HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > St. Louis Blues
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Ellerby at 9? Not so sure.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-23-2007, 04:45 PM
  #26
kimzey59
Registered User
 
kimzey59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,639
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
Your first point is a perfect example of the "Kimzey Gratuity Principle" where everything pro-Blues is inflated like a service tip. Backman's not a first-line D-man ... Second pairing Dmen can have great games and be "on." That doesn't mean they're not 2d pairing talent ... It also isn't "my" numeric terminology - it's just using the site's metrics which I find a useful way to have more objective conversations since as soon as you attach a real person's name IMO many people tend to lose some logic because they have emotional attachments to player assets.

Based on "the Site's Metrics" a rating of 7 indicates a 3/4 Defenseman.
Not "second pairing"; a #3 or #4 D man.

Christian Backman is MORE than a 3/4 D man. He is a streaky 2/3 D man; and a LOT more people than just me have said so. The numeric grade for a player like that is 7.5. I'm not "inflating" anything; you just don't understand the site's "metrics" as well as you think you do.

kimzey59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2007, 10:25 PM
  #27
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimzey59 View Post
Based on "the Site's Metrics" a rating of 7 indicates a 3/4 Defenseman.
Not "second pairing"; a #3 or #4 D man.

Christian Backman is MORE than a 3/4 D man. He is a streaky 2/3 D man; and a LOT more people than just me have said so. The numeric grade for a player like that is 7.5. I'm not "inflating" anything; you just don't understand the site's "metrics" as well as you think you do.
Second pairing vs. 3/4 is semantics. The way I am using it it's the same thing. Obviously defensive pairings shift around over the course of a season and even a game. It's a term of convention. If Backman is your 2d best D-man you have a subpar D at the top. If he's your 3d/4th best Dman you have him plugged in right where he should be. That's it. That's what I mean. Is that clear?

What's odd about the word "metrics?" It's just a word that means what I intend it to mean - a process of measurement, the measuring conventions. And why is this controversial on this site? This is the site's convention, the nomenclature. So I use it. And why are you randomly capitalizing nouns like "Site" and "Metrics?" You know, they used to do that in ye olde days but if you're going to do it then you need to make all your lowercase s look like elongated thin fs too.

As for KGP, it's a defining part of your analysis. Look at what you're doing with Cajanek at this very moment in another thread. You always, always, always cherry pick data and situations and extrapolate those into the most optimistic scenario if it involves a Blues player or a Blues prediction. That's what you do. It's who you are and you should be yourself. It's ok - it's your niche and someone has to. But that doesn't mean the emperor has clothes either or that it shouldn't be pointed out. Your logical arguments are generally very well-built, IF the assumed facts you use to build the argument are true. You build good houses. You like to build them on sand. And don't bother responding re: Cajanek here; I read what you had to say in the other thread.

PocketNines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2007, 11:29 PM
  #28
BronxBruin
Registered User
 
BronxBruin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Bronx, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,772
vCash: 500
Sorry but the #9 pick and a 3rd round pick isn't going to get you into the top 5. Maybe the #9 plus a 2nd round pick would get you to #5 but I think it's going to cost two 1st round picks to get near the top. The question remains who would be willing to take that deal?

BronxBruin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2007, 11:55 PM
  #29
Irish Blues
____________________
 
Irish Blues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: St Helena
Posts: 21,804
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
Second pairing vs. 3/4 is semantics. The way I am using it it's the same thing. Obviously defensive pairings shift around over the course of a season and even a game. It's a term of convention. If Backman is your 2d best D-man you have a subpar D at the top. If he's your 3d/4th best Dman you have him plugged in right where he should be. That's it. That's what I mean. Is that clear?

What's odd about the word "metrics?" It's just a word that means what I intend it to mean - a process of measurement, the measuring conventions. And why is this controversial on this site? This is the site's convention, the nomenclature. So I use it. And why are you randomly capitalizing nouns like "Site" and "Metrics?" You know, they used to do that in ye olde days but if you're going to do it then you need to make all your lowercase s look like elongated thin fs too.

