RECRUITING DESK

file RD-02 · filed September 2026 · current

Reading an evaluation without reading too much into it

Evaluation writing has a vocabulary with fairly precise meanings, and a set of limits that the vocabulary hides.

Written evaluations of amateur players use a compact vocabulary. Some of it is precise and worth knowing; some of it is a polite way of saying something unflattering; and all of it describes a very small sample of what an evaluator saw. Reading one usefully means translating the language and then discounting appropriately for how it was produced.

Start with the physical vocabulary. Length refers to reach relative to height rather than height itself, and it is used because reach determines how much of the floor a defender can affect. Frame describes whether a body appears likely to carry additional strength later. Both are observations about present physical facts, and both are among the more reliable things a single viewing can establish.

The movement vocabulary is less exact. Fluid and stiff describe how efficiently a player changes direction. First step describes acceleration from a standstill rather than top speed, which in a half-court game matters more. Bounce is simply explosiveness off the floor. These are observations that one viewing can support reasonably well, because they show up on nearly every possession.

The skill vocabulary is where caution is needed. A note that a player has a repeatable shooting mechanic is a statement about form, not about accuracy, and the two come apart regularly. A note about feel or instincts is a statement about decision-making, which is the hardest thing to assess from outside because the correct decision depends on a game plan the evaluator does not have. Motor describes consistency of effort across a game, and it is the attribute most affected by watching a player in the fourth game of a weekend rather than the first.

Then there is the euphemism layer, which is worth translating plainly. A player described as a winner or as high-character with no skill detail is usually being complimented for something other than play. Described as having a high floor is a statement that the ceiling is not high. Described as a project means the evaluator liked the body and not the current game. None of these are insults, but reading them as praise misunderstands the genre.

The limits matter more than the vocabulary. An evaluation written from a single game describes a single game, played under a particular game plan, with particular teammates, against a particular opponent, at a particular point in a long weekend. A player asked to occupy a corner for thirty minutes cannot demonstrate playmaking; a player asked to carry the offence cannot demonstrate efficiency. The evaluator sees the role, not the player, unless they see the player repeatedly in different roles.

Rankings compound that. An ordered list implies a precision that the underlying observations cannot support, and small differences in position are noise. Lists are also self-reinforcing, because players already highly placed are watched more often and by more people, which produces more observations and more confident placement.

The useful posture, then, is to read evaluations for their descriptive content and to ignore their ordinal content. What did the evaluator actually see happen? That question has an answer worth having. The question of whether one player belongs three places above another does not.