HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Carolina Hurricanes
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

2010 Top Prospects - #6

View Poll Results: Who's #6?
D Mark Alt 0 0%
D Danny Biega 0 0%
W Drayson Bowman 14 32.56%
D Brian Dumoulin 12 27.91%
D Justin Faulk 0 0%
D Michal Jordan 0 0%
LW Mattias Lindstrom 0 0%
G Mike Murphy 4 9.30%
W Oskar Osala 0 0%
G Justin Peters 0 0%
D Bobby Sanguinetti 13 30.23%
LW Justin Shugg 0 0%
RW Jared Staal 0 0%
C/LW Chris Terry 0 0%
other 0 0%
Voters: 43. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-04-2010, 11:51 AM
  #26
DaveG
Mod Supervisor
Trick Daddy
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Durham NC
Country: United States
Posts: 31,388
vCash: 2498
Quote:
Originally Posted by geehaad View Post
So are these polls official in any capacity...i.e. are they used as the organization rankings on HockeysFuture.com?
Nope, I just use them to get a feeling for the boards opinion on our various prospects.

DaveG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 11:56 AM
  #27
geehaad
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 3,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveG View Post
Nope, I just use them to get a feeling for the boards opinion on our various prospects.
Too bad. Seems like a perfectly logical connection, even if they were only used as an additional voice to the process that sets the HF rankings.

Did you ever compare last year's polls to the HF rankings, and if so, were there any interesting discrepancies?

geehaad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 12:06 PM
  #28
DaveG
Mod Supervisor
Trick Daddy
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Durham NC
Country: United States
Posts: 31,388
vCash: 2498
Quote:
Originally Posted by geehaad View Post
Too bad. Seems like a perfectly logical connection, even if they were only used as an additional voice to the process that sets the HF rankings.

Did you ever compare last year's polls to the HF rankings, and if so, were there any interesting discrepancies?
yeah I did. I'll have to dig up the final rankings but there were a few that were valued much higher in the rankings compared to the polls. IIRC Samson and Chaput were more highly valued in the rankings then the votes.

DaveG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 03:19 PM
  #29
totalkev
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveG View Post
yeah I did. I'll have to dig up the final rankings but there were a few that were valued much higher in the rankings compared to the polls. IIRC Samson and Chaput were more highly valued in the rankings then the votes.
Yeah, I trust people who actually see these guys regularly over us ...

totalkev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 04:12 PM
  #30
Vagrant
The Czech Condor
 
Vagrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 20,014
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Vagrant
Quote:
Originally Posted by totalkev View Post
Yeah, I trust people who actually see these guys regularly over us ...
Well, it's not "guys", it's "guy". Cory, who does our rankings here, also contributes at CanesCountry. I don't intend to diminish his stature, but in terms of hockey talent evaluation he's right on scale with a lot of us around here.

The thing about prospect evaluation is that you can't possibly see enough of these guys to gauge them unless you make that one of your sole priorities.

For example, last year I was really high on Terry and Samson, and still would be considered as such, and Cory was pretty dismissive of those two. It's all a matter of opinion.

One would think that the consolidation of opinions would be more important than the essentially singular voice that currently represents our HF page, but the editors here are more interested in journalistic integrity than those who have exhibited a true eye for talent. Again, not a shot at Cory directly but more a condemnation of the process of how staff catches on here. It is far more important to give the appearance of professionalism than the actual accuracy of the content.

I can say this for myself and I know Dave does as well, but I do everything in my earthly power to see as many games that our prospects play as possible. I know BG also does the same with the NCAA, which I consider to be his area of expertise. In this day and age, "video scouting" has become much more pervasive. It's no different than what a lot of us here do, but obviously the difference being the qualifications of the viewer and if you trust their observations or not. Suffice it to say that over the years I have come to trust certain evaluations of players by certain posters here and Cory, being relatively new and having such a differing opinion of a lot of our guys, does not yet qualify. Just a personal opinion of mine. I put as much stock into our organizational ranks as I put into the names of our prospects put into randomize.org and the subsequent list created.

The coverage here has always been a somewhat passive endeavor. The profiles are never updated and the information is as old as the hills. The scouting reports are often those from their draft year and no longer representative of their true strengths and weaknesses now. Hell, the stats page isn't even up to date. We're the ******* child of prospect rankings because we're not enough in number to warrant the amount of work it would be to maintain said page. I have offered my time on several occasions and been rebuffed. They're happy with how archaic the process has been.

So in other words, take the prospect rankings with the smallest grain of salt imaginable and don't mistake the "official" capacity of the page for the qualifications of the people behind it..... because they're no more versed than you and I are about these kids. They can play the "we consolidate our knowledge" card until the cows come home, but the effort is pretty much solo.

Vagrant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 08:30 PM
  #31
totalkev
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,513
vCash: 500
Granted ... I made my point in a flippant way, but my point is that not everybody *should* get a vote. We can't account for random people passing through voting for Mike Murphy and telling all their friends to do the same. Maybe five guys who have seen a lot of guys play ... but not a free-for-all, either.

totalkev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 08:53 PM
  #32
Vagrant
The Czech Condor
 
Vagrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 20,014
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Vagrant
Quote:
Originally Posted by totalkev View Post
Granted ... I made my point in a flippant way, but my point is that not everybody *should* get a vote. We can't account for random people passing through voting for Mike Murphy and telling all their friends to do the same. Maybe five guys who have seen a lot of guys play ... but not a free-for-all, either.
Very true. I think the "passer by" way that polls are on these forums creates a very poor representation of the way one board feels. For all we know, some random BC fans or Ranger fans are sweeping through and hitting Dumoulin or Sanguinetti every round.

I think the key is to keep score mentally of who likes who and give props where earned. I remember things like BG saying that Sutter wasn't NHL ready the year before last when everybody else was saying he was and "calling" the trade for Ruutu. I remember Dave being a bit early on the Bowman party before he really became an obvious prospect. I also remember that it was Erik Stall that had the Skinner avatar when most of us thought he would be a tremendous reach at our pick.

Conversely, there are some guys that I remember for reasons of inaccuracy. But I won't go there. Not that it discredits them in totality, but it is what it is. I have been wrong a ton here.

Vagrant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2010, 07:45 AM
  #33
geehaad
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 3,002
vCash: 500
Based on the names I see in the voting results - at this point, at least - it's a nearly pure representation of the thoughts of regular posters. And having been around the block a few times, my opinion is that this group pays a greater than usual amount of attention to the kids, so I would be quite confident in the collective opinion...to be at least as accurate as the HF prospect rankings.

I will readily admit that if it was a well-known fact that these polls had influence on the HF rankings, it would heighten the potential of poll-raiders messing the numbers up...but I don't believe for a second that it is a given. That position takes for granted that someone would really care enough to do something like that, and secondly that it makes the results invalid.

Maybe the poll-raiding problem could be an easy one to solve (submitting your login to be approved by HF staff as a poll-responder for a given team, for instance), in which case HF has stronger argument to accuracy when they present their rankings. I dunno...it just seems like Hockey's Future could take better advantage of the untapped resource in some way, especially since they are our host.

geehaad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2010, 08:50 AM
  #34
Guerzy
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Guerzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,330
vCash: 50
A thread started a few days ago regarding prospect rankings from years back. It's actually a pretty interesting thread to skim through.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=805783

Guerzy 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 11:15 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.