As for KGP, it's a defining part of your analysis. Look at what you're doing with Cajanek at this very moment in another thread. You always, always, always cherry pick data and situations and extrapolate those into the most optimistic scenario if it involves a Blues player or a Blues prediction. That's what you do. It's who you are and you should be yourself. It's ok - it's your niche and someone has to. But that doesn't mean the emperor has clothes either or that it shouldn't be pointed out. Your logical arguments are generally very well-built, IF the assumed facts you use to build the argument are true. You build good houses. You like to build them on sand. And don't bother responding re: Cajanek here; I read what you had to say in the other thread.
The capitalization, the use of the word "metrics", ... are you sure you're not taking this a little too seriously?

Cherry picking data, extrapolating accordingly, ... everyone does this. I do it, kimzey does it, P_B does it, other posters do it, coaches do it, GM's do it, ... it's not like kimzey is alone on this. Not hardly; not even close. If you disagree with him, fine - counter with some facts, don't just attack by claiming that it's just an example of " 'the Kimzey Gratuity Principle' where everything pro-Blues is inflated like a service tip" and think that's going to be sufficient.

Anyone can blandly dismiss someone else's comments like this ... kind of like how I can go to the main boards and see comments like "And this from a guy whose team gooned it up last night" or "And this from a guy whose team has Todd Bertuzzi." What does that have to do with the validity of the points raised, besides absolutely nothing? Go after the facts raised with counterexamples, make him work to justify his points.

That's what I'd do, and I have a hard-earned history here of repeatedly shredding someone's "facts" with counterexamples that render their points utterly and completely moot.

__________________
No promises this time.
Irish Blues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2007, 12:19 AM
  #30
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish Blues View Post
The capitalization, the use of the word "metrics", ... are you sure you're not taking this a little too seriously?

Cherry picking data, extrapolating accordingly, ... everyone does this. I do it, kimzey does it, P_B does it, other posters do it, coaches do it, GM's do it, ... it's not like kimzey is alone on this. Not hardly; not even close. If you disagree with him, fine - counter with some facts, don't just attack by claiming that it's just an example of " 'the Kimzey Gratuity Principle' where everything pro-Blues is inflated like a service tip" and think that's going to be sufficient.

Anyone can blandly dismiss someone else's comments like this ... kind of like how I can go to the main boards and see comments like "And this from a guy whose team gooned it up last night" or "And this from a guy whose team has Todd Bertuzzi." What does that have to do with the validity of the points raised, besides absolutely nothing? Go after the facts raised with counterexamples, make him work to justify his points.

That's what I'd do, and I have a hard-earned history here of repeatedly shredding someone's "facts" with counterexamples that render their points utterly and completely moot.
When you put words in quotes, it is a sign that you do not accept that term as a valid one. That those words are inappropriate or alien somehow. I replied to that implication, that’s all.

My point with kimzey is that it’s a years-established pattern, and there’s seemingly no sense of shame or re-evaluation after all the wrongness has built up over and over. I say that as someone who doesn’t always disagree with him. For years and years on Blues boards – he and I have both used the same screen names. I think what makes it so noticeable is that otherwise he’s good with analysis. If you picture a bell curve of opinion, he routinely comes out on the far extreme of pro-Blues optimism. Which is an important bias and not out of bounds for discussing, particularly where the substance of where we disagree is "how valuable is X." If X is a Blues player, the opinion is the most preditable thing in the world. He predicted playoffs each of the last two years, and contemptuously dismissed the notion that we’d be on the low end of those playoffs. That is literally insane, and was at the time.

We’ll be greeted as liberators! That's the best analogy.

I’m also not simply blandly dismissing him – I am working with the substance AND pointing out the bias. All my posts address the substance.

You’re honestly alleging my style isn’t, "here are a bunch of facts, here are the conclusions I draw from them?" Come on.

