A System to Rank Prospects

[EichHart]

It came up in the #4 Prospect Poll Thread, and I'd like to debate it further, because I think it would be infinitely more entertaining and fun, if we had an agreed upon system to rank these guys.

here's what i'm putting in place... feel free to point out how dumb and opinionated this is... But I think it covers the core areas that should matter when discussing prospects, and weights them accordingly...

I'll start the debate with:
1. a 0.5 - 5.0 scale
2. 3 weighted categories

Talent 50%
What does the player have the talent to be? (Ceiling)
5 = Super Star talent
4.5 = Upper Top Line/Pair Talent
4.0 = Lower Top Line/Pair Talent
3.5 = Upper 2nd tier (top checking, secondary scoring, 2nd pair etc)
3.0 = Upper Non Top6/Top4 NHL talent (Checker, PP QB, 3rd pair, etc)
2.5 = Lower Non Top6/Top4 NHL talent (4th line, depth D)
2.0 = Upper AHL future
1.5 = Lower AHL Future
1.0 = Fodder
0.5 = Why do you get paid to play hockey?

What were Pavel D, Zetterberg, Jamie Benn, Pavelski, Miller, Henrik, Chara, etc... Ceiling when they were prospects?

 

[C Note]

Development 30%
Current state of growth
5 = Proven NHLer
4.5 = Very Close to NHL Ready
4 = Within a season of NHL Ready
3.5 = Development exceeding expectations
3 = Developing at proper rate
2.5 = Development is less than ideal
2 = Under developing
1.5 = Development failing
1 = Game over
0.5 = Why are we even talking about you?

Projection 20%
What level of will they reach (Ceiling/Floor/Below)
5 = Sure Fire Star Player
4.5 = Will reach their Ceiling
4.0 = Will reach near their Ceiling
3.5 = Will reach above their floor
3.0 = Will reach their Floor in the NHL
2.5 = Hard to tell
2.0 = Tweener
1.5 = Will reach the AHL at best
1.0 = Fodder
0.5 = Why do you even enter my thoughts?

I'm mostly on board with this type of ranking system, but I think these two areas are too similar. I'm thinking the split needs to be Projection vs. NHL-Readiness. It's great to have guys with talent who are developing well, but if they're not particularly close to the NHL... something about not counting your chickens. We have several guys like this (Compher, Possler, Ullmark, Baptiste). I'd give these guys 3-3.5 and 3.5-4 on your Development and Projection rankings respectively, but I feel like I'm measuring the same thing. That's why I think Projection and Readiness would be good. Projection allows you to be subjective, while Readiness isn't very debatable.

$0.02

 

[ZeroPT*]

What were Pavel D, Zetterberg, Jamie Benn, Pavelski, Miller, Henrik, Chara, etc... Ceiling when they were prospects?

These are exceptions, it's not like there are supestars like this in every draft, Benn was the last one to have a massive impact like that.

 

[Djp]

I'm mostly on board with this type of ranking system, but I think these two areas are too similar. I'm thinking the split needs to be Projection vs. NHL-Readiness. It's great to have guys with talent who are developing well, but if they're not particularly close to the NHL... something about not counting your chickens. We have several guys like this (Compher, Possler, Ullmark, Baptiste). I'd give these guys 3-3.5 and 3.5-4 on your Development and Projection rankings respectively, but I feel like I'm measuring the same thing. That's why I think Projection and Readiness would be good. Projection allows you to be subjective, while Readiness isn't very debatable.

$0.02

I think a better factor may be where they were drafted and then put the expectation on them to where they were drafted.

You could put zones:

top 5 ---top line/top pairing
6-13 ---1st-2nd line/top pairing
14-25 --2nd/2nd pair
26-40--3rd/2nd pair
41-70--3rd-4th/3rd pair
70-end 3rd round--career AHLer w/ some call up stints
4th/5th--career AHLer
6th or later---ELC AHL/ECHL then done

 

[JLewyB]

I guess for me, I really only need 2 categories. Ceiling, and liklihood of reaching it. Or Talent and Projection, in your system. I really already take development into consideration when coming up with my projection. If I see someone is not developing properly, then I'm lowering my projection. Or if I see someone is developing quickly or at least on schedule, then the projection remains up around "likely to reach ceiling".

