Just what is a five star player?

[linkster]

Correction: It's motivation, not passion, that pushes a person toward a goal. That motivation can stem from a great many things. Sometimes it can be a positive or a negative; more likely a positive, but not always.

As to Geno, I give him credit for being a great coach, teacher, motivator and demanding excellence. No way would I say that he's honorable but I would say he's usually, and more often than not, projects the image of a jerk. Personally, I can't stand the guy but I do give him credit for what he's accomplished.

Geno doesn't motivate his players. He recruits players who are self-motivated. Seldom do I read him say that someone "needs to get in the gym". His players get to practice a half hour early and stay to shoot after it's over.

Geno finds self-motivated players and he inspires them to reach higher than they would on their own. The standard comment from star recruits is that "Geno will get the best that I can be out of me".

I'm not suggesting that there aren't many coaches who can do this but right now the perception among many elite recruits is that he does it best. It used to be Pat that gave that perception.

 

[Coach Jumper]

I think some of the 'evaluation' issue in terms of 5 star players is the huge grad inflation that has occurred with HoopGurlz specifically but generally across the board in HS evaluation:
In 2011 the Top 100 list had 11 five star recruits in 2016 it has 52 - in five years they have quintupled the number of 5 star athletes and while talent is expanding it certainly isn't expanding at that rate.

In 2011 the grade number of 98 was assigned to 2 players, in 2016 it is assigned to 21 - 10x the number.

In 2011 the grade number of 95 was assigned to the #12 player and lower and the grade of 94 was applied to the 24th ranked player and lower - in 2016 grade 95 first appears at rank #53, and grade 94 appears at rank #73.

That is some serious inflation over the last five years.

In addition the designation of 'Mcdonald's AA is a 24 player designation primarily assigned to a single class, and people have a tendency to equate it to future college AA designations where first team second team and third team AA designation applies to only 15 players that are usually at most only 50% from any single one of four college classes - so a HS AA is 24 players from one class being equated to 7 or 8 players from a single class in college - that means the HS AA is about 3 times more generous than the college one.

All of this tends to lead college fans to be over expectant of the recruits coming into their schools, and often more disappointed with their resultant careers.

Coach - I do think there is one skill that is very important that often gets overlooked in recruiting and that is shooting (not scoring) - great athletes that cannot make jump shots often never learn, and those who cannot make layups are not likely to learn. You can have all the coach ability and desire and passion and motivation but if you do not have the hand eye coordination to shoot or the spacial perception to understand banks and angles, you will never be a good basketball player. You can teach techniques, but not those innate abilities.

excellent research and reporting of information that most people would never know.

The thing about shooting, as well as layups is the poorest of all coaching techniques and teachings (Both pre and post college) are right there... What I would immediately respond with is "Kevin Punter." Over only one summer he reinvented his entire mechanics. But he had to have a good mentor to do it.

Guys seem to change their mechanics with muscle mass buildup and maturity, while the female players seem to stay with what worked for them in their early youth and stay with it. They become very proficient at doing something the wrong way. Watch men's BB and you will almost never see a shot originate from below the chin and certainly not see a belly-shot. Yet I see these both all the way to the WNBA players. Males will shoot the ball from above their temple. While it is only the advanced taught female that shoots from the temple. (Maya, Diamond are perfect examples). This is why I teach touch shooting. It is next to impossible to shoot a true jump-shot from below the chin and it ""IS"" impossible to shoot a fade-away or during an awkward motion from the belly or the shoulder. . . Same for layups. You will almost never see a male pickup the ball on an attacking drive from his belly. He may use two hand to gather it, but he will go to one hand for the execution, He will pick it up from off of his ball-side hip and use one hand for the duration (Except for a power-layup).

This is one of the things I bring to any organization I break down bad mechanics and rebuild them quickly. It only took Punter one summer to re-invent his lifetime shot. . . However, it cannot CAN NOT!!!! be done during the season. The old adage is a true one, "Players are built in the off-season, teams are built during the season.

 

[Coach Jumper]

Geno doesn't motivate his players. He recruits players who are self-motivated. Seldom do I read him say that someone "needs to get in the gym". His players get to practice a half hour early and stay to shoot after it's over.

Geno finds self-motivated players and he inspires them to reach higher than they would on their own. The standard comment from star recruits is that "Geno will get the best that I can be out of me".

I'm not suggesting that there aren't many coaches who can do this but right now the perception among many elite recruits is that he does it best. It used to be Pat that gave that perception.

