[81alum]

We've played with those statistics in threads here on the Cardboard, long ago.  As I recall, those women rated in the top 5 almost never disappointed, those 5-10 were consistent starters, but after that the ratings became much less reliable.  We have our own examples in WBB such as Karlie Samuelson, Lili Thompson, Alanna Smith of overachievers, and we also have (but won't state their names) examples of relatively highly rated recruits who never became effective starters.  But I don't recall any Stanford WBB players rated in the top 10 that did not prove their worth, except maybe Aly Beebe whose injuries prevented her from ever playing.  So no, I don't think the difference between 40 and 60 and 80 ever really predicts success, but the difference between 10 and 20 seems to be significant.

[81alum]

We've played with those statistics in threads here on the Cardboard, long ago.  As I recall, those women rated in the top 5 almost never disappointed, those 5-10 were consistent starters, but after that the ratings became much less reliable.  We have our own examples in WBB such as Karlie Samuelson, Lili Thompson, Alanna Smith of overachievers, and we also have (but won't state their names) examples of relatively highly rated recruits who never became effective starters.  But I don't recall any Stanford WBB players rated in the top 10 that did not prove their worth, except maybe Aly Beebe whose injuries prevented her from ever playing.  So no, I don't think the difference between 40 and 60 and 80 ever really predicts success, but the difference between 10 and 20 seems to be significant.