(2018) PG Robert Phinisee to Cincinnati

[Walking Boot of Doom 18,170]

30 minutes ago, Old Friend said:

All rankings are based on scoring first.  Rankings by....whom?   What do these guys really know?  Most people who rank players have never seen 90% of the kids they rank.   After the top few which are obvious, rankings mean squat.  Hanner Parea was highly ranked (#36 or something) because he could jump and looked the part.   He had zero basketball IQ.   I personally put next to zero stock in rankings.

Your assessment of each player is based off of the talent you perceive they have based on game tape, highlight tapes, watching games in person, etc. I'm going to guess that you are doing this as a hobby in your spare time or you are retired and spend even more time doing so. I bet your assessments are pretty strong and credible. I'm also willing to bet that the guys at 247 who are paid to evaluate as many players a possible are just as good or better than you at evaluating talent. Additionally, I bet they have a larger pool of player evaluations they personal conducted to compare other players to.

So you either believe the paid folks conducting evaluations to create informed ratings are incompetent or that there is so much under the table influence that the rankings are a scam. Either way, I don't understand your vendetta against the rankings. They're actually quite accurate predictors. I do understand that it's very likely that Phinisee outshines his ranking while at Indiana, and cannot argue against your assessment of RP as I am certain I have not spent nearly as much time as you evaluating him.

[Old Friend 8,389]

6 hours ago, Walking Boot of Doom said:

Your assessment of each player is based off of the talent you perceive they have based on game tape, highlight tapes, watching games in person, etc. I'm going to guess that you are doing this as a hobby in your spare time or you are retired and spend even more time doing so. I bet your assessments are pretty strong and credible. I'm also willing to bet that the guys at 247 who are paid to evaluate as many players a possible are just as good or better than you at evaluating talent. Additionally, I bet they have a larger pool of player evaluations they personal conducted to compare other players to.

So you either believe the paid folks conducting evaluations to create informed ratings are incompetent or that there is so much under the table influence that the rankings are a scam. Either way, I don't understand your vendetta against the rankings. They're actually quite accurate predictors. I do understand that it's very likely that Phinisee outshines his ranking while at Indiana, and cannot argue against your assessment of RP as I am certain I have not spent nearly as much time as you evaluating him.

Sorta' not sure why you're using so many "you" references; because I'm not a paid evaluations expert, nor do I do it as a hobby.  But I was in this world for 20 years, and I can tell you guys like Gary Donna (who published Hoosier Basketball Magazine; ran around the state in a cashmere sweat suit and had more paid escorts than you could count in Las Vegas) are the "sources" many of these guys use.   But...I'm bored and it's raining, so I'll play for a while.  

If RP is the #17 point guard in the country, I'm Tom Cruise.   Calbert Cheaney wasn't ranked highly because he broke his leg, played 6 games his senior year,and didn't have great stats.  Becomes Big Ten's all time leading scorer and was a star as a freshman.  Brian Evans was not highly ranked and becomes Big Ten POY.  Verdell Jones was ranked about where Phinisee is, and there is no comparison and no question that RP is far better than Jones was.  Jeremy Hollowell was highly ranked (#42) yet a complete pain in the a$$ as a high school player and no work ethic.  (And I said so at the time)  Ronald Nored was a no name in high school rankings because he scored just 15 points a game as a senior, yet ends up at Butler as the Horizon league defensive player of the year, starting for their NCAA finals team.   Shelvin Mack was unranked coming out of high school (by your experts at 247) , and all he did was start 32 games as a freshman (with Nored), beocming the first freshman to have 100 assists as a freshman and averages 11 points a game that year.   Parea was ranked 11 spots higher than AJ Hammons, and higher than Nick Stauskas, Kellen Dunham, Montrezl Harrell, and Denzell Valentine.  Did the experts do their homework or base rankings on obscure things nobody can name?  

Here are some guards ranked higher than Nored and Mack  (just using 2008 as an example, but I could do this every season) :

Willie Warren, Mike Rosario, Elliot Williams, Malcomb Lee, Nick Williams (remember him?  Ranked #35 in the country and came to Indiana), Phillip McDonald,  Sean Mosely, Jason Clark, Jerome Anderson...etc.  On and on.  That's just from the top 50.  Know who was ranked #53 that year?  Klay Thompson.   #85?   Tom Pritchard.  So you're telling me....Tom Pritchard was almost as good - we're talking nationally, here - as Klay Thompson?  Assuming over 100,000 seniors (~ 37,000 high schools x 3 seniors per team.  Fair assessment?)  playing high school basketball, Pritchard was just 30 away from Klay Thompson in terms of ranking.   Really?

