KLM, Walker, Katie Lou and Williams didn't do much/aren't doing much in the WNBA. I don't think Fudd will and Bueckers is a question mark because of her various health issues and also she'll get bullied quite a bit. Still surprised Cox was such an underachiever.
Napheesa Collier, who was in the same class as KLS (and was a serious ND prospect). She gradually made her game better and found what worked for her, both at UConn and even more so in the WNBA. Respected her game at UConn...really like it in the W.
The concept of development , as noted, is not to be overlooked. Even a #1 pick like Jackie Young has worked on tweaking her shooting form in the W.
Jewell got her outside shot up to speed. And perhaps the steadiest improvement came with a 2nd round pick, Marina Mabrey. Outside of Domers, who expected her to become as successful as she has? All power to her for continued self-motivation.
I enjoyed this video because he has done the research and avoids absolutes in lieu of reasonable analysis.
I, also, have been interested in high school rankings versus the WNBA draft and college Efficiency. I won’t bore you with another chart, but, again, Hunter Cruse does a good job in this video IMHO.
He doesn’t answer his two questions at the beginning. Well, he answers them the right way, via an operational definition: facts & figures with analysis.
His two questions were:
Do high school recruiting rankings actually matter?
Are they an indication of future NBA success?
My short answers, with both his and my research, are 1) Yes and 2) “an indication”, Yes
One complaint is his definition of “high school recruiting rankings”. I think he falls short by simply using the No. 1 ranked player by HoopGurlz. Try an average or weighted average of many rating services. What makes ESPN’s rating so special? (OK, I know the answer to that—marketing.)
Also, why only use one (the top) example from each class? (OK, I know the answer to that, too, length of the video)
Again, I would suggest a chart :)
As an aside, what I find fascinating (and have always found fascinating) is the number of HoopGurlz No. 1 recruits that go to UConn. From 2010 onward UConn has eight! … in 2011, 2012, 2015, 2017, 2018, 2020, 2021, 2023! (ND has 0)
suggests that ND does more with less.). Why 8 to 0, is a different question. (Hint, it's not academics.)
..because you touched on so many aspects:
- Average or weighted averages wouldn't have hindered his rankings that much I bet, since quite a few of these folks were clear #1's.
But ESPN (Hoopgurlz) has marketed its way to the top.
- That said, a way around this comes from using more than the top example. Yes, time could be a factor, but the way to do it is easy to me:
Focus on the top-ranked player (a bit more succinctly) and have a section at the end of every year: Which player has outperformed her ranking: Napheesa Coller, for sure. Jackie Young? Kelsey Plum?
- The number of #1 recruits in the early teens, in my mind, coincides with the Maya Moore (eventually) to Stewie years, strongly supported by Geno's reign -- uh, term -- as National Team coach. While there might not be as many #1's, look at how Dawn Staley and S.C. are doing after the A'ja Wilson years and, ta da, her term with the National Team. Is Cori Close benefitting from her consistent work with more junior teams in the U.S. system? Jodi Taylor? Will Coach Ivey find the same if she stays with it?
-