I don't really care about star ratings aside from the impact on program perception and prestige. I watch as much "film" (usually highlights, unfortunately) as I can, I look at stats and try to judge them in context, and I look at measurables (height/wingspan/weight) when they're available. I draw the best conclusions I can given the available information. With that said, I know my personal evaluations are far from infallible; if a player has significant exposure and there is a consensus on his ranking, that's worth something.
I don't care that Coby White is ranked 48th in the 247 composite, for example. He's clearly one of the best players in the country, both in HS and as a college prospect. He's getting exposure now and will certainly shoot up in the rankings, but that won't change my opinion of him.
Re: Hamilton, you're kinda talking past the points I was making in that thread. I didn't say he was only missing a jumper. I said:
- He's missing a jumper (and he's almost certainly not truly a 70% FT shooter; he's 17-24 so far, which is a tiny sample; he shot 49% in a larger sample last summer; the "truth" is probably somewhere in the 55%-60% range)
- He's likely to struggle getting to the rim in college because of his relatively lack of quickness; if this is the case, he'll likely struggle with offensive fouls, other turnovers, and low percentage shots
- His percentages from 2 in AAU are quite bad, suggesting deficiencies in some combination of shot selection, shot creation ability, and shot making ability
- His rebounding is closer to that of a 2 than that of a 4, seriously hurting his viability as a small-ball 4
- Overall, I don't think he's a versatile player who can fit into both positions; I think he's a player who might not fit into any position
I'm down on Hamilton because of a comprehensive (if, admittedly, amateur) evaluation of his game, not because of a single flaw or because of star rankings. Maybe I'm wrong - like I said, I'm an amateur...and even beyond that, some expect evaluations miss entirely - but my opinion has a lot of thought behind it. Saying "we pay way to much attention to a kids star rating and not nearly enough to traits a kid may have that allows him to excel in our system" is reductive at best, entirely inaccurate at worst.