Lest you think I'm cherry picking....wanna know who was ranked #56 in 2009?   Kawhi Leonard.  #56.  Guy's an MVP candidate in the NBA, and he was ranked 20 spots behind Watford who never played in the league and was far too slow to come close.   #54 that year?  Solomon Hill.   Think maybe the "pros" missed a little?   I can do this every year, remember.   So yeah.  I think the rankings are incompetent and based on nothing scientific or measurable.  They're arbitrary based on very little true information about kids and how they play.  They'll see a kid have a good few days in a tournament or a good highlight video and place a kid in a "ranking" matrix based on a snapshot.  Like I said...I know because I was in that world for 20 years.  (And no, I'm not retired.  I'm not even 50 yet)

Wanna' really talk about how "accurate" these things are?   I have no vendetta.  I just know they're bull$hit and have no meaning.  They're for guys who will buy a magazine and get excited about a number. And it obviously works.

[Stuhoo 75,560]

I agree with much of what Old Friend says, but there is certainly validation to be garnered from the rankings. Those rankings are a relevant piece of information, but by no means are they a conclusion.

I guess what is most relevant to me is WHY they're ranked high, if they are.

Perea was ranked high purely on potential, and not at all on performance. I get the feeling that Phinisee is ranked fairly high but not as high as he should be, because of his lack of pro potential due to his size and lack of elite athleticism. In other words, the things that diminish his ranking a bit are irrelevant for the ultimate task at hand; Indiana University's basketball team winning a national Championship!

 

[Walking Boot of Doom 18,170]

5 hours ago, Old Friend said:

Sorta' not sure why you're using so many "you" references; because I'm not a paid evaluations expert, nor do I do it as a hobby.  But I was in this world for 20 years, and I can tell you guys like Gary Donna (who published Hoosier Basketball Magazine; ran around the state in a cashmere sweat suit and had more paid escorts than you could count in Las Vegas) are the "sources" many of these guys use.   But...I'm bored and it's raining, so I'll play for a while.  

If RP is the #17 point guard in the country, I'm Tom Cruise.   Calbert Cheaney wasn't ranked highly because he broke his leg, played 6 games his senior year,and didn't have great stats.  Becomes Big Ten's all time leading scorer and was a star as a freshman.  Brian Evans was not highly ranked and becomes Big Ten POY.  Verdell Jones was ranked about where Phinisee is, and there is no comparison and no question that RP is far better than Jones was.  Jeremy Hollowell was highly ranked (#42) yet a complete pain in the a$$ as a high school player and no work ethic.  (And I said so at the time)  Ronald Nored was a no name in high school rankings because he scored just 15 points a game as a senior, yet ends up at Butler as the Horizon league defensive player of the year, starting for their NCAA finals team.   Shelvin Mack was unranked coming out of high school (by your experts at 247) , and all he did was start 32 games as a freshman (with Nored), beocming the first freshman to have 100 assists as a freshman and averages 11 points a game that year.   Parea was ranked 11 spots higher than AJ Hammons, and higher than Nick Stauskas, Kellen Dunham, Montrezl Harrell, and Denzell Valentine.  Did the experts do their homework or base rankings on obscure things nobody can name?  

Here are some guards ranked higher than Nored and Mack  (just using 2008 as an example, but I could do this every season) :

Willie Warren, Mike Rosario, Elliot Williams, Malcomb Lee, Nick Williams (remember him?  Ranked #35 in the country and came to Indiana), Phillip McDonald,  Sean Mosely, Jason Clark, Jerome Anderson...etc.  On and on.  That's just from the top 50.  Know who was ranked #53 that year?  Klay Thompson.   #85?   Tom Pritchard.  So you're telling me....Tom Pritchard was almost as good - we're talking nationally, here - as Klay Thompson?  Assuming over 100,000 seniors (~ 37,000 high schools x 3 seniors per team.  Fair assessment?)  playing high school basketball, Pritchard was just 30 away from Klay Thompson in terms of ranking.   Really?

