Recruiting, the exact science

[Typical Lax Dad]

What I don't understand about recruit rankings, recruiting tournaments, etc is why there isn't simple transparency on each participant's birth date and thus age.

Just make that an explicit part of participation in a tournament and an explicit aspect of any recruit analysis...stop with the "by class" emphasis (fine to report on that as well), but make clear what the birth date is.

Same as height, weight, whatever combine scores, and 'eye analysis'...make age/DoB transparent.

Don't recruit rankings and tournaments etc work that way in other sports?

Lacrosse rankings, tournaments, etc are run for the benefit of two groups: (i) wealthy parents and (ii) college coaches. Neither of those groups have any interest in exposing player ages.

And wealthy club owners. Cronyism. Nobody will convince me that a player playing two years down is a 5 star recruit. Reminds me of when I was playing 5th grade travel hoops. My coach brought in a 7th grader as a ringer. He was dominant. Word got out that he was over age…he dropped out before being found out. I don’t remember him as a basketball player after that.

[InsiderRoll]

What I don't understand about recruit rankings, recruiting tournaments, etc is why there isn't simple transparency on each participant's birth date and thus age.

Just make that an explicit part of participation in a tournament and an explicit aspect of any recruit analysis...stop with the "by class" emphasis (fine to report on that as well), but make clear what the birth date is.

Same as height, weight, whatever combine scores, and 'eye analysis'...make age/DoB transparent.

Don't recruit rankings and tournaments etc work that way in other sports?

Lacrosse rankings, tournaments, etc are run for the benefit of two groups: (i) wealthy parents and (ii) college coaches. Neither of those groups have any interest in exposing player ages.

And wealthy club owners. Cronyism. Nobody will convince me that a player playing two years down is a 5 star recruit. Reminds me of when I was playing 5th grade travel hoops. My coach brought in a 7th grader as a ringer. He was dominant. Word got out that he was over age…he dropped out before being found out. I don’t remember him as a basketball player after that.

Honestly. Who cares about all of this.

[Typical Lax Dad]

What I don't understand about recruit rankings, recruiting tournaments, etc is why there isn't simple transparency on each participant's birth date and thus age.

Just make that an explicit part of participation in a tournament and an explicit aspect of any recruit analysis...stop with the "by class" emphasis (fine to report on that as well), but make clear what the birth date is.

Same as height, weight, whatever combine scores, and 'eye analysis'...make age/DoB transparent.

Don't recruit rankings and tournaments etc work that way in other sports?

Lacrosse rankings, tournaments, etc are run for the benefit of two groups: (i) wealthy parents and (ii) college coaches. Neither of those groups have any interest in exposing player ages.

And wealthy club owners. Cronyism. Nobody will convince me that a player playing two years down is a 5 star recruit. Reminds me of when I was playing 5th grade travel hoops. My coach brought in a 7th grader as a ringer. He was dominant. Word got out that he was over age…he dropped out before being found out. I don’t remember him as a basketball player after that.

Honestly. Who cares about all of this.

It is just sports talk and my opinion on talent assessment and player development, honestly.

[smoova]

Honestly. Who cares about all of this.

The folks who care the most are the kids and parents who are at a disadvantage because they don't game the system (whether because of ignorance, strong principles or scarce resources). The fans who wish the college lacrosse recruiting process was not so easily perverted are only mildly annoyed.

[nms]

USA HOCKEY YOUTH HOCKEY AGE GROUPS
The new age classifications are as follows:

Age Category: 8 - Age Division: 8 or Under (8U)
Age Category: 9-10 - Age Division: 10 or Under (10U)
Age Category: 11-12 - Age Division: 12 or Under (12U)
Age Category: 13-14 - Age Division: 14 or Under (14U)
Age Category: 15-16 - Age Division: 16 & Under (16U)
Age Category: 17-18 - Age Division: 18 & Under (18U)

What hockey coach in his right mind is going to offer an 18 year old playing U16? In lacrosse, we call them 5 Stars. I don’t buy it.

Most hockey players are in their early 20’s when they enter college. Are you evaluating for long term pro prospects or to build a team? Athletes are in their prime from 22-26 years of age. Not 18-22. Union won a national championship in hockey with a team full of 24 and 25 year olds because the more “talented” NHL prospect guys at blue blood hockey schools were all 18-21 years old that year. They won because they were more physically mature despite not having as much NHL level talent. Wouldn’t that be counter to peoples arguments here?

