Boston Red Sox major league scout, Galen Carr. Galen grew up in Walpole, NH and attended Northfield Mount Herman School in MA prior to attending Colby College. He is now a major league scout with the Boston Red Sox.
http://media.www.colbyecho.com/media/storage/paper1174/news/2007/11/28/Features/Q.A-With.Galen.Carr.97.The.Boston.Red.Sox-3120118.shtml
Syracuse University assistant women's basketball coach, Matt Luneau.
http://www.suathletics.com/coaches.aspx?rc=70&path=wbasket
http://www.basketballfamily.com/
Father of the late Jason Ray, Emmitt Ray.
"Jason Ray, the University of North Carolina student who suits up as the school's mascot, died Monday two days after being hit by a car in New Jersey where had planned to attend the Tar Heels' NCAA basketball game at the Continental Airlines Arena.The 21-year-old senior was struck near his hotel in Fort Lee, while walking along a busy highway leading from the George Washington Bridge. Ray was one of three students who portrayed UNC's ram mascot, Rameses.Ray's father, Emmitt, who flew to New Jersey in a friend's private plane after getting word of his son's life-threatening head injuries, had said doctors held out little hope for his son's recovery "short of the intervention of the Lord."Ray left his hotel to go to a nearby convenience store Friday afternoon for a burrito and a soda, and was walking back along Route 4 when he was struck from behind by an SUV. The driver stopped immediately to call 911. No charges have been filed."We've known Jason since he was 11 years old — he is an awesome kid," said Jodi Stewart, a neighbor of the Ray family who attends the same church in Concord, N.C. "I never knew a kid who was more full of life. He was excited every day. He loved what he was doing, he loved God, his family, and being the school's mascot."A group of about 40 people attended a prayer session held on the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill campus Sunday afternoon, said Laura Ely, a UNC senior who met Ray early in their freshman year. She described Ray as "an amazing person" who had a large, diverse group of friends at UNC and other nearby schools.Stewart said about 30 of Ray's family and friends were at Hackensack University Medical Center Sunday, including his parents, Emmitt and Charlotte Ray, two brothers, and five high school friends who lived with Ray in Chapel Hill, N.C.Stewart said Ray was an Eagle scout and was involved in his church. While in high school at Jay M. Robinson High School in Concord, Ray was often seen cheering in the stands at basketball games, she said.Ray's dad told The Star-Ledger that his son "absolutely loved" dressing up as Rameses, despite the costume's bulk."It was his way of supporting the team," Emmitt Ray said. "There are things you just can't explain. He just happened to be in the wrong place at the right time. He wasn't doing anything he wasn't supposed to be doing. He was 200 yards from the hotel."Police said Gagik Hovsepyan, 51, the driver who hit Ray, had a valid driver's license and did not appear to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs. His son was asleep in the SUV at the time, police said.At 6-foot-5, Jason Ray was such a commanding presence that when UNC coach Roy Williams first met him in the campus gym, he wondered aloud why Ray wasn't on his team."I'm too slow and I can't jump," Jason told Williams. "But I can be of assistance in other ways, Coach."Ray had been scheduled to graduate in May with a 3.6 GPA, majoring in business administration with a minor in religion. He had a sales and marketing job lined up in nearby Raleigh, N.C."
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
ESPN Soccer's Marc Connolly, longtime soccer writer since 1996.Fourth year as assistant coach with UMass Lowell.Technical Director of FC Stars of Massachusetts.
Monday, June 15, 2009
George Rodecker's NBA Draft Index
Evaluation of basketball talent is an inexact science. Can he shoot? Can he dribble? Can he rebound? Does he create his own shot? Can he pass? These are the easier qualities a scout or coach must assess when judging one prospect versus another. The harder questions involve intangibles. Is he a leader? How tough is he? Does he want the ball in the final seconds? How will he react to adversity? Does he have presence?
The five players each team puts on the court at one time all have loosely defined roles. How can one evaluate a point guard against a post player or a shooting guard against a power forward? Though teams certainly draft primarily to fill their own specific needs, some certainly will still draft by "the best player available" theory.
It is with these thoughts in mind that the Player PRO-tential Index (PPI) was developed. With the actual help of dozens of people across the country each year, and their knowledge of players' strengths and weaknesses, we have arrived at a single number for each draft prospect that shows where that prospect stands in relation to his peers. The difficulty in drawing meaningful conclusions from our efforts stems from one word -- subjectivity. Without a clear definition of what constitutes a "10" for ball handling or a "6" for rebounding, one must realize that we are dealing in the inexact. However, even that is uncertain, because we all have different opinions about who the best point guard in the NBA is and who’s the most over and underrated. All this being said, we feel that we’re offering a vastly superior system of evaluating the talent.
