Bias at HF?

[rec28]

Hi all,

I was looking at the recently updated organizational rankings (16 thru 30), found them interesting, and passed them on to a buddy who happens to be a Flames fan. His response was that HF is a Kool-aid stand, run by Kevin Lowe fan boys, and a lot of bias is shown toward the Oilers, and a lot more attention is paid to flash than substance re: the rankings. The last point is at least arguable, I suppose, but I was completely taken aback by the first few points. I'm not sure where to even begin, as I see HF as kind of like The Hockey News, but focused entirely on prospects. As I understand it, HF is a US-based clearinghouse (owned & run by a Buffalo-fan if I'm not mistaken) for hockey prospect info. Each team has it's own message board and representative prospect experts and I don't recall being struck by any bias shown to any particular organization, Oilers or otherwise. Message boards might be another issue, as homerism should be expected within a given team's "home" board.

So, my question is this: is there a bias shown toward any teams (Oilers or otherwise) on this site that perhaps I'm just not seeing? Are there flaws with the critea by which prospects are assessed that point to the "flash over substance" comment?

He acknowledges the difference between the various discussion boards and the HF site-proper, so I'm truly confused by his comments...


Personally, I see a lot of other-team fans saying to themselves, "bias toward the Oilers, ***? The Oilers aren't even on my radar screen..."


TIA,

Rob

Click to read more...

 

[Injektilo]

yeah, and I have a buddy who says that HF is actually a project run by the scientologists, and we're all being brainwashed by them and the freemasons every momment we read the board.

 

[rec28]

yeah, and I have a buddy who says that HF is actually a project run by the scientologists, and we're all being brainwashed by them and the freemasons every momment we read the board.

Well, that's just common knowledge. I'm talking about something way out there...

 

[Charge_Seven]

I strongly believe that offensive talents may be over rated. But that's how our rating system works. Guys in the 8s, and 9s tend to be offensive players, they have tremendous "upside", whereas a defensive minded forward may only get a rating of 6.5 or 7, and they will become very, very solid NHLers.

I think the real problem is that people don't understand the rating systems. They get to caught up in seeing that Prospect A has a higher rating than Prospect B, but they think Prospect B has a stronger "character", or more "intangibles" and is thus rated too low.

There is plenty of room on the internet for them to start their own prospect rating site, where everyone can be a 10 if they want.

 

[Chaos]

The only bias that exists is the one created by fans of a certain team(could be any team) that feels that their prospects are 'underrated' by the HF staff or that their organizational rank is too low, or that think their prospects are better than they really are and need some way to justify it.

 

[Slats432]

Hi all,

I was looking at the recently updated organizational rankings (16 thru 30), found them interesting, and passed them on to a buddy who happens to be a Flames fan. His response was that HF is a Kool-aid stand, run by Kevin Lowe fan boys, and a lot of bias is shown toward the Oilers, and a lot more attention is paid to flash than substance re: the rankings. The last point is at least arguable, I suppose, but I was completely taken aback by the first few points. I'm not sure where to even begin, as I see HF as kind of like The Hockey News, but focused entirely on prospects. As I understand it, HF is a US-based clearinghouse (owned & run by a Buffalo-fan if I'm not mistaken) for hockey prospect info. Each team has it's own message board and representative prospect experts and I don't recall being struck by any bias shown to any particular organization, Oilers or otherwise. Message boards might be another issue, as homerism should be expected within a given team's "home" board.

So, my question is this: is there a bias shown toward any teams (Oilers or otherwise) on this site that perhaps I'm just not seeing? Are there flaws with the critea by which prospects are assessed that point to the "flash over substance" comment?

He acknowledges the difference between the various discussion boards and the HF site-proper, so I'm truly confused by his comments...


Personally, I see a lot of other-team fans saying to themselves, "bias toward the Oilers, ***? The Oilers aren't even on my radar screen..."


TIA,

Rob

Your friend knows nothing of the inner workings of Hockeysfuture, it's writers and goals as an organization.

You want the truth, ask here.

1. HF is owned out of the US. I can almost guarantee that the owners do not know Lowe personally.

2. The writers that do the rankings usually have some area relation to the team they cover. There is some crossover, but for the most part someone close is covering the teams.

3. Rankings of organizations are done by volunteer, and is a group of individuals. It is even requested that there is representation from as many divisions as possible to get a wide viewing area.

4. The percentage of writers that have journalism backgrounds would surprise you, and every one that I have ever spoken to has been nothing less than professional. The average age of writers is mid to late 20s and there is a tight reign on how HF handles their writers and business.

5. Teams who usually have a lull in their prospect depth and hence a poor ranking in an organizational chart will usually come up with a few fans that dismiss us. But that is the same with a ranking on any site whether it is Top 50 prospects or TSN power rankings. "My team is low? Those rankings suck and the guy(s)/girl(s) are idiots."

Either way, the bias thing is kind of old and people need to grow up.

 

[Kevin Forbes]

To provide some rebuttal, the Organizational Rankings are done by a committee to help dilute any bias if present. These present Rankings featured a committee that did not include Guy Flaming, our Edmonton Oiler writer and had just one writer (I believe) who is based out of Western Canada.
I can understand where perhaps a little of this comes from. Guy is a very successful and prolific contributor to Hockey's Future and his access and contacts are nearly unrivaled amongst the rest of us. This doesn't mean we're focused on the Oilers, but in my opinion, Guy's articles are definitely a little more interesting and in depth then some of the other articles we release, just because of the extra work he puts into them. It should be commended, not scoffed at.
There's undoubtably a little bias, but it's tempered by the fact that there are half a dozen or so people voting on the Rankings. I am fearful of some of the things that will be said when the second half of the Rankings comes out. Bob McKenzie recently wrote that the fan in him died a long time ago, and I hope I don't reach that point anytime soon as I still enjoy cheering for my 'favorite teams' and being biased at times (though certainly not when I write).
I do however think that these comments might haved stemmed somewhat from the fact that your friend is a Calgary fan, and in the eyes of the Organizational Rankings, Edmonton has a superior prospect pipeline then the Flames.

