About Stephen Pledger

[elmocarp]

I am really excited about all the incoming players and I am really looking forward to seeing what the team looks like next season. However, I have noticed that just about any post about Stephen Pledger makes it sound like he is going to be a major impact type of player.

Please, no one misunderstand me, but shouldn't we scale back the expectations for the guy? As much as there is to like about him, he was ranked outside the top 100 by Rivals and Scout, and ESPN has him at #84. He played for Boo Williams and Atlantic Shores with Andre Dawson, so its not like people haven't seen a lot of him.

Look, all I have seen is highlights and I'm sure some of you have seen him in actual games, but shouldn't we just pencil him in to be a role-playing contributor for now and just be pleasantly surprised if he turns out to be more than that?

I love his game and I think he has a bright future at OU, but I think maybe people might be expecting too much from him. Shoot, we are probably expecting too much of Tiny and TMG too, but that's a whole other thread...

 

[OULad]

I agree, i for one am not expecting a lot out of him next year.

 

[sharp1]

I am really excited about all the incoming players and I am really looking forward to seeing what the team looks like next season. However, I have noticed that just about any post about Stephen Pledger makes it sound like he is going to be a major impact type of player.

Please, no one misunderstand me, but shouldn't we scale back the expectations for the guy? As much as there is to like about him, he was ranked outside the top 100 by Rivals and Scout, and ESPN has him at #84. He played for Boo Williams and Atlantic Shores with Andre Dawson, so its not like people haven't seen a lot of him. (Saw Pledger in the Boo William Nike event last year and he was the best there(for that event)...almost started a riot by fans when Bob Gibbons didnt pick him for tourny MVp, let alone all tourny.

Look, all I have seen is highlights and I'm sure some of you have seen him in actual games, but shouldn't we just pencil him in to be a role-playing contributor for now and just be pleasantly surprised if he turns out to be more than that?

I love his game and I think he has a bright future at OU, but I think maybe people might be expecting too much from him. Shoot, we are probably expecting too much of Tiny and TMG too, but that's a whole other thread...

This is actually the type of responce I expected...Dont pay any attention to any rankings people, they mean nothing as you will see...

1. Steph Curry...ranked nowhere
2. Eric maynor...one star maybe two on Rivals
3. Rhondo...three stars
4. Ray Allen...one offer 2 stars
5. Jameer Nelson...2 stars, to offers...Temple and St. Joes
6. Acie Law...three stars
7. Ronald "flip" Murray...Ciaa, not ranked
8. Raja Bell...Not ranked
9. John Salmons...three stars
10. Rondey Stucky...not ranked

I said all that to say, there more wrong about kids then right. You and I can pick Shaq, Tyreke Evens, Oj mayo, Mike Beasely, Derrick Rose...Remember they also Picked Marvin Williams, Maurice Evans, Bill walker, sean May, Ray Felton, Kwame Brown...Just to name a few.

Look at a kids skill set, see him play then judge, I've seen lots of AAU ball...Most of the one that get they Hype...dont' deserve it.

 

[coacht]

It is impossible for me to judge Pledger because I have only see highlights, but it is hard for an OU fan to get excited about him because the last two years we have had similar players, Willis and Neysmith, come in and they did not produce at all in their freshman year.

 

[Tony]

This...

1. Steph Curry...ranked nowhere
2. Eric maynor...one star maybe two on Rivals
3. Rhondo...three stars
4. Ray Allen...one offer 2 stars
5. Jameer Nelson...2 stars, to offers...Temple and St. Joes
6. Acie Law...three stars
7. Ronald "flip" Murray...Ciaa, not ranked
8. Raja Bell...Not ranked
9. John Salmons...three stars
10. Rondey Stucky...not ranked

...does not prove this...

Dont pay any attention to any rankings people, they mean nothing

That recruiting experts get things wrong does not render them useless, simply imperfect.

I have not seen Steven Pledger play, I have no idea how good he will be. But to me he is an interesting case because the expectations regarding him vary so much. Neither Rivals nor Scout consider him among the top 100 high school seniors in the country, while at least some knowledgable OU fans believe he can be better than JJ Redick.