How would union have done against 24 and 25 year olds? The hockey players at Union were recruited based on playing U16 as 18 year olds? I don’t believe it.

Coaches don’t recruit based on how you’re playing against anyone. They recruit based on a projection of talent and development. If you run a 4.5 and are 6’2. Then whether you are playing against 16 year olds or 20 year olds you still run a 4.5 and are 6’2.

If you don’t have a frame to put in weight and maintain speed, then you don’t project well. It doesn’t matter what age kid you are playing against.

Just like scoring 5 goals in a club game doesn’t equate to you having the ability to score 5 goals at the college level.

In case it isn’t obvious, this is a generality.

I am biased. My son was recruited for ACC soccer and ACC lacrosse so I am probably not the right guy. My perception may in fact be distorted. BTW, lacrosse isn’t football where a combine can get you recruited without having put on pads.

A 18 year old against a 16 year old may in fact “look” fast.

both things can be true. this is what lax coaches want. as in college hockey, they're looking for the squad that they will be at (often) older ages for that 4 year (or 5-6 year in the era of covid) span.

that's why they muscled uslacrosse in changing age groups to grad groups. in addition to being lazy (or not having resources, take your pick).

it's why kids pg.

it's why by their system holdbacks are promoted.

they absolutely know the age of everyone, and their parents' measurables, and believe working it around that construct is best. maybe they don't think they're good at projecting, or don't want that variable.

there's no pro league really that fits into this, so it's the window they want. young kids, on age or less... too bad. go pg.

"Parent's measurables"

Funny story - our kid is on the small side, and was recruited during Covid, when D1 coaches weren't allowed to see kids (or their parents) in person. When our son's future coach finally met ME in person (I'm not tall) he was probably disappointed to see that his recruit wasn't gonna grow that much. So Covid helped our kid, but whether he sees the field or not, it's all up to him now....

Reminds me of the one piece of advice I gave to parents of one of my son's HS teammates - Kid was 6ft string bean, mom was 5'2" tops, dad was gigantic barrel chested 6'5 guy. I told them to have dad go with kid on college visits, not mom.

[Farfromgeneva]

https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/ ... -henderson

Look at what is noted….

The article is paywalled. And very long (I have an espn+ account). What is noted?

The ages of the prospects. In basketball, players get marked down for being old.

Ah... that didn't even register with me, I guess probably because I follow NBA draft rankings to some degree.

NBA pro scouting is a totally different ballgame than college recruiting. They take age into account because of the concept that younger players have not yet reached athletic maturity, and thus can develop significantly between age 18 and 22. Thus a 22-year old who has a more developed skill set than a competing 19-year old may get drafted significantly lower because the younger athlete has more physical potential. Obviously this doesn't apply when you're only looking at 18- and 19-year-olds, none of whom have reached their athletic prime.

The other big difference is how important getting superstars is in the NBA. You get a couple, and you have a shot at an NBA title if you can put the right pieces around them. So you might take a chance on a younger player with a lot of potential like a Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Luka Doncic... or a Kwame Brown. And when you look at the top players in the NBA in the last twenty years, almost all of them were under 21 when they were drafted. I can only think of a handful that weren't (Wade, Curry, Draymond, Klay Thompson, Jimmy Butler... maybe a couple of others?)

This is a rather excellent article that expounds on it.

https://www.libertyballers.com/2016/4/1 ... t-analysis

Is buddy hield considered a star these days?

[Farfromgeneva]

But to an extent, the age does matter. A pg or superannuated graduate of an MIAA or similar school who has been playing club lax since six presents a different profile than a kid from, say Texas, Georgia, Florida, or California, who didn’t pick up a stick until middle school and graduated “on time” and played another sport, say, football, at a high level could have a higher upside.
It’s not always the case, but it’s one reason that I’m not lamenting some changes in the makeup of UVA’s roster.
The hotbeds still produce plenty of good players, but as more hs kids are playing all over the country, athletic ability is beginning to trump pedigree.