PocketNines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2007, 12:52 AM
  #31
Checker*
 
Checker*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish Blues View Post
The capitalization, the use of the word "metrics", ... are you sure you're not taking this a little too seriously?

Cherry picking data, extrapolating accordingly, ... everyone does this. I do it, kimzey does it, P_B does it, other posters do it, coaches do it, GM's do it, ... it's not like kimzey is alone on this. Not hardly; not even close. If you disagree with him, fine - counter with some facts, don't just attack by claiming that it's just an example of " 'the Kimzey Gratuity Principle' where everything pro-Blues is inflated like a service tip" and think that's going to be sufficient.

Anyone can blandly dismiss someone else's comments like this ... kind of like how I can go to the main boards and see comments like "And this from a guy whose team gooned it up last night" or "And this from a guy whose team has Todd Bertuzzi." What does that have to do with the validity of the points raised, besides absolutely nothing? Go after the facts raised with counterexamples, make him work to justify his points.

That's what I'd do, and I have a hard-earned history here of repeatedly shredding someone's "facts" with counterexamples that render their points utterly and completely moot.
This thread has become an exercise of impressive self-love by an individual or two. Bravo.

I mean seriously, can we quit doing to hockey what Pitchfork does to music around here because that would be super?


Last edited by Checker*: 04-24-2007 at 01:00 AM.
Checker* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2007, 02:02 AM
  #32
rumrokh
Jake the Snake Man
 
rumrokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,025
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Checker View Post
I mean seriously, can we quit doing to hockey what Pitchfork does to music around here because that would be super?
Haha. Excellent.

It seems to me like some folks, PocketNines in particular, are overly obsessed with numerical rating systems. Most posters around here disagree with a lot of the HF rankings, so using that system in an argument is nearly pointless.

Quote:
Err, um, ah, this is, ah, Hockey's Future afterall, therefore, it only stands to reason that operating within the heretofore established evaluative methodology is a recommended course of action!
For the record, that junk isn't logical. It's based on assumptions and cobbling evidence together. That's inductive. When everybody is drawing from the same pile of evidence and the only real argument is over a particular pick in a trade or a particular prospect projecting higher or lower on the depth chart, good luck determining who has the stronger argument. Criticizing methodology isn't going to get you very far. Using any kind of numeric ranking for developing players and picks will inevitably fail because it requires trust of the sources. Giving your judgement up to an unknown or not universally (or at least generally) accepted source blows away your whole goal of objectivity.

***

My thought is that if the holders of those top five picks truly are looking to trade them, the Blues will be in line with 25 other teams with offers. A handful could be lame offers that have no chance of proceeding. But you can bet that each team will hear at least ten different offers that they'll seriously consider. Assuming or somehow concluding out of all those offers, that Backman will be the key piece, that's some kind of clairvoyance I don't have.

Backman really does seem like the piece that has the most value to other teams with the least value to the Blues. He is inarguably an asset. But before you go play fantasy GM, it helps to consider Jarmo's position. He has said that he thinks he can pick players at 20+ who are just as good as ones taken much earlier. That doesn't necessarily mean anything, but it's at least some suggestion that the Blues might not fight too hard to move up to the very top. So if Backman is on the move, why not trade him for, GASP, a current player instead of a pick? Because the season is over and everybody has a ***** over the draft. Plus, it's a lot easier to say "the Blues are going to shoot for the number five pick!" than to say "the Blues are going to trade these specific players for these other specific players." It isn't just fantasy GM, it's no-risk fantasy GM with an automatic transmission.

You'll stop taking yourself so seriously once you realize that you're playing a vaguely defined game about another game. And then you'll realize how little those numbers mean and how they don't help your argument or make either game more fun.

rumrokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2007, 08:19 AM
  #33
kimzey59
Registered User
 
kimzey59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,639
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
Second pairing vs. 3/4 is semantics. The way I am using it it's the same thing. Obviously defensive pairings shift around over the course of a season and even a game. It's a term of convention. If Backman is your 2d best D-man you have a subpar D at the top. If he's your 3d/4th best Dman you have him plugged in right where he should be. That's it. That's what I mean. Is that clear?
NO; it's not.
Chris Pronger played on the "2nd pairing" his entire tenure as a Blue. That didn't make him a 3/4 D man. Most NHL coaches do NOT put their two best D men on the same pairing. They split them up to spread out the talent.

