Revisionist History, Part II: Has High School Basketball Scouting Improved Over Time?
For anyone who missed Part I of this article, click below:
The Question
One of the questions we addressed in Part I was whether talent had improved from 1998 to 2013. We learned that talent is random — with the most talented classes coming in 2006 and 2008 and the least talented classes coming in 2001 and 2012. Now, what about recruiting accuracy?
Has high school basketball scouting accuracy improved from 1998 to 2013?
The Presumptions
There are 2 natural presumptions at play here — each on opposite ends of the spectrum:
- On one hand, the natural presumption is that, given the advancements in technology, wider reach of recruiting services, and better training and exposure possibilities for prospects (e.g., AAU, basketball camps and showcases), recruiting accuracy has improved from 1998 to 2013.
- On the other hand, some might be inclined to believe that those same technological advancements and exposure opportunities have actually made it almost impossible to differentiate between the voluminous number of prospects.
Put differently, has it become easier or harder to scout NBA talent over time?
My take before this exercise: It has gotten slightly easier to identify NBA talent and much easier not to be fooled by “busts” from 1998 to 2013.
The Methodology
I needed to use a more systematic approach to grading scouting accuracy this time around. Thus, I awarded the point values below for each class’s Re-Rankings. If a player was ranked #27 overall in their original class rankings, but in the Top-10 in the Re-Rankings, he were assigned 8 points because, while the scouts didn’t get him exactly right, they should still be given some credit for identifying that this particular player had serious talent.
Likewise, I subtracted points for players that were originally in the Top-10, but never made an impact in the NBA. If the player was in the original Top-10, but ended up being a scrub in the league, he was assigned a -1. If he ended up being a complete “bust” (either never made the NBA or was a shockingly bad player given his high school hype and potential, he was assigned a -3. (Not an exact science, but a more methodical way to differentiate between huge “busts” and guys who never made an impact.)
- 11 points = ranked originally in Top 1-5 and in Top 5 in Re-Rankings;
- 10 points= ranked originally in Top 10 and ranked 6-10 in Re-Rankings;
- 9 points= ranked originally in Top 20;
- 8 points= ranked originally in Top 30;
- 7 points = ranked in Top 40;
- 6 points = ranked in Top 50;
- 5 points = ranked in Top 60;
- 4 points =ranked in Top 70;
- 3 points = ranked in Top 80;
- 2 points = ranked in Top 90;
- 1 point = ranked in Top 100;
- 0 points = unranked
- -1 = originally in Top 10, but not in Re-rankings
- -3 = originally in Top 10, but was a “Bust” in NBA
The Results
Which classes did scouts get the highest score in the Re-Rankings before adjusting for “busts” in their Top-10?
Average: 74.13
Analysis: Out of the 16 classes, 11 of the classes scored above average — much of which has to do with the anomaly that was the class of 2008, which scored a pathetic 35 and dragged the average down. The average in the first 8 years (1998–2005) was 76.38. The average in the last 8 years (2006–2013) was only 71.88 — but this group has easily the 3 lowest scores (2006, 2008 & 2009), yet 5 of the 6 highest scores (2007, 2010, 2011, 2012 & 2013).
Takeaway: Scouts seem to have turned the corner with projecting NBA talent in the most recent years, but the classes of 2006, 2008 and 2009 demonstrate that this is nowhere close to an exact science. My presumption that identifying NBA players has become slightly easier looks to be on-point — however, I was expecting a more obvious trend with less outliers.
Which classes lost the most points for having “busts” in their Top-10?
Average: 13.5
Analysis: Out of the 16 classes, 7 of the classes has less than the average amount of “bust” points (remember, the lower the number, the more accurate the original Top-10 was). The average for the first 8 years (1998–2005) was 15. The average for the last 8 years (2006–2013) was 12.
Takeaway: While there was a slight improvement avoiding “busts” in the Top-10s over time, it appears that there will always be “busts” in every class’s Top-10. My presumption that avoiding “busts” in the Top-10 would be much easier today than it was in the late-90s and early-2000s was way off — I’d chalk this up to outside circumstances.