 

[elmocarp]

I have not seen Steven Pledger play, I have no idea how good he will be. But to me he is an interesting case because the expectations regarding him vary so much. Neither Rivals nor Scout consider him among the top 100 high school seniors in the country, while at least some knowledgable OU fans believe he can be better than JJ Redick.

This is the kind of response I was looking for. I am by no means suggesting he isn't a good player or isn't going to be a very good player. I just have a hard time getting an accurate idea of just how good he will be. From what I have seen he is a very skilled player who has done a good job of working on his body, but he looks pretty mediocre athletically to me. Again, this is just from recruiting video or youtube clips. Still, the youtube highlights of him and Andre Dawson are pretty telling. Watching Dawson and then seeing Pledger it looks like he has weight belts on his ankles.

Again, not ripping the kid. I am just wondering why he isn't getting love from the recruiting services if he is as good as most of the posters are saying. BTW...I am not saying this because I think people on this board are wrong, far from it. I just wonder why there is such a difference of opinion, thats all.

 

[piehole]

I agree with Tony. Can you imagine if even 25% of the "no names" went on to have years/ careers like Curry? Sure, there are always overlooked kids who "find it" their frosh or soph years, and we all hope SP is one of them. Personally, I'm just hoping he provides solid spot play behind Crock, Cade and Willis. If Willis puts it together won't SP probably redshirt?

 

[AdaSooner]

This is the kind of response I was looking for. I am by no means suggesting he isn't a good player or isn't going to be a very good player. I just have a hard time getting an accurate idea of just how good he will be. From what I have seen he is a very skilled player who has done a good job of working on his body, but he looks pretty mediocre athletically to me. Again, this is just from recruiting video or youtube clips. Still, the youtube highlights of him and Andre Dawson are pretty telling. Watching Dawson and then seeing Pledger it looks like he has weight belts on his ankles.

Again, not ripping the kid. I am just wondering why he isn't getting love from the recruiting services if he is as good as most of the posters are saying. BTW...I am not saying this because I think people on this board are wrong, far from it. I just wonder why there is such a difference of opinion, thats all.

I think Sharp1 might have answered your question. The opinions vary because some people put a lot of faith in the rankings, while others (myself included) are not easily influenced by how Rivals, Scout and ESPN ranks a recruit. Maybe the example Sharp1 used to make his point did nothing to confirm how good Steven Pledger will be at the D-1 level. But, it did prove the rankings are not an exact science.

For my part, I would rather trust someone who has seen Steven play numerous times over the past few years than any recruiting service you can name. You can bet Coach Capel and his staff didn't form an opinion on the kid by reading what Scout, Rivals and ESPN had to say. OU's coaching staff made Steven Pledger a priority two years ago and that's good enough for me.

I'm one who has high expectations for this kid. I have even gone on record as saying he has a chance to become the best three point shooter in OU history. If I'm wrong, it won't bother me one bit. I'm not that insecure.

 

[skyvue]

If I'm wrong, it won't bother me one bit. I'm not that insecure.

If you're wrong, it'll be bother me plenty, mister.

 

[AdaSooner]

If you're wrong, it'll be bother me plenty, mister.

In that case, Sky, guess you better trust me. I would never want to create undue stress for a friend.

 

[FaithfulSooner]

Elmo I think it's fair for you to have those thoughts about Steven. I won't criticize you one bit. However, for those of us who believe that he will do well his first year. What's wrong with that? If you strictly go by the rankings in basketball then you are in trouble. We all must remember that the rankings can be very political in whoever is doing them. My expectations for Steven are for him to just come in off the bench and be a viable threat to shoot and score along with good hard effort. For those of us that are being optimistic about his role with this team. I think all we're saying is don't be surprised if he comes in and contributes in a very good way. I would also expect you and whoever to come on the board and acknowledge Steven's contribution. BOOMER SOONER BABY!!!:clap

 

[gracefor24]

This is actually the type of responce I expected...Dont pay any attention to any rankings people, they mean nothing as you will see...

