“Can he play?” is the easy question. “Can he succeed here?” is the valuable one.
Recruiting rankings and talent grades are universal by design — one number for every program in the country. But a player's value is not universal. It depends on how you play, who is already on your roster, and what your staff actually rewards.
Statistics, advanced metrics, film evaluation, physical profile, playing history, development trajectory, basketball IQ, decision-making, coachability, leadership, work habits, role expectations, communication preferences, availability history, references and player goals.
Your offensive and defensive philosophy, playbook, positional requirements, preferred archetypes, rotation and development philosophy, roster construction rules and culture expectations.
Who is leaving, what role is genuinely open, what usage is available, and which archetype the system is short of right now.
Prototype metrics — the explanation matters more than the number
0.98 PPP as the switch attacker — our most-run late-clock action.
Guarded positions 1-3 on 38% of possessions; we switch 1-4.
Produced at 22% usage; our open role sits at 20-24%.
Decision guard is our #1 gap with Whitfield out of eligibility.
Catch-and-shoot 3P rose 28% → 37% in two years; our priority-skill model fits.
Scenario interview: read the second defender correctly in 9 of 11 clips.
Two former coaches independently described same-possession correction response.
The highest talent grade on the board can be the wrong player.
Andre Whitmore is the best pure player available in this sample board — and our lowest fit. Nothing about him is wrong. He is built for a different program.
Whitmore is a 20-point-per-game scorer at 31% usage in an isolation offense. Our system runs 31% of its half court through switch attacks with a two-side reversal rule. Nothing in his profile is wrong — it is built for a different program.
93 · Built for usProgram C (isolation offense) — Exactly the player that system is built to feature.
- Takes correction publicly and applies it immediately
- Defends without the ball
- Plays connected in the second half of a road game
- Wants a defined role more than a promised shot count
A different staff would list different things — and the fit scores would move accordingly. That is the point.
Players can eventually tell programs what a box score can't.
We are interested in players voluntarily claiming a profile and participating in basketball-specific evaluation — structured interviews, decision-making scenarios, self-evaluation, role expectations, references, film submissions and goals.
What we want to build
Basketball-specific methods for understanding coachability, decision-making, competitive tendencies, communication style and program fit — grounded in basketball situations rather than general personality inventories.
What we won't claim
These assessments are not scientifically validated today, and we are not going to relabel a generic personality test as proprietary science. The prototype shows the shape of a richer player intelligence record, clearly marked as sample data.