Lest you think I'm cherry picking....wanna know who was ranked #56 in 2009?   Kawhi Leonard.  #56.  Guy's an MVP candidate in the NBA, and he was ranked 20 spots behind Watford who never played in the league and was far too slow to come close.   #54 that year?  Solomon Hill.   Think maybe the "pros" missed a little?   I can do this every year, remember.   So yeah.  I think the rankings are incompetent and based on nothing scientific or measurable.  They're arbitrary based on very little true information about kids and how they play.  They'll see a kid have a good few days in a tournament or a good highlight video and place a kid in a "ranking" matrix based on a snapshot.  Like I said...I know because I was in that world for 20 years.  (And no, I'm not retired.  I'm not even 50 yet)

Wanna' really talk about how "accurate" these things are?   I have no vendetta.  I just know they're bull$hit and have no meaning.  They're for guys who will buy a magazine and get excited about a number. And it obviously works.

TLDR; there is  a strong correlation between rankings and draft success, NBA success, and NCAA championships. See articles below for additional supporting evidence.

The bold portion of your quote is all I was really looking for. You are correct thought, your entire post is cherry picking and you could go on and on forever and ever because people will ALWAYS be incorrectly ranked when you have the present day results to assess against. Human error and statistics help explain that. You've also provided a lot of great examples of those outliers.

Here are links to articles I've read that helped inform my opinion that rankings are a strong tool for evaluating the potential success and impact of a player, which you can read if you're still bored:

NCAA Champs: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2127165-how-much-do-recruiting-rankings-factor-into-ncaa-basketball-success

NBA Draft Success: https://basketballrecruiting.rivals.com/news/crunching-the-numbers-recruiting-rankings-and-the-nba-draft

NBA Success: https://basketball.realgm.com/analysis/233037/Do-High-School-Stars-Lead-To-NBA-Success

All of this said, I fully believe your assessment and that of others that Phinisee is underrated and possibly under valued in the rankings. Still don't get this idea that the rankings are garbage. Someone else believed he could outsmart the experts on a consistent basis. I'm sure he has plenty of time to support his theories if you get in touch with him!

[Old Friend 8,389]

8 hours ago, Walking Boot of Doom said:

TLDR; there is  a strong correlation between rankings and draft success, NBA success, and NCAA championships. See articles below for additional supporting evidence.

The bold portion of your quote is all I was really looking for. You are correct thought, your entire post is cherry picking and you could go on and on forever and ever because people will ALWAYS be incorrectly ranked when you have the present day results to assess against. Human error and statistics help explain that. You've also provided a lot of great examples of those outliers.

Here are links to articles I've read that helped inform my opinion that rankings are a strong tool for evaluating the potential success and impact of a player, which you can read if you're still bored:

NCAA Champs: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2127165-how-much-do-recruiting-rankings-factor-into-ncaa-basketball-success

NBA Draft Success: https://basketballrecruiting.rivals.com/news/crunching-the-numbers-recruiting-rankings-and-the-nba-draft

NBA Success: https://basketball.realgm.com/analysis/233037/Do-High-School-Stars-Lead-To-NBA-Success

All of this said, I fully believe your assessment and that of others that Phinisee is underrated and possibly under valued in the rankings. Still don't get this idea that the rankings are garbage. Someone else believed he could outsmart the experts on a consistent basis. I'm sure he has plenty of time to support his theories if you get in touch with him!

 Cherry picking?  Outliers?  (That one was really funny)  No.  They were examples.  I can do the same thing year after year.  I just didn't feel like taking up an entire thread with enough examples to satisfy your opinion.   But I could.   You could if you'd be objective.  I specifically said the top few (the obvious) are fine.  Rankings of the top....8-12 kids (the kids the "experts" have actually seen multiple times) are usually pretty accurate.  After that?    They're crap.  They've been crap for decades.  And the reason is simply that "experts" simply can't see these kids enough times to rank them properly; they miss late bloomers; and if a player isn't on the radar as a sophomore, he won't be as a senior (see Leonard as a primary example.)  

All due respect, I'm not sure you understand how these rankings really work.  Like I said, I was in it for 20 years.  I knew Gary Donna.  I couldn't care less what articles say, especially any tied to the NBA.   The examples I gave you were a subset of many, many more.  You can do the research the same as I can.  

[bigrod 2,784]

56 minutes ago, Old Friend said:

 Cherry picking?  Outliers?  (That one was really funny)  No.  They were examples.  I can do the same thing year after year.  I just didn't feel like taking up an entire thread with enough examples to satisfy your opinion.   But I could.   You could if you'd be objective.  I specifically said the top few (the obvious) are fine.  Rankings of the top....8-12 kids (the kids the "experts" have actually seen multiple times) are usually pretty accurate.  After that?    They're crap.  They've been crap for decades.  And the reason is simply that "experts" simply can't see these kids enough times to rank them properly; they miss late bloomers; and if a player isn't on the radar as a sophomore, he won't be as a senior (see Leonard as a primary example.)  

