|
Post by paloalto on Jul 28, 2015 12:56:42 GMT -5
Stivrins sure does get a lot of hype on this board. Not saying she isn't talented, but she was beat out by two 2017 middles for a spot on the YNT, while Agbaji flourished against international competition in Croatia and getting more playing time than other MB teammates already with a year of college experience under their belts. People get caught up with national teams and recency bias, but it's not a great indicator of how good players really are because it's contextually insignificant. Similar to all-star games, some players adjust more quickly to novel environments. You get a better look at a player's ability when you see what they do day in and day out within their regular team context and ample court time. Stivrins has displayed excellent skill and athleticism for a long time with the AZ Storm against great competition. That's why she's hyped so highly. It seems you are going out of your way to downplay the talent selected on the national youth team. Of course not all the elite players will try out. However, of the players who do try out, common sense says the best players will be selected. The coaches know these players fairly well from previous experience and it is their job to know about the players. It is not like these coaches are starting out in a vacuum about the skill level of the players.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 12:57:18 GMT -5
Cole and Sandbothe are a lot more than "solid" you also forgot paige tapp, who will be an all-american this year, imo.
The OH from this class may be a bit weaker, but the middles and Opp's are as good as anyone in the country. It would be hard for anyone to beat this team:
Carlini Opp- Nwanebu / Holston M - Holman / Ogbogu Oh - Rolfzen / Reinig
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jul 28, 2015 12:59:01 GMT -5
But others who don't have such great complementary talent on their clubs (or those who play tougher opponents up in 18s) have a much harder time getting hype-worthy moments in club play and would be better evaluated in the level playing field of a tryout such as this. I agree to an extent. But it also works the other way. Someone who can standout surrounded by poor or average talent may be seen as having an even higher ceiling than someone excelling on nationally rated club teams. For example, myself speaking as a Husker fan, do I think Foecke is a lesser player because of her HS and club experience where she wasn't always surrounded by or competing against the best players? I don't. Of course, she did make junior national teams and started games, but that's also where these teams may be more important. Not necessarily for players like Plummer, Hodson, et al., but for the Foeckes of the world who need another context to show they're elite regardless. CL, aren't you an Oregon fan? Do you think any less of your best recruits when they don't make junior national teams? Moore has a great system and track record for development and many of his recruits outperform players who were ranked higher on the Senior Aces while in college. Fans put too much into those lists, especially trying to jockey their recruits at the very top of those lists. My point is, if your player is even ranked in the top 20-25, or top 5-6 at their position, and they fit your program's system, then they're probably going to be an excellent contributor and there's really no way to distinguish which one should really be rated ahead of another based on some junior tryouts. Foecke played on highly, highly competitive open-level teams in club. What is your point here? You're just rambling. What does Oregon have to do with this? I don't think less of any players of the program I root for when they don't make a JNT, but I also don't go on here and say they are slam dunk Top 5 prospects above players that did - so not really sure why you're bringing it up. And if you are saying that fans put too much into lists, then why are you spending time arguing for a list and claiming that YOUR favorite player should be ranked above others at her position, and perhaps higher than some think is right? No one said she isn't an elite prospect or won't be a great contributor, just that they don't think she should be considered a slam dunk Top 5 player ahead of players she competed against just last week, which is a pretty reasonable point.
|
|
|
Post by huskerjen on Jul 28, 2015 13:04:18 GMT -5
People get caught up with national teams and recency bias, but it's not a great indicator of how good players really are because it's contextually insignificant. Similar to all-star games, some players adjust more quickly to novel environments. You get a better look at a player's ability when you see what they do day in and day out within their regular team context and ample court time. Stivrins has displayed excellent skill and athleticism for a long time with the AZ Storm against great competition. That's why she's hyped so highly. It seems you are going out of your way to downplay the talent selected on the national youth team. Of course not all the elite players will try out. However, of the players who do try out, common sense says the best players will be selected. The coaches know these players fairly well from previous experience and it is their job to know about the players. It is not like these coaches are starting out in a vacuum about the skill level of the players. No, I think you're misinterpreting what I was saying. My point is, anyone even invited to tryout is amazing and whether they make the team, start, or don't make the team at all means very little. My other point was, the results of national team tryouts mean far less in trying to evaluate talent than club film. Club film is highly contextualized, i.e. those players trained/developed and played in one system with a consistent roster for years. Therefore, it gives a better indicator of what they can do in a similar situation, i.e. college. National team tryouts are just a cattle call of elite athletes and the players who make the team just happen to perform a specific task in a specific system for a short amount of time. It's definitely another data point to consider, but it's not as good as club film over years. However, if an elite talent has little club exposure, then something like a national tryout gives them more exposure for evaluation.