I don't really see logically how I would rank someone as not developing but still likely to reach ceiling in projection. Or rather, I could see and accept that someone may not be developing properly at this point in time but if I subjectively think he's still going to reach his ceiling regardless, I wouldn't care how is development is going at this point in time in my ranking. When development becomes a problem, it shows up in my projection rating. Likewise, if I project a prospect to fall below his ceiling, I wouldn't care if he's going through accelerated development right now if I think he's going to eventually hit a wall and not be able to make the jump to become a regular NHL-er. I mean, how else do you jugde projection if not by looking at things like development?

So in your system, in most cases projection + development is double dipping. Someone developing well is already likely to have a good projection, while if a prospects development is suffering, their projection will likely lower as a result. It is good that combined they are weighted equally to talent, reducing the effect. That makes it kinda like development + projection = likelihood of reaching ceiling and its only really the 2 categories effectively.

But in other cases (see: grigs vs. girgs), it can tend to steer the ratings subjectively, rather than objectively (I assume the goal here is to be objective). It just seems like - well everyone has their own subjective opinion on how likely a prospect is to reach their ceiling. If I'm being honest in my rankings, this system would downweight "my" subjective opinion on projection by "your" subjective opinion that development matters independently from projection. I want to be clear I'm not saying you're doing this intentionally or maliciously or that it is a bad opinion, just that it seems to be a side effect of the system as presented and I'm not sure if its what you were going for or not. You didn't end up with grigs and girgs ranked even based on ceiling and projection and needed a reason to rank girgs higher than grigs today, did you? To use your system, I'd have to change how I think about projection - mainly that I'd have to come up with a way to give a projection rating that is not affected by the prospect's current development, and I'm not sure I could do that.

I think if I wanted a 3rd category other than talent and projection, it would be "intangibles". Is a player a good leader, is a player locker room cancer, is the "Russian factor" in affect, does the player exude poise and confidence on and off the ice, etc. Probably would weight them 45% talent, 45% projection, 10% intangibles.

I guess tl;dr: I don't really see development being separate from projection

I would throw "intangibles" into the talent category. Not everybody has them so it's a talent.

With all due respect to Jame for taking the bull by the horns and diving into this, I did want to handle it with a little more focus on the details that go into ranking a player. With that in mind I do plan on posting a short questionnaire with maybe 10-15 questions regarding what an individual poster looks at when judging a prospect. compiling the results after a couple weeks discussion then presenting a system we can fine tune from there.

example question "How significant is the league a prospect is performing in to your ranking." 1-5
"How significant is 2-way play when ranking a forward." 1-5
"Do you feel negative development from an 18/19yr old is more/less/as significant as the same development from a a 20/21yr old?"

The objective being to do more than label a player "3rd line center, x ppg". I'd like posters to look a little deeper, ask more questions, watch more videos, and maybe create a demand for a little more content from the Sabres then "here's a paragraph on prospect x,y,z".

Frequently you see things posted around here like "labeling centers 1,2,3 is outdated", why? Lets clarify what that means. Does a player who projects as a 35-40pnt player who will PK/hit/and be counted on in the last 90 secs of game rate higher than a player who projects as a 50-55pnt player who cant PK, must be sheltered from hard match ups, wont be counted on in his own zone. why/why not? Questions like that are what need to be answered when discussing an Armia vs Larsson. Does the fact that Armia might produce more outweigh Larsson possibly be a nightly impact player? If you were building a team would having an 18-20 min center to face off against Crosby be more important to you than a 25-30 goal scorer. Looking at the polls I think I can say, nobody is really sure. I do know that if you are forced to sit down and look at the bigger picture, and defend various points whats most important to you eventually surfaces.