As a first time youth lacrosse head coach this fall I can tell you the difference between in town/inside the perimeter of Atlanta vs the suburbs is wildly different. In town folks have more options and ao it’s not life or death than the suburbs I’ve observed here. We’re in a league in the burbs by necessity but in town kids, 4th and 5th grade though I found out last week those teams have 3-5 kids they pull down who are 12-13 which explains why I’ve got kids half their size who’s till out their bodies in front of a carrier double their size or I watched one last week who’s actually in their grade so such a good job boxing out someone a foot plus taller that the big kid shoved him to the ground and we got possession. We’re 1-4 but we don’t have kids running to LB3 at age 6-7, 9/16 have never played before. Though…I’ve got 2-3 who’ve only done a 4 week 1hr free claiming our head puts on but no leagues just they’ve gotten up to speed so fast I can have then switching to clear on D&mid, set picks, have them slide behind and then i front of crease and even poke/lift check on d already so I expect them to play through HS easily, form there it’ll be coaching and growth.

So point is even int he fats growing, 6.5mm population Atlanta there’s a huge dispersion already between teams and programs. I hear LB3 is corporate trash now that he sold out. Kids with fifty helmets on the sidelines no identity or teaching but probably better cash flow I guess.

[Farfromgeneva]

Sorry but it comes down to educational opportunities. Kid has a choice of Loyola, Rutgers and other good Lax programs or Ivy’s, Top schools like Duke, UNC, etc…. There is no real $$$ in Lax. Getting a great education is end game for wealthy families. Full Stop.

Rutgers current NSWR ranking is 55, tied with Maryland who is obviously having wild success on the field and in the recruiting game. While that isn't Ivy League and a few select schools outside of that, it isn't Loyola territory either, or a number of other lacrosse playing schools.

One thing is for certain. Lacrosse schools on the men's side especially, is being played at the very top of the American education system.

Behind UGA and way behind UF?

[Farfromgeneva]

when the recruits family visits the campus first stop should be the library because at the end of the day its always books first

Wrong! Campus aesthetics and convenience of access to girls dorm rooms are the#1 priority!

[Farfromgeneva]

when the recruits family visits the campus first stop should be the library because at the end of the day its always books first

THE…Ohio…STATE University

just cover your eyes, tld. they got a shot this year.

It’s all in the (cognitive dissonance) game baby!

[Farfromgeneva]

Honestly. Who cares about all of this.

The folks who care the most are the kids and parents who are at a disadvantage because they don't game the system (whether because of ignorance, strong principles or scarce resources). The fans who wish the college lacrosse recruiting process was not so easily perverted are only mildly annoyed.

The guy who’s speaking out here has a son who was a college AA in lacrosse and could’ve been in soccer as well.

Seems to me it’s a function of parents either trying to control and relive their youth through their kids vs the ones that gets the joke of parenting which is that you’re supposed to provide guardrails and safe so they can stand up on their two feet as adults.

[smoova]

Seems to me it’s a function of parents either trying to control and relive their youth through their kids vs the ones that gets the joke of parenting which is that you’re supposed to provide guardrails and safe so they can stand up on their two feet as adults.

I don't disagree ... but getting the joke doesn't make the entire mess any less disturbing for the folks in the later category.

[MoralTerpitude]

https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/ ... -henderson

Look at what is noted….

The article is paywalled. And very long (I have an espn+ account). What is noted?

The ages of the prospects. In basketball, players get marked down for being old.

Ah... that didn't even register with me, I guess probably because I follow NBA draft rankings to some degree.

NBA pro scouting is a totally different ballgame than college recruiting. They take age into account because of the concept that younger players have not yet reached athletic maturity, and thus can develop significantly between age 18 and 22. Thus a 22-year old who has a more developed skill set than a competing 19-year old may get drafted significantly lower because the younger athlete has more physical potential. Obviously this doesn't apply when you're only looking at 18- and 19-year-olds, none of whom have reached their athletic prime.

The other big difference is how important getting superstars is in the NBA. You get a couple, and you have a shot at an NBA title if you can put the right pieces around them. So you might take a chance on a younger player with a lot of potential like a Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Luka Doncic... or a Kwame Brown. And when you look at the top players in the NBA in the last twenty years, almost all of them were under 21 when they were drafted. I can only think of a handful that weren't (Wade, Curry, Draymond, Klay Thompson, Jimmy Butler... maybe a couple of others?)

This is a rather excellent article that expounds on it.

https://www.libertyballers.com/2016/4/1 ... t-analysis

Is buddy hield considered a star these days?

