Posted by shoe3 on 7/12/2019 9:26:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gillispie1 on 7/12/2019 3:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by shoe3 on 7/12/2019 1:24:00 PM (view original):
LOL
4 days ago
shoe3: “For 3 openings, I’m typically looking to target 2-3 guys I am willing to spend big resources on (normally 3 local and regional guys, but if I’m going for a distance guy, only 2). I try to make smart decisions about who I chase, so I’m not in 3 battles over my head, but I might punch up a bit on one of them. I generally devote ~60 APs per cycle on those 3 main targets, and spread the other 20 among some projects and some late signing backups. I adjust a bit after the first couple cycles, and cull my current attention list, but I’m generally on about 3-5 guys per scholarship I intend to fill from the opening, and pare down to 2 by about the 4th cycle.”
Benis: “Dude... You should plan on taking walkons every season.”
Next 3 days
gillespie (paraphrasing): “shoe3 is challenging HD orthodoxy; this is an abomination.”
Benis: “Yeah! Let’s talk about what an asperger-y nerd he is! No one should listen to him!”
Yesterday
Others: “OK, he’s an asperger-y nerd, but at least he answered the question.”
Benis: “Um, but no one should listen to him, remember? Guys, let’s focus on that.”
Today
TJ (paraphrasing): “Hey, I do something pretty much similar to shoe3, give or take a few APs and cycles.”
Benis: “This is pretty close to what I do.”
what a pile of crap, i have always been the opposite of the 'don't question the consensus of the forums!' guy. its not my fault you try to define terms - terms everyone knows - in some insane way that makes no logical sense. if you want to define your own terms, then make up new ones - don't pick things like 'value' that have an established meaning going back centuries. besides, the one coherent point you did make, which was about HD community under-utilizing project players (and such) on these lower-fatigue sets - i agreed with.
“besides, the one coherent point you did make, which was about HD community under-utilizing project players (and such) on these lower-fatigue sets - i agreed with.”
Right. I just have to wonder why, do you think, the HD community under-utilizes those players? My thinking is that it’s related to so many confusing potential value - the perceived “buying power” attached to an open scholarship that comes with a walkon - with value. If you think it’s something else, I’d love to discuss. That’s what I’ve been trying to get you to address since page 2.
i think a lot of it comes down to two things
1 - the additional effort required to track secondary targets and who is recruiting them, etc - its one thing if the guy you are going to sign is a project type player who is going to be awesome, most people who are going to go for that guy, are going to go for them early as a first-line target. having secondary targets is valuable at all levels of play, but it does add a bunch extra work. i do think 3.0 made that a little harder to do well (not necessarily worse, just more work), because its harder to figure out which players a school has effort on (no universal considering list like 2.0 had), and also because its more difficult to scout a huge amount of players, which would increase the odds of finding those second level project players, if you will.
2 - player evaluation and projection is not a strength of the HD community, and we all shy away from the unknown. picking up a 10 per high high player in the off chance he might hit 90, instead of taking a walkon, is a reasonable endeavor in low d1. maybe this is really #3, but i also think coaches are *way* too reluctant to cut dead wood. if coaches would approach those second level project players (guys who may or may not pan out) with the mindset - well, if hes good, great, and if not, i'll just cut him - you'd see more of it. i think people believe the penalty for cutting is bigger than it is. basically, the only meaningful aspect of the penalty is its harder to move schools, and you simply can't if you've cut too many recently. however, if you aren't planning on leaving soon, and especially if you are using this approach tactically and its a rare occurrence, the downside is near 0.
anyway, i think coaches for whatever reason, when they consider a recruit, they aren't inherently projecting them out to their role for the NT as sophs, juniors, and if applicable, seniors. this is a huge mistake, as team building is the most important part of this game. if you recruit a project, not really knowing what you'll use them for, and you aren't guiding their development appropriately from day 1 - they are less likely to pan out, more likely to be in the wrong spot (say, as the 5th best guard as opposed to the 4th best big), and more likely to be deemed a waste. in short, proper planning is required to make use of these players, and most folks just don't plan out like that. there's also this fixation on ratings instead of natural abilities, which i think makes projection much more difficult - not necessarily for the single player, but in the context of the entire team and the role of each player on that team.
on a side note, shoe, it seems to me that we both agree that 1) walkons don't make the current team better; 2) your walkon strategy, if you will, which is sort of inextricably linked with your walkons themselves, absolutely can make your current team better (by freeing up resources/focus for other slots), along with future teams (next year etc); and 3) project types and non qualifiers and the like, players you can generally get very cheaply (allowing most of those same resources you'd get from a walkon to be spent on primary targets), are good alternatives to walkons for teams with low-fatigue systems, at least to some extent. the walkons will allow you additional resources for the next season, while the project type (etc) will allow you at least potential value on your actual team in the future, when they (hopefully) get to play, and these two options should be weighed against each other (as is typical with such cases, a combination of both is often optimal for most folks).
i think this is really the bulk of what matters, i'm still not 100% sure how we got caught up in a debate over the definition of value, but i do think we agree, more or less, on what matters.
7/13/2019 1:19 PM (edited)