Absolutely fair. Definitely a room for improvement on shooting 3s (think its his comfortableness, form looks fine but his volume shooting is low).
Also why is there a Kansas writer quote-tweeting about Cam Ward? I swear to GodâŚ
https://x.com/theCBGLive/status/1833852687353352489/quotes
(looks like they were a former Kansas writer and are now on Field of 68)
#4 Nate Ament
#38 London Jemison
#51 Derek Dixon
#53 Keyshaun Tillery
#54 Cam Ward
#57 Chance Mallory
Raises hand sheepishly - I would prefer Mallory land elsewhere. Want big guards.
Nobody is good, or bad, or over-ranked, or under-ranked, until they actually play in the games.
#RememberRohde
Indeed. But he was also a not ranked kid out of HS. So rankings somewhat matter lol.
They matter until they get re-ranked. My point is I donât trust it. If you remember, there were several NBA scouting services talking about Rhody 15 months ago. Nobody knows until they play.
My new guess is that weâre landing Mallory and Ward which isnât my ideal class but would still be quite good considering the playing time outlook both would face.
I feel like the ranking services look at who UVA is recruiting and then slot them somewhere in the 50âs or 60âs.
Or
Houston gets the best quotes.
Ward tends to think he would be a great for Tony Bennettâs system.
âI think I would fit in well,â he explained. âThey were telling me that they can really see me grabbing rebounds well and pushing the ball up the floor immediately on offense. Another thing is my ability to spot up and catch and shoot, we talked a lot about that. One thing also that I liked was just the amount of freedom I would have to go and get a bucket.â
This is sounding like they want him to be more wing than forward on offense, which sounds good to me.
I have said for years that all recruiting is a crap shoot. The various services may get the Top 15 to Top 25 right (depending on the year), but after that, and through about #125, you might as well put their names on cards, and toss them down the stairs. Then, rank them in the order they land. Aside from the difficulty of comparing a PGâs skillset to the skillset of a C, as well as other positions, how much real difference is there between the #26 player and the #125 player? Finally, what will the differences be when they finish their second year in a program? And, out of curiosity, does anyone know how many Top 25 players, or McDonaldsâ AAs, were part of their teamâs primary rotation in the Final Fours of the last ten years?
Edit to add: This isnât to say that some in the 100 player group arenât better than some of the others, but that none of the services have the time, skill, or resources to put them into a menaingful order. Rankings are basically for fans on message boards.
My guess is the average player from 26-50 is meaningfully better than the average player from 101-125, if you look across a fairly robust sample of players and years, in terms of college and pro outcome.
You could look at level of play (NBA, Power 4/5/6), production, accolades (all stars, all conference), etc.
I suspect youâd find that the predictive power of rankings decreases as you get further from 25, but thatâs a much milder statement than youâre making (no real difference between #26 and 125).
Everyone remembers the ones like Dame or Curry or Zach Edey, who werenât ranked that high. But nobody remembers Bob Boberson, or Craig Craig, or Dan Daniels, or Ed Edwards who were ranked 110 and went to Big State and picked their nose on the bench.
If anyone is bored and wants to take on a math project, go for it!
Just a quick check, on 2014-16 RSCI, draft picks of 26-50 v. 76-100:
2014
2015
2016
Total (14-16)
And a sidenote on 2014 â this is the kind of year that leads to folks thinking thereâs no meaningful difference. Equal number of picks, and moreover, the 26-50 have all washed out and 76-100 included Mikal Bridges and Damontas Sabonis. But then you look at 15 and 16, and it puts 14 in context.
Just eyeballing this if anyone wants to check me:
Well, just to be a bit contrary, a concept with which I imagine you are quite familiar! 
