This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

Is the problem, the so many perceived problems? by BabaGhanouj

No one, or, at least very few, like reducing people or peoples’ activities to numbers. It’s just inaccurate and wrong. “I am not a number, I am a person!” However, that’s what we do. With everything in life, we can only use symbols. Some, like language, are better than others. Rating a ballplayer with a number, even when it’s is an average of four or more rating systems, as Dillon suggests and I have always done, is just distasteful. As the responses suggest:

It’s arbitrary or at the least subjective.
It’s bias toward taller or more mature girls.
It’s bias toward whether one participates in the rater’s events or camps.
It’s bias toward Philly Belles for Blue Star manager Mike Flynn.
There is no scientific method for coming up with the rating, it’s personal judgement and there’s even turnover for those making those judgements.
Girls physically, emotionally, and motivationally change especially when young.
Not only are ratings inaccurate for these and other reasons, which we have discussed in the past, but I especially like rjp172’s and Domerduck’s approaches from the other end. They questioned using the draft as an accurate measure for testing who are the best players. So there are problems on both ends!

Except for SixShutouts, who caught the main gist of the post, all the responses were generally concerned about the problems with ratings. (Note, I also embrace SixShutouts’ point that there is more differentiation among the top 3 or 5 or 10 girls than the 40th girl. I use that in Baba’s transmogrified ratings, that, up to now, I have been to shy to share.)

But the acknowledged problems with the ratings was not the thrust of the post. It’s beneficial to periodically rehash the apparent dangers, and we can feel good about ourselves for doing so. The thrust and purpose of the post was to explore factually, not emotionally or theoretically, if ratings were predictors of the WNBA Draft.

Almost shockingly they were! The first three are uncanny! One could say that, except for the outliers, Azura Stevens and Victoria Vivians, the ratings are incredibly prescient. Also we know through the years that the number one draft choice is often the number one rated high school player four years earlier! It’s crazy given all the practical problems!

How is this possible? As I said earlier, is the small sample of 15 from this year’s class an anomaly? Is this just dumb luck? Or, are the perceived problems (on both ends) rather small in comparison to the amount of work that these rating systems perform to get such accurate results?

All are welcome to do a larger sample. Or try a different year. I will probably run this test again next year, but I welcome further research currently.