View Single Post
Old
12-08-2012, 12:20 PM
  #18
Replacement
Now with 9% more zen
 
Replacement's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Hockey Hell
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,668
vCash: 500
Specific to the thread I'm not really sold on assigning player numerical ratings, grades etc. Doesn't really say a lot or add much and it becomes its own error, distortion related gradient. I'm surprised scouts buy into this type of thing as much as they do. Its only evidence of lazy thinking and notation.

The numbers and grades don't make selection and differentiation any less subjective. Although they do offer the stuff of strong and persisting further bias without any "show the work" notation of how the rating ever got there.

This being an important consideration in how the player got to the draft position they ever did in the first place and we all know it was on the basis of limited sample. Which on its own offers obvious skews and bias.

MPS was the perfect timing one hit wonder. Player that very briefly rose into a supposed bluechip stock on the happenchance and puck bounces of one tournament and a bunch of hoping eyes seeing whatever potential established Swedish comparable they wanted to see.

This is the pick you don't buy high whether it be stocks or players. The meteoric short rise can just as easily be followed by the drop.

Replacement is offline