View Single Post
09-29-2004, 10:51 AM
Dr Love
Registered User
Dr Love's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Location, Location!
Posts: 20,378
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by stanley
As I've opined in a different thread in a land far, far away, HF sells itself short with this exercise. For starters, I have issues with its definition of a prospect. Maximum age OR contribution at the NHL level are criteria which would remove a player from consideration when developing the organizational rankings. Why, HF? It seems rather arbitrary, and therefore becomes more opinion than what it should really seek to be: a statistical analysis of an organization's strength. Why not try to develop some pseudo-cladistic analysis? It would be a major undertaking, but the results would be more than interesting (and probably profitable).

For example, Joni Pitkanen might very well be a regular Flyer, but he's just turned 21 years old. R.J. Umberger is 22 and still considered a prospect. The term "prospect" is just semantics; the fact is that the guy is 21 and has tremendous value to the organization. I'm sure comparisons similar to this can be made by many organizations.

Again, I'm fine with taking the organizational rankings as a qualitative assessment, but think it would be really neat to conduct a statistically based study.
Good point Stan. I too think it's weird that a 22 year old can be a prospect but a 21 year old can't. A cut off date of age 25 or three 'full' (60+ games maybe?) seasons would be fine IMO, by then a player is a known commodity. The rankings are for the organization, not for the minor leaguers and junior leaguers, it should more accurately reflect that. And while doing so take into account players that fit one set of criteria and not another, such as a player who is 24 and in his 4th full season. They don't need to be evalutated, but when you're talking about an organization's strength in youth, that player should be taken into account in the final picture.

Dr Love is offline