Christian Backman is the kind of player you can BUILD a 2nd pairing around. That makes him somewhat more than a #3. That said; he is NOT the kind of player you can build a 1st pairing around. That makes him somewhat less than a #2. The HF grade for a player that is BETWEEN those two rankings is 7.5.
This is NOT rocket science.



Quote:
What's odd about the word "metrics?" It's just a word that means what I intend it to mean - a process of measurement, the measuring conventions. And why is this controversial on this site? This is the site's convention, the nomenclature. So I use it. And why are you randomly capitalizing nouns like "Site" and "Metrics?"
I'm captializing it because the way you are using it makes it a proper noun.

Quote:
When you put words in quotes, it is a sign that you do not accept that term as a valid one. That those words are inappropriate or alien somehow. I replied to that implication, that’s all.
I DON'T accept the term as a valid one; and I have reasons for not doing so. The primary reason being that there is not 1 single source grading prospects. The prospect grades on this site are done largely by the Team writers and then "accepted" by the Main Editor(the Editor can, and does, change grades but mostly just goes with what the Team writer recommends). With that kind of system there is simply too much bias in handing out grades for me to hold the "Site's Metrics" as a solid source(try telling me that Phil Kessel would have been ranked an 8.5 B out of the draft if he were a Blue or Coyote considering the relative success of their Draft selections). It can certainly be used as a guidline; but it should NOT be used in the way you're trying to use it. It simply isn't accurate enough for that




Quote:
As for KGP, it's a defining part of your analysis. Look at what you're doing with Cajanek at this very moment in another thread. You always, always, always cherry pick data and situations and extrapolate those into the most optimistic scenario if it involves a Blues player or a Blues prediction. That's what you do. It's who you are and you should be yourself. It's ok - it's your niche and someone has to. But that doesn't mean the emperor has clothes either or that it shouldn't be pointed out.
IF I'm wrong I'll admit it.
But I want something a bit more substantial than an opinion to prove me wrong. IF you disagree with something I write; show me FACTS that state otherwise.


Quote:
He predicted playoffs each of the last two years, and contemptuously dismissed the notion that we’d be on the low end of those playoffs. That is literally insane, and was at the time.
Look at the results Murray got out of this team after he took over and tell me I was wrong in my assesment of this team's skill level.

The ONLY thing I've been wrong about for the last 2 years is how inept Mike Kitchen was. I didn't think it was humanly possible for a Coach to do that much damage to a team. I was VERY wrong with that assumption and I'll readily admit that.

That said; my incorrect assessment of our coach does NOT invalidate my assessment of the actual team. I still fully contend that this team has had the TALENT to make the PO's each of the last 2 years. Our (insert derogatory comment) coach was the ONLY thing keeping us out.

kimzey59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2007, 08:25 AM
  #34
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 500
Rumrokh,

First, your substantive argument. Of course the site's system is imperfect. Who said it was? That doesn't make the infrastructure of it not useful. Its number one advantage is comparing talent levels of players relative to each other. Isn't what we do here when we talk about Name X and Name Y mostly about comparing their talent, potential, etc.?

You're foolishly throwing out the baby with the bathwater. You don't seem to grasp the difference between criticism of some specific rankings with the very idea of organizing the way prospects are grouped. Whether there is a Universally Perfect Correct Answer to "what is this guy's value" is irrelevant.

I would bet every dollar I have that 1) every scouting group has its own classification methodology for comparing value; 2) that no scout who is sane thinks he's got the perfect, inerrant system; and 3) nevertheless on draft day teams still somehow mystifyingly rely on their "inevitably flawed," "junk" systems to help make their picks, their trades, their judgment about whether by trading up or down they can increase organizational value, etc.

