|
|
Post by shelby on Jul 13, 2019 15:08:36 GMT -8
Injuries are dream busters ! I hope everyone stays healthy before, during and after the first women's dogpile !
As well, of course, in all of your post grad activities.... you will be well prepared for life by Mr Rueck and Staff ?....
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jul 14, 2019 12:18:45 GMT -8
In the Rueck era, we never signed a 5 star recruit until Katie came along, so 4 years ago we had 1. The following year we signed Mikayla, so had 2 on that year's team. The next year we got Taya, and Destiny transferred in. That brings us to 3 /12, since Destiny couldn't play. Last year we had all 4 on the court, and Andrea not playing, so 4 1/2. This year, we've lost Katie, but gained Kennedy and Taylor, so 5 1/2 if Andrea can't play, 6 if she does. Next year we lose Mikayla, but already have Sasha committed, so the number will still be 6, and hopefully more. Add to that mix 4 stars, like Kat and Aleah, who have demonstrated that they could have been ranked higher, and you see the evolution of a program from Cinderella to very, very established. The teams of a few years ago consisted of some very solid 4 stars and great choices in foreign recruiting, and the tremendous success they had came as a surprise to many (a pleasant one for us). Now we have a stable of thoroughbreds, and their success will be a surprise to none. This year's team is going to be better than last year's, will win 25 + games, and make a deep run in the tournament. Next year's team is going to be better than this year's team. Will we finish at the top of the conference in either year? I kind of doubt it, but that's a testament to how ridiculously strong the conference is, not to any shortcoming on our part. I'll only add... - *s don't equal contribution level. Injuries and poor transition to better competition level can never be evaluated. - if they don't play they are not a "half". Some may consider them as a 5* recruit, but if they don't play they don't contribute. It doesn't really matter the * level sitting on the bench. SR's recruiting certainly is on the rise, but that is also due to a run of great seasons. But, as with last year, *s don't immediately show dividends. |
|
|
|
Post by beaverwbb fan on Jul 14, 2019 15:24:28 GMT -8
It wasn’t really like we had 5*s sitting on the bench though. Our 5*s were our biggest contributors (Mik, Destiny, and Taya) and those three were either first or second in PPG (Destiny, Mik), RPG (Mik, Taya), and APG (Destiny, Mik). We were also getting sizable contributions from our 4*s, Aleah, Kat, and Maddie. Katie was probably overranked coming out of HS, but we got solid contributions from her too, maybe just not what one would expect from a 5*.
The stats show the our three highest ranked players were among our most productive. Most of the teams we lost to (UO, Louisville, Notre Dame) had more 5* players, but we also dropped a pair of games to ASU who didn’t have quite as many, as well as the game to UW.
|
|
|
|
Post by bvrbooster on Jul 14, 2019 17:06:00 GMT -8
I was just trying to illustrate that the team pedigree has improved each year, and is continuing to improve. Obviously, some 5 stars, for whatever reason, aren't going to be big time performers, while some 4 stars (think Plum, Sydney, Jamie) will turn out to be exactly that. I think most coaches, however, would prefer having 5 stars and hoping theydon't disappoint, than 4 stars, and hoping they exceed expectation.
|
|
|
|
Post by beaverwbb fan on Jul 14, 2019 17:25:26 GMT -8
I was just trying to illustrate that the team pedigree has improved each year, and is continuing to improve. Obviously, some 5 stars, for whatever reason, aren't going to be big time performers, while some 4 stars (think Plum, Sydney, Jamie) will turn out to be exactly that. I think most coaches, however, would prefer having 5 stars and hoping theydon't disappoint, than 4 stars, and hoping they exceed expectation. I will add, from a recruiting service standpoint, that 5* is a little irrelevant when comparing rankings over time. In the 2013 rankings, the only 5* were 1-19, while today 1-53 are all 5*. Plum actually had the same exact ranking (#26) as Pivec and Corosdale, but Plum was a 4*. In today’s rankings Weisner would have been a 5*, as she was ranked two slots higher than Taylor Jones (#41 vs. #43). So to sum it up, if we still followed the 2013 rankings, our only 5* would be Slocum and Goforth. But of course, there will always be players in the 40s+ that totally exceed their ranking (Gulich, Weisner, Hamblin, Wiese, Tudor), and some players who don’t live up to their ranking. Of course, player development can be a big part in someone exceeding their ranking. |
|
