Well since I have been skeptical of the highly rated UK frosh all off season and because I know that Value Add Basketball: http://valueaddbasketball.com/ballall.html has up both projected and actual data for over two thousand NCAA players for 2013, I thought I would try to look at this issue a bit systematically. Note the site calls the 2012-13 season 2013. So just to start I thought I would look the 25 frosh valued added predicted to make the largest contribution last year. This is a bit different than say the top 25 RSCI ranked recruits, as it appears to me that value add basketball maybe based projected value add in part on projected playing time. All but one of the 25 players are in the RSCI top 31 so the lists match pretty well. Also I deleted Stokes of UTn as he enrolled early midway through the previous season and was not a true frosh in 2012-13. To avoid an outlier affecting the results, I also deleted one recruit RSCI rank 50ish and who was no where near what value add suggested and did not even show up in their actual results.] Here is some of what I have found: 1. The 25 players were ranked prior to 2013 from 3 to 359 with an average of about 188. The 25 players projected value add was between 10.00 and 3.39 with a mean value of 5.14. 2. The 25 players were actually ranked in 2013 from 20 to 1820 with an average of about 522. The 25 players actual value add was between 7.29 and 0.37 with a mean value of 3.16 3. Of these 25 players 19 were ranked worse than projected and 20 were had valued add numbers lower than projected. [The difference is due to Anthony Bennett being very slightly worse than projected in value add, but ended up rank a slot or two higher based on his actual value add.] One might expect among the 2,000+ players about have to do better than projected and half to do worse than projected. Among top players with a college basketball track record you might expect some regression to the mean or true value and have more of them do worse then expected. With true frosh who have no statistical track record in college basketball, one might not expect regression to the mean. I guess one could say these players had to play well their SR years in AAU/high school to maintain their high rankings and thus we might expect some regression to the mean among top high school players. Still top recruits are rated mainly on their potential and that should not regress to the mean. So to me it seems that the evidence above indicates some systematic overrating of true frosh in the value add data. Now maybe the 2012-13 true frosh were just not as good as expected. Value add basketball does not contain preseason projections for any other year. Also other systems may not have the possible bias for true frosh that appear to be in the 2012-13 value add data. Still clearly they were expected to be pretty good before the fact. As a side note, Michael Frazier did exceed his projection. Of UF 8 rotation players last season, 5 exceeded their projections, though value added had Ogbueze rated higher than some rotation players and he did not exceed his projection. Additionally every player on UK's 2012-13 roster except Hood failed to meet their value add projection.