View Single Post
Old
08-10-2005, 08:32 PM
  #31
David A. Rainer
Registered User
 
David A. Rainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Huntington Beach
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to David A. Rainer
Quote:
Originally Posted by King'sPawn
1. Any discussions yet as to team rankings? Or are you guys taking a (much deserved) break?
a. If no, do you think what the Kings have done in this draft, compared to other teams, will have a good chance to boost their rankings?
There will be a mid-season re-rank of both lists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by King'sPawn
2. How do these discussions of the top prospects take place? Is there some sort of poll, or do you guys literally just hash out every option at each position for a long time? Is the process similar to Team rankings?
It is actually a process over about 2 months. It begins with a committee of 7 writers, all from different back-grounds, different areas of NA and covering different prospects (so that one area isn't more represented than others). Each submits a preliminary list of 100 prospects to be considered. If you don't make any of the preliminary lists of 100, there is no way in hell you would ever make any Top 50 list so it is rather useless to cry over who was or wasn't included from the very beginning. Once the lists are combined, it will yield about 140-160 prospects. One by one, over the span of a couple of days on instant messaging, we pile over all 160 (well, actually, the top 40 from the combined lists make it past the first round by default so we don't bother talking about them). At that point, we narrow down the 160 prospects to about 75. From those 75, we each submit a final list of our Top 50. When combining the lists, the highest vote and lowest vote for each prospect is thrown out to ensure that someone who might champion or unfairly punish a particular prospect for personal reasons does not infect the list. The list is then submitted to the rest of the staff for review. This allows specific area writers like Johan or Pekka to provide their input. Everyone provides their feedback and we take their arguments under consideration. Some tinkering is done based upon the considerations. After that, the final product is completed. In fact, the 2005 draftees were added to the list before they were even drafted so no one knew the Kings would end up with 4 on the list (it just happened that way when Kopitar landed in their laps).

Quote:
Originally Posted by King'sPawn
3. Do these rankings affect how you personally rank the prospects in our system in any way?
Not in the least. Although the Kings Top 20 prospects still needs to be re-ranked. There are two different sets of criteria going on. The Top 50 list is based almost purely on potential (thus Schremp being high to others dismay) first then looking at likelihood of reaching their potential. The Kings Top 20 is a mixture of potential, likelihood of reaching potential, and a smidgeon of nearness to the NHL. As a result, Gleason would be higher on the Kings Top 20 rankings even though I left him off completely from my Top 50 list.

__________________
Saxon Sports Information and Research
David A. Rainer is offline