I suspect the NBA is more heavily represented by those in that #1 to #25 group. After that, I am unsure you can make an argument that #25 through #50 is better represented than #51 through #125. Simply using Virginia as an example, in recent years Kyle Guy, Ty Jerome, Jay Huff, and Mamadi Diakite were all ranked between #26 and #50 (at least by one service somewhere), I believe Abdur-Rabim might have been in there, too. So far, only Jerome has had a secure NBA gig. Huff and Diakite hang around with two way contracts. On the other hand, Joe Harris, Malcolm Brogdon, Anthony Gill, DeAndre Hunter, and Sam Hauser all have, or had, decent NBA careers and they were clustered around #100. I havenât even been able to find a HS ranking for Tre Murphy. Finally, my concern really isnât how well they might do in the NBA, but what they might contribute in college. If the rankings were really accurate, I am unsure that we would see the vertical movement that we do in the transfer portal each spring. Draft picks are one thing; who makes the roster is another. Hauser wasnât even drafted.
One could read this as an assertion that players ranked #25 through #50 are approximately 3 times more likely to stick in the NBA than players ranked #51 through #125.
I am not entirely sure that that is true. What @Haney has shown is that the higher ranked group is more likely to get drafted than the lower group. It says nothing about those making rosters. Additionally, and what no one has addressed just yet, is the impact of the new transfer portal. Players are drafted not just on their perceived talent, but also the exposure that they have received is a factor. Players ranked in the #26 to #51 are more likely to go to high majors, and from there they play in front of a wider audience and so have the opportunity to increase their draft appeal. With the vertical movement afforded by the portal, initially lower ranked players are now getting the opportunity to obtain the better exposure (see Tre Murphy III as a forerunner of this). Finally, being valued by the NBA does not necessarily mean a player lacks exceptional value as a collegiate player. For example, I donât think anyone here doesnât acknowledge Reece Beekmanâs importance to Virginia in recent years, but I am uncertain about his NBA future. Kyle Guyâs example only reinforces this in my mind. Regardless, I think the portal is changing the dynamic, and I donât have all the answers to this question. For the moment, I am unworried about where Virginiaâs recruits are ranked, but have to believe if the staff pursues them, they should be able to contribute. Of course, that remains an unknown until they lace up their sneakers.
isnât it just talent + coaching + team chemistry = success. Each one of those variables can only take you so far. So yeah you want the best talent you can get but they have to fit the team.
So go find some data that provides support for what youâre asserting
I took five minutes and found some stuff and youâre arguing that my data doesnât blah blah blah
Here is my argument against your evidence / data: you havenât bothered to find any
Not exactly. The data you found reflected appeal to NBA teams. It doesnât necessarily apply to collegiate performance. The two are certainly related, but not necessarily the same. Furthermore, many of the services fully admit that their rankings are assembled with an eye to the NBA draft. The data you presented was very informative, but it was for years before the new transfer portal regs. I have a suspicion that that will change matters. Finally, your data concerned players who were drafted, and not those who made teamsâ rosters. Your criticism that I havenât presented any data to support my position is perfectly valid. All I have shown are anecdotal exceptions. At this time, I donât have the time to pursue this, and I suspect that that for which I will be looking will be a bit more difficult to find than what you presented. (For instance, the relationship between HS rankings and being members of the primary rotations of teams ranked in the Top 25.) I will make an effort in the near future, if for no other reason than I am curious.
Slightly less snarky: the RSCI 2014-16 was just a quick demo of the type of thing youâd have to look at to get a meaningful answer to the question of whether recruiting rankings have predictive value from 26-125. As you point out, there are many others.
Also, your statement yesterday was along the lines of âno predictive valueâ (better off dropping them down stairs, or whatever). Youâre also making other observations along these lines: (1) perhaps public recruiting services budgets, whatever, etc. are going down so they are less predictive than they used to be, and (2) the 5th year and portal have decreased the predictive value of HS recruiting rankings as it pertains to college production.
I think 1 and 2 are both intriguing theories, but, to be clear, separate from the initial question of predictive value in general of 26-125.
Anyway, I suspect nobody really cares about this⌠(which is why fans would be totally neutral between getting the 26th ranked recruit and the 125th⌠L-O-L)