I have a problem with the HF top 50 list
View Single Post
04-16-2013, 01:24 PM
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Originally Posted by
So no one from here knows how it's done? I guess I'm too lazy to re type this into another thread.
Generally it's a committee of 5 members that go and write out their top 50s.
The votes are tallied to make a master top 50.
It is then posted on the Staff Board for everyone to share and discuss.
From there players are moved around the board until everyone has generally settled, given concessions, and moved on.
Laughton probably deserved a spot, but as I have stated before, grading between writers works differently. While I grade rather conservatively for our prospect pool, others are more aggressive and feel that ceiling vs floor should be further apart when creating grades.
I'm not going to say that my decision to grade Laughton as a 7.0B (which he will be in the forthcoming top 20) hurt the discussion, but it could not have helped.
People who didn't know more about Laughton among the Staff Members would possibly have seen that as a lack of faith is his game-breaker ceiling, which is fairly correct to a point.
Then again, I give far more credence to NHL playable potential rather than absolute ceiling. Players closer to the NHL will get higher rankings than players with higher potential but farther away from an impact (hence why Cousins will be below Gustafsson in my upcoming ranking even though they were opposite in the fall -- which will probably make a few of you pull out your hair and get all pouty, but thus is life).
It's just the way I grade as opposed to other writers, and since my opinions through the grades are pretty much the baseline for opinions other writers would take, they get used to the extent necessary.
Last edited by CS: 04-16-2013 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by CS