Here's how it works.
We initially determined what physical and mental abilities are essential to being an exceptional basketball player and arrived at the following list of attributes by which to judge all of the players:
1. Ball Handling: Can he dribble well? In traffic? Can he penetrate? Can he handle full court pressure and traps? Does he protect the ball?
2. Perimeter Shooting: Can he stroke an open three pointer? Can he come off a pick to nail a jumper? Is he a pure shooter? Does he have a three-point game?
3. Defensive Skills: A look at a player's defensive ability - inside or on the perimeter, anticipation, help and recover, denial, shot blocking, position.
4. Rebounding: Simply, does he block out and clear the ball off the glass. Can he go up with the big boys and bring down the ball?
5. Create His Own Shot: Does he have the ability to create his own opportunities? Is he able to make things happen on the floor by himself?
6. Offensive Skills: Can he score around the basket? Can he handle contact and put the ball in the hole? Can he showcase a variety of offensive moves?
7. Passing Skills: Can he see the court and deliver a pass to the open man? Can he make an entry pass? Can he make interior passes? How's his decision-making? Does he anticipate? Can he create?
8. Toughness / Character: What is the player made out of? Does he want to be on the court in crunch time? Who gets the loose balls? Will he take the charge? Do you want him with you in the trenches?
9. Pro Potential: Does he have the size and ability to use his skills in the pros? Is he a "project" with tremendous upside? Is he the dreaded "good college player", or even worse a positional "tweener"? Will the skills he exhibited in college translate into success at the next level?
10. Athleticism: Can he run and jump? Does he have quickness, speed, lateral movement, strength, and conditioning?
11. Feel For The Game: Does he understand what is going on around him? Can he see changes in the play? Does he instinctively sense and seize opportunities.
12. Maturity / Leadership: Do you want him leading you into battle? Does he make other people better? A good influence in the locker room? Is he a winner?
Each player is graded on a scale of one to ten for all twelve categories. If a player were to grade out with a perfect score for every attribute, he would score 120 prior to the results being “washed” with a curve to assure fairness.
The fact that there are five different positions on the floor, each with a varying degree of application for each rated ability, throws a wrench into our quest for accuracy. Having judged a players ability on a flat scale for each category, we then apply a predetermined formula to certain attributes according to that players agreed upon position on the floor (point guard, two guard, swing guard, small forward, power forward, center). For example, we apply a factor of 1.75 to a point guard's ball-handling rating due to the obvious increased importance on this skill for that position, while applying a .25 factor to that same player's rebounding rating due to the limited role a point guard plays in crashing the glass. Every player, regardless of position, still has the potential to score 100 on the PPI because for every factor that potentially increases an attribute, there are also decreasing factors that balance it out.
In this way, a point guard isn't penalized for not being a good offensive rebounder and a center isn't penalized for not being a good ball handler. At the same time, if a post player is an exceptional perimeter shooter, the formula still allows for some degree of separation between that player and his peers at his position, though not as pronounced as if the balancing factor were not used. The goal is simply to emphasize the skills necessary to excel at certain positions, while still acknowledging the added value a player brings to a position by having developed a skill not fundamental to his position.
The attribute of pro potential is essentially what general managers, scouts and coaches are banking on when they draft a player. The commonly asked question is: "Will this player excel at the professional level?" The proclivity for teams to draft "projects" (players with limited or undeveloped skills that show tremendous upside), especially among big people, skews that player's PPI to a level not consistent with where he will actually be drafted.
To compile each individual's PPI, we sorted through an extraordinary amount of data, and always extend our gratitude to the hundreds of coaches and scouts that anonymously shared their insights on each player's individual skills. I have also applied my own thoughts to come up with what I think is an excellent way to rate players against each other -- either comparing within one position or comparing all players against each other.
And that, my roundball fans is how those ratings come about.
The five players each team puts on the court at one time all have loosely defined roles. How can one evaluate a point guard against a post player or a shooting guard against a power forward? Though teams certainly draft primarily to fill their own specific needs, some certainly will still draft by "the best player available" theory.
