HF Prospect Ratings

[SwOOsh*]

I just thought I would share my thoughts/ideas on the rankings of the prospects.

I personally think it would be best if the prospects had two rankings instead of one. The first being their potential for 1st line, superstar etc. well the second is the likelyhood of them actually becoming that.

For example say you have Ovechkin rated a 9 for the first category (Superstar) then you have say an 9 for the likelyhood of his becoming that. So 1 would be least likely while 10 would be very likely.

Another example say could be Crosby, first category he is rated a 9.5 and in the second he is rated a 8 or so for likelyhood of becoming that. I think it gives a more accurate picture of what the prospect is really going to become and actually helps the writers get their message across more easily.

It works much better for players that are boom/bust types that are usually given 6's because (sometimes 8's but then people question the rating ex. Hudler) they either will become a top line player or won't make the NHL. This way for a player like Hudler you could give him an 8 but give him a 5 or so for likelyhood of becoming that player.

Just a thought.

Click to read more...

 

[Ajacied]

That's not even such a bad idea..

 

[Hunter Gathers]

That's not even such a bad idea..

Actually I think it's one of the best I've heard on these boards for a LONG time...

 

[Postman]

It's a good idea, but how about each prospect gets the two ratings, then they get averaged out and that average rating is what the list is based on?

 

[Jeff Goldblum]

I've been in favor of a system like this for a while. It would be much easier to learn about a prospect at a glance. Hudler is a good example. There are plenty of guys rated lower than an 8 on this site. Does that mean Hudler is better than all of them? Nope. It's just that Hudler will make it as a scoring liner or not at all.

But I doubt HF changes anything.

 

[V for Voodoo]

The idea has actually been floated around before. I agreed with it then, and I still think it's a great idea.

 

[V for Voodoo]

It's a good idea, but how about each prospect gets the two ratings, then they get averaged out and that average rating is what the list is based on?

Then you would see some surefire 3rd liners (Potential: 5 ; Probability: 8) ranked evenly with potential superstars (Potential: 8 ; Probability: 5) which makes for a flawed system. A prospects status is always based on his potential, that's why we hear so much about guys like Kastitsyn (High Potential, Low Probability IMO) and very little about a guy like Gregory Campbell (Low Potential, High Probability IMO).

Maybe this would work: Probability + (2x Potential) / 3

 

[SwOOsh*]

Well the writer could use their own opinion on the list their really isn't a certain formula that would really work for that.

 

[markov`]

That's a really nice idea SwOOsh. I think HF should adopt it.

 

[Til the End of Time]

I personally think the way the ratings are down now is acceptable

Doing a new system such as what has been suggested would take a bit of work, but still wouldn't be perfect and would draw criticism.

Besides, any sort of system where players are ranked 1-10 is kind of meaningless and subjective, even if each player would get two scores.

Basically, not worth that time and energy it would take to change.

 

[The Jerk*]

I would also like to say that I think that this is a very good idea...

 

[Legionnaire]

SwOOsh there it is. SwOOsh there it is. SwOOsh there it is.

Chaka-lak-a Chaka-lak-a Chaka-lak-a Chaka-lak-a

 

[kyle]

The big problem is still that a guy who gets a 10 for potential and a 4 for probability gets the same rating as a guy who gets a 6 for potential and an 8 for the probability.

Seems flawed to me.

 

[Jason MacIsaac]

Or even a rating up to 3. 1 being a project, 2 being a normal prospect and 3 being a sure thing.

 

[sharkyz15]

I just thought I would share my thoughts/ideas on the rankings of the prospects.

I personally think it would be best if the prospects had two rankings instead of one. The first being their potential for 1st line, superstar etc. well the second is the likelyhood of them actually becoming that.

For example say you have Ovechkin rated a 9 for the first category (Superstar) then you have say an 9 for the likelyhood of his becoming that. So 1 would be least likely while 10 would be very likely.

Another example say could be Crosby, first category he is rated a 9.5 and in the second he is rated a 8 or so for likelyhood of becoming that. I think it gives a more accurate picture of what the prospect is really going to become and actually helps the writers get their message across more easily.

It works much better for players that are boom/bust types that are usually given 6's because (sometimes 8's but then people question the rating ex. Hudler) they either will become a top line player or won't make the NHL. This way for a player like Hudler you could give him an 8 but give him a 5 or so for likelyhood of becoming that player.

Just a thought.

So what you are saying is basicaly first put their potential and then the likeleehood of them reaching it

 

[NobodyBeatsTheWiz]

Rivals.com has a system similar to that when rating its basketball prospects. Two ratings: a player rating (evaluation of skills) and upside rating. Definitely would not be a bad idea for HF.

