Not sure how Setty was missed on the underclassmen list. He is top 12.

Not sure how Setty was missed on the underclassmen list. He is top 12.

 

Agreed.

Here

I never did put much stock in the Bolus ratings or anyone else's. Ratings are just opinions and we all see things differently. Ratings have a lot to do college committments and certain summer camps. Heck of a way to make a living.:idunno:

I never did put much stock in the Bolus ratings or anyone else's. Ratings are just opinions and we all see things differently. Ratings have a lot to do college committments and certain summer camps. Heck of a way to make a living.:idunno:

 

I've always preferred to look at statistical performance myself. Ratings are subjective. Stats are more objective and can be compared apples to apples more easily.

I've always preferred to look at statistical performance myself. Ratings are subjective. Stats are more objective and can be compared apples to apples more easily.[/QUOT

 

 

I agree. My question is , how can rate someone you have never seen play all summer?

Stats are more objective and can be compared apples to apples more easily.

 

Disagree. If that was correct you'd rank Bryan from VMA in front of Gabbard.

Not sure how Setty was missed on the underclassmen list. He is top 12.

 

The following are all very good underclassmen who didn't get mentioned:

 

Gaines Lou. Eastern

Fucci Tates Creek

Barksdale Tates Creek

Yarborough Lafayette

Manning Scott Co.

Setty Mason Co.

The following are all very good underclassmen who didn't get mentioned:

 

Gaines Lou. Eastern

Fucci Tates Creek

Barksdale Tates Creek

Yarborough Lafayette

Manning Scott Co.

Setty Mason Co.[/QUO

 

I agree!!!!!!!!!!!:idunno:

Disagree. If that was correct you'd rank Bryan from VMA in front of Gabbard.

 

Depends on what stats you are looking at. Bryan scored a lot but took a lot of shots to score those points. I believe Gabbard had more assists and a better assist to turnover ratio and a better FT %. In that case, you also have to take quality of competition into consideration.

 

Head to head matchups between players (especially when they are guarding each other) are probably one of the best indicators of who is better. Performance against common opponents is also a consideration.

I've always preferred to look at statistical performance myself. Ratings are subjective. Stats are more objective and can be compared apples to apples more easily.[/QUOT

 

 

I agree. My question is , how can rate someone you have never seen play all summer?

 

Good point. Several kids get a particular ranking on heresay, hype, or one good game the person may have witnessed. Sometimes, it isn't even based on recent games. There's absolutely no way one person can see the players play enough to accurately pick all of the best players, so there is margin for error, and some good players will be left out and not get the recognition.

 

It's fun, but I'm sure most kids would rather get the opportunity to play college ball instead of being ranked by high school coaches and us self-proclaimed talent evaluators on the board.