Someone explain how a players stars are calculated?

[sbcmortgageman]

May be German but I wonder how they can all vary so much sometimes.

 

[shotgunDawg]

The #1 reason is that scouting/player evaluation isn't a science. One person's trash may be another person's treasure. In fact, in the evaluation industry it is very much encouraged for you to have your own opinion, and to not copy someone else's. Due to that, you are naturally going to have some discrepancy among the players. However, good talent evaluators should never be more than one grade off from each other. What does that mean? It means that its OK to have a 4* rated as a 5* or vice versa, but it isn't generally OK to have a 5* rated as a 3* or vice versa.

The #2 reason is that these recruiting websites don't all have the same resources, either in number of personnel, quality of personal, or financial capability to offer the evaluation coverage that is necessary.

Due to all this, it can be very difficult for "late bloomers" and grade risk players, no matter how good, to rise in the rankings of some recruiting services. They do much better with guys that have a track record. Kids like Chris Jones, often never get their due because they recruiting service simply doesn't have the means to get enough information to stick their necks and reputation on the line for that kid. Chris really benefited because of the MS/AL all-star game and the Under Armour game. Without playing in those games, Chris would probably still be a 4*.

As far as how stars are calculated, look at it like this: 2*= Below Average or not evaluated 3*= Average
4*= Above Average 5*= Awesome/Excellent/ Could be first round type talent

Hope this answers your question.

 

[RocketDawg]

Wouldn't the process you described be an art, but not a science?

 

[shotgunDawg]

Whoops, your right. For those two simple words mixed up. Typo

 

[gravedigger]

I got the impression that scout looks at stars based on what impact the player would have in his first year. Only a small few can walk in and do this in their first fall. The reason so many are under rated is because the impact a player has the first year depends on the depth of the team he signs with. Others are just late bloomers. Others need the level of coaching that isn't found on the high school level. My version of the stars goes like this:

5 star- player that will almost certainly be able to crack the starting lineup his first year on most teams.

4 star- talents enough to be a first year impact player, but has some coaching to do to make him into someone who will make the depth chart the first year.

3 star- solid division one prospect but will need a redshirt year in all likeyhood to make the 2 deep.

2 star - good potential but probably would benefit from a year or two of junior college.

1 star- either not evaluated or not ready for division one.

 

[Railin Jemmye]

I'm guessing most of it is measureables.....

Height, weight, speed....all those combine drills or whatever. That's about all there is to compare since competition is so varied. Stats are almost useless, unless they just stand out somehow. The eye test should be the most important, and that's where 247 does it best. Most anybody will a brain can look at a player and tell he's head and shoulders above the rest. And hard to measure what's between their ears from high school play.

I know they have a few All-Star games, but far from enough to ever get it very accurate, like the AAU and others in basketball and summer leagues in baseball.