 

[Jeff Goldblum]

Hockey's Future is actually run by the second JFK gunman.

 

[Hyped]

Hockey's Future is actually run by the second JFK gunman.

No, I've got nothing to do with it...

 

[boredmale]

I think like the guy above said, the HF committee seems to favor high end potential over "safer" prospects when it comes to rankings.

It would be interesting to see how the organizational rankings went if you went on low end potential for prospects(worst case scenerio over best case).

 

[FLYLine27*]

I notice some bias towards NCAA players compared to CHL players to be frank, but nothing that bad. Usually varies from team to team.

 

[rec28]

...This doesn't mean we're focused on the Oilers, but in my opinion, Guy's articles are definitely a little more interesting and in depth then some of the other articles we release, just because of the extra work he puts into them. It should be commended, not scoffed at.
There's undoubtably a little bias, but it's tempered by the fact that there are half a dozen or so people voting on the Rankings. I am fearful of some of the things that will be said when the second half of the Rankings comes out.

Do you mean bias toward the Oilers or bias in general on the part of the voters? I ask because in the sentence immediately preceding it, you refer to Guy & the Oilers.

 

[Kevin Forbes]

Do you mean bias toward the Oilers or bias in general on the part of the voters? I ask because in the sentence immediately preceding it, you refer to Guy & the Oilers.

Bias in general.
I frankly have no attachment either positive or negative to the Oilers other then Guy being my buddy and the Oilers being Canadian.

Even the general bias can be explained quite simply. I cover the Ducks, so I am much more familar with players like Curtis Glencross and Aaron Rome and what I have come to the opinion of their potential and development then someone who has a few weeks to look at the Ducks depth compared to every other team in the league.

 

[VanW27]

I think there is a Bias for the boom or bust prospect simply because they are more interesting, and that i would suppose help the Oilers b/c they have two of the biggest boom or bust prospects.

 

[kasper11]

1) I fail to see how the organizational rankings can show any pro-Lowe bias, since the top-15 isn't out yet.

2) There is some "bias" with HFs ratings as a result of methodolgy. Each team's prospects are rated by different people. The upshot is that you are reading about prospects from the people who are following them closely. The downside is that some people are more ummm.....generous shall we say....than others. So, you end up with Andrei Kastytsin being rated higher than Ryan Getzlaf. The people who did both ratings would probably agree Getzlaf is the better prospect, but they have different standards when doing the ratings.

 

[Kevin Forbes]

1) I fail to see how the organizational rankings can show any pro-Lowe bias, since the top-15 isn't out yet.

2) There is some "bias" with HFs ratings as a result of methodolgy. Each team's prospects are rated by different people. The upshot is that you are reading about prospects from the people who are following them closely. The downside is that some people are more ummm.....generous shall we say....than others. So, you end up with Andrei Kastytsin being rated higher than Ryan Getzlaf. The people who did both ratings would probably agree Getzlaf is the better prospect, but they have different standards when doing the ratings.

Quite truthfully, I had Getzlaf as a 11A when he was first drafted, but it caused the boards to crash.

 

[David A. Rainer]

yeah, and I have a buddy who says that HF is actually a project run by the scientologists, and we're all being brainwashed by them and the freemasons every momment we read the board.

Cheeze it guys! They're on to us! Code blue, code blue!

 

[Chaos]

Hockey's Future is actually run by the second JFK gunman.

The grassy knoll!

 

[#66]

Hockey's Future is actually run by the second JFK gunman.

I'm calling George Bachul out as being the second spitter and that Kevin Lowe doesn't have a "magic loogie".

 

[ceber]

The average age of writers is mid to late 20s

Aha! This explains many things! The optimisim, the hope.... In a few years, once time uses the cruel reality of life to beat the younger ones into painful submission, HF is going to really be outstanding!

 

[Slats432]

I'm calling George Bachul out as being the second spitter and that Kevin Lowe doesn't have a "magic loogie".

I may have been in a grassy knoll or two in my youth but it was with my best girl and loogies and gunmen weren't involved....

 

[usiel]

yeah, and I have a buddy who says that HF is actually a project run by the scientologists, and we're all being brainwashed by them and the freemasons every momment we read the board.

well yes isn't anyone else here an advanced 8th level Thetan!

Only bias (natural that is) are from the posters and relating to 1) Their favorite teams prospects, and 2) young or recently drafted prospects in general.

 

[Hasbro]

well yes isn't anyone else here an advanced 8th level Thetan!

Only bias (natural that is) are from the posters and relating to 1) Their favorite teams prospects, and 2) young or recently drafted prospects in general.

I'd add first round picks.

The lament on the Avs board is that we don't get enough credit for getting talent out of the late rounds, but we take it with a grain of salt anyway.

 

[A Good Flying Bird*]

I think some of the ratings are okay. But one thing I can't stand are the write ups that go with them.
If you've read them, then you know that SOME of these writers are prone to hyperbole and exaggeration.
There was one team where the writer described three different prospects with "nobody works harder."
Well really. If nobody works harder, then how can there be THREE of them in the same system.
Unfortunately, there are just too many homers writing these things.
That said, HF has a dozen or so very good writers who are able to separate themselves from their bias when writing.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Quite truthfully, I had Getzlaf as a 11A when he was first drafted, but it caused the boards to crash.

See? Getzlaf is clearly an 11.5A