Solid, but not a star - at least back to starting with the Pacers. Certainly a late bloomer.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/ ... -henderson

Look at what is noted….

The article is paywalled. And very long (I have an espn+ account). What is noted?

The ages of the prospects. In basketball, players get marked down for being old.

Ah... that didn't even register with me, I guess probably because I follow NBA draft rankings to some degree.

NBA pro scouting is a totally different ballgame than college recruiting. They take age into account because of the concept that younger players have not yet reached athletic maturity, and thus can develop significantly between age 18 and 22. Thus a 22-year old who has a more developed skill set than a competing 19-year old may get drafted significantly lower because the younger athlete has more physical potential. Obviously this doesn't apply when you're only looking at 18- and 19-year-olds, none of whom have reached their athletic prime.

The other big difference is how important getting superstars is in the NBA. You get a couple, and you have a shot at an NBA title if you can put the right pieces around them. So you might take a chance on a younger player with a lot of potential like a Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Luka Doncic... or a Kwame Brown. And when you look at the top players in the NBA in the last twenty years, almost all of them were under 21 when they were drafted. I can only think of a handful that weren't (Wade, Curry, Draymond, Klay Thompson, Jimmy Butler... maybe a couple of others?)

This is a rather excellent article that expounds on it.

https://www.libertyballers.com/2016/4/1 ... t-analysis

Is buddy hield considered a star these days?

Solid, but not a star - at least back to starting with the Pacers. Certainly a late bloomer.

His age pushed him down in the draft. He’s a solid player. I wanted him in Dallas. He was WYSIWYG coming out of college. Spot up shooter. Floor spacer. He’s solid. You see Victor last week? I first saw him last year…..a whole lot of tanking this season. Utah and San Antonio are racing to the bottom. I was high on Luka for a full year before the draft and we (Dallas) got him. I might be higher on Victor.

[Farfromgeneva]

https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/ ... -henderson

Look at what is noted….

The article is paywalled. And very long (I have an espn+ account). What is noted?

The ages of the prospects. In basketball, players get marked down for being old.

Ah... that didn't even register with me, I guess probably because I follow NBA draft rankings to some degree.

NBA pro scouting is a totally different ballgame than college recruiting. They take age into account because of the concept that younger players have not yet reached athletic maturity, and thus can develop significantly between age 18 and 22. Thus a 22-year old who has a more developed skill set than a competing 19-year old may get drafted significantly lower because the younger athlete has more physical potential. Obviously this doesn't apply when you're only looking at 18- and 19-year-olds, none of whom have reached their athletic prime.

The other big difference is how important getting superstars is in the NBA. You get a couple, and you have a shot at an NBA title if you can put the right pieces around them. So you might take a chance on a younger player with a lot of potential like a Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Luka Doncic... or a Kwame Brown. And when you look at the top players in the NBA in the last twenty years, almost all of them were under 21 when they were drafted. I can only think of a handful that weren't (Wade, Curry, Draymond, Klay Thompson, Jimmy Butler... maybe a couple of others?)

This is a rather excellent article that expounds on it.

https://www.libertyballers.com/2016/4/1 ... t-analysis

Is buddy hield considered a star these days?

Solid, but not a star - at least back to starting with the Pacers. Certainly a late bloomer.

I don’t consider him one but sometimes I hear praise on that level on various platforms that aren’t absurd people and it surprised me. It’s sad that even the BYU and Gonzaga kids are like 18.25yrs Ole when they’re drafted these days. BYU must’ve carved out a BB exception where they can swap the Mormon mission requirement for a Semester at Sea.

[Farfromgeneva]

https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/ ... -henderson

Look at what is noted….

The article is paywalled. And very long (I have an espn+ account). What is noted?

The ages of the prospects. In basketball, players get marked down for being old.

Ah... that didn't even register with me, I guess probably because I follow NBA draft rankings to some degree.

NBA pro scouting is a totally different ballgame than college recruiting. They take age into account because of the concept that younger players have not yet reached athletic maturity, and thus can develop significantly between age 18 and 22. Thus a 22-year old who has a more developed skill set than a competing 19-year old may get drafted significantly lower because the younger athlete has more physical potential. Obviously this doesn't apply when you're only looking at 18- and 19-year-olds, none of whom have reached their athletic prime.