All due respect, I'm not sure you understand how these rankings really work.  Like I said, I was in it for 20 years.  I knew Gary Donna.  I couldn't care less what articles say, especially any tied to the NBA.   The examples I gave you were a subset of many, many more.  You can do the research the same as I can.  

So, you think these guys didn't actually see Ivan Renko play??? ;)

[biteoftheapple 4,115]

Old Friend always makes very good points . But, he was a huge supporter of Gelons talents . So he misses sometimes as well.

Sent from my SM-G360P using BtownBanners mobile app

[goonaha 2,972]

Old Friend always makes very good points . But, he was a huge supporter of Gelons talents . So he misses sometimes as well.

Sent from my SM-G360P using BtownBanners mobile app

It's almost like there will be misses every year when you try to rank 100s of players each year.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[iuswingman 1,940]

Even if you could perfectly rank all the players based on performance in HS, it's still going to be imperfect when it comes to how they will do in college.

They can't judge fit with the college team, they can't figure out how they will handle being in college and away from their family, and it's pretty hard to figure out how much drive they have to improve and succeed.  

Take Oladipo, when he came in he was extremely athletic but average in most other areas.  Was he ranked wrong because he had the drive to improve at IU or was he ranked fine on what people could see at the time?

 

[Uspshoosier 44,205]

Robert Phinesee should be the focus of this thread. It's drifting so I will try to bring it back.

Most scouts from each of the scouting service stated his drop in the ranking had to due with his April evaluation. Only a couple of them pointed out why he "struggled" in some eyes

 

"And there was a reason for that 'lackluster spring.' Phinisee was slowed by a battle with tendinitis over the two evaluation period weekends in April. Each of those two weekends he had big Friday games and then struggled the following two days as the injury and quick turnarounds caught up with him.

 

His July finish helped convince the Scout analysts to keep him a four-star star recruit. There was more purpose, more of that all important look in his eye. An edge."

Most on here know I'm a fan of RP. Not because of his top 100 ranking, not because he is from Indiana. I like him because I have watched him play meaningful games against the best of the state in a single elimination tournament and saw him strive in that setting. I see qualities that every great floor general has in him and feel with this staff and weight training the sky is the limit. There are plenty of things he will need to work on and improve on before he gets to Bloomington and I look forward to watching him hopefully improve on them in his senior year

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

 

 

[Tom White 1,435]

8 hours ago, Uspshoosier said:

And there was a reason for that 'lackluster spring.' Phinisee was slowed by a battle with tendinitis over the two evaluation period weekends in April. Each of those two weekends he had big Friday games and then struggled the following two days as the injury and quick turnarounds caught up with him.

 

 

I know very little about this condition. Could this be something that lingers throughout his career?

[DLG3 1,034]

As a Physical Therapist and having struggled with this in high school, maybe I can answer that. Tendinitis can linger off and on throughout a career, but it shouldn't have to greatly affect him. A lot of high school kids can struggle with it because it can be a result of 1. A still-maturing body and 2. Over-training. I'm not sure where RP's issues are? Knees are probably most common for a basketball player his age. Anyway, usually it takes rest, strengthening specific muscles that are the problem of imbalance, and making some slight tweaks to the movements that are the issue. AKA kids like him have an awesome resource in Clif and the IU training staff. Once under control, it really shouldn't continue to be so nagging.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[WayneFleekHoosier 46,726]

I'm admittedly a skeptic, in general, but does the tendonitis reasoning perk anyone's attention?

I know if I was a HS with a lot on the line and I underperformed I'd probably give a reason for it as well.

Either way, it doesn't really matter. Staff watched enough to have a good read on it. I'm trusting them. I like Pap's reasoning better FWIW. Pass first guard on a not so great team its hard to excel. I get that.

The tendonitis thing is legit, I'm sure, but how many other AAUers played through nagging injuries.


Sent from my iPad using BtownBanners

[DLG3 1,034]

Yeah, I think that's a really good point. Usually, you lose maybe a little explosiveness, but it's one of those things most guys just play through. Then again, I guess it's hard to measure because a lot of what a guy like RP does is based off of quickness and that 'explosiveness.'