Put another way, it is not controversial to say that in the NHL, some players are once-in-a-generation talents, some are perennial All-Stars, some are merely solid, non All-Star productive top six forwards and so forth. Of course these types of players exist. Of course you can tell the difference between these categories. You are confusing "is Joe Blow an 8" with "do 8s even exist?" The former question is debatable, the latter is not.

The opinion debate is about things like:
- Who fits in what categories on the current roster?
- What's the best philosophy on how the roster needs to be built before we have a Cup contender? (Not every Cup winner took the same building approach).
- Where are the current needs?
- In the draft, do we have sufficient positioning to get what we need or do trades need to happen?
- What categories of players should we target in free agency and what types should we not target?

And so forth. Once you have a nice, workable shorthand, it can facilitate a lot of conceptual discussion. Your sneering failure to grasp the value in it is irrelevant.

___


Next, the personal stuff. You call me "obsessed," you arrogantly judge my personality, you publicly QFA-cheer the poster here who's now trolled me out of the blue three times seemingly without repercussion, etc.

Fortunately, see, there's this hockey message board where hockey topics are explored from all different angles. I mean, it IS ok to discuss Blues hockey here in great detail, right? I am in the right spot for the detailed Blues hockey talk, yes?

So I like to come here, read/research threads, ask questions of others, and express myself on these topics. The medium is the written word. Am I supposed to apologize for knowing how to write and express myself? Only an insecure person would try to make that lame anti-intellectual jibe.

In addition to being a die-hard Blues fan, I appreciate the intricacies of game theory. Rebuilding a franchise is a fascinating real-world game theory application. I'm not a GM, obviously, but all the moving parts with incomplete information involved make it an intriguing challenge to discuss. Armchair GM is a fun if harmlessly fanciful simulation game – for me and obviously for others like IB, kimzey, etc. It's fun. Don't some of those Playstation-type sports games allow a "build a franchise mode?" Isn't fantasy football alone a multibillion dollar business?

I am not a GM nor remotely imagine I'll ever be one, but what's the harm? Why do people like you always get so offended and attack people with all that holier-than-thou BS ("obsession," "take yourself so seriously")? Why does IB take himself so seriously with the incredible salary site? Is he "obsessed?" Why do SIU Law and PB take themselves so seriously by having blogs where they do research, conduct interviews with scouts and coaches and so forth? Because it's fun.

The better question is, why are you so insecure?



P.S. Preciously, I think you think you're sarcastically mocking me with the "GASP" line about trading Backman for a player. I've mused about several scenarios with Backman in the last few weeks including that one. Sorry if this fact inconveniences your apparent insecure need to attempt to position yourself as the "big thinker" relative to me. Buck up, little camper. We'll beat this slope... together.

PocketNines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2007, 08:47 AM
  #35
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 500
Kimzey,

Just a couple things in no particular order.

When you make a prediction that a team will finish the year in a particular spot, it strikes me as ridiculous to act as if ALL factors that would affect that result shouldn't be taken into account. That includes coaching. You have to weigh likelihoods about all sorts of realities coming true, including bad coaching. It would be like building into the decision process an assumption that there will be no significant injuries during the season. Or no slumps, regardles if Jesus H. Christ His Ownself were the coach. Things happen. My criticism of your method of putting together your generally well-constructed arguments is that you have a noticeable pattern of starting with flawed or ommitted assumptions that always seem to lead to favoring the Blues in the far reaches of optimism. I see it as a bias that is valid, substantive and relevant to bring up when we conflict in a way that suggests this is part of what influences your conclusion.

As for the specific HF ratings, you are randomly taking one of the words I used (I know a lot of words) and weirdly and misguidedly promoting it into proper noun status that I don't ascribe it. You are also misdefining it compared with the way I am using it. I don't mean the specific numbers - at all. I mean simply the definitions of the terms. A 6 equals this, a 7 equals that. NOT who is a 6 or 7.