The other big difference is how important getting superstars is in the NBA. You get a couple, and you have a shot at an NBA title if you can put the right pieces around them. So you might take a chance on a younger player with a lot of potential like a Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Luka Doncic... or a Kwame Brown. And when you look at the top players in the NBA in the last twenty years, almost all of them were under 21 when they were drafted. I can only think of a handful that weren't (Wade, Curry, Draymond, Klay Thompson, Jimmy Butler... maybe a couple of others?)

This is a rather excellent article that expounds on it.

https://www.libertyballers.com/2016/4/1 ... t-analysis

Is buddy hield considered a star these days?

Solid, but not a star - at least back to starting with the Pacers. Certainly a late bloomer.

His age pushed him down in the draft. He’s a solid player. I wanted him in Dallas. He was WYSIWYG coming out of college. Spot up shooter. Floor spacer. He’s solid. You see Victor last week? I first saw him last year…..a whole lot of tanking this season. Utah and San Antonio are racing to the bottom. I was high on Luka for a full year before the draft and we (Dallas) got him. I might be higher on Victor.

This dude? Yeah heard a little. Still never trust the hype but looks the part.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dw2oErX-QX4

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/ ... -henderson

Look at what is noted….

The article is paywalled. And very long (I have an espn+ account). What is noted?

The ages of the prospects. In basketball, players get marked down for being old.

Ah... that didn't even register with me, I guess probably because I follow NBA draft rankings to some degree.

NBA pro scouting is a totally different ballgame than college recruiting. They take age into account because of the concept that younger players have not yet reached athletic maturity, and thus can develop significantly between age 18 and 22. Thus a 22-year old who has a more developed skill set than a competing 19-year old may get drafted significantly lower because the younger athlete has more physical potential. Obviously this doesn't apply when you're only looking at 18- and 19-year-olds, none of whom have reached their athletic prime.

The other big difference is how important getting superstars is in the NBA. You get a couple, and you have a shot at an NBA title if you can put the right pieces around them. So you might take a chance on a younger player with a lot of potential like a Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Luka Doncic... or a Kwame Brown. And when you look at the top players in the NBA in the last twenty years, almost all of them were under 21 when they were drafted. I can only think of a handful that weren't (Wade, Curry, Draymond, Klay Thompson, Jimmy Butler... maybe a couple of others?)

This is a rather excellent article that expounds on it.

https://www.libertyballers.com/2016/4/1 ... t-analysis

Is buddy hield considered a star these days?

Solid, but not a star - at least back to starting with the Pacers. Certainly a late bloomer.

His age pushed him down in the draft. He’s a solid player. I wanted him in Dallas. He was WYSIWYG coming out of college. Spot up shooter. Floor spacer. He’s solid. You see Victor last week? I first saw him last year…..a whole lot of tanking this season. Utah and San Antonio are racing to the bottom. I was high on Luka for a full year before the draft and we (Dallas) got him. I might be higher on Victor.

This dude? Yeah heard a little. Still never trust the hype but looks the part.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dw2oErX-QX4

I have been following him for a year. The real deal. Scouts have been on him since he was 15. He’s 18 now. I wonder if he will re-class?

[MoralTerpitude]

https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/ ... -henderson

Look at what is noted….

The article is paywalled. And very long (I have an espn+ account). What is noted?

The ages of the prospects. In basketball, players get marked down for being old.

Ah... that didn't even register with me, I guess probably because I follow NBA draft rankings to some degree.

NBA pro scouting is a totally different ballgame than college recruiting. They take age into account because of the concept that younger players have not yet reached athletic maturity, and thus can develop significantly between age 18 and 22. Thus a 22-year old who has a more developed skill set than a competing 19-year old may get drafted significantly lower because the younger athlete has more physical potential. Obviously this doesn't apply when you're only looking at 18- and 19-year-olds, none of whom have reached their athletic prime.

The other big difference is how important getting superstars is in the NBA. You get a couple, and you have a shot at an NBA title if you can put the right pieces around them. So you might take a chance on a younger player with a lot of potential like a Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Luka Doncic... or a Kwame Brown. And when you look at the top players in the NBA in the last twenty years, almost all of them were under 21 when they were drafted. I can only think of a handful that weren't (Wade, Curry, Draymond, Klay Thompson, Jimmy Butler... maybe a couple of others?)

This is a rather excellent article that expounds on it.

https://www.libertyballers.com/2016/4/1 ... t-analysis

Is buddy hield considered a star these days?

