HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Prospects
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Prospects Discuss hockey prospects from all over the world and the NHL Draft.

Variance in ratings

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-28-2010, 07:46 PM
  #1
JiriHrdina
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 514
vCash: 500
Variance in ratings

This may have been discussed before and I'm sure some people will say it's just a Flames fan whining, but I hope it is instead treated as an attempt to make this site better.

I'm curious as to why there is such a variance from organization to organization when it comes to prospect ratings.

Let's compare Pittsburgh and Calgary.

The Pens have a whopping 13 prospects rated as 7.C or better.
The Flames have 3.

Now in my opinion both clubs don't have great prospects so the comparison is a good one.

So when I see that type of discrepancy it really makes me wonder why HF even bothers with the rating system when clearly it is not followed in the same way from team to team.

JiriHrdina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2010, 07:52 PM
  #2
R S
Renegade Stylings
 
R S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 25,310
vCash: 1000
Because the Pens have a much much much better prospect pool than the Flames.

Sorry to break it to you, but Calgary might have THE WORST prospect pool in the entire NHL. The Pens are solid with the likes of Tangradi, Despres, Beau Bennett and Kuehnackl just to name a few.

R S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2010, 07:55 PM
  #3
Hertl Power
Registered User
 
Hertl Power's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Bay Area, California
Country: United States
Posts: 1,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiriHrdina View Post
This may have been discussed before and I'm sure some people will say it's just a Flames fan whining, but I hope it is instead treated as an attempt to make this site better.

I'm curious as to why there is such a variance from organization to organization when it comes to prospect ratings.

Let's compare Pittsburgh and Calgary.

The Pens have a whopping 13 prospects rated as 7.C or better.
The Flames have 3.

Now in my opinion both clubs don't have great prospects so the comparison is a good one.

So when I see that type of discrepancy it really makes me wonder why HF even bothers with the rating system when clearly it is not followed in the same way from team to team.
Prospect ratings are done by different people for each team. Different people will have different standards. One person may favor some attributes over others. Some people are just harder on prospects. It should really be done by a group of people for each team.

On top of that the rankings are often way off. It is hard to say what kind of future an 18 year old kid will have.

Hertl Power is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2010, 07:59 PM
  #4
JiriHrdina
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renegade Stylings View Post
Because the Pens have a much much much better prospect pool than the Flames.

Sorry to break it to you, but Calgary might have THE WORST prospect pool in the entire NHL. The Pens are solid with the likes of Tangradi, Despres, Beau Bennett and Kuehnackl just to name a few.
Kuehnackl is a good example. He has a better rating than Mitch Wahl - who was drafted 2 rounds higher and has developed really well since then.

So what does a guy drafted in the 4th round have over a guy that was drafted in the 2nd round and so far has justified that position.

JiriHrdina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2010, 08:00 PM
  #5
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Grace Personified
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,709
vCash: 500
The long and short of some portion of this is something I refer to frequently: "Likely potential" vs. "highest ceiling" - and who gets assigned which. I know I differentiate between the two when writing up scouting reports. It's a judgement call as to whether I use which or even a mix of the two.

Mike Farkas is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2010, 08:00 PM
  #6
JiriHrdina
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiddenpsyche View Post
Prospect ratings are done by different people for each team. Different people will have different standards. One person may favor some attributes over others. Some people are just harder on prospects. It should really be done by a group of people for each team.
.
Indeed it sounds like there is a fatal flaw with the methodology.

If you are going to have a rating system - it has no value at all - unless it is consistently applied.

JiriHrdina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2010, 08:04 PM
  #7
JiriHrdina
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
The long and short of some portion of this is something I refer to frequently: "Likely potential" vs. "highest ceiling" - and who gets assigned which. I know I differentiate between the two when writing up scouting reports. It's a judgement call as to whether I use which or even a mix of the two.
Thanks. I think the rating system as it is described makes a lot of sense. One ranking for potential, the other for likelihood to reach that potential. Perfect.

But it seems like a lot of times that part of it is being ignored and the letters/grades are being assigned rather willy nilly.

