‘20 NJ CG - Niels Lane (Offer)

[Rhody83]

Niels Lane - CG
From: Princeton NJ
School: Perkiomen School(NJ)
AAU: Team Final (PA)

HT: 6’5”
WT: 175

Rankings
247 Sports - 3 star #276

Offers:
Recent
Florida
Vermont
Rhode Island
Virginia Tech
Sienna
Cal Berkley
Xavier

Previous
UConn
Drexel
LaSalle
UPenn
PC
Rider

[Rhody83]

[Rhody83]

Neils played with Chris Arcidiacono (‘19 going to Nova) this year at Perkiomen. Co MVPs of holiday tournament. Chris had 31 points & Niels had 28 points.

[Rhody83]

https://www.maxpreps.com/athlete/niels- ... f3e6cb4261

[ramster]

Team Final Preview for EYBL AAU:

https://www.d1circuit.com/news_article/show/1011502

[Rhody83]

[Rhody83]

[Rhody83]

Offers starting to pile up - Cal and Xavier offered today.

[PeterRamTime]

What does CG mean?

[RhowdyRam02]

combo guard?

[PeterRamTime]

combo guard?

Ah yeah probably.

[ramster]

trimmed his list to 7:
Xavier
Miami
Providence
Texas
UConn
Georgia
Florida

[Rhody83]

Just to show how reactive the ratings services are - 3 months ago Niels composite 247 ranking was #274 (3 star) and now his composite is #66 (4 star).

[Ramulous]

Proposed new thread title


'20 NJ SG - Neils Lane (We're Out)

[Rhody83]

Proposed new thread title


'20 NJ SG - Neils Lane (We're Out)

Or (we were never in it)

[rjsuperfly66]

Just to show how reactive the ratings services are - 3 months ago Niels composite 247 ranking was #274 (3 star) and now his composite is #66 (4 star).

I don’t know if reactive is the right word - players tend to move the most during AAU periods and can see heavy movement the summer before senior year as they close in on starting their college career.

[Rhody83]

Just to show how reactive the ratings services are - 3 months ago Niels composite 247 ranking was #274 (3 star) and now his composite is #66 (4 star).

I don’t know if reactive is the right word - players tend to move the most during AAU periods and can see heavy movement the summer before senior year as they close in on starting their college career.

He had a good April/May. Using your theory ratings prior to April going into their Sr year are mostly meaningless.
Look at his Composite Rating History
May 21st (after 8 out of 13 Spring AAU games) his rating went DOWN to 293
June 15th his rating improved to 68 (225 spots)
His last three games before the June 15th rating he scored 2, 5 & 3 FGs.

It could be the rating services changed their ratings after they saw some new schools offer in May & June

[TruePoint]

It could be the rating services changed their ratings after they saw some new schools offer in May & June

[rjsuperfly66]

Just to show how reactive the ratings services are - 3 months ago Niels composite 247 ranking was #274 (3 star) and now his composite is #66 (4 star).

I don’t know if reactive is the right word - players tend to move the most during AAU periods and can see heavy movement the summer before senior year as they close in on starting their college career.

He had a good April/May. Using your theory ratings prior to April going into their Sr year are mostly meaningless.
Look at his Composite Rating History
May 21st (after 8 out of 13 Spring AAU games) his rating went DOWN to 293
June 15th his rating improved to 68 (225 spots)
His last three games before the June 15th rating he scored 2, 5 & 3 FGs.

It could be the rating services changed their ratings after they saw some new schools offer in May & June

The goal of ratings is to tell you who a recruiting site thinks has the best potential/skills. They are going to be weighted the closer you get towards them actually enrolling in college as what they are doing this summer is more important than what they did last summer or the summer before. I don't know what you would expect differently.

What a player did 3 years ago is largely irrelevant. At this point a recruit is 10-12 months away from being on a college campus and the game he displays now is far more important. Also, his potential is closer to being realized. What if 3 years ago there was a 5'7 2-guard with certain skills and people said "Damn, if they kid only got to 6'5 he'd be a hell of a player," and then he actually gets to 6'4-6'5? Or there could be a player like Tomas Murphy who is 6'7 in 2014 with a certain set of skills where people say "Damn, that kid could be 6'10-6'11 and a dynamite player if he keeps improved his skills," and 3 years later he really hasn't improved his skills and has grown about an inch? It's an impossible art.

That's why what really matters is what they are doing now and how you can project that moving forward. It doesn't make those projections any more right, just a higher probability than what they were as freshmen in high school.

[bigappleram]

He must have grown a lot between May 21 and June 15th then.

