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.

So much for player and organizational rankings...

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-01-2004, 06:01 PM
  #26
leafaholix*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ron Hainsey is King!
Country: Botswana
Posts: 22,934
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Bachul
OK...now let's not continue this in every thread , although you wanted to make a point of inaccuracy in your post, I will grant you on several points.(Rankings can be off, players can be misjudged, some writers are stronger than others, but regardless of how good a writer is, mistakes are made.)

But, this all comes down to your and The Messenger's insistance that the Leafs are ranked too low at 29. No more, no less. The above quote says one thing in a paraphrased manner.
So all those inaccurate projections and rankings were "mistakes"?

Mistakes have been made and will continue to be made. That is why this thread was started. HF.com is not perfect, the writers do this "on the side", and aside from the vast audience this website attracts, it's product is often mistake-prone and inaccurate.

The point is that fans of any team should not take these rankings seriously. If your team is ranked #1, there's a 50/50 chance that it will never produce the talent HF.com predicts it to.

Quote:
I like criticism that is constructive. I get it all the time from the Nashville board. Guy's fans on the Oiler board ride him on things all the time. But constructive criticism hardly ever starts with "My team..."
I see you cannot take criticism well, no need to put words into my posts.

leafaholix* is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 06:03 PM
  #27
Vic Rattlehead*
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: St-Hubert, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 40,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafaholix
So all those inaccurate projections and rankings were "mistakes"?

Mistakes have been made and will continue to be made. That is why this thread was started. HF.com is not perfect, the writers do this "on the side", and aside from the vast audience this website attracts, it's product is often mistake-prone and inaccurate.

The point is that fans of any team should not take these rankings seriously. If your team is ranked #1, there's a 50/50 chance that it will never produce the talent HF.com predicts it to.


I see you cannot take criticism well, no need to put words into my posts.
I wonder if you would have posted this thread had the Leafs been in the top ten in prospects.....

Vic Rattlehead* is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 06:15 PM
  #28
leafaholix*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ron Hainsey is King!
Country: Botswana
Posts: 22,934
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 19bruins19
I wonder if you would have posted this thread had the Leafs been in the top ten in prospects.....
I wonder if you would have taken the list seriously if there were a total of 0 people on this committee that knew the slightest bit about the Boston Bruins' prospects, yet they came onto your forum and said there were a couple members that listed the Bruins as "one of their favourite teams", as if it makes the list or committee more credible.

leafaholix* is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 06:32 PM
  #29
barrytrotzsneck
Retired Global Mod
 
barrytrotzsneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Nashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 31,438
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafaholix
I wonder if you would have taken the list seriously if there were a total of 0 people on this committee that knew the slightest bit about the Boston Bruins' prospects, yet they came onto your forum and said there were a couple members that listed the Bruins as "one of their favourite teams", as if it makes the list or committee more credible.
honestly, though...and be realistic\objective about this...

do you see the leafs as even a top 20 team, in terms of prospects? Maybe before the deadline, but all these little trades that seem them lose guys like Boyes, Kondratiev, Immonen...and so on...add up. I think that the leafs are right around where they should be, honestly.

__________________
www.thepredatorial.com

barrytrotzsneck is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 06:34 PM
  #30
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 63,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Bachul
OK...now let's not continue this in every thread , although you wanted to make a point of inaccuracy in your post, I will grant you on several points.(Rankings can be off, players can be misjudged, some writers are stronger than others, but regardless of how good a writer is, mistakes are made.)

But, this all comes down to your and The Messenger's insistance that the Leafs are ranked too low at 29. No more, no less. The above quote says one thing in a paraphrased manner.

I like criticism that is constructive. I get it all the time from the Nashville board. Guy's fans on the Oiler board ride him on things all the time. But constructive criticism hardly ever starts with "My team..."
Now come on George that didn't look like a very UNBIASED post that you are constantly claiming you have towards the project..

Now who is putting word's in my mouth ... I wasn't even posting on this board on that topic...

and if you go back and read the thread on MY HOME team board you will not find one example in my many posts that says move my Favourite team Higher ... Not a single one... I asked about the criteria used, members involved, defended and responded to statements made to DEVALUE and attack the prospects without reason or facts given just statements made .. but not one single word that says that I want to see my team higher. I even did a comparison of 2 teams focussing on the prospects on each and wanted to know How the committee went about determining position, and was quickly accused that I was Bias and that a significant slant exists, but nothing to support that, in the form of statistcal evidence, expert proffesional opinions or even other source documents ... because in my INDIVIDUAL opinion, supported by others as I found out that, maybe some prospects information was missed or ignored that MAY have affected the outcome, or the definition of prospect at HF certainly factors in to the rankings as to who is in and who is out prospect wise ..

What I found even more interesting is that on this board in the prospect rankings thread (that I never contributed to ) ...Singled out the Same team that I did that I thought was TOO HIGH and they are 3rd party opinions unbaised by my favourite team ... See for yourself ... and if Numerous posters are saying the same thing from multiple different favourite teams .. Is it not possible that the committee may have made a mistake or at least now with more facts on the prospects discussed perhaps altered its thinking on the subject .. and wasn't that the bases of my critisism of the project as a whole not the 1 individual team like you keep making it out to be and accusing me of ..???? or are these 3rd party opinions on the subject just as irrelevant as my own in your eyes....

In fact you will find more posts that show that I believe the List actually rewards failure and the further down the list you are the more successful you are at producing NHL players ... Colorado is last and has sent more kids to the NHL than any other team in the past 5 years ... and the goal of prospect evaluation IMO is about WHO makes it and not WHO Doesn't ....


Last edited by Mess: 10-01-2004 at 07:18 PM.
Mess is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 06:38 PM
  #31
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
 
Vlad The Impaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,731
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
Let me see if I have it ..

So what you are saying is ....

Criticism while it is unappreciated and unwanted and frowned upon yet it makes the site better overall..

and the other moral is that Prospect Evaluation and Potential measurement is not an exact Science and even if done by Professionals you will not be able to set your watch by the Accuracy of the predictions .....
I don't understand what you are saying. Except it doesn't seem to have much to do with what I posted.

Could you try to rephrase that?

Vlad The Impaler is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 06:40 PM
  #32
littleHossa
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,753
vCash: 500
To continue this fun topic, here is the list of the top 50 prospects in 2000 by HF. Beyond the first 20, the list is shaky.

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/2000top50.html

littleHossa is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 06:40 PM
  #33
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
 
Vlad The Impaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,731
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Bachul
I like criticism that is constructive. I get it all the time from the Nashville board.
If you want, I can add criticism from a gneral direction instead of the Nashville board.

George, you suck!






Vlad The Impaler is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 06:41 PM
  #34
littleHossa
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad The Impaler
I don't understand what you are saying. Except it doesn't seem to have much to do with what I posted.

Could you try to rephrase that?
It is clear to me, for all the times you criticize others for not getting your messages...

littleHossa is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 06:47 PM
  #35
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 63,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 19bruins19
I wonder if you would have posted this thread had the Leafs been in the top ten in prospects.....
To be fair ...He included the OVER EVALUATION of LEAFS prospects in his post just like any other team. to make his point .. He did not say they were UNDER VALUED he in fact made light of the OVER VALUED and mocked his own prospects..

People keep focussing on the Higher Lower ranking theme, when that is all guess work anyways ...when the moral is how difficult and near impossible it is to make PROSPECT evaluation with any accuracy ...Just look back at any entry Draft and the order in which the players were selected by Professionals and decide for yourself ... as they say on CSI ...follow the clues as the facts and evidence does not lie ..

but I must say it is funny how fast and furious the responses come when posters see the word LEAFS on what is supposed to be a IMPARTIAL PROSPECT message board ... for everyone to talk about their prospects...and others ...

Mess is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 06:49 PM
  #36
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
 
Vlad The Impaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,731
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by littleHossa
To continue this fun topic, here is the list of the top 50 prospects in 2000 by HF. Beyond the first 20, the list is shaky.

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/2000top50.html
That's one way to look at it but if you compare the list with an average draft year, the results are comparable. Of course, in a draft year the players are farther away and more difficult to assess but there are even more NHL mistakes as a result. And that's coming from pro scouts who are paid to find future NHLers.

Many in that top 50 made it. Props for even listing an unheralded Andrei Markov in a top 50, for instance. Many of the ratings were somewhat logical back in 2000. But as always, development will make raw talent take the back seat eventually.

My beef with HF (and any scouting or ranking organization for that matter) is only when the ratings do not make sense *at the moment of release*. Beyond that, there's nothing you can do if a player bursts unto the scene or disappears because of lazyness or injuries. There's also always a margin for error. You can't accurately assess hockey players with a 100% efficiency level.

Vlad The Impaler is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 06:49 PM
  #37
Vic Rattlehead*
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: St-Hubert, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 40,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafaholix
I wonder if you would have taken the list seriously if there were a total of 0 people on this committee that knew the slightest bit about the Boston Bruins' prospects, yet they came onto your forum and said there were a couple members that listed the Bruins as "one of their favourite teams", as if it makes the list or committee more credible.
If some of the members said the Bruins were "One of their favourite teams" Then why would they have dropped in the list? What you said doesn't make sense.

To say that these ratings don't mean much because the writers "supposedly" know nothing of the leafs prospects is insane!

Vic Rattlehead* is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 06:53 PM
  #38
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 63,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad The Impaler
I don't understand what you are saying. Except it doesn't seem to have much to do with what I posted.

Could you try to rephrase that?
To deep for you ??? Just kidding !!!

or was it that you didn't appreciate the plagiarism of my post just simply restating what you had said in a Readers Digest version lets call it ..

I was agreeing with your post ... Didn't you say that the quality of the work on HF has gone up and what you believed the reason was??

Your words

"I like to think that criticisms have helped HF improve over time. There is way more consistency, less bias and more fact-checking right now"

Mine

Criticism while it is unappreciated and unwanted and frowned upon (*by the writer*) yet it makes the site better overall..

I thought it was the same thing .. at least that is what I inteded it to mean ..

How did you take it ??


Last edited by Mess: 10-01-2004 at 07:05 PM.
Mess is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 07:12 PM
  #39
littleHossa
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,753
vCash: 500
K whatever.. I won't dig up the 2005 preliminary rankings, it might still be on the first page, can't believe you "don't know what I'm talking about" You wrote severals replies telling the guy he doesn't understand your message and should look harder and refusing to tell him the answer, but when it comes for you to read a message slower you just make it look like the other person did something wrong. Meh, I'll stop this given you're not going to even admit your own actions, didn't think that of you.


Last edited by littleHossa: 10-01-2004 at 07:16 PM.
littleHossa is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 08:04 PM
  #40
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prucha73
Yes there is a major obsession with the name Alexander in Russia, probably at least a quarter of males there are named Alexander.
Alexander and Alexei are two completely different names in Russia. Sasha is short for Alexander, not Alexei.

degroat* is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 08:13 PM
  #41
degroat*
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: http://nhl.degroat.n
Posts: 8,108
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by littleHossa
To continue this fun topic, here is the list of the top 50 prospects in 2000 by HF. Beyond the first 20, the list is shaky.

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/2000top50.html
Wow... I don't remember Nagy ever being rated anywhere near that high.

degroat* is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 08:31 PM
  #42
Vlad The Impaler
Registered User
 
Vlad The Impaler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,731
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by littleHossa
when it comes for you to read a message slower you just make it look like the other person did something wrong.
Actually, I don't really know if he did something wrong. I just could not really understand his sentence in the context of what he was replying to. I'm off now. Will see later tonight if I understand it better when I'm drunk.

Vlad The Impaler is offline  
Old
10-01-2004, 08:44 PM
  #43
Slats432
Registered User
 
Slats432's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,594
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad The Impaler
If you want, I can add criticism from a gneral direction instead of the Nashville board.

George, you suck!

Coming from you Vlad, that means a lot.

Really I wasn't trying to make the Leaf Nation angry again, but my post illustrated that our respected member from York East indicated that "Since our board didn't agree with the ranking, it should be ok to question the accuracy of the site."

That doesn't make sense. Most of the criticism of the rankings has come from pockets of posters from teams that got rankings that were unfavourable.(I suggested early in the release of the first list that would be the case. Although I never expected the Leafs who have gone two years without adding a top three round prospect to their stable.)

And also, although some previous lists would show some surprises and things that didn't come to pass, the NHL Entry Draft does so yearly when 9th rounders make the show.

Anyways, you can't please everyone, but hopefully we will continue to improve and provide an ongoing better product.

Slats432 is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 12:33 AM
  #44
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 20,986
vCash: 50
Vlad seems to be copping some unnescessary flak. I don't he's having a go at anyone in particular (if I'm reading it right). A few years the HF rankings were all over the shop. Some teams were handing out 0-10 based on someone's potential to make the NHL, others were handing out 1-10 based on skills level & style, some teams marked hard, some marked soft. It was jumping all over the place , apples v oranges.

Its not unexpected when things grow on their own. IMO HF have done a much better job getting some structure and order into the process now. Full credit to them.

me2 is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 12:48 PM
  #45
Mizral
Registered User
 
Mizral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Earth, MW
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messenger
In fact you will find more posts that show that I believe the List actually rewards failure and the further down the list you are the more successful you are at producing NHL players ... Colorado is last and has sent more kids to the NHL than any other team in the past 5 years ... and the goal of prospect evaluation IMO is about WHO makes it and not WHO Doesn't ....
You've missed the point of the rankings, Messenger. They aren't there to say which team is better. They are there to say which team has better prospects. From the HF standards, the Leafs don't have very good prospects. Conversely, they have a very good team.

Do you think when we put Washington at #1, we are rewarding them? Trust me, if the Caps could change positions with the Leafs, they'd do it in a heartbeat (so long as they could afford the payroll). Every NHL team in this league would rather have a better NHL team than a good pool of prospects.

Mizral is offline  
Old
10-02-2004, 12:54 PM
  #46
Enoch
This is my boomstick
 
Enoch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cookeville TN
Country: United States
Posts: 12,802
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vlad The Impaler
Ratings were a joke on HF a few years ago. It's been much better lately. Some of the former team editors were just plain moronic.

There's been a major overhaul in that department. The people in charge right now I much prefer. The chain of command makes more sense. And on top of that, the new rating system (while not perfect) is an improvement and should make for more realistic, clearer ratings.
I agree.

Great post Leafaholix.

__________________
- Enoch -
Enoch is offline  
Old
10-03-2004, 02:14 AM
  #47
Mess
Global Moderator
 
Mess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 63,245
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Thompson
You've missed the point of the rankings, Messenger. They aren't there to say which team is better. They are there to say which team has better prospects. From the HF standards, the Leafs don't have very good prospects. Conversely, they have a very good team.

Do you think when we put Washington at #1, we are rewarding them? Trust me, if the Caps could change positions with the Leafs, they'd do it in a heartbeat (so long as they could afford the payroll). Every NHL team in this league would rather have a better NHL team than a good pool of prospects.
OH BOY .....

Mess is offline  
Old
10-03-2004, 01:26 PM
  #48
Gwyddbwyll
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 10,632
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafaholix

Mistakes have been made and will continue to be made. That is why this thread was started. HF.com is not perfect, the writers do this "on the side", and aside from the vast audience this website attracts, it's product is often mistake-prone and inaccurate.

The point is that fans of any team should not take these rankings seriously. If your team is ranked #1, there's a 50/50 chance that it will never produce the talent HF.com predicts it to.
Your conclusion is completely invalid as I already pointed out.

The existance of mistakes made in projecting futures does not mean rankings should not be taken seriously.

Every single NHL team makes a mistake evaluating the upside of tons of prospects at the draft, yet I can tell you they take their rankings very seriously indeed.

It is good for everyone around here to be reminded most prospects do not fulfil their projections but it does not support your conclusion, however much you want it to.