A guy like Brett Sutter for the Flames is a 5.5C - seems to me he should be a 5.5A because he is almost a sure thing to be an NHLer - but won't be more than a 4th liner.

I'd like to see more ratings like that.

Again I don't want to make this about the Flames prospects - I know how people feel about them. I'm simply using them as an example since I know that organization the best.

JiriHrdina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2010, 08:09 PM
  #8
Hertl Power
Registered User
 
Hertl Power's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Bay Area, California
Country: United States
Posts: 1,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiriHrdina View Post
Indeed it sounds like there is a fatal flaw with the methodology.

If you are going to have a rating system - it has no value at all - unless it is consistently applied.
There will always be a flaw when trying to predict the future though. HF's numbers are a guide. No matter how they are done or could be done they will be wildly inaccurate because you can't say what the development curve is and what is the chance they will meat their maximum. Sometimes being in a differenet franchise helps. There are way too many variables to determine value.

Hertl Power is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2010, 08:15 PM
  #9
JiriHrdina
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiddenpsyche View Post
There will always be a flaw when trying to predict the future though. HF's numbers are a guide. No matter how they are done or could be done they will be wildly inaccurate because you can't say what the development curve is and what is the chance they will meat their maximum. Sometimes being in a differenet franchise helps. There are way too many variables to determine value.
I'm not referring to a flaw in predicting the future. None of us know how these kids will turn out.

If you compare organization to organization there are wide variances in terms of how prospects are rating.

That has nothing to do with how they will eventually turn out - but rather - I think it points to a flaw in the methodology used.

JiriHrdina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2010, 09:32 PM
  #10
R S
Renegade Stylings
 
R S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 25,310
vCash: 1000
I agree with you JH. The system needs revision.

R S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2010, 09:40 PM
  #11
Warm Cookies
The Dynamic Duo
 
Warm Cookies's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 47,747
vCash: 500
A lot of Pittsburgh players after Tangradi, Despres, and Bennett are rated too highly, yeah.

Warm Cookies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-28-2010, 11:11 PM
  #12
SeanVT395
It's Not Even Close
 
SeanVT395's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Vermont
Country: United States
Posts: 3,126
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renegade Stylings View Post
Because the Pens have a much much much better prospect pool than the Flames.

Sorry to break it to you, but Calgary might have THE WORST prospect pool in the entire NHL. The Pens are solid with the likes of Tangradi, Despres, Beau Bennett and Kuehnackl just to name a few.
The Flyers say hi.

SeanVT395 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2010, 07:32 AM
  #13
Qvist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Country: Norway
Posts: 2,337
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
The long and short of some portion of this is something I refer to frequently: "Likely potential" vs. "highest ceiling" - and who gets assigned which. I know I differentiate between the two when writing up scouting reports. It's a judgement call as to whether I use which or even a mix of the two.
Surely that would simply add another layer of arbitrariness to the rankings?

Qvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2010, 08:22 AM
  #14
Qvist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Country: Norway
Posts: 2,337
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiriHrdina View Post
Thanks. I think the rating system as it is described makes a lot of sense. One ranking for potential, the other for likelihood to reach that potential. Perfect.
I don't think it makes any sense at all, but that it is on the contrary deeply flawed already at the level of conception. My apologies to the many people who put so much work into the grades, but your efforts deserve to be rewarded with a more useful result and the problem is with the basic design of the system.

It is inherently unlikely that any prospect will reach any ceiling that has been correctly determined, and whether he does so or not depends largely on factors that are not presently known and cannot be meaningfully evaluated. Even if the system managed to meaningfully assess what it tries to assess (which it clearly doesn't), it would still be deeply flawed: The real issue is not the likelihood of a prospect reaching a largely speculatively determined level, it's what sort of player he will become if he doesn't. So, player X has a potential of 7.5, but only D likelihood of achieving it. Great, what does that tell me, other than that someone has determined a theoretical upside that he is very unlikely to reach? What would be considerably more useful to know is what he's expected to reach if he doesn't reach 7.5.

