When I first started coaching basketball, I thought evaluating players during tryouts would be straightforward. I'd just watch them play and pick the ones who stood out. But after several seasons of running tryouts for various teams, I've learned that creating an effective evaluation sheet is absolutely crucial for fair assessment. Let me share with you what I've discovered works best, and I'll even draw from some real game statistics like that JRU match where Salvador scored 18 points and Argente added 14 - numbers like these tell stories beyond just points on a board.
You know what surprised me most? How easy it is to get distracted by flashy plays and miss the fundamentals. That's why my evaluation sheets now always start with basic skills assessment. I'm talking about shooting form, defensive stance, passing accuracy - the boring stuff that actually wins games. I remember watching players like Peñaverde who might not score the most points but contribute in so many other ways with 9 points, 8 rebounds maybe, or crucial assists that don't show up in traditional stats. This is exactly why I've moved beyond just tracking points in tryouts. I want to see how players move without the ball, their court awareness, their communication. These intangible qualities often matter more than raw scoring ability.
Now here's where many coaches go wrong - they use the same evaluation criteria for every position. Personally, I think that's a mistake. The way I assess a point guard should be different from how I evaluate a center. For guards, I'm looking at ball-handling under pressure, decision-making in transition, and their ability to run plays. For post players, I focus on rebounding positioning, low-post moves, and help defense. Take Laurenaria's 5 points in that JRU game - depending on their position, those could be quality points from strategic plays rather than just random scoring. I always make sure my evaluation sheets have position-specific categories because fairness in assessment means recognizing that different roles require different skills.
The actual structure of your evaluation sheet matters more than you might think. I've developed a scoring system that uses weighted categories because let's be honest - some skills are simply more valuable than others. I typically allocate 30% to fundamental skills, 25% to basketball IQ, 20% to physical attributes, 15% to attitude and coachability, and 10% to specific role skills. This system helped me appreciate players like Garupil who contributed 8 points but might have excelled in defensive rotations or setting screens. Without proper weighting, you might overvalue scoring and miss players who contribute in less obvious ways.
During actual tryouts, I've learned to involve multiple evaluators because one person's perspective can be limited. We usually have three coaches scoring independently, then we compare notes. The variance in scores often reveals biases we didn't know we had. For instance, one coach might undervalue a player like Panapanaan who scored 6 points but played exceptional defense, while another might focus too much on athleticism over skill. This collaborative approach has dramatically improved our selection accuracy over the years. I'd estimate we've reduced selection errors by about 40% since implementing multiple evaluators.
Technology has revolutionized how I conduct assessments too. I used to rely on pen and paper, but now I use tablet-based evaluation forms that automatically calculate scores and generate reports. This lets me focus more on observing and less on crunching numbers. The instant data aggregation helps spot patterns I might otherwise miss - like noticing that a player scores higher in game situations than drills, which tells me something about their competitive nature. When I see stats like Lozano's 3 points or Benitez's 2, I can immediately pull up their other metrics to get the full picture rather than judging based on scoring alone.
The most challenging part of player evaluation has always been balancing current ability with potential. I've developed what I call the "growth indicator" section on my evaluation sheets where we score players on their learning speed and adaptability during tryouts. Some players might not be the most skilled right now but show remarkable improvement over just a few sessions. This approach helped us discover gems like players who started tryouts struggling but ended up making significant contributions, similar to how Sarmiento might have gone scoreless in one game but provided value elsewhere.
Communication is another aspect I've learned to prioritize in evaluations. I always include sections for verbal communication on defense and offensive sets, as well as non-verbal communication through body language and court awareness. The way players like Jayson Castillo or Duque communicate on court, even when not scoring, can dramatically impact team performance. I've found that teams with better communicators tend to overperform, regardless of individual talent levels.
When it comes to making final selections, I never rely solely on the evaluation sheet scores. The numbers guide me, but I also trust my gut feeling after years of experience. There's an intangible quality to some players that numbers can't capture - their leadership, resilience, or how they respond to adversity. The evaluation sheet gives me the framework, but the art of coaching comes in interpreting those numbers in context. That JRU game with various contributors scoring between 0-18 points perfectly illustrates why we need both quantitative and qualitative assessment.
What I've come to realize is that the perfect evaluation sheet evolves with your team's needs and philosophy. My current version is probably the 12th iteration over eight years of coaching. I'm always tweaking categories, adjusting weights, and finding better ways to capture what truly makes a player valuable to our program. The goal isn't just to pick the most talented individuals, but to select the right combination of players who will form a cohesive team. Because at the end of the day, basketball remains a team sport where the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts, much like how those JRU players with varying point contributions came together for what I assume was a team victory.
Creating fair evaluation systems has become somewhat of a passion project for me. I love the challenge of designing assessment tools that minimize bias while capturing the full spectrum of basketball abilities. The satisfaction comes when you see your evaluation predictions translate to actual court performance, confirming that your system works. It's not perfect - I still make mistakes - but having a structured approach definitely improves your odds of building competitive teams. And really, that's what every coach wants - to give themselves the best possible chance to succeed while being fair to every player who dedicates their time to try out.