 

[SwOOsh*]

The big problem is still that a guy who gets a 10 for potential and a 4 for probability gets the same rating as a guy who gets a 6 for potential and an 8 for the probability.

Seems flawed to me.

I wouldn't say to make an average out of the scores as that doesn't really make any sense, rather you just base your judgement off of the two scores in themselves, as they give a better representation of exactly what the prospect is instead of a rating which is too high or too low based on the fact that you think they will make it or not.

I think this system will cut down on the complaining of certain rankings, and would be more accurate and fair.

 

[Fingolfin]

What about something like this:

Traditional potential rating (5-10):
10 - Generational talent
9 - Elite forward/defenseman
8 - First line forward/top-pairing defenseman
7 - Second line forward/#3-4 defenseman
6 - 3rd line forward/#5-6 defenseman
5 - Roleplayer/#7 defenseman

PLUS

Probability Rating (A-F):
A - All but guaranteed to reach potential.
B - Should reach potential, could drop 1 rank.
C - May reach potential, could drop 2 ranks.
D - Unlikely to reach potential, could drop 3 ranks.
F - Longshot.

A few examples:
Sidney Crosby: 9.5B
Alexander Ovechkin: 9B
Denis Grebeshkov: 8B
Petr Kanko: 6A
Brian Boyle: 8D

Make sense?

- Fin

 

[All Star United]

What about something like this:

Traditional potential rating (5-10):
10 - Generational talent
9 - Elite forward/defenseman
8 - First line forward/top-pairing defenseman
7 - Second line forward/#3-4 defenseman
6 - 3rd line forward/#5-6 defenseman
5 - Roleplayer/#7 defenseman

PLUS

Probability Rating (A-F):
A - All but guaranteed to reach potential.
B - Should reach potential, could drop 1 rank.
C - May reach potential, could drop 2 ranks.
D - Unlikely to reach potential, could drop 3 ranks.
F - Longshot.

A few examples:
Sidney Crosby: 9.5B
Alexander Ovechkin: 9B
Denis Grebeshkov: 8B
Petr Kanko: 6A
Brian Boyle: 8D

Make sense?

- Fin

I like this system.

But one thing that I think you pointed out in your post is why would the rating be a scale of 1 to 10 if only 5 to 10 is used? I think we should use the whole range.

 

[Postman]

Then you would see some surefire 3rd liners (Potential: 5 ; Probability: 8) ranked evenly with potential superstars (Potential: 8 ; Probability: 5) which makes for a flawed system. A prospects status is always based on his potential, that's why we hear so much about guys like Kastitsyn (High Potential, Low Probability IMO) and very little about a guy like Gregory Campbell (Low Potential, High Probability IMO).

Maybe this would work: Probability + (2x Potential) / 3

Well both factors should come into play when ranking prospects. But you could still show both ratings with their overall ranking to give perspective on potential/probability to make it.

 

[PSUhockey34]

I just thought I would share my thoughts/ideas on the rankings of the prospects.

I personally think it would be best if the prospects had two rankings instead of one. The first being their potential for 1st line, superstar etc. well the second is the likelyhood of them actually becoming that.

For example say you have Ovechkin rated a 9 for the first category (Superstar) then you have say an 9 for the likelyhood of his becoming that. So 1 would be least likely while 10 would be very likely.

Another example say could be Crosby, first category he is rated a 9.5 and in the second he is rated a 8 or so for likelyhood of becoming that. I think it gives a more accurate picture of what the prospect is really going to become and actually helps the writers get their message across more easily.

It works much better for players that are boom/bust types that are usually given 6's because (sometimes 8's but then people question the rating ex. Hudler) they either will become a top line player or won't make the NHL. This way for a player like Hudler you could give him an 8 but give him a 5 or so for likelyhood of becoming that player.

Just a thought.

Pretty much like everyone else I think thats something to really look into....but I also would like to see HF regulate the rating system some more, a prospect's rating differs from team page to team page and like what seth pointed out on our Caps boards after really dropping the ranking on a lot of our prospects

 

[Jeff Goldblum]

But one thing that I think you pointed out in your post is why would the rating be a scale of 1 to 10 if only 5 to 10 is used? I think we should use the whole range.

It is on a scale of 1-10, he just used 5-10, because 1-4 is AHL talent. I think it goes like this:

4-Minor league star
3-Minor league role player
2-Low end minor leaguer (ECHL, CHL, etc.)
1-Unlikely to make it out of juniors