I also have no interest in any anti-Blues bias HF has. I am not agreeing or disagreeing, I just don't care about the issue.

Finally, I disagree about Backman and we can agree to disagree. We've each made our points. The definition they're using for what makes a 7 a 7 is a 3-4 Dman. That's my opinion of Backman. You seem him as better than that because he is streaky and "on" sometimes. We disagree.

PocketNines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2007, 09:04 AM
  #36
Irish Blues
____________________
 
Irish Blues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: St Helena
Posts: 21,804
vCash: 500
Here's how much I rely on the grading of prospects here at HF: little to none. I might check it to see what HF says a kid might project to be if I don't know much about the player, but that's it. I certainly don't look at them when (A) analyzing a trade, or (B) evaluating current NHL'ers. You're more likely to hit on a possible trade by looking at raw data and how the players are perceived around the league than by trying to analyze how they'd be graded by HF and trying to equalize things accordingly.

Besides, HF's criteria is subjective to the evaluations of the people involved in the decision making. There's nothing that says those guys are absolutely correct - heck, pro scouts who've been in the game for 35 years miss on kids at the draft ... so putting a lot of credibility in the ratings here is problematic. That's not to say they don't carry any weight, but I'd look at other things first and probably second.

Irish Blues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2007, 09:25 AM
  #37
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 500
I don't know how many times I'll have to clarify this but I am NOT putting a lot of credibility one way or the other in the ratings here.

I am totally agnostic on the quality of the ratings here. If I say, "they call Kessel and Backstrom 8.5s and Staal, Toews, etc. 8.0s" that is NOT equivalent to endorsing the correctness or incorrectness of any of those assignments.

What I am positing is - if you simply take the definitions and accept that such things DO exist - that perennial All-Stars DO exist and that the category "perennial All-Stars" has been assigned the label "9" then it is possible to discuss a rebuild and say, OK, we need a 9, a few 8s, or whatever.

THEN AND ONLY THEN you go back and say, hmm, is so and so an 8? Or more like a 7? It used to be this team had a few 8s and had a lack of 7s. Now we have lots of 7s but few 8s. So we discuss, could Logan Couture be an 8? HF says he's this, the way Jarmo talks about him he's this, you think he's that, I think he's something else. Or whatever. What's Brad Richards? If you think he's an 8.5, someone else thinks he's a 9, someone thinks he's only an 8, then it can go into an argument of... "regardless of the salary, you gotta get a 9 who gets it done when you can even if the cost is high" versus "ah, he's only an 8 and you can't tie up that much salary in an 8."

Honestly, my posts recently have been making attempts to look at things from a slightly different perspective than "is this guy good and do you think we should get him" to situate those discussions in a broader concept. IMO different, thoughtful perspectives are a value-add to the board.

PocketNines is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2007, 09:38 AM
  #38
Irish Blues
____________________
 
Irish Blues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: St Helena
Posts: 21,804
vCash: 500
I would never mention players and HF prospect rankings in the same breath, much less in the same post. Just go from your gut and say, "I think ___, ____, and _______ are 3rd line guys, we need _______ instead." Don't pay any attention to what guys would grade out as if they were HF prospects.

Here: this team needs a #1 center. I don't care what his number at HF might be, we have a pretty good idea of who's capable of being a #1 center, we need one of those guys on our roster.

Irish Blues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2007, 09:46 AM
  #39
kimzey59
Registered User
 
kimzey59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,639
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
You are also misdefining it compared with the way I am using it. I don't mean the specific numbers - at all. I mean simply the definitions of the terms. A 6 equals this, a 7 equals that. NOT who is a 6 or 7.

I also have no interest in any anti-Blues bias HF has. I am not agreeing or disagreeing, I just don't care about the issue.

I'm not talking about bias at all with that statement. What I'm talking about is the very thing we're discussing in regards to Backman.

