[BostonCard]

Just curious, are the team rankings your own subjective impression, based on a service, or based on some formula?

BC

Quite simplistic, combination of ESPN grade (example: 98) and ESPN overall ranking for each recruit, 
a throwback from Hoopgurlz  when I was asked by Hoopgurlz to rank recruiting classes from 2006-2010.  
I consider the ESPN grade to be the primary criterion, and the ESPN overall ranking kind of
provides a sub-ranking within the ESPN grade. 

For example: 
#1 WATKINS is 98(1) and #2 WILLIAMS is 98(2);   
#3 DONOVAN is 97(1), #4 TOOMEY is 97(2), #5 HIDALGO is 97(3), etc.
#12 BOOKER is 96(1), #13 FULWILEY is 96(2), etc
#25 Tessa JOHNSON is 95(1), #26 BELL is 95(2), etc.

There are some subjective elements that enter the equation, 
like what I did when I proposed a tie for #3 
among Duke, South Carolina and UConn
in the latest edition after #13 FULWILEY and
#27 OKUNANWA announced their commitments.

I really appreciate the ESPN ranking system, because the ESPN grade
differentiates the talent levels of players.  This way, 
we are made aware that #1 WATKINS and #2 Mikayla WILLIAMS
(both with ESPN grade = 98) are a cut above the next level of talents 
who have an ESPN grade = 97 which include #3 DONOVAN, 
#4 TOOMEY, #5 HIDALGO...#10 OGDEN and #11 SCOTT, and so on.

There may be some false precision in that, especially once you get past the top few recruits, but you go with the data you have, and I appreciate your efforts.

What I was trying to ask is how you arrive at your team rankings, and especially how you balance the quality versus quantity question. For example, let’s say that school A has two recruits, ranked 10 and 20, while school B has three recruits, ranked 15, 25, and 35.  Is adding the third recruit enough to overcome a 5 spot gap between the top two recruits in each school?

I’m not quibbling with your rankings, which pass the eyeball test, but I was wondering if you had a quantitative methodology or if you were using the “eyeball” method.

BC

[BostonCard]

Just curious, are the team rankings your own subjective impression, based on a service, or based on some formula?

BC

Quite simplistic, combination of ESPN grade (example: 98) and ESPN overall ranking for each recruit, 
a throwback from Hoopgurlz  when I was asked by Hoopgurlz to rank recruiting classes from 2006-2010.  
I consider the ESPN grade to be the primary criterion, and the ESPN overall ranking kind of
provides a sub-ranking within the ESPN grade. 

For example: 
#1 WATKINS is 98(1) and #2 WILLIAMS is 98(2);   
#3 DONOVAN is 97(1), #4 TOOMEY is 97(2), #5 HIDALGO is 97(3), etc.
#12 BOOKER is 96(1), #13 FULWILEY is 96(2), etc
#25 Tessa JOHNSON is 95(1), #26 BELL is 95(2), etc.

There are some subjective elements that enter the equation, 
like what I did when I proposed a tie for #3 
among Duke, South Carolina and UConn
in the latest edition after #13 FULWILEY and
#27 OKUNANWA announced their commitments.

I really appreciate the ESPN ranking system, because the ESPN grade
differentiates the talent levels of players.  This way, 
we are made aware that #1 WATKINS and #2 Mikayla WILLIAMS
(both with ESPN grade = 98) are a cut above the next level of talents 
who have an ESPN grade = 97 which include #3 DONOVAN, 
#4 TOOMEY, #5 HIDALGO...#10 OGDEN and #11 SCOTT, and so on.

There may be some false precision in that, especially once you get past the top few recruits, but you go with the data you have, and I appreciate your efforts.

What I was trying to ask is how you arrive at your team rankings, and especially how you balance the quality versus quantity question. For example, let’s say that school A has two recruits, ranked 10 and 20, while school B has three recruits, ranked 15, 25, and 35.  Is adding the third recruit enough to overcome a 5 spot gap between the top two recruits in each school?

I’m not quibbling with your rankings, which pass the eyeball test, but I was wondering if you had a quantitative methodology or if you were using the “eyeball” method.

BC