[rjsuperfly66]

He must have grown a lot between May 21 and June 15th then.

I do sense the sarcasm, but I think you would agree it's rather hard to go day-by-day on consensus ratings until a majority of them have been updated?

[Rhody83]

Rj, you give the ratings services too much credit. Most off them are months behind in keeping up with offers and they are going to tell me which schools are “warm”. For some players they don’t even have the correct high school for a player who switched two years ago but they are going to tell me his height and wtg.

[rjsuperfly66]

Rj, you give the ratings services too much credit. Most off them are months behind in keeping up with offers and they are going to tell me which schools are “warm”. For some players they don’t even have the correct high school for a player who switched two years ago but they are going to tell me his height and wtg.

I understand the holes in recruiting ratings. I don't read recruiting sites for "hot," "warm," "cool," or "cold." I don't read them for an updated offer list. I don't read those sites for which HS a kid played at. The proven sites are presumably sending multiple people to events around the country watching games day after day, week after week. I care about trying to figure out how a player looks while playing against his peers and preparing for college. It's all subjective -- is there much difference between a player 51 and a player 71? No. Does player 51 ever reach his potential? Maybe not, maybe he's a bust. Maybe he's a star. But I'm going to trust people who put far more effort into evaluating players and their games than I'm going to my own opinions. And even greater, I will trust a coach to make his own evaluations well before recruiting rankings are even in play. But I also acknowledge the math around recruiting usually supports that players ranked between 45-55 are going to be better players on average then players ranked 145-155 are going to be better than players on average ranked 245-255. I like to play with the averages, as most fans do, which is why they tend to get excited about ranking.

[TruePoint]

The reality is that there are way too many players for the services to accurately rate all of them in comparison to each other. Most of the resources they do have are focused on the players being recruited by the top half dozen or so programs, so for the top 25 players there is probably a good amount of effort spent on evaluating and ranking the players. After that, they shorthand it. They look at how other services are ranking players and slot them into their rankings accordingly (a sort of reverse-consensus), and they look at what offers kids are getting - if a kid they didn’t rate highly suddenly pulls in a bunch of high major offers they assume he improved or was previously overlooked and bump him up. This isn’t necessarily a criticism, because it really is hard to sort in a meaningful way the hundreds of players from all over the country who are under consideration, and some shorthand is required if you’re going to try to do it. But it is a good reason to not get overly focused on the rankings, because they are not a science.

[bigappleram]

Schools offering and coaches chasing the kid outweigh rankings all day.
Outside of the Top 25 there are so many flaws with the recruiting ranking services.

[Rhody83]

Rj, I still believe you give the ratings evaluators too much credit.
It’s frustrating that all the sites suck.
Might point about how much info on their sites are wrong leads me to question their ratings as well.
Maybe player 51 did meet his potential but his rating was way off and he should’ve been 251.
Jeff Dowtin 273 - that is a big miss
MAL 41 - that is a big miss
MAL couldn’t shoot and was ranked 41st.

[rjsuperfly66]

Sure, I think we all agree there are flaws, but the averages are still the averages. Player 152 might end up being better than player 52, but players 45-54 are usually better basketball players than 145-154. So while we can all say "It's not a perfect science" and "After Player X it often means nothing," those aren't always necessarily the facts.

Here are the facts:
In the last 4-year class (2015), players 45-54 averaged 8.7 ppg, 3.5 rpg, 1.6 apg.
Players 145-154 averaged 6.5 ppg, 3.1 rpg, 1.4 apg.

If you want to call out every hit and every miss, you'll find a great number of those. You'll also find plenty of players in the 200s and 300s where "Coach X had his own list and said Player Y was a Top 100 talent" which fans buy to feel better, and then the player transfers after playing zero meaningful minutes in three seasons. I'll trust the averages.

[bigappleram]

So on average 100 spots better in rankings netted you 1 extra bucket of production? Wouldn't that sorta prove out the point when a significant 100 spot difference only yields a nominal spread in output?

[rjsuperfly66]

So on average 100 spots better in rankings netted you 1 extra bucket of production? Wouldn't that sorta prove out the point when a significant 100 spot difference only yields a nominal spread in output?

It depends how you look at it - 1 player is a 2.2 point difference. 8 players is a 17.6 point difference. That’s what it should look like recruiting at a consistently high level.

This also doesn’t factor in the 4 players 45-54 who have already played NBA minutes as early entrants versus 1 player 145-154.

[Rhody83]

There are plenty of Jeff Dowtin situations out there. Enough for me to ignore the rankings above the Top 75 and pay attention to the schools offering a player. If the averages were so good why do most of the top coaches invest significant hours in creating their own rankings?

