2 years and then had to share shots with talented kids?
Click to expand...

This is a great point! Pitino or any other major college coach is going to naturally be bias toward the 4 and 5 star recruits. These "diamond in the rough" 2 star recruits are usually in the rough for a reason. Finding them is hard enough let alone being able to nurture them while trying to win in the BIG.
 



jaymil said:
For every Damian Lillard there are hundreds of Maverick Ahanmisi's. Generally, the programs that get the higher rated kids by ESPN, Rivals, etc. tend to have more success. And for the most part, 2 star rated players aren't as athletic as the higher rated players so their ceilings are lower, so even if you develop them to their max potential it may not get you very far.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I think Pitino's best chance to be successful is to get as many 4 or 5 star kids here as possible. I think his dad even said so.
Click to expand...

+1 I find it hilarious when people find one hidden gem like this and conclude that rankings don't mean anything. I could probably count on one hand the amount of 2 stars in the NBA. There are SIGNIFICANTLY more 5 stars. Recruiting services are right far more often than not.
 


Lillard was somewhat of a late bloomer... solid year as a frosh, then boosted things as a sophomore.

Some won't like this, but had he been with a different AAU program or from a different part of the country the evaluations of him would have likely wound up a bit different.
--------------------


Gopher Warrior said:
Not going to get into too much detail here, but a couple of draft thoughts are (1) I'm a big fan of Lillard and (2) Sullinger dropping as far as some current projections have him going gives someone a steal (i.e., late teens, but maybe that'll change when some of these guys put out their mock version number 14,432 or whatever it's up to later today).
Click to expand...
 

Just for a point of reference on recruiting rankings, here is this year's NBA All Star team and what they were ranked by Rivals as high schoolers:

EASTERN CONFERENCE:
LeBron James (5-star, #1 in class of 2003)
Carmelo Anthony (5-star, #1 in class of 2002)
Kevin Garnett (5-star, #1 in class of 1995*)
Jrue Holiday (5-star, #2 in class of 2008)
Luol Deng (5-star, #2 in class of 2003)
Chris Bosh (5-star, #2 in class of 2002)
Tyson Chandler (5-star, #4 in class of 2001*)
Kyrie Irving (5-star, #4 in class of 2010)
Brook Lopez (5-star, #10 in class of 2006)
Rajon Rondo (5-star, #25 in class of 2004)
Joakim Noah (4-star, #75 in class of 2004)
Paul George (3-star, class of 2008)
Dwyane Wade (unranked, poor grades)

WESTERN CONFERENCE:
Dwight Howard (5-star, #1 in class 2004)
Kobe Bryant (5-star, #1 in class of 1996*)
Zach Randolph (5-star, #1 in class of 2000*)
Kevin Durant (5-star, #2 in class of 2006)
James Harden (5-star, #11 in class of 2007)
Chris Paul (5-star, #13 in class of 2003)
LaMarcus Aldridge (5-star, #16 in class of 2004)
Blake Griffin (5-star, #23 in class of 2007)
Russell Westbrook (3-star in class of 2006)
Tim Duncan (unranked)
Tony Parker (international)

* - rankings prior to Rivals (consensus through RSCI)
 

tjgopher said:
Just for a point of reference on recruiting rankings, here is this year's NBA All Star team and what they were ranked by Rivals as high schoolers:

EASTERN CONFERENCE:
LeBron James (5-star, #1 in class of 2003)
Carmelo Anthony (5-star, #1 in class of 2002)
Kevin Garnett (5-star, #1 in class of 1995*)
Jrue Holiday (5-star, #2 in class of 2008)
Luol Deng (5-star, #2 in class of 2003)
Chris Bosh (5-star, #2 in class of 2002)
Tyson Chandler (5-star, #4 in class of 2001*)
Kyrie Irving (5-star, #4 in class of 2010)
Brook Lopez (5-star, #10 in class of 2006)
Rajon Rondo (5-star, #25 in class of 2004)
Joakim Noah (4-star, #75 in class of 2004)
Paul George (3-star, class of 2008)
Dwyane Wade (unranked, poor grades)

WESTERN CONFERENCE:
Dwight Howard (5-star, #1 in class 2004)
Kobe Bryant (5-star, #1 in class of 1996*)
Zach Randolph (5-star, #1 in class of 2000*)
Kevin Durant (5-star, #2 in class of 2006)
James Harden (5-star, #11 in class of 2007)
Chris Paul (5-star, #13 in class of 2003)
LaMarcus Aldridge (5-star, #16 in class of 2004)
Blake Griffin (5-star, #23 in class of 2007)
Russell Westbrook (3-star in class of 2006)
Tim Duncan (unranked)
Tony Parker (international)

* - rankings prior to Rivals (consensus through RSCI)
Click to expand...

See, rankings mean nothing! Oh, wait...
 


Bob_Loblaw said:
These recruiting rankings arguments are always the same. They find the statistical outlier and try to use it as proof that rankings don't matter.
Click to expand...

Yup. People win the lottery sometimes. To the people who say rankings don't matter, that must mean there's an equal chance of winning and losing, since you know, some people win and some people lose.
 

Does anyone have any thoughts on recruiting for basketball vs. football?

It seems to me like you get more football players that come out of nowhere to be stars than basketball players. My guess is that has to do with basketball being a more athletic sport whereas there are a lot of positions in football where you can simply outwork the other guy and beat them because you are more physical.
 

eker0016 said:
Does anyone have any thoughts on recruiting for basketball vs. football?

It seems to me like you get more football players that come out of nowhere to be stars than basketball players. My guess is that has to do with basketball being a more athletic sport whereas there are a lot of positions in football where you can simply outwork the other guy and beat them because you are more physical.
Click to expand...

AAU and fewer players also make it much easier to get exposure in basketball. Easier for players to fall under the radar in football.
 

eker0016 said:
Does anyone have any thoughts on recruiting for basketball vs. football?
Click to expand...

Several factors:

1. Roster size - you can afford to take chances on developmental players when you have ~25 scholarships to use each year rather than 3-4
2. Developmental curve - players develop earlier in basketball than in football; players still improve, no doubt, but an 18-year-old elite basketball player will generally be much closer to his full potential than an 18-year-old elite football player
3. Ease of practice - football is a more cost-intensive game - it's easier to play pickup for basketball players and refine/maximize their talents
4. Skill sets - while strength and skill are needed in both sports, basketball tends more toward skill and football more toward strength; strength doesn't really show up for most players until into their 20s and beyond, so some guys might not "show up" as players until later

There are undoubtedly several other facets, but these were what I could think up for now.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom