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.

Hockey's Future Prospect Criteria

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-29-2012, 12:04 AM
  #26
Granlund2Pulkkinen*
New Kid on the Block
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Country: South Africa
Posts: 39,942
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by STL fan in IA View Post
The 65 games should be used as a guideline, not a hard rule. Heck, I know there's been exceptions before as Toews was graduated his rookie season even though he also played just under 65 games that year. Considering RNH and Schenn to still be prospects just makes HF look silly IMO.
Agreed. I mentioned they should be arbiters when it comes to that.

Granlund2Pulkkinen* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2012, 12:10 AM
  #27
KEEROLE Vatanen
Failures Of Fenwick
 
KEEROLE Vatanen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 20,024
vCash: 500
Well, when someone is nominated for the Calder, they shouldn't be considered a prospect

KEEROLE Vatanen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2012, 02:15 AM
  #28
NobodyBeatsTheWiz
Happy now?
 
NobodyBeatsTheWiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Old Town
Posts: 19,635
vCash: 500
65 is such an arbitrary number. While 25 may be too few in the eyes of some, at least it has some meaningful context (Calder eligibility). For skaters, 82 games makes a heck of a lot more sense than 65. For goalies, the 65 might make sense, as that's around the number of games many #1's play.

NobodyBeatsTheWiz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2012, 01:20 PM
  #29
h22prelude93
Registered User
 
h22prelude93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: St.Louis, Mo
Country: United States
Posts: 1,408
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Forbes View Post
We wanted to have a line in the sand so that every prospect was measured by the same stick and not have to make a judgment call on every prospect who finds his way to the NHL. In that way, we're showing no favouritism to the Oilers or Flyers for the inclusion of RNH and Schenn, we're simply following our own policy, as we have been for quite a few years.
The thing is without including playoffs in the policy that "line in the sand" still isn't always very accurate. For instance, Brayden Schenn is still considered a prospect and including the playoffs has played nearly 70 NHL games now and counting, while Justin Faulk is no longer qualified and has only played 66. That doesn't seem right to me. Shouldn't NHL playoff games count as games too? If anything, I would think they should count for more(experience wise)than the regular season games.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Forbes View Post
I believe the 65 game mark was chosen for a number of reasons: for one, we wanted to be as inclusive as possible. We felt that the NHL's Calder criteria (25 games with some clauses) was too limiting and we wanted to be a bit more realistic when deeming NHL players. For example, under a rule of 25 games, players like David Runblad, Ryan Ellis, David Savard, etc would all be considered "graduated" right now. Quite simply, we didn't feel that players like that could reasonably be considered NHL players with their experience.

So the decision was made to include more of the season when deeming what constituted "graduating to the NHL". 65 games was chosen to go along with our Spring Top 20 lists: a rookie who spent the entire season in the NHL would be reaching the 65 game mark in February when we release those Top 20 lists. This was an attempt to make sure our prospect lists remained as up-to-date as possible. It's not perfect, but it was the happy medium we opted to establish.
But why 65? If you ask me, that really isn't a medium at all but rather just a weird random number. I understand it was made as a cut off to stay up-to-date for the Top 20 Spring list, but the fact is that you guys use that exact number for each list you compile. So, really it shouldn't be based on just the convenience of one subdivision of the year. And, I also understand the idea that the Calder criteria is too limiting, but don't you agree that if a prospect receives a Calder Nomination that at that point they have probably established themselves as quality NHLers despite how many games they played? I mean would it really be too much to ask for to make a small clause that doesn't include those three Calder-Nominated players?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Forbes View Post
Which brings us to the next question about changing it. While we are always interested in hearing suggestions on how to improve our coverage, personally, I can't see the 65 game mark moving too much.

One reason is historical: looking back at past lists can be equally compared to the present because the same criteria applied. I'm sure you would all hate it if we had a way to weasel out being embarrassed by some of our "misses" over the years when it came to rankings and ratings, by simply saying "well our prospect criteria has since changed".
To be honest, I really don't think many people compare the old lists with the new lists anyways. I honestly think the vast majority around here are more interested in just the present and future prospects. I'm sure you're right that some people that do compare them would complain some, but that shouldn't stop HF from evolving their methods and trying to improve upon them. It also sounds to me that the current criteria was partly developed to try to keep more quality players in the mix. Which sounds good on the surface, but IMO takes away from more deserving newer prospects that people are not as familiar with. Be honest, do you think anyone(besides maybe Oilers fans)really got that excited when they saw RNH as #1 again? Personally, I would like to see the limit changed to something more like a half NHL season for EVERYONE. You could make it 41+ games for skaters and goaltenders alike. IMO, that would be nice and simple, not too short, not too long.

Proposal Summary:

Prospect = 40 Games or Less
Include Playoffs
No Calder Nominee Clause

h22prelude93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2012, 04:32 PM
  #30
STL fan in IA
Registered User
 
STL fan in IA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,902
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Forbes View Post
Hi folks,

I'm pretty sure we established the 65 game threshold prior to the lockout (maybe the season before?). My memory is a bit fuzzy, but I remember being part of the discussion at the time.

We wanted to have a line in the sand so that every prospect was measured by the same stick and not have to make a judgment call on every prospect who finds his way to the NHL. In that way, we're showing no favouritism to the Oilers or Flyers for the inclusion of RNH and Schenn, we're simply following our own policy, as we have been for quite a few years.

I believe the 65 game mark was chosen for a number of reasons: for one, we wanted to be as inclusive as possible. We felt that the NHL's Calder criteria (25 games with some clauses) was too limiting and we wanted to be a bit more realistic when deeming NHL players. For example, under a rule of 25 games, players like David Runblad, Ryan Ellis, David Savard, etc would all be considered "graduated" right now. Quite simply, we didn't feel that players like that could reasonably be considered NHL players with their experience.

So the decision was made to include more of the season when deeming what constituted "graduating to the NHL". 65 games was chosen to go along with our Spring Top 20 lists: a rookie who spent the entire season in the NHL would be reaching the 65 game mark in February when we release those Top 20 lists. This was an attempt to make sure our prospect lists remained as up-to-date as possible. It's not perfect, but it was the happy medium we opted to establish.

Which brings us to the next question about changing it. While we are always interested in hearing suggestions on how to improve our coverage, personally, I can't see the 65 game mark moving too much.

One reason is historical: looking back at past lists can be equally compared to the present because the same criteria applied. I'm sure you would all hate it if we had a way to weasel out being embarrassed by some of our "misses" over the years when it came to rankings and ratings, by simply saying "well our prospect criteria has since changed".

Another is that, I truly believe that the 65 game mark works. I don't have the exact figures in front of me, but we have somewhere around 35 players "graduate" off our lists each year. To start adding more clauses, thresholds, etc, makes things harder to compare each player equally to one another and harder to deem what constitutes an NHL player. People sometimes seem to have trouble with our prospect criteria as it is (European/NCAA clauses for how long we give a player to either make the NHL before they are moved out of our system) and adding an extra degree of complexity does no one any favours. A single line in the sand by which all players are judged is what we've opted to do for simplicity's sake.

Hope this helps explain it.
Explain to me then why you guys made an excepetion for Toews. Why did HF graduate him his rookie season when he played just under 65 games but not RNH or Schenn this season? That makes no sense and also blows away your explanation.

Like I said, IMO, you guys should use 65 games as a guideline, not a hard "line in the sand" and again, you've made the exception before! What made Towes different than RNH (who is nominated for the freaking Calder!) or Schenn (who played more than 65 games counting playoff games)???

You don't need to add a ton of clauses and exceptions. You guys just need to ask yourselves, does this pass the sniff test? In this case, I don't see how anyone could reasonably say considering these two to still be prospects passes the sniff test. Including these two simply makes HF look silly IMO. Another question, how many are actually saying that these two should be included? Maybe EDM and PHI fans who want their respective teams' prospect pools to be falsely inflated and HF employees trying to explain it away but anyone else?? The answer to that should tell you what should've been done. Again, I suggest you guys just do what makes logical sense going forward. You can call it the "Duh" rule.

STL fan in IA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2012, 04:52 PM
  #31
robbiezyg
Registered User
 
robbiezyg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,591
vCash: 500
I think its amazing people care this much about a simple ranking, mind boggling. Just pretend schenn and nuge aren't there!

robbiezyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2012, 11:51 PM
  #32
kingsfan
#SutterforanOscar
 
kingsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,870
vCash: 500
The criteria I'd like to see changed is that for games played for a goalie. I think it's a bit retarded that Jonathan Bernier was on the teams prospect list up until recently despite not playing in the minors for two years.

Basically, add a exception to the rule. If the majority of writers of the lists feel that a player has secured an NHL roster spot, take him off the list. Criteria is good, but there's always going to be that 1% that needs to be excused from the criteria. Bernier is an example, just like 'the Nuge'.

kingsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-30-2012, 09:04 AM
  #33
Blind Gardien
Global Moderator
nexus of the crisis
 
Blind Gardien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Four Winds Bar
Country: France
Posts: 20,054
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by robbiezyg View Post
I think its amazing people care this much about a simple ranking, mind boggling. Just pretend schenn and nuge aren't there!
Indeed. I think the choice of a clear demarcation in games is appropriate, and I think Kevin's explanation of the higher number is a good one. You have to draw a line somewhere, and it has to be a somewhat arbitrary one.

And yes, there are always going to be a scattered few cases who fall on one side of the line or the other. But when they do, it's a lot easier to just say "well, 65 games is our cutoff point." Case closed. You can be very sure that there'd be even more complaints if the graduation point was decided on a subjective internal writers' vote or whatnot.

The NHL has rules on who is a rookie, who is waiver-eligible, what is the birthdate cutoff for the NHL draft, what contitutes a year of ELC burned, etc... all based on a "somewhat arbitrary" cutoff in games or dates as well. But those are the rules. When John Tavares is born on September 20th, they don't say, well, you know, let's let him go into the NHL draft in 2008 anyway, he was just a few days off. Etc etc.

You pick your criteria, and stick with it.

Blind Gardien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-30-2012, 09:24 AM
  #34
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Didn't see this thread until after I made my post in the other one, but here it is:

Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz
HF really needs to adopt a two tier qualification system for their "prospect" status. I understand the purpose of the 65 game rule for players who get call-ups/reassignments, but for a player like RNH (or had he missed one more game, A. Larsson) it just doesn't work. No one wants to see them on a list like this because they don't belong. Either the system needs a "65 game total or 40 games in any 1 season" type rule, or an age scale such as "under 30 games and <20, 50 games <21, 65 games <23."

In regards to Kevin's patient defense of the current system, I understand the desire to avoid individual judgments about particular prospects (i.e. RNH shouldn't be listed because blah blah blah). However, I think that a two tiered system such as my proposed one achieves the same desired result without delving into judgment calls. It would be interesting to see how little lists would have changed with a system with those criteria. For example, with a 41 games in a single season, RNH would have been still eligible for the February rankings, but not for this final ranking.

squidz* 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 06:38 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.