Jeff Dowtin #276 was leading his team as a Fr to the A10 Championship and the Round of 32. #276 Dowtin btw had 23 points and was 10-10 from the FT line against Creighton to help seal their NCAA Tournament win.

[Ramulous]

We're out...

[rjsuperfly66]

There are plenty of Jeff Dowtin situations out there. Enough for me to ignore the rankings above the Top 75 and pay attention to the schools offering a player. If the averages were so good why do most of the top coaches invest significant hours in creating their own rankings?

Jeff Dowtin #276 was leading his team as a Fr to the A10 Championship and the Round of 32. #276 Dowtin btw had 23 points and was 10-10 from the FT line against Creighton to help seal their NCAA Tournament win.

Dowtin is a great player. Langevine is a very good player. Hurley also busted on the other two players in that class big-time. If you recruit at 50% efficiency, you won’t have a good long-term program.

What I would tell you is this - Look at the best URI players from like 2014 to present. URIs top ranked recruits/transfers are all among the top of the list — Terrell, Mathews, Martin, Iverson, Robinson - all Top 130 players. So if you choose to add Dowtin or Langevine, that’s fine, but it just goes to show that every Top 130 guy Hurley identified and landed played an important role. He grabbed some great talent 250+ but with a very mixed bag of results.

[Rhody83]

There are plenty of Jeff Dowtin situations out there. Enough for me to ignore the rankings above the Top 75 and pay attention to the schools offering a player. If the averages were so good why do most of the top coaches invest significant hours in creating their own rankings?

Jeff Dowtin #276 was leading his team as a Fr to the A10 Championship and the Round of 32. #276 Dowtin btw had 23 points and was 10-10 from the FT line against Creighton to help seal their NCAA Tournament win.

Dowtin is a great player. Langevine is a very good player. Hurley also busted on the other two players in that class big-time. If you recruit at 50% efficiency, you won’t have a good long-term program.

What I would tell you is this - Look at the best URI players from like 2014 to present. URIs top ranked recruits/transfers are all among the top of the list — Terrell, Mathews, Martin, Iverson, Robinson - all Top 130 players. So if you choose to add Dowtin or Langevine, that’s fine, but it just goes to show that every Top 130 guy Hurley identified and landed played an important role. He grabbed some great talent 250+ but with a very mixed bag of results.

I get that and there is no doubt that Dowtin and Langevine are in that group. Hassan Martin wasn’t in the Top 150.
KI and Robinson were top 100 busts at their original schools. Dan picked them off the reject pile. They weren’t top 130 when he recruited them.

[rjsuperfly66]

Martin may not be a consensus Top 150 on 24/7 (which is a newer metric), but when URI recruited him he was a Top 125 recruit on Rivals and celebrated as such. Even still, he's clearly one of the higher-rated recruits brought in during the post-Baron era.
I think it gets back to the point -- Every recruit who oozed talent in HS, Hurley was able to make them productive basketball players.
While you can say KI and Robinson were "busts," is it just possible that they did not have the right situations for their growth and Hurley helped them reach that potential?
You can celebrate Dowtin and Langevine as guys that also crack that group of talent players, but I think what you are leaving out is the many players from that area of the recruiting board who were truly busts (couldn't play any meaningful minutes), or guys that were not necessarily impactful over the course of their URI career.
I think it shows the reality - There are talented players in that area of the recruiting board. There are also a ton of busts. If you hit on all of the talented players you are a recruiting guru. If you go 50/50 you are probably still an above average recruiter.
You'll never acknowledge it, but the reality is the further you go down the recruiting board, the higher probability a player is a bust.
That doesn't automatically make any recruit a bust, but it's just the reality that you might have a 70-75% chance of getting a player 45-54 who ends up having a solid career, but from 145-154 you might have a 45-50% chance of landing a player who ends up having a solid career, and from 245-254 they might have a 25-30% chance of having a solid career.
Is that unfair to say? I don't think so. But sure I'll acknowledge that there are guys ranked 300 who produce like Top 100 talent and who I would love on my team.

[Iggy1979]

"Dowtin is a great player. Langevine is a very good player. Hurley also busted on the other two players in that class big-time. If you recruit at 50% efficiency, you won’t have a good long-term program."
Of course you want to do better than 50 percent, but even at 50 percent every year you end up with a solid eight-player rotation. URI bringing in 3 centers in 2016 was somewhat of an acknowledgement that they didn't expect all three to shake out, and they were playing the odds that RJ is talking about.