While using #s CAN be more accurate than using a grade or star-system, the key to ANY system is HOW that overall rating occurs.
First, a coach and/or the coaching staff needs to identify which metrics they deem important to measure when assessing a recruit and in building their teams such as 40 yd. speed or free-throw or batting percentage.
Second, once these metrics are identified they need to be weighted* in importance and the weighting may vary depending on what the athlete will be doing in that sport. For example, the 40 yd. dash will likely be more important for a wide receiver in football or sprinter in track than it is for a lineman in football or thrower in track.
Third, once these metrics are weighted* then athletes can be numerically rated on each metric in which they are assessed. If there are 10 different metrics a coaching staff wants to assess each recruit, that recruit will have 10 scores, one for each metric. Then in this example, the total sum of the 10 items is calculated in which the recruit is assessed.
It is THIS number – the total sum number – that can be used to rate recruits and help differentiate between the middle “B” recruits. This is a more reliable and VALID way of assessing and then comparing recruit strengths and weaknesses.
This system DOES have a flaw, however. Numerically rating any observation or physical attribute has limitations. A coach or coaching staff would be wise to not automatically assume that a recruit with a score of 85 is substantially better than one with a total sum of 83 on a 100-point scale. The 85 recruit may be, but they also might not be a better fit.
Using a valid and reliable numerical system that sums the independent variables a coaching staff deems important is a great tool to better advance building the program you want. The measuring error that naturally occurs when assessing those individual metrics needs careful consideration, and points to the limitations associated with attempting to quantify and base roster spot decisions solely on a number.
IMHO using this system gets the coach/coaching staff 90% of the way towards making that decision, the other 10% is what some may call the "Art" of coaching/recruiting.
While using #s CAN be more accurate than using a grade or star-system, the key to ANY system is HOW that overall rating occurs.
First, a coach and/or the coaching staff needs to identify which metrics they deem important to measure when assessing a recruit and in building their teams such as 40 yd. speed or free-throw or batting percentage.
Second, once these metrics are identified they need to be weighted* in importance and the weighting may vary depending on what the athlete will be doing in that sport. For example, the 40 yd. dash will likely be more important for a wide receiver in football or sprinter in track than it is for a lineman in football or thrower in track.
Third, once these metrics are weighted* then athletes can be numerically rated on each metric in which they are assessed. If there are 10 different metrics a coaching staff wants to assess each recruit, that recruit will have 10 scores, one for each metric. Then in this example, the total sum of the 10 items is calculated in which the recruit is assessed.
It is THIS number – the total sum number – that can be used to rate recruits and help differentiate between the middle “B” recruits. This is a more reliable and VALID way of assessing and then comparing recruit strengths and weaknesses.
This system DOES have a flaw, however. Numerically rating any observation or physical attribute has limitations. A coach or coaching staff would be wise to not automatically assume that a recruit with a score of 85 is substantially better than one with a total sum of 83 on a 100-point scale. The 85 recruit may be, but they also might not be a better fit.
Using a valid and reliable numerical system that sums the independent variables a coaching staff deems important is a great tool to better advance building the program you want. The measuring error that naturally occurs when assessing those individual metrics needs careful consideration, and points to the limitations associated with attempting to quantify and base roster spot decisions solely on a number.
IMHO using this system gets the coach/coaching staff 90% of the way towards making that decision, the other 10% is what some may call the "Art" of coaching/recruiting.
*Weighting numerically can be done multiple ways.