The greatest disparity in talent lies among "zero stars"

[badrouter]

One of the greatest flaws in the way people evaluate HS teams is the tendency to consider all players without stars as equals. Lists are provided (often with inaccurate info) of star players on teams, and it's comprised entirely of players with stars next to their name in 247 etc. They aren't actually all equal. In reality, it is inadequate to make such a simple claim. In fact, the GREATEST disparity among players is the disparity between the weakest "Zero stars" and the strongest such players. There are probably infinite examples of excellent prep players with zero stars everyone can come up with. And I'm talking about guys who will or would straight up whip a 4* in a head to head match up in HS.   Many of the better programs tend to have a lot of these types of players. 

Strength of schedule and counting the number of star-rated players on a given team are two glaring areas where fans and "experts" suffer massively from the Dunning Kruger effect.

[Gospeeder]

Great take.

There are numerous times when a natural growth spurt between the soph or jr and sr seasons will increase the abilities of players who may have been initially overlooked.

[BUFORDGAWOLVES]

In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their competence or incompetence. ~ WIKIPEDIA

So projecting this bias towards the "zero" stars creating this effect.

People love boxing and labeling! Awareness will hopefully reduce it.

BGW

[dunkone]

the best teams will always have those tough, athletic kids who will star/start/produce at the d2 & d3 levels...many time these kids are actually better high schools players than the kids with stars..they just may not have all of the measureables we all get hyper about..

[badrouter]

5 hours ago, dunkone said:

the best teams will always have those tough, athletic kids who will star/start/produce at the d2 & d3 levels...many time these kids are actually better high schools players than the kids with stars..they just may not have all of the measureables we all get hyper about..

Yep. There are some attributes that ultimately only help a player once they're fully developed and playing a different kind of game. Height for lineman being one obvious one. Getting low, getting leverage is key. A lot of 6'5" HS guys struggle mightily with playing low.  Sure, once they're grown men who've built their bodies and honed their craft, being 6'5" can make them even more imposing. But, as 17 year-olds, the height can be as much of a detriment as a benefit. The Willie Lampkin kid I've mentioned has been listed between 5'10" and 6'1", he's probably like 5'11". As an OL, that height basically guarantees he'll have zero stars and no power 5 offers. But, at the HS level, in a run-heavy scheme, the height is of basically zero detriment to him. He can produce footage of him dominating lineman from STA, Plant etc. http://www.hudl.com/v/2Az3mp

Really, you could say similar things about height and other positions, too. 

[bigrobstercraws]

16 hours ago, badrouter said:

Yep. There are some attributes that ultimately only help a player once they're fully developed and playing a different kind of game. Height for lineman being one obvious one. Getting low, getting leverage is key. A lot of 6'5" HS guys struggle mightily with playing low.  Sure, once they're grown men who've built their bodies and honed their craft, being 6'5" can make them even more imposing. But, as 17 year-olds, the height can be as much of a detriment as a benefit. The Willie Lampkin kid I've mentioned has been listed between 5'10" and 6'1", he's probably like 5'11". As an OL, that height basically guarantees he'll have zero stars and no power 5 offers. But, at the HS level, in a run-heavy scheme, the height is of basically zero detriment to him. He can produce footage of him dominating lineman from STA, Plant etc. http://www.hudl.com/v/2Az3mp

Really, you could say similar things about height and other positions, too. 

Yup. Add, he could be a dominant HS wrestler and also be not very big on top of not being very tall, whup everybody he faces and never get any serious offers outside of wrestling. I've seen a couple of kids just like this. who dominated the 3 & 4 star guys they faced. I can't recall any match ups vs. 5 stars. 

[bigrobstercraws]

I graded at 85% when I faced Tony Gonzalez...in HS. 

He only had 1 catch vs me that game. 

This is more proof you can be a good HS player and look great vs. guys with awesome physical tools who were also good HS players. As my football career did not come anywhere close to his. I was a good football player with short legs and T-Rex arms at 5'11.