I'm recruiting two shooting guards and I'm confused at how to interpret what I'm seeing.

Player #1 (OV 397 - Also, ranked in the top ten players in the state)
SCR/PAS/HDL/IN/OUT/FT/DEF/REB/BK/STL/ATH/OVR/PPG/APG/RPG/BPG/SPG
C / B / C / D / A / C / F / C / D / C / D / C /14.8/1.6 /5.3 /0.8 /2.3

Player #2 (OV 1768)
SCR/PAS/HDL/IN/OUT/FT/DEF/REB/BK/STL/ATH/OVR/PPG/APG/RPG/BPG/SPG
B / D / C / D / A / C / B / D / F / F / C / C /16.0/0.4 /2.1 /0.0 /0.0

Ignoring the OV rating, the two players are very similar to me and I think player #2 is actually the better choice. What player #2 lacks in passing skills, he more than makes up for in defense and athletic ability. Plus, he is a better scorer. Rated "F" in blocks and steals doesn't strike me as a major deterrent when your talking about a shooting guard.

I simply don't understand how these two players could be separated by 1,371 players in the overall ranking.

Should I trust that the OV ranking is more accurate than the evaluated ratings?
How would you interpret this?

The ratings are not a science, they're an evaluation and as with most evaluations, not totally perfect. They provide the evaulation of your coaches (or a ratings service) who have biases and imperfections. While generally A & B (overall) players will be better players than most C, D & F players, that's not always the case. The same occurs for the numeric rankings. And the skill ratings might have been influenced by what a coach (or the rating service) noted when viewing the player once or talking to high school coaches. High school (or JC stats) can vary depending on where the recruit played and the competition he played against.

Sometimes you will see a #1048 (overall C) player become a star on your or another team and sometimes a #68 (overall B) player just won't perform well at the collegiate level.

You also have to look at the notes you receive...hard working or not?, injury prone or not?, leader or not?, attitude & displine problems or not?

So, who you choose depends upon what YOU want to focus upon and what you need for your team. Player 2 seems to be a better scorer and probably a better overall defender and may maintain his EN rating better when playing in college, but has far worse stealing and blocking skills that Player 1, Player 1 seems to be a better passer (who dishes out more assists) and rebounder than Player 2. #1768 is pretty darned low so maybe he played for a team that didn't play against as difficult of competition as Player 1, but maybe that numeric rating isn't all that accurate (?). Did the numeric rankings for these 2 players change much from one time of the year to another?

PointGuard wrote:...Player 2. #1768 is pretty darned low so maybe he played for a team that didn't play against as difficult of competition as Player 1, but maybe that numeric rating isn't all that accurate (?).

At first glance, player two is my guy, because I don't care if my SG is deficient in blocking shots and stealing the ball...but when I compare the two overall ratings, it makes me think that my staff has not accurately rated the player and that the OV should carry more weight, since player #2 is ranked so low.

The next question is...how much does my recruiting skill level impact the player ratings. With a 65 skill level, I would expect to get fairly accurate feedback from watching tape and live games. So, either my staff and I are really poor at evaluating talent or the OV is not to be taken that seriously.

I just don't see how my staff and I can evaluate two players so similarly and the OV be so diametrically opposed from our analysis. I get that it's not a perfect science and that you need to pick a player that suites what you want to accomplish, but there also has to be some logic to the decision making.

Recruiting skill is a baseline that determines my ability. That ability allows me to gauge whether or not I should trust my own judgement...but the OV is contradicting that basic premise and since I have no baseline to know whether or not the OV ratings are even remotely accurate, I feel like I'm simply blindly throwing darts at a board.

I think the trick is to take everything in and make...well...a scientific wild ass guess, but the OV is the wildcard here and I don't know how to weigh the validity of it's feedback. IMHO, it's either one of two things. Either my staff and I are idiots or the OV is not to be trusted.

I would love to sign them both, just to see the results, but I think it's unlikely.

I'll point this out again: Letter grades indicate POTENTIAL while rankings are a better indication of CURRENT talent. We don't see current at all except for the stats. So both players will eventually be similar, however #2 will start out lower and might not get fully developed at all. Particularly if you are at a lower quality school.

Player #2 will show up with lower current bars but potential bars to match the letter grades.

Your_Imaginary_Friend wrote:I'll point this out again: Letter grades indicate POTENTIAL while rankings are a better indication of CURRENT talent. We don't see current at all except for the stats. So both players will eventually be similar, however #2 will start out lower and might not get fully developed at all. Particularly if you are at a lower quality school.

Player #2 will show up with lower current bars but potential bars to match the letter grades.

Wow I never knew that! Great to know.

Your_Imaginary_Friend wrote:I'll point this out again: Letter grades indicate POTENTIAL while rankings are a better indication of CURRENT talent. We don't see current at all except for the stats. So both players will eventually be similar, however #2 will start out lower and might not get fully developed at all. Particularly if you are at a lower quality school.

Player #2 will show up with lower current bars but potential bars to match the letter grades.

If this is true, then recruiting is not much more than lottery. There is nothing to care about a player other than ranking. I'm playing with a small school and for me there is no difference between a 1/3 and a 1/4 recruit because they both start from such a low level that they will never get close to their potential.

I would be more interested in playing style, how guards shoot threes, how a forward is rebounding etc... But if letters tell nothing about that, they are mostly irrelevant.

Well, I think that letter ratings, numeric ratings, and notes do mean something and give an INDICATION. But they are not GUARANTEES. Just as in real life, recruiting is somewhat of a gamble. You make your best educated GUESS based on the information you have...often things work out OK, but sometimes not.

I don't know how Gary has worked all this into the game nor do I want to know how the sausage is made. I rather like that there is a reasonable degree of uncertainty in this game...and that you and your assistant coaches have strengths and weaknesses that are reflected in recruiting.

The game is deep and maybe recruiting is the deepest part. I recruit for rebounding and defensive ability with bigs, ball handling and defensive ability with guards. I don;t pay much attention to anything else, including scoring ability or potential. I DO pay LOTS of attaention to Overall rating and try for A and B players with a midrange or good team, and C and above otherwise. I won't go after a D or F guy. I have done very well over the years using this approach but some guys never come close to reaching their potential and other guys surpass it. You really only need 7-8 players in hoops. After that their garbage time guys.

hefewe1zen wrote:

Your_Imaginary_Friend wrote:I'll point this out again: Letter grades indicate POTENTIAL while rankings are a better indication of CURRENT talent. We don't see current at all except for the stats. So both players will eventually be similar, however #2 will start out lower and might not get fully developed at all. Particularly if you are at a lower quality school.

Player #2 will show up with lower current bars but potential bars to match the letter grades.

If this is true, then recruiting is not much more than lottery. There is nothing to care about a player other than ranking. I'm playing with a small school and for me there is no difference between a 1/3 and a 1/4 recruit because they both start from such a low level that they will never get close to their potential.

I would be more interested in playing style, how guards shoot threes, how a forward is rebounding etc... But if letters tell nothing about that, they are mostly irrelevant.

I'm hesitant to write this, because it is a bit nebulous, but I find the letter grades good at describing the overall SHAPE of a player, not necessarily his current level. You can see what he is good at and whether he is overall the type of player you are looking for.

Playing style often comes in the call notes recruits get. There is a thread in last year's version of the game where some of us talked about what the terms meant when the recruits showed up. If there is no note, then the player usually does not have high or low skills in anything. Players who shoot 3's will be referenced here. If a big man 'avoids the post' he is a jump shooter, for example.