Looking at Jame's list I'm immediately forced to wonder about players who are stretched across multiple categories. How does a big physical secondary scorer whose lack of defense/hockey IQ/footspeed will always hold him back but could probably be a good fourth line energy player but has the passing ability/quick release to be a good PP guy work into that list. A player like Phil Varone comes up and looks like a serviceable NHLer in a 20 game stint, does it move him up the development list in such a small sample size? What if he succeeds doing a role he wasn't originally projected as? does he lose points by going from a scorer to a third liner? Does he gain points because he played some PK/PP time even though he still looks like a third line defensive guy? If we are gonna focus on this as the subject of its own thread I think we should spend the time on the fine details and let that build to the bigger picture instead of putting us in a framework and then arguing how to fill it out. Ill make a more comprehensive post this weekend when I have some more time, class preventing me from sitting down to this and giving it proper thought.

TLR more whys? and less declarations.

If a player is more versatile, I would factor that into my talent ranking as well-more tools=more talent. I would also bump up his projection ranking since he has multiple ways to make it to the NHL. so if one of his tools doesn't develop, he's still has another ability to fall back on to make it into the NHL, perhaps on a less important line. For example, Cat has shown some offensive potential to make it on a secondary scoring line but if that doesn't develop, he still has his skating and compete to make it on a energy/checking line.

 

[EichHart]

These are exceptions, it's not like there are supestars like this in every draft, Benn was the last one to have a massive impact like that.

There is a few from every draft year. "Ceilings" are completely relative. No one knows the what the ceiling of a prospect is until they are around 24-26 years old. Anyone can develop extraordinary hockey skills with the necessary training and dedication to advance themselves to a completely different level of play. Armia leading the prospect pool is a joke because he has not progressed like a top prospect would. He doesn't deserve to be ranked #4 while others do.

 

[JLewyB]

Personally I do
Talent-
Offensive-0-1.0
Skating-0-1.0
Defensive-0-1.0
Intagibles-0-.1.0-(leadership, compete, work effort)
Size/Stength-0-1.0

Progress- copy and paste Jame's

Projection-I like what Jame's done in the past. Chance of being...
Franchise-0-1.0
Top Line potential-0-1.5
*2nd-3rd line/Top 4-0-1.0
Versatility(can play on multiple lines/roles)-0-1.0
Bottom Pair/4th line/Depth NHLer-.5

I'm working on the Projection system because I think it gives
*With most of our talent being Two way forwards I think this would be our so called "2nd line" or at least equal in value to a Sec scoring line. So the 1.0 rating is specific to the Sabres organization. most teams would weight the sec scoring line more heavily.

Risto-Talent-4.55(.8+.9+1.0+.9+.95
Progess-4.5
Project- 3.8 (.3, 1.1, .95, 1.0, .5)
Total-12.85/15

Zadorov-Talent 4.35(.85+.9+.7+.9+1.0)
-Progess-4.25
-Project-3.6 (.4, 1.0, .8, .9, .5)
Total-12.20/15

Grigo-Talent-2.7(1.0, .3, .6, .2, .6)
-Progress-4.0
-Project-2.45(.2, .5, .75, .5, .5)
Total(9.15/15)

My 3rd guy is Baptiste

Talent-3.9(.75, .9, .75, .8, .7)
Progress-3.75
Project-2.65(.05, .3, .8, 1.0, .5)

Total-10.3

McCabe
Talent-3.9(.75, .7, .8, .8, .85)
PG-3.75
Project2.4(.05, .3, .8, .75, .5)

total-10.15

Compher-T-3.55(.6, .7, .8, .95, .5)
PG-3.75
PJ-2.2(0,.1, .8, .8, .5)
Total-9.5

 

[Jame]

I guess for me, I really only need 2 categories. Ceiling, and liklihood of reaching it. Or Talent and Projection, in your system. I really already take development into consideration when coming up with my projection. If I see someone is not developing properly, then I'm lowering my projection. Or if I see someone is developing quickly or at least on schedule, then the projection remains up around "likely to reach ceiling".

I don't really see logically how I would rank someone as not developing but still likely to reach ceiling in projection. Or rather, I could see and accept that someone may not be developing properly at this point in time but if I subjectively think he's still going to reach his ceiling regardless, I wouldn't care how is development is going at this point in time in my ranking. When development becomes a problem, it shows up in my projection rating. Likewise, if I project a prospect to fall below his ceiling, I wouldn't care if he's going through accelerated development right now if I think he's going to eventually hit a wall and not be able to make the jump to become a regular NHL-er. I mean, how else do you jugde projection if not by looking at things like development?