True, in-fact, he does recruit more by mechanics and abilities already there. But he still has to coach them. Basketball is a very simple game, that is impossibly hard to become good at. You can have all the proficiency in the world in practice, but until you are in a game, you won't know if your level is really as good as you think it is. The genius of Mike Tyson (Tongue fully in cheek) is a quote he said, that i have used a million times.... "Everybody has a plan, until they get hit"... You can shoot 40-60% in the gym shooting 3's, but until you shoot a guarded 3, you haven't been tested.

Perception is reality. Geno is the standard right now. But is he unique, nope... I am just as dedicated, just as smart and probably a better skills coach than he is. Give us both a girl who does an improper layup... Within 20 minutes, I will have trained her to begin-continue through-and execute a perfect layup.... I don't think he could do that on his own. He may have someone who could, but, I'd have to see him do it personally to believe he could do it as fast or as proficiently. I am 56 and have been instructing by "personally demonstrating the skills" for 34 years. He has a team of helpers to do it.

Decided this was a better way to finish the prior post... To get a player to abandon their mechanics and start a better system of mechanics you must do two things... Prove the latter is better and make the learning process quick and make the improvement immediately visible. And keep it in simple steps...It's like foul shots. they are often a stumbling block for players. But it is all mental. You can close your eyes once you can consistently hit your measure and come close to a make, if not do so, because your eyes aren't needed once your muscle memory is fine tuned. When you take that "snapshot" before you close your eyes, mechanics is all that you have left to fight with. And you will go through then like a checklist almost every time. I have 3 commands from the sideline when my player shoots her foulshot. On the first shot I say, "draw a line" (your first two fingers must draw your shot-line. Once they shoot #1, if it's a make, ok... But if its a miss, it is a miss for one of four happenings, left, right, short, long. Whatever the miss, cues my response.
Miss short = More push
Miss long = More arc
Miss L/R = draw a line.

The other thing I teach my foul-shooter is :
First shot of the game is "over the front of the rim"
After your first make, it is "Inside the back of the rim"

If they stay locked in, it stays inside-back
If they miss more than two, it is over the front.
This gives a player two ways of solving a problem.

So link, I think shooting is less of a worry for me than a bad attitude flaw.

 

[UCMiami]

Coach - agree about changing mechanics of a shooter, but a lot of that also depends on the level of player you are talking about - most of the players being recruited by top flight D1 programs have had pretty good coaches on their HS teams, pretty good coaches on their AAU teams and most have had access to pretty good trainers/individual coaches/or skills clinics by the time they are signing an LOI so bad mechanics by that time is more likely reflective of a player unwilling to change than one who has never been shown better mechanics. And if they already have decent mechanics and still can't hit shots ... watch out.

I think the strength of Geno as a motivator is in his never allowing a really good player to be satisfied, and to always to be learning and expanding what they are able to do. And he has the ability to identify 'what is next' for them, where they need to be expanding or what they need to be learning.

 

[Coach Jumper]

Coach - agree about changing mechanics of a shooter, but a lot of that also depends on the level of player you are talking about - most of the players being recruited by top flight D1 programs have had pretty good coaches on their HS teams, pretty good coaches on their AAU teams and most have had access to pretty good trainers/individual coaches/or skills clinics by the time they are signing an LOI so bad mechanics by that time is more likely reflective of a player unwilling to change than one who has never been shown better mechanics. And if they already have decent mechanics and still can't hit shots ... watch out.

I think the strength of Geno as a motivator is in his never allowing a really good player to be satisfied, and to always to be learning and expanding what they are able to do. And he has the ability to identify 'what is next' for them, where they need to be expanding or what they need to be learning.

The shooting thing must be in the "eyes of the beholder."... I've watched the base shooting videos. Better Basketball videos,etc and they all have some things in common, but with one or two differences. Just enough to make them unique. Where I see the most mistakes made is in the actual developmental process. When you begin to change the mechanics, you can't have them shoot at a basket. The first time they experience a few misses they look for that opening where they can shoot their old way. And if they make it, they solidify in an instant that their way is better. This is why I use a ghost-shooting and spot-shooting method to develop the mechanics. And only when they are proficient with the new mechanics, do I let them go to a goal. . . .Of course we all have an opinion and only ours is correct.

I understand the continue to excel theory Geno incorporates. What I don't care for is beating someone to a pulp just because you don't have enough originality to work on something else. NO, you can't go to hands-down defense in college. But you can go to other things like: Minimum of 8 passes before anyone takes a shot, working on unique defenses that are unproven, delaying your fastbreak openings so you can pull back and work on half-court sets,etc. But just pouring on the gas to some of those weak conference members is not sportsmanship, it is bullying.