Solid, but not a star - at least back to starting with the Pacers. Certainly a late bloomer.

His age pushed him down in the draft. He’s a solid player. I wanted him in Dallas. He was WYSIWYG coming out of college. Spot up shooter. Floor spacer. He’s solid. You see Victor last week? I first saw him last year…..a whole lot of tanking this season. Utah and San Antonio are racing to the bottom. I was high on Luka for a full year before the draft and we (Dallas) got him. I might be higher on Victor.

This dude? Yeah heard a little. Still never trust the hype but looks the part.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dw2oErX-QX4

I have been following him for a year. The real deal. Scouts have been on him since he was 15. He’s 18 now. I wonder if he will re-class?

Pretty sure he’s in the draft this year, he’ll be the #1 pick. Unreal athleticism for his height, already a good 3-point shooter with an undefendable shot on the perimeter. A rim defender despite his weight - which will work in today’s NBA. His club team played a D-league team the other day, he scored over 30 points with like 5 blocks and a bunch of threes.

Edit: TLD - yeah, he definitely looked good last week.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/ ... -henderson

Look at what is noted….

The article is paywalled. And very long (I have an espn+ account). What is noted?

The ages of the prospects. In basketball, players get marked down for being old.

Ah... that didn't even register with me, I guess probably because I follow NBA draft rankings to some degree.

NBA pro scouting is a totally different ballgame than college recruiting. They take age into account because of the concept that younger players have not yet reached athletic maturity, and thus can develop significantly between age 18 and 22. Thus a 22-year old who has a more developed skill set than a competing 19-year old may get drafted significantly lower because the younger athlete has more physical potential. Obviously this doesn't apply when you're only looking at 18- and 19-year-olds, none of whom have reached their athletic prime.

The other big difference is how important getting superstars is in the NBA. You get a couple, and you have a shot at an NBA title if you can put the right pieces around them. So you might take a chance on a younger player with a lot of potential like a Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Luka Doncic... or a Kwame Brown. And when you look at the top players in the NBA in the last twenty years, almost all of them were under 21 when they were drafted. I can only think of a handful that weren't (Wade, Curry, Draymond, Klay Thompson, Jimmy Butler... maybe a couple of others?)

This is a rather excellent article that expounds on it.

https://www.libertyballers.com/2016/4/1 ... t-analysis

Is buddy hield considered a star these days?

Solid, but not a star - at least back to starting with the Pacers. Certainly a late bloomer.

His age pushed him down in the draft. He’s a solid player. I wanted him in Dallas. He was WYSIWYG coming out of college. Spot up shooter. Floor spacer. He’s solid. You see Victor last week? I first saw him last year…..a whole lot of tanking this season. Utah and San Antonio are racing to the bottom. I was high on Luka for a full year before the draft and we (Dallas) got him. I might be higher on Victor.

This dude? Yeah heard a little. Still never trust the hype but looks the part.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dw2oErX-QX4

I have been following him for a year. The real deal. Scouts have been on him since he was 15. He’s 18 now. I wonder if he will re-class?

Pretty sure he’s in the draft this year, he’ll be the #1 pick. Unreal athleticism for his height, already a good 3-point shooter with an undefendable shot on the perimeter. A rim defender despite his weight - which will work in today’s NBA. His club team played a D-league team the other day, he scored over 30 points with like 5 blocks and a bunch of threes.

Edit: TLD - yeah, he definitely looked good last week.

I was joking about re-class. He has been a known quantity. He’s a better version of Chet Holgrem whom I liked since I saw him play against Emoni Bates. I never saw it in Emoni. Not sure he will play much in the NBA, if at all….Assuming you are a terp guy. I went to hoop camp with Lenny when he was a rising junior….to stay on topic, I have seen a lot of high level athletes in the midst of their development (basketball, football and soccer) and one thing is consistent, good players don’t develop by playing down. We have ‘24 5 Star lacrosse players that should be class of ‘22. The “5 star” players I went to camp with played up, not down.

[MoralTerpitude]

Get out - was he the best player in camp? Still sad what happened to him. Btw that wasn’t Morgan Wooten’s camp, was it? Went to it in middle school.

Holmgren comp to Victor is a good one. To my eyes Victor is a little thicker already, and… 4” taller! Crazyness. I’ve heard Durant comps too… Durant, but 5” taller. Nuts.