So in your system, in most cases projection + development is double dipping. Someone developing well is already likely to have a good projection, while if a prospects development is suffering, their projection will likely lower as a result. It is good that combined they are weighted equally to talent, reducing the effect. That makes it kinda like development + projection = likelihood of reaching ceiling and its only really the 2 categories effectively.

But in other cases (see: grigs vs. girgs), it can tend to steer the ratings subjectively, rather than objectively (I assume the goal here is to be objective). It just seems like - well everyone has their own subjective opinion on how likely a prospect is to reach their ceiling. If I'm being honest in my rankings, this system would downweight "my" subjective opinion on projection by "your" subjective opinion that development matters independently from projection. I want to be clear I'm not saying you're doing this intentionally or maliciously or that it is a bad opinion, just that it seems to be a side effect of the system as presented and I'm not sure if its what you were going for or not. You didn't end up with grigs and girgs ranked even based on ceiling and projection and needed a reason to rank girgs higher than grigs today, did you? To use your system, I'd have to change how I think about projection - mainly that I'd have to come up with a way to give a projection rating that is not affected by the prospect's current development, and I'm not sure I could do that.

I think if I wanted a 3rd category other than talent and projection, it would be "intangibles". Is a player a good leader, is a player locker room cancer, is the "Russian factor" in affect, does the player exude poise and confidence on and off the ice, etc. Probably would weight them 45% talent, 45% projection, 10% intangibles.

I guess tl;dr: I don't really see development being separate from projection

I look at development as more of an objective category... where as projection you can be a little more subjective.

Sure, development could have an impact on your personal projection of a player... but maybe it doesn't?

Someone can objectively rank Grigorenko low on the development, but still have a high projection for them (believing in their talent)

I dont think the goal is to be entirely objective here.... I think the goal is a standard system so that we can all give our opinions in a standard context

 

[Sabre the Win]

There is a few from every draft year. "Ceilings" are completely relative. No one knows the what the ceiling of a prospect is until they are around 24-26 years old. Anyone can develop extraordinary hockey skills with the necessary training and dedication to advance themselves to a completely different level of play. Armia leading the prospect pool is a joke because he has not progressed like a top prospect would. He doesn't deserve to be ranked #4 while others do.

That's why I don't think that poll is very accurate, I think people are voting because of hype rather than the actual stats and intangibles prospects are showing. That's why this voting system needs to be implemented so as a collective group we can all be on a similar page.

 

[EichHart]

Personally I do
Talent-
Offensive-0-1.0
Skating-0-1.0
Defensive-0-1.0
Intagibles-0-.1.0-(leadership, compete, work effort)
Size/Stength-0-1.0

Progress- copy and paste Jame's

Projection-I like what Jame's done in the past. Chance of being...
Franchise-0-1.0
Top Line potential-0-1.5
*2nd-3rd line/Top 4-0-1.0
Versatility(can play on multiple lines/roles)-0-1.0
Bottom Pair/4th line/Depth NHLer-.5

I'm working on the Projection system because I think it gives
*With most of our talent being Two way forwards I think this would be our so called "2nd line" or at least equal in value to a Sec scoring line. So the 1.0 rating is specific to the Sabres organization. most teams would weight the sec scoring line more heavily.

Risto-Talent-4.55(.8+.9+1.0+.9+.95
Progess-4.5
Project- 3.8 (.3, 1.1, .95, 1.0, .5)
Total-12.85/15

Zadorov-Talent 4.35(.85+.9+.7+.9+1.0)
-Progess-4.25
-Project-3.6 (.4, 1.0, .8, .9, .5)
Total-12.20/15

Grigo-Talent-2.7(1.0, .3, .6, .2, .6)
-Progress-4.0
-Project-2.45(.2, .5, .75, .5, .5)
Total(9.15/15)

My 3rd guy is Baptiste

Talent-3.9(.75, .9, .75, .8, .7)
Progress-3.75
Project-2.65(.05, .3, .8, 1.0, .5)

Total-10.3

McCabe
Talent-3.9(.75, .7, .8, .8, .85)
PG-3.75
Project2.4(.05, .3, .8, .75, .5)

total-10.15

Compher-T-3.55(.6, .7, .8, .95, .5)
PG-3.75
PJ-2.2(0,.1, .8, .8, .5)
Total-9.5

I like this, seems a bit more accurate.