In other words, in every Top-10, there’s always going to be injuries, immaturity and mishandling. There’s always going to be a guy whose body betrays him — Greg Oden, Dajuan Wagner, Isaiah Austin. There’s always going to be kids who should have gone to college for a couple of years and learned how to handle fame and fortune — Robert Swift, Renardo Sidney, Eddie Griffin. And, there’s always going to be kids who get thrown off the path to greatness by the NCAA or had agents or family/friends giving them bad advice — Josh Selby, Ndudi Ebi, JaRon Rush. While correctable, unless the AAU and college model give way to a basketball factory-type model (like in Europe), there’s always going to be kids like this that fall victim to mishandling.
Which classes were most accurate?
Average: 60.56
Analysis: Out of the 16 classes, 11 of the classes scored above average. The average for the first 8 years (1998–2005) was 61.25. The average for the last 8 years (2006 to 2013) was 59.88. Much like the Re-Rankings accuracy, much of this low score can be attributed to having the 3 of the 4 lowest scores (2006, 2008 & 2009). The last 8 years also had 5 of the highest scoring classes (2007, 2010, 2011, 2012 & 2013) as well.
Takeaway: From an overall scouting perspective (taking into account NBA talent projection and subtracting for “busts”), there has been a recent trend of improvement, but again, the results are far too random and the recent trend of solid scouting is way too limited to draw any vast conclusions. Since it hasn’t become much easier to avoid “busts” in the Top-10 over time, the advancements in technology and exposure haven’t had the impact in overall recruiting that I assumed it would.
Thus, the conclusion is that identifying NBA talent has slightly improved from 1998 to 2013, but avoiding “busts” in the Top-10 has not become much easier today than it was in 1998 and both ends of presumptions spectrum have some validity.
The Research
1998
Top 10: 1. Al Harrington; 2. Rashard Lewis; 3. Korleone Young; 4. Dan Gadzuric; 5. Stromile Swift; 6. Ronald Curry; 7. JaRon Rush; 8. Joel Przybilla; 9. Quentin Richardson; 10. Jason Capel
Re-Ranked: Rashard Lewis (11); Richard Jefferson (8); Mike Miller (9) Tayshaun Prince (9); Al Harrington (11); Matt Barnes (5); Corey Maggette (9); Udonis Haslem (3); Quentin Richardson (10); John Salmons (2) . . . 77 points
Minus: Korleone Young (-3); Dan Gadzuric (-1); Stromile Swift (-1); Ronald Curry (-3); JaRon Rush (-3); Joel Przybilla (-1); Jason Capel (-3) . . . minus-15
Totals Points: 77 minus 15 = 62 points
1999
Top 10: 1. Donnell Harvey; 2. Keith Bogans; 3. Jay Williams; 4. Joseph Forte; 5. Marvin Stone; 6. LaVell Blanchard; 7. Brett Nelson; 8. Jonathan Bender; 9. Carlos Boozer; 10. Jason Kapono
Re-Ranked: Joe Johnson (8); Gilbert Arenas (1); Carlos Boozer (10); Caron Butler (4); Jamal Crawford (6); Jason Richardson (9); Kirk Hinrich (4); Mike Dunleavy (8); Drew Gooden (8); Jason Kapono (10) . . . 68 points
*Jason Kapono replaced Jay Williams. Kapono led the NBA in 3 point shooting twice — he gets the retroactive nod over Williams.
Minus: Donnell Harvey (-3); Keith Bogans (-1); Jay Williams (-3); Joseph Forte (-3); Marvin Stone (-3); LaVell Blanchard (-3); Brett Nelson (-3); Jonathan Bender (-1) . . . minus-20
Total Points: 68 minus 20 = 48 points
2000
Top 10: 1. Zach Randolph; 2. Eddie Griffin; 3. Darius Miles; 4. Gerald Wallace; 5. Marcus Taylor; 6. DeShawn Stevenson; 7. Chris Duhon; 8. Mario Austin; 9. Jared Jeffries; 10. Taliek Brown
Re-Ranked: Dwyane Wade (0); Zach Randolph (11); Caron Butler (6); Gerald Wallace (11); Jameer Nelson (0); DeShawn Stevenson (10); Darius Miles (10); Chris Wilcox (8); Luke Ridnour (4); Chris Duhon (10) . . . 70 points
*This class was so bad at the end that Eddie Griffin was listed as a “Bust” and in the Top-10 — he’s been replaced by Chris Duhon.
