View Single Post
Old
08-22-2012, 09:36 PM
  #54
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
The scouts grade all players by the same criteria. Analogy to education. A class may have 20 assignments and 20 tests during a school year. Certain students may not hand in 5 assignments and skip 5 tests. Evaluations will take this into account in various fashions. Some simply fail the student, others generate a score where the student may pass with a C when his submitted work projects to an A+, while others may ignore the missed work and give the student an A+. Projectionating fits the analogy. Your system tends to the third.
Projectinating. I made up the word, so I get to say what it is!

And if using another system has some examples of abject failure, such system should be placed under strenuous review.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
BTW your 1994 projectionating completely missed Tim Thomas as a top 30 - a teammate of St. Louis and Perrin at the University of Vermont. You rank Jose Theodore, Eric Fichaud and Dan Cloutier in the top 30. Yet the NHL scouting saw Thomas drafted in the 9th round by the Nordiques. Tim Thomas has a very late NHL entry, high peak with multiple honours. That's the way it goes - win some, lose some.
Those three were drafted in the top 44 picks in 1994, so my having them in the top 30 seems pretty fair. As for Thomas, you don't have enough information to say where I have him ranked, since you know only the top 30. As it happens his rating is 4.0, which would put him at somewhere around #80-100 I believe, which as you might notice is higher than #217.

You're criticizing my system for missing Thomas as a top 30, while the scouts also missed it. That's hardly damning evidence that the system doesn't compare well to scouts.

All that aside, I think I've only mentioned several hundred times since I started this work that numerical systems will be better on some players than scouts are, worse on others, and close to the same on others. Go way back to the point that started all this, that using one's eyes cannot be improved upon by also using stats. The best approach, to my mind, is to use both. Hopefully the numbers would help scouts (and vice-versa) identify the players that might be falling down the rankings unfairly.

Iain Fyffe is offline   Reply With Quote