The problem HF usually runs into; and takes a LOT of heat for, is that 1 team/persons 7.0A is another team/persons 7.5B. Hockeysfuture is chock full of situations like that. Every prospect ranked on this site would likely have a different rating if moved to a different team. Teams/people just have too wide a variance on what a prospect player reallly is to accurately grade them.
Case in point; Backman. Pretty much anybody you ask is going to give you a different opinion on the guy. On person may think he's a #1; another may think he's a #6. IMO; there's just too much variance on what , exactly, that extra .5 indicates. I take it to mean the mid-way point between being a #2 and a #3 D man. Ask somebody else and they'll tell you something else. IMO; there's just too much variance in opinion to use the HF grading scale as anything more than a VERY loose guidline. I certainly would hold it up as a "building chart" like you did in your "rebuilding in terms of HF rankings" thread.

kimzey59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-27-2007, 05:04 PM
  #40
ikelechien
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Braeshore
Country: Canada
Posts: 626
vCash: 500
We'll see. As I've said, if the Blues end up picking at 9 it won't be because they were content to sit there; it'll be because they tried to move up to where they thought they could get their guy, but couldn't get it done.[/QUOTE]

Drafts are funny. Usually, in each draft, there are only 3-8 sure fire top picks. In this draft, there are 7-8 (Turris, Kane, Cherepanov, Voracek, Van Riemsdyk, Alzner, Gagner and maybe Couture.) Therefore at 9 U could get screwed. A good example is Ellerby. While he has the physical attributes, the hard shot etc., the folks in Kamloops where he plays are still not impressed. In fact, he was benched late in the year.

So, whoever U take at 9 is a gamble. Zach Hamill, a centre, who plays for Everett is probably a safe a choice as any. However, he is more skill than grit. Lars Eller, a forward who plays in Sweden but is actually from Denmark is another possibility. Although, most draft services have not got him up to 9 yet. He is darn close and has a lot of upside potential. U could go defense but no one says take me at #9.A defenseman with the same potential is likely available in the 2nd round.

ikelechien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-27-2007, 05:36 PM
  #41
Robb_K
Registered User
 
Robb_K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: NordHolandNethrlands
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,502
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikelechien View Post
We'll see. As I've said, if the Blues end up picking at 9 it won't be because they were content to sit there; it'll be because they tried to move up to where they thought they could get their guy, but couldn't get it done.
Drafts are funny. Usually, in each draft, there are only 3-8 sure fire top picks. In this draft, there are 7-8 (Turris, Kane, Cherepanov, Voracek, Van Riemsdyk, Alzner, Gagner and maybe Couture.) Therefore at 9 U could get screwed. A good example is Ellerby. While he has the physical attributes, the hard shot etc., the folks in Kamloops where he plays are still not impressed. In fact, he was benched late in the year.

So, whoever U take at 9 is a gamble. Zach Hamill, a centre, who plays for Everett is probably a safe a choice as any. However, he is more skill than grit. Lars Eller, a forward who plays in Sweden but is actually from Denmark is another possibility. Although, most draft services have not got him up to 9 yet. He is darn close and has a lot of upside potential. U could go defense but no one says take me at #9.A defenseman with the same potential is likely available in the 2nd round.[/QUOTE]

I think that The Blues won't value getting one of the 8 players listed above, enough more than Esposito, or whoever else they could get at #9, to give up a 2nd rounder to move up to #4, 5 or 6. The CERTAINLY wouldn't want to give up a second 1st rounder to move up to #1 or 2. I think some player (unlisted above) will be picked before #9, and The Blues will have a choice of Esposito, Couture and possibly another potential blue-chipper at pick #9. So why give up a chance to make the overall organisation that much deeper in young, quality players?

In this year's draft, NONE of the top 8 are SO MUCH BETTER than the others, to give up a 1st or 2nd rounder to assure getting them. They all have various strengths and weaknesses. I'd rather pick a quality player with ALL 3 1st rounders, and the high 2nd rounder, than get a higher pick.

Now, if some of the extra choices could bring back one or two young PROVEN NHL quality scorers, that would be a worthwile use for them.

Robb_K 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 02:09 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.