Minus: Eddie Griffin (-3); Darius Miles (-1); Marcus Taylor (-3); Chris Duhon (-1); Mario Austin (-3); Jared Jeffries (-1); Taliek Brown (-3) . . . minus-15
Total Points: 70 minus 15 = 55 points
2001
Top 10: 1. Eddy Curry; 2. Kelvin Torbert; 3. Dajuan Wagner; 4. Tyson Chandler; 5. Ousmane Cisse; 6. Kwame Brown; 7. Julius Hodge; 8. DeSagana Diop; 9. Rick Rickert; 10. David Lee
Re-Ranked: Tyson Chandler (11); Ben Gordon (6); Mo Williams (9); Emeka Okafor (1); David Lee (10); Channing Frye (2); TJ Ford (9); Eddy Curry (10); Josh Childress (9); Kwame Brown (10) . . . 77 points
Minus: Kelvin Torbert (-3); Dajuan Wagner (-1); Ousmane Cisse (-3); Julius Hodge (-3); DeSagana Diop (-3); Rick Rickert (-3) . . . minus-16
Total Points: 77 minus 16 = 61 points
2002
Top 10: 1. Amar’e Stoudemire; 2. Carmelo Anthony; 3. Raymond Felton; 4. Rashard McCants; 5. Jason Fraser; 6. Chris Bosh; 7. Paul Davis; 8. Shelden Williams; 9. Sean May; 10. DeAngelo Collins
Re-Ranked: Chris Bosh (10); Carmelo Anthony (11); Amar’e Stoudemire (11); Andre Iguodala (8); Deron Williams (6); Brandon Roy (6); JJ Redick (9); Raymond Felton (10); Nate Robinson (0); Jarrett Jack (6) . . . 77 points
Minus: Rashard McCants (-1); Jason Fraser (-3); Paul Davis (-3); Shelden Williams (-3); Sean May (-3); DeAngelo Collins (-3) . . . minus-16
Total Points: 77 minus 16 = 61 points
2003
Top 10: 1. LeBron James; 2. Luol Deng; 3. Shannon Brown; 4. Ndudi Ebi; 5. Kendrick Perkins; 6. Chris Paul; 7. Brian Butch; 8. David Padgett; 9. Leon Powe; 10. Kris Humphries
Re-Ranked: LeBron James (11); Chris Paul (10); Paul Millsap (0); Luol Deng (11); Trevor Ariza (9); Kendrick Perkins (10); PJ Tucker (3); Aaron Brooks (7); Charlie Villanueva (9); Brandon Bass (9) . . . 79 points
Minus: Shannon Brown (-1); Ndudi Ebi (-3); Brian Butch (-3); David Padgett (-3); Leon Powe (-1); Kris Humphries (-1) . . . minus-12
Total Points: 79 minus 12 = 67 points
2004
Top 10: 1. Dwight Howard; 2. Shaun Livingston; 3. Al Jefferson; 4. Josh Smith; 5. Rudy Gay; 6. Sebastian Telfair; 7. Marvin Williams; 8. Robert Swift; 9. Malik Hairston; 10. Randolph Morris
Re-Ranked: Dwight Howard (11); LaMarcus Aldridge (9); Joakim Noah (3); Kyle Lowry (8); Al Horford (6); Rajon Rondo (8); Rudy Gay (10); Josh Smith (10); Al Jefferson (10); JR Smith (8) . . . 83 points
Minus: Shaun Livingston (-1); Sebastian Telfair (-3); Marvin Williams (-1); Robert Swift (-3); Malik Hairston (-3); Randolph Morris (-3) . . . minus-14
Total Points: 83 minus 14 = 69 points
2005
Top 10: 1. Josh McRoberts; 2. Monta Ellis; 3. Martell Webster; 4. Tyler Hansbrough; 5. Lou Williams; 6. Julian Wright; 7. Richard Hendrix; 8. Rasmin Mitchell; 9. Mario Chalmers; 10. Andrew Bynum