What we have is a system which attempts to quantify and measure the two things about a prospect that are both the most difficult to assess correctly and the most difficult to base on any predetermined criteria. This alone makes it neccessarily largely speculative, as well as inavoidably inconsistent. In addition to this, "potential" is evidently subject to a variable definition and is expressed, insanely, along a 20-point scale. A 20-point scale. How can you expect the slightest consistency when a large number of people spread around the world get to employ a 20-point scale? In any case, it is wholly illusory to think that you can have any sort of meaningful opinion about whether the potential of an 18-year old player is 7.5 rather than 7. And. even if the system worked, it still wouldn't tell us much.

In summation, already at the level of logic and theory, the rating system is deeply and fundamentally flawed. In practice, its output is worse than useless.

The time is long overdue for a fundamental revision of it. Here are a few ideas in that regard.

1. A rating of long-term potential. This should express what level of player the prospect is expected to become if his development process is generally successful (ie, "reasonable aim" rather than "likely outcome"), as opposed to maximally successful. This has to be rough, and it has to use a small number of grades, otherwise an adequate level of consistency is impossible and the accuracy so low as to render the exercise meaningless. Four grades would be more than sufficient - NHL star, NHL high-impact player, NHL regular, Marginal or part-time NHL player. Meaningful criteria with player examples could be developed as a guideline for the grades. As much as possible, grades should be based on the level of expectation of the NHL team, insofar as that is known or can be found out.

2. Short-term development goals. This would in effect tell you how far along the curve towards that potential the player is, and define some meaningful criteria for expected progress in the season ahead. Again, reasonable aim rather than likely outcome - more or less, what the player should achieve in the upcoming season in order to stay on course towards the potential defined in #1. This ought also to be based on a finite number of predetermined options, such as "increase point total significantly", "Earn more ice time", "establish himself as a regular starter", "improve his defensive zone coverage", "put on muscle" or "make the NHL squad". The extent to which goals are reached or exceeded would then provide some indication of whether the potential ranking needed to be adjusted up or down at subsequent revisions.

3. Risk factors. Like 2, these should also be generic and selected from a finite and predetermined list of options, and should list those factors that are considered to represent significant and lingering question marks, as opposed to stages in the development process the player has not yet reached - such as "injury-prone", "lack of consistency", "small size", "questionable attitude" or "lack of foot speed".

Additional detail should go into the commentary.

In my opinion, this would be a kind of system that could reasonably aim for a useful level of accuracy, and which it could be possible to implement with a reasonable degree of consistency. It would also be far more useful than the present one.

The aim of a prospect rating system cannot be and should not be to correctly identify how good a player the prospect will become. That is impossible - nobody does or can know it, it depends on future unknown factors. What it must aim for is to correctly identify what reasonable aims are as of today. This is not the same thing. If a prospect undergoes a torrential and unexpected development during age 19-21, then a well-functioning prospect rating should have his potential set lower at age 18 than he actually turned out to have in the end. In the present system however, that would represent a failure to correctly assess potential. It shouldn't be an outcome guessing game, it should be about correctly identifying where the arrow is pointing as of now. Otherwise we might as well call an astrologer.

And consistency is an absolute key. If the system is perfect in all respects other than that each team's prospects are graded according to different understandings of the scale, that alone is enough to make the whole effort largely wasted. It is worth underlining again that the more options you have on the grading scale, the worse this problem becomes. Even if you do nothing else, for god's sake scrap the 1-10 scale with .5 decimals and replace it with something saner.


Last edited by Qvist: 08-29-2010 at 08:58 AM.
Qvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2010, 09:11 AM
  #15
Foppa
Registered User
 
Foppa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Kansas City, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 3,624
vCash: 500
Well all talk about what would be an appropriate type of scale aside; given the one that HF has...hiddenpsyche nailed it. It's simply because the different editors probably have their own slight bias for what the rankings mean. I'm sure that HF strives to make it as consistent as possible...but when you have different people who are knowledgeable about a certain pool of prospects, inconsistency is going to occur. I find the lists FAR more appealing when you take them individually - they are not meant to cross-reference between teams to "prove" who is a better prospect.