Go back and look at their "impressive" schedule...Look at their conference in the Sagarin ratings: 1 uconn, 19 USF, 41 Temple, 70 Tulane, 101 memphis, 113 E Car, 129 SMU, 136 Tulsa, 212 UCF, 222 Cincy, 225 Houston. And how badly he beat them, knowing they were no competition. Cincy 107-45, SMU 90-37, Tulsa 94-30... If I am a 220 lb athlete and fighting a 98 lb nerd,,,, I've shown nothing. . . When they finally did get to play someone it was 20 and 30 point wins. Still impressive,but if they had had any competition throughout the year, they would come in beat up like the rest of the field.

 

[Coach Jumper]

Coach - agree about changing mechanics of a shooter, but a lot of that also depends on the level of player you are talking about - most of the players being recruited by top flight D1 programs have had pretty good coaches on their HS teams, pretty good coaches on their AAU teams and most have had access to pretty good trainers/individual coaches/or skills clinics by the time they are signing an LOI so bad mechanics by that time is more likely reflective of a player unwilling to change than one who has never been shown better mechanics. And if they already have decent mechanics and still can't hit shots ... watch out.

I hope to test our theories this summer.

 

[UCMiami]

I understand the continue to excel theory Geno incorporates. What I don't care for is beating someone to a pulp just because you don't have enough originality to work on something else. NO, you can't go to hands-down defense in college. But you can go to other things like: Minimum of 8 passes before anyone takes a shot, working on unique defenses that are unproven, delaying your fastbreak openings so you can pull back and work on half-court sets,etc. But just pouring on the gas to some of those weak conference members is not sportsmanship, it is bullying.

Go back and look at their "impressive" schedule...Look at their conference in the Sagarin ratings: 1 uconn, 19 USF, 41 Temple, 70 Tulane, 101 memphis, 113 E Car, 129 SMU, 136 Tulsa, 212 UCF, 222 Cincy, 225 Houston. And how badly he beat them, knowing they were no competition. Cincy 107-45, SMU 90-37, Tulsa 94-30... If I am a 220 lb athlete and fighting a 98 lb nerd,,,, I've shown nothing. . . When they finally did get to play someone it was 20 and 30 point wins. Still impressive,but if they had had any competition throughout the year, they would come in beat up like the rest of the field.

Actually if you watch all the games they play you would see that they play starters only long enough to keep them sharp in blow outs and after the first about ten minutes of the first half and the first five minutes of the second half they stop pushing in transition and stop pressing and trapping, instead working hard on their half court offense, and experimenting with different types of zone and man defense. The biggest difference with a lot of teams is that when the bench plays the coaching doesn't stop and the effort remains extremely high with players still diving for loose balls. The talent decreases but the effort and attention to detail doesn't waver.

On the schedule, believe me, everyone would prefer to be playing in a conference like the old big east. That way we could be playing teams like Mississippi St. every week. (Mic drop!)

 

[Coach Jumper]

Actually if you watch all the games they play you would see that they play starters only long enough to keep them sharp in blow outs and after the first about ten minutes of the first half and the first five minutes of the second half they stop pushing in transition and stop pressing and trapping, instead working hard on their half court offense, and experimenting with different types of zone and man defense. The biggest difference with a lot of teams is that when the bench plays the coaching doesn't stop and the effort remains extremely high with players still diving for loose balls. The talent decreases but the effort and attention to detail doesn't waver.

On the schedule, believe me, everyone would prefer to be playing in a conference like the old big east. That way we could be playing teams like Mississippi St. every week. (Mic drop!)

We must be seeing two different uconn teams. Your glasses need cleaning... They seem to be getting a rosey tint.

 

[k-town_king]

If a player is a five star or not has nothing to do with things like coachabilty or attitude. Its all potential and skill. A team full of supremely talented players with bad attitudes will kill a team of scrappy, coachable, unathletic kids 90% of the time.

 

[Coach Jumper]

If a player is a five star or not has nothing to do with things like coachabilty or attitude. Its all potential and skill. A team full of supremely talented players with bad attitudes will kill a team of scrappy, coachable, unathletic kids 90% of the time.

Bad attitudes translate into more than just talking-back. It can result in player-shutdowns, inter-rivalries, alienation's, Cliques, not following game-plans, mental-obstacles, depressions, etc. . .

This isn't about rec leagues and upwards. Or even lopsided AAU and HS teams... this is college. Nonathletic kids don't dot the landscape in WCBB. It is by far the most cardiovascular of the major sports. There's no resting unless you're out of the game or on the foul-line. I had a professional baseball player helping me in Atlanta one year. He gasped for air and asked to be taken out of our scrimmages, often.