Re-Ranked: Monta Ellis (11); Lou Williams (11); Andrew Bynum (10); Danny Green (9); Wesley Matthews (4); Wilson Chandler (5); Mario Chalmers (10); Gerald Green (9); Darren Collison (1); CJ Miles (9) . . . 79 points
Minus: Josh McRoberts (-1); Martell Webster (-1); Tyler Hansbrough (-1); Julian Wright (-3); Richard Hendrix (-3); Rasmin Mitchell (-3) . . . minus-12
Total Points: 79 minus 12 = 67 points
2006
Top 10: 1. Greg Oden; 2. Kevin Durant; 3. Brandan Wright; 4. Spencer Hawes; 5. Ty Lawson; 6. Thad Young; 7. Chase Budinger; 8. Wayne Ellington; 9. Brook Lopez; 10. Gerald Henderson
Re-Ranked: Kevin Durant (11); Stephen Curry (0); Russell Westbrook (0); Mike Conley (8); Brook Lopez (10); Ty Lawson (10); Jeremy Lin (0); Ryan Anderson (0); Thad Young (10); Taj Gibson (6) . . . 55 points
Minus: Greg Oden (-3); Brandan Wright (-1); Spenser Hawes (-1); Chase Budinger (-1); Wayne Ellington (-1); Gerald Henderson (-1) . . . minus-8
Total Points: 55 minus 8 = 47 points
2007
Top 10: 1. OJ Mayo; 2. Kevin Love; 3. Eric Gordon; 4. Michael Beasley; 5. Derrick Rose; 6. Kyle Singler; 7. Jerryd Bayless; 8. Donte Greene; 9. JJ Hickson; 10. Patrick Patterson
Re-Ranked: James Harden (9); Derrick Rose (11); Blake Griffin (9); Kevin Love (11); DeAndre Jordan (9); Eric Gordon (10); Jeff Teague (5); OJ Mayo (10); Chandler Parsons (7); Kenneth Faried (0) . . . 81 points
Minus: Michael Beasley (-1); Kyle Singler (-1); Jerryd Bayless (-1); Donte Greene (-3); JJ Hickson (-1); Patrick Patterson (-1) . . . minus-8
Total Points: 81 minus 8 = 73 points
2008
Top 10: 1. Brandon Jennings; 2. Jrue Holiday; 3. Tyreke Evans; 4. Samardo Samuels; 5. DeMar DeRozan; 6. Greg Monroe; 7. Al-Farouq Aminu, Byron Mullens; 8. Ed Davis; 9. Delvon Roe; 10. Scotty Hopson
Re-Ranked: Jimmy Butler (0); Paul George (0); Klay Thompson (5); Draymond Green (1); Isaiah Thomas (0); Damian Lillard (0); DeMar DeRozan (10); Kemba Walker (9); Gordon Hayward (0); Tyreke Evans (10) . . . 35 points
Minus: Brandon Jennings (-1); Jrue Holiday (-1); Samuels (-3); Greg Monroe (-1); Al-Farouq Aminu (-1); Byron Mullens (-3); Ed Davis (-1); Delvon Roe (-3); Scotty Hopson (-3) . . . minus-17
Total Points: 35 minus 17 = 18 points
2009
Top 10: 1. Derrick Favors; 2. John Wall; 3. DeMarcus Cousins; 4. Avery Bradley; 5. John Henson; 6. Xavier Henry; 7. Renardo Sidney; 8. Lance Stephenson; 9. Kenny Boynton; 10. Tiny Gallon
Re-Ranked: Kawhi Leonard (6); John Wall (11); DeMarcus Cousins (11); CJ McCollum (0); Hassan Whiteside (0); Eric Bledsoe (5); Khris Middleton (1); Avery Bradley (10); Derrick Favors (10); Lance Stephenson (10) . . . 64 points
Minus: John Henson (-1); Xavier Henry (-3); Renardo Sidney (-3); Kenny Boynton (-3); Tiny Gallon (-3) . . . minus-13