I think the biggest problem is that in this fantasy and video game driven sports world, people just must have a "ranking" in order to feel like their position is justified. "Well, who's #1? Who's #7? Who's #23?" And then somebody ranks somebody else one spot ahead and a huge, inane argument breaks out.

I think Qvist's logic is pretty sound. To me there is too much minutia in this system, especially when you are talking about the wildly variable world of teenage prospects. We are trying to nail these kids down to some scientific formula for the purpose of ranking them and ordering them all against each other. I'd think it's almost more advantageous and accurate to simply give them a star ranking...1 thru 5 and then like Qvist mentioned, a nice description. No half stars, no quarter stars. Just 1 thru 5...much like Rivals or Scout does for football and basketball prospects. I feel like that would make it far easier to get a consistent ranking between organizations plus instead of arguing why one prospect is ranked #47 and one is #49 and why #49 should be ahead...we can just say, "look, they are two totally different players but they are both very good 4 star prospects who have inherently high values to the organizations they are in".

Foppa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2010, 09:14 AM
  #16
Warm Cookies
The Dynamic Duo
 
Warm Cookies's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 47,747
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Qvist View Post
I don't think it makes any sense at all, but that it is on the contrary deeply flawed already at the level of conception. My apologies to the many people who put so much work into the grades, but your efforts deserve to be rewarded with a more useful result and the problem is with the basic design of the system.

It is inherently unlikely that any prospect will reach any ceiling that has been correctly determined, and whether he does so or not depends largely on factors that are not presently known and cannot be meaningfully evaluated. Even if the system managed to meaningfully assess what it tries to assess (which it clearly doesn't), it would still be deeply flawed: The real issue is not the likelihood of a prospect reaching a largely speculatively determined level, it's what sort of player he will become if he doesn't. So, player X has a potential of 7.5, but only D likelihood of achieving it. Great, what does that tell me, other than that someone has determined a theoretical upside that he is very unlikely to reach? What would be considerably more useful to know is what he's expected to reach if he doesn't reach 7.5.

What we have is a system which attempts to quantify and measure the two things about a prospect that are both the most difficult to assess correctly and the most difficult to base on any predetermined criteria. This alone makes it neccessarily largely speculative, as well as inavoidably inconsistent. In addition to this, "potential" is evidently subject to a variable definition and is expressed, insanely, along a 20-point scale. A 20-point scale. How can you expect the slightest consistency when a large number of people spread around the world get to employ a 20-point scale? In any case, it is wholly illusory to think that you can have any sort of meaningful opinion about whether the potential of an 18-year old player is 7.5 rather than 7. And. even if the system worked, it still wouldn't tell us much.

In summation, already at the level of logic and theory, the rating system is deeply and fundamentally flawed. In practice, its output is worse than useless.

The time is long overdue for a fundamental revision of it. Here are a few ideas in that regard.

1. A rating of long-term potential. This should express what level of player the prospect is expected to become if his development process is generally successful (ie, "reasonable aim" rather than "likely outcome"), as opposed to maximally successful. This has to be rough, and it has to use a small number of grades, otherwise an adequate level of consistency is impossible and the accuracy so low as to render the exercise meaningless. Four grades would be more than sufficient - NHL star, NHL high-impact player, NHL regular, Marginal or part-time NHL player. Meaningful criteria with player examples could be developed as a guideline for the grades. As much as possible, grades should be based on the level of expectation of the NHL team, insofar as that is known or can be found out.

2. Short-term development goals. This would in effect tell you how far along the curve towards that potential the player is, and define some meaningful criteria for expected progress in the season ahead. Again, reasonable aim rather than likely outcome - more or less, what the player should achieve in the upcoming season in order to stay on course towards the potential defined in #1. This ought also to be based on a finite number of predetermined options, such as "increase point total significantly", "Earn more ice time", "establish himself as a regular starter", "improve his defensive zone coverage", "put on muscle" or "make the NHL squad". The extent to which goals are reached or exceeded would then provide some indication of whether the potential ranking needed to be adjusted up or down at subsequent revisions.

3. Risk factors. Like 2, these should also be generic and selected from a finite and predetermined list of options, and should list those factors that are considered to represent significant and lingering question marks, as opposed to stages in the development process the player has not yet reached - such as "injury-prone", "lack of consistency", "small size", "questionable attitude" or "lack of foot speed".