|
|
|
Post by Disc808 on Jul 28, 2015 13:13:36 GMT -5
It seems you are going out of your way to downplay the talent selected on the national youth team. Of course not all the elite players will try out. However, of the players who do try out, common sense says the best players will be selected. The coaches know these players fairly well from previous experience and it is their job to know about the players. It is not like these coaches are starting out in a vacuum about the skill level of the players. No, I think you're misinterpreting what I was saying. My point is, anyone even invited to tryout is amazing and whether they make the team, start, or don't make the team at all means very little. My other point was, the results of national team tryouts mean far less in trying to evaluate talent than club film. Club film is highly contextualized, i.e. those players trained/developed and played in one system with a consistent roster for years. Therefore, it gives a better indicator of what they can do in a similar situation, i.e. college. National team tryouts are just a cattle call of elite athletes and the players who make the team just happen to perform a specific task in a specific system for a short amount of time. It's definitely another data point to consider, but it's not as good as club film over years. However, if an elite talent has little club exposure, then something like a national tryout gives them more exposure for evaluation. Well in some ways clubs is a good indication but National Teams I think are better ways to look at a player. In college you compete against elite competition. In club not so much. So international play readies you and also helps you compete against the highest competition.
|
|
|
Post by huskerjen on Jul 28, 2015 13:14:58 GMT -5
I agree to an extent. But it also works the other way. Someone who can standout surrounded by poor or average talent may be seen as having an even higher ceiling than someone excelling on nationally rated club teams. For example, myself speaking as a Husker fan, do I think Foecke is a lesser player because of her HS and club experience where she wasn't always surrounded by or competing against the best players? I don't. Of course, she did make junior national teams and started games, but that's also where these teams may be more important. Not necessarily for players like Plummer, Hodson, et al., but for the Foeckes of the world who need another context to show they're elite regardless. CL, aren't you an Oregon fan? Do you think any less of your best recruits when they don't make junior national teams? Moore has a great system and track record for development and many of his recruits outperform players who were ranked higher on the Senior Aces while in college. Fans put too much into those lists, especially trying to jockey their recruits at the very top of those lists. My point is, if your player is even ranked in the top 20-25, or top 5-6 at their position, and they fit your program's system, then they're probably going to be an excellent contributor and there's really no way to distinguish which one should really be rated ahead of another based on some junior tryouts. Foecke played on highly, highly competitive open-level teams in club. What is your point here? You're just rambling. What does Oregon have to do with this? I don't think less of any players of the program I root for when they don't make a JNT, but I also don't go on here and say they are slam dunk Top 5 prospects above players that did - so not really sure why you're bringing it up. And if you are saying that fans put too much into lists, then why are you spending time arguing for a list and claiming that YOUR favorite player should be ranked above others at her position, and perhaps higher than some think is right? No one said she isn't an elite prospect or won't be a great contributor, just that they don't think she should be considered a slam dunk Top 5 player ahead of players she competed against just last week, which is a pretty reasonable point. Foecke only played on a great club for 2 years. Most of her HS and early club experience wasn't elite at all. I'm not rambling you're just not wanting to follow or address the point. Moreover, I don't think Stivrins is the best middle in the class judging as of today based on her whole body of work, that wasn't the point of the argument. It was that trying to rank them based on junior national team tryouts is a weak data point compared to club because of context. I agree that Stivrins isn't necessarily going to be rated top 5 (you were just putting words in my mouth). She may be, or may not be, it doesn't matter because I know she's one of the best middle prospects in the country and her actual production in college will matter on development in Nebraska's system. My point about the rankings in general was that what does it matter if you have the #1,2,3,4,or 5 prospect at their position judged by Senior Aces? A ranking based on one person's opinion, or a small group of peoples opinion, doesn't make them a great player in college. Yet, many fans act like these rankings will somehow affect the players' success later on. What if Agbaji was ranked ahead of Fitzmorris (she likely won't be, but for arguments sake), does that mean Fitzmorris will be less productive at Stanford than Agbaji at Texas? Or conversely, if Agbaji is rated lower, does that mean she won't have as good of a chance as being an All-American in college as opposed to Fitzmorris? Of course not. That's why trying to determine where they should be precisely ranked is just message board fodder and not important. As long as your recruits are grouped among the elite players at their position, they're probably going to be good in college. That's about all that can be surmised from rankings.