Look at our 14 losses this past season... Only one of them were in the preseason top four with us. And that poll is based purely on "composite, returning players and program history and things like that.".. There are no teams with nonathletic players on any team in the SEC, and rarely so in all of college. Maybe not in the class of athlete we do have, but certainly not nonathletic.

 

[armchair]

The idea that Geno doesn't motivate but rather simply recruits self-motivated players is preposterous. Of course he tries to get self-motivated prospects--but his top priority is getting talented prospects--and then he takes over. He's probably the most demanding coach in the game--that is why his teams are so good. He is the consummate motivator--and that is true of EVERY great coach. Motivating players and teams is a huge part of what coaches do.

Diana T. may often play for herself but she certainly didn't in the UT-uconn championship game when she was a senior. She led a younger team against a more experienced Vol team, she passed more than she shot in that game, and, sadly, they won--a prime example of geno out-coaching PS, I'm sorry to say.

Now matter how many stars/skills you have, or no matter how many four- or more-starred players a team may have, you better be fundamental or you will lose to good teams that are. This has been the precise problem with UT for years--poor team fundamentals and poor individual fundamentals. DD showed poor fundamentals last year--most obviously in her passing. She committed a ton of turnovers by trying to make a flashy pass when a basic pass would have gotten the job done.

Notre Dame, under McGraw, is proof of what a team with very good fundamentals can accomplish. That team has more talent nowadays than it used to have--but she built that program on fundamentals and good shooting, not great, five-star athletes. They've had a lot of kids who are no more than decent athletes--but they are very productive and can shoot. The reason uconn has been so good is that geno gets four- and five-star prospects AND his teams are very fundamental. Overachieving teams tend to be solid fundamentally but lack some talent; under-achieving teams have talent but lack fundies; and those very few outstanding teams have both.

 

[Coach Jumper]

The idea that Geno doesn't motivate but rather simply recruits self-motivated players is preposterous. Of course he tries to get self-motivated prospects--but his top priority is getting talented prospects--and then he takes over. He's probably the most demanding coach in the game--that is why his teams are so good. He is the consummate motivator--and that is true of EVERY great coach. Motivating players and teams is a huge part of what coaches do.

Diana T. may often play for herself but she certainly didn't in the UT-uconn championship game when she was a senior. She led a younger team against a more experienced Vol team, she passed more than she shot in that game, and, sadly, they won--a prime example of geno out-coaching PS, I'm sorry to say.

Now matter how many stars/skills you have, or no matter how many four- or more-starred players a team may have, you better be fundamental or you will lose to good teams that are. This has been the precise problem with UT for years--poor team fundamentals and poor individual fundamentals. DD showed poor fundamentals last year--most obviously in her passing. She committed a ton of turnovers by trying to make a flashy pass when a basic pass would have gotten the job done.

Notre Dame, under McGraw, is proof of what a team with very good fundamentals can accomplish. That team has more talent nowadays than it used to have--but she built that program on fundamentals and good shooting, not great, five-star athletes. They've had a lot of kids who are no more than decent athletes--but they are very productive and can shoot. The reason uconn has been so good is that geno gets four- and five-star prospects AND his teams are very fundamental. Overachieving teams tend to be solid fundamentally but lack some talent; under-achieving teams have talent but lack fundies; and those very few outstanding teams have both.

Even a non-Geno fan would have to consider what you say correct in your assessment of him and his running of his team. I especially like the way you worded the last tidbit: "...Overachieving teams tend to be solid fundamentally but lack some talent; under-achieving teams have talent but lack fundies; and those very few outstanding teams have both..." (Don't know if its your words or a borrowed quote, but i will hang onto it).

Where we differ is DD. Flashy has been her game from the first time I saw her at 13. And it remained so until the last time I saw her in AAU play at 16. She looks for and makes the no-looks, step-ahead bounces, drop-passes, kick-back passses from out of bounds drives, between the legs, etc.... What happens here is what didn't seem to happen there (In AAU)... These passes hit the target more than they miss them, but the target isn't ready.... Its like watching Pistol Pete's early years at LSU sometimes. He would hit people in the head and get fussed at by the coach for being flashy. To him, as it is to me,,, If the pass hit them in the head, it is the recipient that is asleep, not the passer who was too flashy. .. Where I saw the most passing-turnovers was in frustration passes. And this IS something she did in AAU... Throwing the ball to "no one" just because she got to deep into a trap. Bounce passing to "no one" and smile like "I wonder if anyone caught that?" .... Most of the time, I could see her look towards someone that SHOULD have read the scenario, but didn't... E.g... Per what I teach, when someone on your team takes a shot or drives into the paint, cut from the weak-side at the point of decision and fully expect the feed. She would drive into the paint, while her post would stand there and watch her drive, giving her no option but to face a double-team... I saw this often.