Gwyddbwyll is offline  
Old
10-04-2004, 02:45 PM
  #49
leafaholix*
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ron Hainsey is King!
Country: Botswana
Posts: 22,934
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevex
Your conclusion is completely invalid as I already pointed out.

The existance of mistakes made in projecting futures does not mean rankings should not be taken seriously.

Every single NHL team makes a mistake evaluating the upside of tons of prospects at the draft, yet I can tell you they take their rankings very seriously indeed.

It is good for everyone around here to be reminded most prospects do not fulfil their projections but it does not support your conclusion, however much you want it to.
Exactly, and time will prove HF's lists to be very inaccurate. Point is not to take these lists seriously, history has shown that teams ranked in the 20's often produce as much talent as team in the 10's.

It's not HF's fault, but it's to show the fans of low ranked teams that it's not definite that your team's future is dim, these are just rankings of how the talent stacks up at a given time (if each team is looked over and given the same consideration), players often fall and rise. Some go from first round picks to minor league regulars (if that) and some players will go from undrafted juniors to NHL regulars.

I'm not blaming the people that take all teams into consideration, giving each organization a good look and hearing out the full assessment from other knowledgable writers that follow those teams, because we're all human. I'm just pointing out the credibility of people that automatically assume this organization has no depth without looking at the complete system.

Example, a certain member of this commitee has repeatedly stated that Vancouver has more depth than Toronto. But when he's given a fair player-by-player matchup, this individual chose not to respond with a logical reason, but he repeated his previous comments about his favourite team being "much stronger" than Toronto's.

leafaholix* is offline  
Old
10-04-2004, 04:56 PM
  #50
Beukeboom Fan
Registered User
 
Beukeboom Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 12,087
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafaholix
Exactly, and time will prove HF's lists to be very inaccurate. Point is not to take these lists seriously, history has shown that teams ranked in the 20's often produce as much talent as team in the 10's.

It's not HF's fault, but it's to show the fans of low ranked teams that it's not definite that your team's future is dim, these are just rankings of how the talent stacks up at a given time (if each team is looked over and given the same consideration), players often fall and rise. Some go from first round picks to minor league regulars (if that) and some players will go from undrafted juniors to NHL regulars.

I'm not blaming the people that take all teams into consideration, giving each organization a good look and hearing out the full assessment from other knowledgable writers that follow those teams, because we're all human. I'm just pointing out the credibility of people that automatically assume this organization has no depth without looking at the complete system.

Example, a certain member of this commitee has repeatedly stated that Vancouver has more depth than Toronto. But when he's given a fair player-by-player matchup, this individual chose not to respond with a logical reason, but he repeated his previous comments about his favourite team being "much stronger" than Toronto's.
I agree with your point to a certain extent. All team and player rankings need to be taken with a grain of salt. However, to say that the rankings do not matter about the future success of a franchise is a massive over-generalization.

Certain organizations seem to be able to "mine" talent from deep in the draft (COL a good example with Hejduk, Vrbata, Svatos, etc), while others seem to have the reverse Midas touch (turning gold into tin). Does that mean that COL fan's shouldn't be worried about the future? I would if I'm a Av's fan, with guys like Blake, Foote, Sakic & Forsberg all needing to be "replaced" over the next 3-4 years. That means that those guys should already be in the organization.

I also think that a team like COL is very sucessful in "developing" young talent because they can plug guys like Hejduk & Tanguay around HOF caliber talent and the young guys don't have to carry the load. Compare that to a team like CHI that has to throw the young guys into the fire, and I would expect the COL guys to be more successful over the long haul.

I do agree with you thought that an organization with a low ranking doesn't mean that the team is doomed to failure. It depends a lot on what the organizational needs are, and how young the existing "core" group of players is. A team like the Av's with an apparent lack of upper tier talent coming up through the system, and an older group of core players, might have more issues than a team like the Canucks whose core is much younger.


Last edited by Beukeboom Fan: 10-04-2004 at 05:09 PM.
Beukeboom Fan is offline  
Closed Thread

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 07:11 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.