|
|
|
Post by huskerjen on Jul 28, 2015 13:22:07 GMT -5
No, I think you're misinterpreting what I was saying. My point is, anyone even invited to tryout is amazing and whether they make the team, start, or don't make the team at all means very little. My other point was, the results of national team tryouts mean far less in trying to evaluate talent than club film. Club film is highly contextualized, i.e. those players trained/developed and played in one system with a consistent roster for years. Therefore, it gives a better indicator of what they can do in a similar situation, i.e. college. National team tryouts are just a cattle call of elite athletes and the players who make the team just happen to perform a specific task in a specific system for a short amount of time. It's definitely another data point to consider, but it's not as good as club film over years. However, if an elite talent has little club exposure, then something like a national tryout gives them more exposure for evaluation. Well in some ways clubs is a good indication but National Teams I think are better ways to look at a player. In college you compete against elite competition. In club not so much. So international play readies you and also helps you compete against the highest competition. It's just another data point. However, those tryouts are based on club so it's really just a subsection evaluation of the evaluation already done. The national coaches aren't thinking, "We need to select the players that will be best in college." They're cranking the players through their specific system to win matches now. Thus, why would who they select determine where a player should be specifically ranked? It's just a snapshot in a specific context that may or may not favor some players over others based on the type of players and system that player is accustomed.
|
|
|
Post by southie on Jul 28, 2015 13:53:09 GMT -5
Recruiting rankings/evaluations of any type are definitely subjective.
Taking a player out of the comfortable surroundings of their club/high school team forces them to adjust very quickly to their new surroundings (USA, all-star, etc.), teammates, and coaches; not everyone excels in that environment. One can argue that being able to quickly adjust to that type of change brings out a different level of competitiveness in a player than only playing in a comfortable setting; perhaps mental toughness plays a large role in that adjustment.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Jul 28, 2015 14:03:34 GMT -5
Cole and Sandbothe are a lot more than "solid" you also forgot paige tapp, who will be an all-american this year, imo. The OH from this class may be a bit weaker, but the middles and Opp's are as good as anyone in the country. It would be hard for anyone to beat this team: Carlini Opp- Nwanebu / Holston M - Holman / Ogbogu Oh - Rolfzen / Reinig P. Tapp was an AA THIS Year, and I said she's way better than her sister and had made a name for herself. I suppose we are differing on what it means for DEPTH of class. Picking the best of has nothing to do with depth. And regardless, this lineup would literally have their asses handed to them by a decent serving team. And if it wasn't for Carlini, they'd be toast. If we are going by starting lineup, there are a number of previous classes that, by their junior year, I'd pick over the 2013 lineup 2011 (2013 wouldn't even get a set off this team) S-Hancock Opp- Lowe OH- Vansant/Simpson MB- Grant/Bell L- Morey 2010 (2013 wouldn't even get a set off this team) S-Kreklow/Plum Opp-Scott/Williams OH- Mclendon/Fayln/Robinson MB- Wopat/Dixon/Slay L-Hagglund 2008 S-Murphy Opp-Murphy, Hill OH- Danielson, Murrey, Jupiter MB- Adams, Gil, Williams L- Gera 2007 S-Lloyd, Zimmerman Opp- Faucette OH- Klineman, Lichtman MB- Wilson, Gibby, Benson L-Ailes, D'errico, Mass, Banwarth 2006 (apart from a few hiccups on passing, this team would dominate) S-Glass, Anderson OPP- Brown, Engle OH- Hodge, Hooker, Cutura MB- Cooper, Barry, Janet O. L- No real standout Liberi this year, I guess Kisner...does it matter? with hitters like Hodge, Hooker, Cutura, and Brown on the floor, the ball just needs to be in the air 2005 (best starting lineup by far, would decimate every class. Almost perfect balance of strong serving, deceptive setting, disciplined blocking, solid backcourt (even from the setter), smart hitting and ladies who will put dents in the floor) S-Spicer OPP-Fawcett OH- Larson, Barboza, MB-Akinradewo, Harmotto L-Miyashiro 2004 (deceptively powerful, great backcourt) S- Kehoe OPP- Pavan OH- Morrison, Pressey, Hampton MB- Stalls, Crimes, Deesing L- Donahue .....I'd pick every one of these teams over your non-passing 2013 version. 2007 may struggle in a couple rotations with offense, but that team would field an impressive passing and backcourt defensive lineup, which gives them OPTIONS. Carlini would be running all over the court.
|
|
|
Post by mnsports255 on Jul 28, 2015 14:48:24 GMT -5
As ay2013 said, Paige already has All-American honors. Is she WAYY better than Hannah? While Paige is the superior of the two as far as vb goes, I wouldn't go as far as to say that, because Hannah is a very solid B1G MB/RS who most top teams would love to have. I do think Paige is in line for a monster next two years and should rack up 1st/2nd team All-American honors.