1. Steph Curry...ranked nowhere
2. Eric maynor...one star maybe two on Rivals
3. Rhondo...three stars
4. Ray Allen...one offer 2 stars
5. Jameer Nelson...2 stars, to offers...Temple and St. Joes
6. Acie Law...three stars
7. Ronald "flip" Murray...Ciaa, not ranked
8. Raja Bell...Not ranked
9. John Salmons...three stars
10. Rondey Stucky...not ranked

I said all that to say, there more wrong about kids then right. You and I can pick Shaq, Tyreke Evens, Oj mayo, Mike Beasely, Derrick Rose...Remember they also Picked Marvin Williams, Maurice Evans, Bill walker, sean May, Ray Felton, Kwame Brown...Just to name a few.

Look at a kids skill set, see him play then judge, I've seen lots of AAU ball...Most of the one that get they Hype...dont' deserve it.

I'd like to see some links or proof on some of these ratings. I know for a fact that Rondo was a 5 star on scout and the #3 PG (behind two lotto picks) on Scout. Also, both Murray and Stuckey were major grade risks and many times they get downgraded because of it. Everyone knew that Stuckey was a major talent.

To me the exceptions prove the rule in regards to rankings. Go check out DraftExpress' RSCI recruiting rankings compared to draft spot. It is amazing how the top rated players out of HS are almost always the highest draft picks.

 

[OUguy11]

I'd like to see some links or proof on some of these ratings. I know for a fact that Rondo was a 5 star on scout and the #3 PG (behind two lotto picks) on Scout. Also, both Murray and Stuckey were major grade risks and many times they get downgraded because of it. Everyone knew that Stuckey was a major talent.

To me the exceptions prove the rule in regards to rankings. Go check out DraftExpress' RSCI recruiting rankings compared to draft spot. It is amazing how the top rated players out of HS are almost always the highest draft picks.

I agree, and no way Ray Allen was rated like that and he went to Connecticut?? Not happening.

 

[SoonerNorm]

If Pledger can come off the bench, play great defense, move and play hard without the ball on offense, limits careless mistakes, attacks the boards, and knocks down a few shots, I will be thrilled. That is plenty to ask of him his first year.

 

[AdaSooner]

To me the exceptions prove the rule in regards to rankings. Go check out DraftExpress' RSCI recruiting rankings compared to draft spot. It is amazing how the top rated players out of HS are almost always the highest draft picks.

No one is saying the recruiting services are wrong about the top rated players. Any recruiting expert worth his salt can pick the top 30 to 50 recruits and predict their success at the next level to some degree. It's that next 100 or so (especially kids from 75 to 150) who often get overlooked. The NBA has dozens of players that no one ever heard of because they didn't get noticed and ended up at a mid-major somewhere.

 

[elmocarp]

If Pledger can come off the bench, play great defense, move and play hard without the ball on offense, limits careless mistakes, attacks the boards, and knocks down a few shots, I will be thrilled. That is plenty to ask of him his first year.

Exactly. I think people were a little spoiled with Willie last year. I don't know why my post made people think I'm not a fan of SP. All I meant to say was that maybe we should reign in our expectations a little for his freshman season. It is a hard thing to transition to a higher level of competition. I think Norm's message sums it up well. If he is a dependable contributor then we should all be thrilled.

 

[AdaSooner]

Exactly. I think people were a little spoiled with Willie last year. I don't know why my post made people think I'm not a fan of SP. All I meant to say was that maybe we should reign in our expectations a little for his freshman season. It is a hard thing to transition to a higher level of competition. I think Norm's message sums it up well. If he is a dependable contributor then we should all be thrilled.

Nothing there I disagree with, Elmo. Speaking for myself, I didn't interpret your post as a knock on Steven at all. My response was an attempt to answer your question as to why fans see things differently when it comes to a recruit who has not played his first game at the D-1 level.

I have never been that high on the recruiting rankings. Oh, I get as excited as the next guy when I see four members of OU's 2009 class ranked in ESPN's top 100. But when one recruiting service has a kid in their #84 spot and he doesn't even sniff the top 100 in the other two major polls, I don't know how anyone can put much stock in the rankings, when you get past the top 50 or so who make everyone's list. I might add that's a fairly common occurrence with recruits at the high end of top 100 lists.