Additional detail should go into the commentary.

In my opinion, this would be a kind of system that could reasonably aim for a useful level of accuracy, and which it could be possible to implement with a reasonable degree of consistency. It would also be far more useful than the present one.

The aim of a prospect rating system cannot be and should not be to correctly identify how good a player the prospect will become. That is impossible - nobody does or can know it, it depends on future unknown factors. What it must aim for is to correctly identify what reasonable aims are as of today. This is not the same thing. If a prospect undergoes a torrential and unexpected development during age 19-21, then a well-functioning prospect rating should have his potential set lower at age 18 than he actually turned out to have in the end. In the present system however, that would represent a failure to correctly assess potential. It shouldn't be an outcome guessing game, it should be about correctly identifying where the arrow is pointing as of now. Otherwise we might as well call an astrologer.

And consistency is an absolute key. If the system is perfect in all respects other than that each team's prospects are graded according to different understandings of the scale, that alone is enough to make the whole effort largely wasted. It is worth underlining again that the more options you have on the grading scale, the worse this problem becomes. Even if you do nothing else, for god's sake scrap the 1-10 scale with .5 decimals and replace it with something saner.
Very thorough and insightful post, Qvist. I'd love if they implemented something like this.

People do like numbers though. Numerically, what sort of ranking system would you use?

Warm Cookies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2010, 09:19 AM
  #17
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,078
vCash: 500
Rating Prospects

Rating prospects is a blend.

Abstract Rating against an ideal for a position.

Comparative Comparing prospects against each other, post draft would include across drafts and organizations.

Team Specific Projecting to the NHL team. A player may rate higher projecting how he will perform in a team specific circumstance. Example wingers may project higher as a fit with Crosby / Malkin / Staal in Pittsburgh then they would on other teams where their skills would not be viewed as being an excellent fit with the centers in question.

Question of appreciating ratings and understanding the game.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2010, 09:41 AM
  #18
DaveG
Mod Supervisor
How's the thesis?
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Durham NC
Country: United States
Posts: 34,222
vCash: 562
Quote:
Originally Posted by Champagne Wishes View Post
Very thorough and insightful post, Qvist. I'd love if they implemented something like this.

People do like numbers though. Numerically, what sort of ranking system would you use?
I know to myself and likely many others it all depends on how the numbers are used. Just giving a prospect an overall rating of 7.5 in upside leaves me wanting. Even with stuff like 7.5B or C to help break things down, that doesn't tell me much. What type of player is he? Is he a defensive forward with good hockey sense and untapped offensive potential that's a safe bet to make it even in a bottom 6 role, ala Brandon Sutter or Ryan O'Reilly? Are they an offensive dynamo that needs to work on their two-way game and consistency like Filatov? A numerical rating system tells some of the story, but it doesn't tell the whole story and that's an area that could really be improved on quite easily.

Give a forward prospect a 7.5C and that doesn't tell me a whole lot about them. Give them a rating of 8 in hockey sense and defensive ability with say a 5 or 6 in current offensive ability with a rating for upside and then we're getting somewhere.

DaveG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2010, 10:16 AM
  #19
Marshall
Hi beat writers!
 
Marshall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Old Town Alexandria
Posts: 12,285
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiddenpsyche View Post
Prospect ratings are done by different people for each team. Different people will have different standards. One person may favor some attributes over others. Some people are just harder on prospects. It should really be done by a group of people for each team.

On top of that the rankings are often way off. It is hard to say what kind of future an 18 year old kid will have.
Agreed. HF's rankings are subjective to the point of being useless. There's no point in paying attention to them.

Marshall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2010, 12:02 PM
  #20
AUAIOMRN
Registered User
 
AUAIOMRN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,741
vCash: 500
At the very least they should allow multiple letter/number combinations for a single prospect.

AUAIOMRN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2010, 01:04 PM
  #21
Qvist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Country: Norway
Posts: 2,337
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Champagne Wishes View Post
Very thorough and insightful post, Qvist. I'd love if they implemented something like this.