I also agree with the above poster who said that Sandbothe and Cole are more than just "solid". The class may have been overhyped coming in, but there is some great depth and many impact high-level players right in line with other classes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 15:32:50 GMT -5
Hannah's and Paige's frosh years weren't even comparable: Paige didn't play. I don't think we know for sure where the two are headed. I'm sure hoping Hannah bounces back this year.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Jul 28, 2015 15:53:55 GMT -5
As ay2013 said, Paige already has All-American honors. Is she WAYY better than Hannah? While Paige is the superior of the two as far as vb goes, I wouldn't go as far as to say that, because Hannah is a very solid B1G MB/RS who most top teams would love to have. I do think Paige is in line for a monster next two years and should rack up 1st/2nd team All-American honors. I also agree with the above poster who said that Sandbothe and Cole are more than just "solid". The class may have been overhyped coming in, but there is some great depth and many impact high-level players right in line with other classes. My point was that 2013 wasn't some extraordinary class in which to compare future classes to.
|
|
|
Post by huskerjen on Jul 28, 2015 16:53:17 GMT -5
Recruiting rankings/evaluations of any type are definitely subjective. Taking a player out of the comfortable surroundings of their club/high school team forces them to adjust very quickly to their new surroundings (USA, all-star, etc.), teammates, and coaches; not everyone excels in that environment. One can argue that being able to quickly adjust to that type of change brings out a different level of competitiveness in a player than only playing in a comfortable setting; perhaps mental toughness plays a large role in that adjustment. It could, but it also could just be that some players are already comfortable with what the national team coach wants while others are making the bigger technique and system adjustments upon arrival. It could be many things that aren't necessarily related to long term playing ability. That's why recruiting/talent selection is probabilistic. We really don't know who will be the best individual also in the long run, but if we pick who are believed to be the 5-10 best at a position at age 16 for example, then 1-2 of them probably will be the best players of their class at their position in college and beyond. I was just pointing out how silly it is when people state things like, "That middle should definitely be ranked as #3 at her position while that other girl is definitely #4 or #5." If the players are in that elite of a grouping, it's basically a coin flip on who will be more productive in their college and pro careers. That's why retroactive rankings are almost never identical to the initial rankings. And then there's the freaky outliers like Karsta Lowe. She was unranked and will probably be considered the cornerstone of the USNT for the 2020 Olympic quad and may even start in 2016 (looking likely at this point).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2015 18:45:06 GMT -5
I suppose we are differing on what it means for DEPTH of class. Picking the best of has nothing to do with depth. And regardless, this lineup would literally have their asses handed to them by a decent serving team. And if it wasn't for Carlini, they'd be toast. If we are going by starting lineup, there are a number of previous classes that, by their junior year, I'd pick over the 2013 lineup It's all so hypothetical it's hard to argue who would win what. Depth, I don't know, there's a lot of depth in the middle and OPP in '13 class and a lot of these players will be or already had trained with the national team. The class does seem weaker in OH though, maybe much like the '16 class. Paige Tapp will be an AA this year, imo. It's all there for her.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Jul 28, 2015 19:48:50 GMT -5
I suppose we are differing on what it means for DEPTH of class. Picking the best of has nothing to do with depth. And regardless, this lineup would literally have their asses handed to them by a decent serving team. And if it wasn't for Carlini, they'd be toast. If we are going by starting lineup, there are a number of previous classes that, by their junior year, I'd pick over the 2013 lineup It's all so hypothetical it's hard to argue who would win what. Depth, I don't know, there's a lot of depth in the middle and OPP in '13 class and a lot of these players will be or already had trained with the national team. The class does seem weaker in OH though, maybe much like the '16 class. Paige Tapp will be an AA this year, imo. It's all there for her. I don't think many posters would side with the 2013 lineup that you had in comparison to the other year lineups that I posted. They just don't have the backcourt to match up against the best of the other classes.
|
|