Recruits in the top 50 who are candidates to be selected as a MickeyD AA or to the Jordan Classic are another matter entirely. In most cases, those kids are legit, although as Faithful pointed out, politics can (and does) play a role in their selection to those all-star teams.

Predicting a recruit's success in college is a crap shoot at best. But it makes for an interesting and fun topic in the off season, even when the opinions vary so much. If I'm right about Pledger, you can bet I'm going to remind a few people who doubt how good he'll be and I fully expect the same in return if I'm wrong.

 

[Tony]

But when one recruiting service has a kid in their #84 spot and he doesn't even sniff the top 100 in the other two major polls, I don't know how anyone can put much stock in the rankings, when you get past the top 50 or so who make everyone's list.

I think the recruiting services do a pretty good job, basically, but they do have one fatal flaw, and that is the way they rank players. Basketball talent is not distributed in a linear fashion, #1 through #6 billion or whatever. It is more like this:

That is, on the extreme right, you have your Lebrons, your Kobes, your Blake Griffins, etc. and as you move further and further left there are a greater number of players with the same basic talent level. It is very hard to find a player with Lebron's ability, and still hard to find someone with the talent of Willie Warren. But as you move further left on the scale, it gets easier to replace players. Tony Crocker is easier to replace than Warren and Cade Davis easier than him, and Tony Neysmith easier than him. Beau Gerber, god love him, is a pretty replaceable player. There is a large pool of available basketball talent with his basic ability. As you move even further left there are people who could start on their high school team and then people who couldn't even do that, etc, until you get to the far left which includes my grandmother.

So I just think the basic premise of ranking players 1 through 100 or 150 or 200 is wrong. Ask a bunch of people to rank the top 3 freshmen in the country last season, and you will get a discussion of, what, maybe five or six players. But who was the 150th best freshman in the country? The 300th? You would get a huge range of difference of opinions.

So you ask how can anyone take recruiting rankings seriously when a guy is ranked #84 by one service and not in the top 100 by another? It's because the differences in spots isn't equal. The difference in talent level between the #1 player and the #25 player is not the same as the difference between #300 and #325. I submit that the #84 and #121 high school seniors are a lot closer in ability than, say, #1 and #20.

Still, what I would like to see is players defined by tier, and maybe even skillset. I think that would be a much more informative way of doing things than just ranking them 1 through 200 or whatever. It would also make it easier to do a rigorous analysis of the effectiveness of recruiting rankings. Because now all we can do is just eyeball it.

 

[Smash Williams]

This is actually the type of responce I expected...Dont pay any attention to any rankings people, they mean nothing as you will see...

1. Steph Curry...ranked nowhere
2. Eric maynor...one star maybe two on Rivals
3. Rhondo...three stars
4. Ray Allen...one offer 2 stars
5. Jameer Nelson...2 stars, to offers...Temple and St. Joes
6. Acie Law...three stars
7. Ronald "flip" Murray...Ciaa, not ranked
8. Raja Bell...Not ranked
9. John Salmons...three stars
10. Rondey Stucky...not ranked

Where are you getting some of this info?

Rajon Rondo was a 5-star prospect on Rivals and Scout.

What service gave Ray Allen two stars? According to this 1993 article from the Hartford Courant, Bob Gibbons had Allen rated #27 in the country, and Allen chose UConn over Kentucky and Alabama, so I find it hard to believe that UConn was the only school that offered him.

 

[gracefor24]

No one is saying the recruiting services are wrong about the top rated players. Any recruiting expert worth his salt can pick the top 30 to 50 recruits and predict their success at the next level to some degree. It's that next 100 or so (especially kids from 75 to 150) who often get overlooked. The NBA has dozens of players that no one ever heard of because they didn't get noticed and ended up at a mid-major somewhere.

My response, if you note, was directed to sharp1 who said that "recruiting rankings mean nothing". Otherwise there is nothing that I posted that would disagree with what you have written.

The real point is that Stephen Pledger has been seen enough for talent evaluators to rank him in a certain portion. Some want him to be WW and he isn't. He is in that span of kids that Tony mentioned who are talented and have a lot of skill but there are so many kids just like him. The thing that will separate him from here is work ethic and being in the right program to highlight his skill.