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

 

[Class of '66 Old Fart 80,940]

2 minutes ago, DLG3 said:

Yeah, I think that's a really good point. Usually, you lose maybe a little explosiveness, but it's one of those things most guys just play through. Then again, I guess it's hard to measure because a lot of what a like like RP does is based off of quickness and that 'explosiveness.'


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Couple of really informative posts.  Glad to have you with us.

[Old Friend 8,389]

On 8/22/2017 at 8:52 AM, biteoftheapple said:

Old Friend always makes very good points . But, he was a huge supporter of Gelons talents . So he misses sometimes as well.

Sent from my SM-G360P using BtownBanners mobile app
 

This is incorrect.  I was not a "huge supporter." I said he was a kid who was a good team mate, had a skill that was needed in Crean's offense, and would be a contributor his junior and senior seasons.   It is disingenuous to say I was a "huge supporter," and specifically said he would not contribute as a freshman and anyone who thought he would or should needed to temper expectations.

[Old Friend 8,389]

On 8/22/2017 at 8:49 AM, bigrod said:

So, you think these guys didn't actually see Ivan Renko play??? ;)

The brilliance of that is outstanding.

[Old Friend 8,389]

On 8/22/2017 at 9:06 AM, goonaha said:

It's almost like there will be misses every year when you try to rank 100s of players each year.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

Exactly.  Which is why the rankings are crap.   What criteria is used to differentiate the 17th ranked point guard from the 13th?  From the 22nd?    It's easy to rank pro players because they basically play against the same people.  High school players during their school seasons see an incredible diversion of talent level; and even in AAU, one good tournament can vault a kid; and isn't it interesting that once a lower ranked kid commits to a big name school, he immediately rises in the rankings?    They predict quite well the top 10-15.   After that, there is no real history of accuracy; and much depends on where a kid plays and in what system.   

[goonaha 2,972]

2 minutes ago, Old Friend said:

Exactly.  Which is why the rankings are crap.   What criteria is used to differentiate the 17th ranked point guard from the 13th?  From the 22nd?    It's easy to rank pro players because they basically play against the same people.  High school players during their school seasons see an incredible diversion of talent level; and even in AAU, one good tournament can vault a kid; and isn't it interesting that once a lower ranked kid commits to a big name school, he immediately rises in the rankings?    They predict quite well the top 10-15.   After that, there is no real history of accuracy; and much depends on where a kid plays and in what system.   

Lol you and I have very different takeaways from that inaccuracy. I guess I'm more forgiving of the errors but still think generally if a kid is a 4 star recruit (20-125 or whatever) he is most likely going to be a good college player. Sometimes kids in that range end up not being good players and sometimes they should've been higher (Kawhi, Steph, etc.) but to me that doesn't make the system crap. It serves its purpose. I think once you get past the top 15 you shouldn't take small gaps in rankings as a clear statement of "x player is this much better than y player"

[Old Friend 8,389]

19 minutes ago, goonaha said:

Lol you and I have very different takeaways from that inaccuracy. I guess I'm more forgiving of the errors but still think generally if a kid is a 4 star recruit (20-125 or whatever) he is most likely going to be a good college player. Sometimes kids in that range end up not being good players and sometimes they should've been higher (Kawhi, Steph, etc.) but to me that doesn't make the system crap. It serves its purpose. I think once you get past the top 15 you shouldn't take small gaps in rankings as a clear statement of "x player is this much better than y player"

This debate can stop, because it's all about a player and not a system. However, I will stay on record as saying there is no science to this. There are huge misses every year, and they are consistent. Earlier in the thread, I gave examples of local kids. It's not like those are the only ones, nor the only year. When you try to rank hundreds of kids every year with no criteria, and no common denominators among them, you're going to miss. That's why the system is crap.

Almost all these rankings, and trust me on this, are based on highlight films or AAU games where there is no defense, and the ball dominates. Even more of it is based on Raw athletic ability which is why Hanner was rated so highly.

Another example is Aaron Henry. Kid has been unrated for several years, and all the sudden he has 7 Big Ten offers. Seems to me if he were good enough to have seven Big Ten offers he should have been ranked, right? But, he doesn't need the ball, he's a complete team-mate, and he's a player you have to see to really understand. Same as RP.  He will rise up the rankings now that he has all the scholarship offers and everybody knows about him. They had no clue before.

I'm just fine with people seeing it differently, and if you want to trust the system, more power to you.  But if anybody thinks there are 16 high school point guards better than Robert Phinisee, I think you're wrong.  He is an example.   Not an anomaly.