People do like numbers though. Numerically, what sort of ranking system would you use?
There's no sense in giving them what they want if it's just an illusion of usefulnes. I'd use 1-4 for long-term potential as described above, but certainly no number for short-term development or risk factors.

The whole point of ratings is that it has to be useful comparatively, and give you a rough idea of the essentials at a glance. All the rest, all the if's and but's and may's, should go into the commentary. It has to be kept simple in order for it to work and be useful, given the way they are produced with lots of people involved who have no opportunity to develop a common understanding of criteria by spending time and working together.

Qvist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2010, 01:09 PM
  #22
wubwubwubwub
What, Me Worry?
 
wubwubwubwub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 13,172
vCash: 500
I agree that the rating system is flawed. Case in point- Kaspars Daugavins is rated a 6.5D and Shirokov is rated a 7C... yet Daugavins is winning a poll on which one is a better prospect. I'm sure there are better examples but this is a recent example of the flawed ratings. Some writers are far more liberal than others with their ratings.

wubwubwubwub is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2010, 01:23 PM
  #23
State of Hockey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 11,409
vCash: 500
I had a laugh when Pittsburgh's rankings came out too. They have one of the worst prospect pools, yet they manage to have so many players at 7.0 or better. In fact nearly their entire 2010 draft has 7.0 ratings or higher, even down to the 6th round! Even their 20th ranked player is at 7.0!

Meanwhile Minnesota, which has a prospect pool in very similar poor company, has just 6 players at 7.0 or higher, only 1 at 7.5 or above. Eric Tangradi has a better number/letter combo than Mikael Granlund. Even a very good prospect like Marco Scandella, one who may be in the NHL at the start of 2010, has the same number/letter as Pitt's newly drafted 3rd and 4th rounders, and is only one letter better than their 5th and 6th! Ridiculous. There's no credibility from team-to-team in HF rankings.

State of Hockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2010, 01:45 PM
  #24
Sanderson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 5,116
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JiriHrdina View Post
Kuehnackl is a good example. He has a better rating than Mitch Wahl - who was drafted 2 rounds higher and has developed really well since then.

So what does a guy drafted in the 4th round have over a guy that was drafted in the 2nd round and so far has justified that position.
Kühnhackl was rated 8th among European skaters in the final rankings and was considered a possible first round selection even quite a bit into the season. He dropped because he had quite a few injuries, which prevented him from either playing at all or showing off his skill at international level. Not to mention that he's German, which is enough to drop someone quite a few spots. He definately is talented enough to get a 7c.

Before the season started, there wasn't much of a difference in the rankings of Niederreiter and Kühnhackl. One went to North America, the other decided to stay, something he regretted afterwards. One shot up the rankings, the other got freak injuries.

If ranking someone a possible 2nd line talent, with the likelyhood of dropping two levels, isn't a fit for someone who is considered the best German prospect since Marco Sturm, then there would be something seriously wrong.

I do agree that the rankings are a bit weird, and you can't really compare teams, but Kühnhackl is not a good example for it.

Sanderson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2010, 02:45 PM
  #25
JiriHrdina
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanderson View Post
Kühnhackl was rated 8th among European skaters in the final rankings and was considered a possible first round selection even quite a bit into the season. He dropped because he had quite a few injuries, which prevented him from either playing at all or showing off his skill at international level. Not to mention that he's German, which is enough to drop someone quite a few spots. He definately is talented enough to get a 7c.

Before the season started, there wasn't much of a difference in the rankings of Niederreiter and Kühnhackl. One went to North America, the other decided to stay, something he regretted afterwards. One shot up the rankings, the other got freak injuries.

If ranking someone a possible 2nd line talent, with the likelyhood of dropping two levels, isn't a fit for someone who is considered the best German prospect since Marco Sturm, then there would be something seriously wrong.

I do agree that the rankings are a bit weird, and you can't really compare teams, but Kühnhackl is not a good example for it.
You've just outlined a bunch of reasons why a 7.0C isn't warranted. A 7.0D is probably more accurate. A guy with upside but some question marks now attached to him.

JiriHrdina is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:03 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.