It is with these thoughts in mind that the Player PRO-tential Index (PPI) was developed. With the actual help of dozens of people across the country each year, and their knowledge of players' strengths and weaknesses, we have arrived at a single number for each draft prospect that shows where that prospect stands in relation to his peers. The difficulty in drawing meaningful conclusions from our efforts stems from one word -- subjectivity. Without a clear definition of what constitutes a "10" for ball handling or a "6" for rebounding, one must realize that we are dealing in the inexact. However, even that is uncertain, because we all have different opinions about who the best point guard in the NBA is and who’s the most over and underrated. All this being said, we feel that we’re offering a vastly superior system of evaluating the talent.
Here's how it works.
We initially determined what physical and mental abilities are essential to being an exceptional basketball player and arrived at the following list of attributes by which to judge all of the players:
1. Ball Handling: Can he dribble well? In traffic? Can he penetrate? Can he handle full court pressure and traps? Does he protect the ball?
2. Perimeter Shooting: Can he stroke an open three pointer? Can he come off a pick to nail a jumper? Is he a pure shooter? Does he have a three-point game?
3. Defensive Skills: A look at a player's defensive ability - inside or on the perimeter, anticipation, help and recover, denial, shot blocking, position.
4. Rebounding: Simply, does he block out and clear the ball off the glass. Can he go up with the big boys and bring down the ball?
5. Create His Own Shot: Does he have the ability to create his own opportunities? Is he able to make things happen on the floor by himself?
6. Offensive Skills: Can he score around the basket? Can he handle contact and put the ball in the hole? Can he showcase a variety of offensive moves?
7. Passing Skills: Can he see the court and deliver a pass to the open man? Can he make an entry pass? Can he make interior passes? How's his decision-making? Does he anticipate? Can he create?
8. Toughness / Character: What is the player made out of? Does he want to be on the court in crunch time? Who gets the loose balls? Will he take the charge? Do you want him with you in the trenches?
9. Pro Potential: Does he have the size and ability to use his skills in the pros? Is he a "project" with tremendous upside? Is he the dreaded "good college player", or even worse a positional "tweener"? Will the skills he exhibited in college translate into success at the next level?
10. Athleticism: Can he run and jump? Does he have quickness, speed, lateral movement, strength, and conditioning?
11. Feel For The Game: Does he understand what is going on around him? Can he see changes in the play? Does he instinctively sense and seize opportunities.
12. Maturity / Leadership: Do you want him leading you into battle? Does he make other people better? A good influence in the locker room? Is he a winner?
Each player is graded on a scale of one to ten for all twelve categories. If a player were to grade out with a perfect score for every attribute, he would score 120 prior to the results being “washed” with a curve to assure fairness.
The fact that there are five different positions on the floor, each with a varying degree of application for each rated ability, throws a wrench into our quest for accuracy. Having judged a players ability on a flat scale for each category, we then apply a predetermined formula to certain attributes according to that players agreed upon position on the floor (point guard, two guard, swing guard, small forward, power forward, center). For example, we apply a factor of 1.75 to a point guard's ball-handling rating due to the obvious increased importance on this skill for that position, while applying a .25 factor to that same player's rebounding rating due to the limited role a point guard plays in crashing the glass. Every player, regardless of position, still has the potential to score 100 on the PPI because for every factor that potentially increases an attribute, there are also decreasing factors that balance it out.
In this way, a point guard isn't penalized for not being a good offensive rebounder and a center isn't penalized for not being a good ball handler. At the same time, if a post player is an exceptional perimeter shooter, the formula still allows for some degree of separation between that player and his peers at his position, though not as pronounced as if the balancing factor were not used. The goal is simply to emphasize the skills necessary to excel at certain positions, while still acknowledging the added value a player brings to a position by having developed a skill not fundamental to his position.
The attribute of pro potential is essentially what general managers, scouts and coaches are banking on when they draft a player. The commonly asked question is: "Will this player excel at the professional level?" The proclivity for teams to draft "projects" (players with limited or undeveloped skills that show tremendous upside), especially among big people, skews that player's PPI to a level not consistent with where he will actually be drafted.
To compile each individual's PPI, we sorted through an extraordinary amount of data, and always extend our gratitude to the hundreds of coaches and scouts that anonymously shared their insights on each player's individual skills. I have also applied my own thoughts to come up with what I think is an excellent way to rate players against each other -- either comparing within one position or comparing all players against each other.
And that, my roundball fans is how those ratings come about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)