Total Points: 64 minus 13 = 51 points
2010
Top 10: 1. Harrison Barnes; 2. Kyrie Irving; 3. Jared Sullinger; 4. Brandon Knight; 5. Tobias Harris; 6. Josh Selby; 7. Enes Kanter; 8. Perry Jones; 9. Tristian Thompson; 10. Will Barton
Re-Ranked: Kyrie Irving (11); Harrison Barnes (11); Dion Waiters (7); Tristian Thompson (10); Tobias Harris (11); Jae Crowder (0); Enes Kanter (10); Will Barton (10); Brandon Knight (10); Jeremy Lamb (3) . . . 83 points
Minus: Jared Sullinger (-1); Josh Selby (-3); Perry Jones (-3) . . . minus-7
Total Points: 83 minus 7 = 76 points
2011
Top 10: 1. Anthony Davis; 2. Austin Rivers; 3. Michael Kidd-Gilchrist; 4. Bradley Beal; 5. Quincy Miller; 6. James Michael McAdoo; 7. Marquis Teague; 8. Le’Bryan Nash; 9. Adonis Thomas; 10. Cody Zeller
Re-Ranked: Anthony Davis (11); Bradley Beal (11); Otto Porter (7); Kentavious Caldwell-Pope (9); Rodney Hood (8); Malcolm Brogdon (1); Michael Carter-Williams (8); Michael Kidd-Gilchrist (10); Cody Zeller (10); Austin Rivers (10) . . . 85 points
*Austin Rivers replaced Norman Powell — if Rivers’ last name was “Johnson”, he’d be viewed as a solid third-guard on a team (not sure what I was thinking).
Minus: Quincy Miller (-3); James Michael McAdoo (-1); Marquis Teague (-3); Le’Bryan Nash (-3); Adonis Thomas (-3) . . . minus-13
Total Points: 85 minus 13 = 72 points
2012
Top 10: 1. Nerlens Noel; 2. Shabazz Muhammad; 3. Isaiah Austin; 4. Kyle Anderson; 5. Steven Adams; 6. Anthony Bennett; 7. Kaleb Tarczewski; 8. Alex Poythress; 9. Marcus Smart; 10. Archie Goodwin
Re-Ranked: Steven Adams (11); Marcus Smart (10); Gary Harris (9); Terry Rozier (3); Nerlens Noel (11); Kyle Anderson (10); TJ Warren (8); Kris Dunn (9); Willie Cauley-Stein (7); Sam Dekker (9) . . . 87 points
Minus: Shabazz Muhammad (-1); Isaiah Austin (-3); Anthony Bennett (-3); Kaleb Tarczewski (-3); Alex Poythress (-3); Archie Goodwin (-1) . . . minus-14
Total Points: 87 minus 14 = 73 points
2013
Top 10: 1. Andrew Wiggins; 2. Julius Randle; 3. Jabari Parker; 4. Aaron Gordon; 5. Andrew Harrison; 6. Aaron Harrison; 7. Chris Walker; 8. Noah Vonleh; 9. James Young; 10. Dakari Johnson
Re-Ranked: Joel Embiid (9); Andrew Wiggins (11); Aaron Gordon (11); Julius Randle (11); Jabari Parker (11); Zach LaVine (6); Terry Rozier (5); Rondae Hollis-Jefferson (9); Bobby Portis (9); Jordan Bell (3) . . . 85 points
Minus: Andrew Harrison (-1); Aaron Harrison (-3); Chris Walker (-3); Noah Vonleh (-3); James Young (-3); Dakari Johnson (-3) . . . minus-16
Total Points: 85 minus 16 = 69 points
Thank you for reading! Be sure to follow me (Pat Heery) and my blog — The Has Been Sports Blog.