 

[governmentmule]

I thought a 5 star was to help ESPN and web sites make more money from discussing recruits ?

and in one of your post,I seen where you mentioned a fade away jump shot,which seems to be a disappearing shot ,or so i think any way and what ever happened to a shot off the back board ? it is like if it isn't pretty they don't want to try it,I would like to see more of using the back board and get a higher percentage shot

 

[UCMiami]

Government mule - the fade away jump shot requires greater upper-body strength something that a lot of women players do not have in abundance. The step-back jumper is more often a better option for them, but isn't that widely practiced either. And agree about the pull-up wing bank shot - a good way to soften a shot when the momentum is going forward.

Coach - I think there is 'flashy' and then there is too much flashy - when a player chooses spectacular over simple and effective coaches get gray hairs! And it is a two way street on missed connections - both the passer and the recipient have to be anticipating the same thing and seeing the play in the same way - if they aren't it isn't just the recipient that may be at fault.

I haven't watched enough of DD's games to have a clear opinion of where the majority of the responsibility lies, but I can read box scores and as a college player at both UNC with their stable of good players and at TN she had a .71-.75 A/TO ratio which is just not good enough for someone with her skills. At the point where you drop below a minimum of 1.0 it stops being about teammates, something has to change.

As a comparison Shoni Schimmel and her 'res ball' was full of flashy, but in her four years of college her A/TO never dropped to 1.0, and I don't think she is nearly as skilled as DD.

 

[Coach Jumper]

Government mule - the fade away jump shot requires greater upper-body strength something that a lot of women players do not have in abundance. The step-back jumper is more often a better option for them, but isn't that widely practiced either. And agree about the pull-up wing bank shot - a good way to soften a shot when the momentum is going forward.

Coach - I think there is 'flashy' and then there is too much flashy - when a player chooses spectacular over simple and effective coaches get gray hairs! And it is a two way street on missed connections - both the passer and the recipient have to be anticipating the same thing and seeing the play in the same way - if they aren't it isn't just the recipient that may be at fault.

I haven't watched enough of DD's games to have a clear opinion of where the majority of the responsibility lies, but I can read box scores and as a college player at both UNC with their stable of good players and at TN she had a .71-.75 A/TO ratio which is just not good enough for someone with her skills. At the point where you drop below a minimum of 1.0 it stops being about teammates, something has to change.

As a comparison Shoni Schimmel and her 'res ball' was full of flashy, but in her four years of college her A/TO never dropped to 1.0, and I don't think she is nearly as skilled as DD.

It is easily decipherable as to when DD is too flashy...She gets that "Did anybody see what idiotic thing I just did" timid-smile on her face... I saw it early on and I still see it now. The one true flaw in DD's game is purely mental. She gets too deep in trouble, can't find a way out and just does something that makes everyone scratch their head. She wears her "game"on her sleeve. Like MJ, Kobe and Maya, when she 'is' in the zone, she wears apoker-face,but unlike those three, when she is in a funk,she wears a frown like a crown.

Shoni, like Ivory Latta, is truly one of a kind. And they were spot-up ones or two's..No way to even compare the two with DD. She is a true 3. She can only be compared to Maya, Chamique, and other true SF's.

 

[PointGuard]

This ain't Atlanta and DD is now older than 13. You're stuck in a past model that you watched from afar where she played against far inferior players. DD is an awesome raw talent. That's it. Unless she grows up, changes her attitude, becomes a team player rather than a "me first" player, improves her efficiencies desires to play defense she will always just be an awesome raw talent.

 

[PointGuard]

Prediction: DD will play her rear end off this season. Why? She'll go for the draft. "me-first"

 

[Coach Jumper]

This ain't Atlanta and DD is now older than 13. You're stuck in a past model that you watched from afar where she played against far inferior players. DD is an awesome raw talent. That's it. Unless she grows up, changes her attitude, becomes a team player rather than a "me first" player, improves her efficiencies desires to play defense she will always just be an awesome raw talent.

Not stuck in the past, just comparing what I saw a few years ago to what I have seen this past year.
Both personally...self-discipline and self-governing is DD's next big step. . . Some kids do it early, some later and some never....Just like us men.

She has always been a play-maker. But when she DOES make the perfect feed, only to have it dropped,or the target isn't ready for it and drops it or doesn't move on it, or it gets kicked back at her and she is forced to create her own shot with time dwindling,,,,As I saw many times this past year... THAT will get into anyone's head.