 

[EichHart]

That's why I don't think that poll is very accurate, I think people are voting because of hype rather than the actual stats and intangibles prospects are showing. That's why this voting system needs to be implemented so as a collective group we can all be on a similar page.

Agreed 100%

 

[Zman5778]

TArmia leading the prospect pool is a joke because he has not progressed like a top prospect would. He doesn't deserve to be ranked #4 while others do.

In your opinion. Obviously a group of others see it differently.

That's why I don't think that poll is very accurate, I think people are voting because of hype rather than the actual stats and intangibles prospects are showing. That's why this voting system needs to be implemented so as a collective group we can all be on a similar page.

Because heaven forbid people actually have different opinions.

There's a group of people that see Armia as still a legitimate high-end prospect.

And you know what? They're not wrong. You're not wrong.

OPINIONS ARE NOT INHERENTLY WRONG when dealing with future outcomes.

 

[Sabre the Win]

In your opinion. Obviously a group of others see it differently.




Because heaven forbid people actually have different opinions.

There's a group of people that see Armia as still a legitimate high-end prospect.

And you know what? They're not wrong. You're not wrong.

OPINIONS ARE NOT INHERENTLY WRONG when dealing with future outcomes.

I totally understand that, that's why I said a voting system needs to be implemented so as a collective group we can all be on a similar page. Instead of butting heads when we all want the Sabres to suceed and don't want to see prospects like Armia fade away.

 

[Zman5778]

I totally understand that, that's why I said a voting system needs to be implemented so as a collective group we can all be on a similar page.

I guess my point is -- why do we all need to be on a similar page? Having a difference in opinion is one of the best ways to learn various intricacies. Having a difference of opinion stimulates debate.

So what if I have Armia ranked 7th and you have him ranked 1st? Let's talk about it. What do you see that I don't?

What if I have Ullmark ranked 1st and you have him 13th? Let's talk about it.

I'd rather talk about things like this than listen to the next dumb "4 Sabres for E/P Kane" trade proposal.

 

[Sabre the Win]

I guess my point is -- why do we all need to be on a similar page? Having a difference in opinion is one of the best ways to learn various intricacies. Having a difference of opinion stimulates debate.

So what if I have Armia ranked 7th and you have him ranked 1st? Let's talk about it. What do you see that I don't?

What if I have Ullmark ranked 1st and you have him 13th? Let's talk about it.

I'd rather talk about things like this than listen to the next dumb "4 Sabres for E/P Kane" trade proposal.

and that will still happen with any type of system implemented to rank prospects which in turn will lead to greater and stronger debates. With a system established it will better help anyone interested in this process to understand where each of us is coming from instead of just clicking on a link and placing a quick simple vote with a reply Armia, add Cat (used by example) which leaves no room for debate.

So what I'm saying is difference of opinion is great and I 100% agree with you but by using a system it will lead to greater debate and a more accurate calculation of our prospects putting us all on the same playing field for debate.

 

[dotcommunism]

That's why I don't think that poll is very accurate, I think people are voting because of hype rather than the actual stats and intangibles prospects are showing. That's why this voting system needs to be implemented so as a collective group we can all be on a similar page.

A bunch of unprofessional fans who, for the most part, only see some of these guys at all, and even then only a few times, aren't able to "accurately" rank them? Not only that, but we have a bunch of people who have different opinions and value different types of players and different skill sets. But even aside from that there's no "accurate" prospect rankings. This isn't a video game. All of it is subjective, to a degree

We don't "need" to implement some, frankly, arbitrary system. These prospect rankings don't actually affect anything, they're just a way for us to spend time and, hopefully, have interesting discussions about some of these players.

 

[Sabre the Win]

A bunch of unprofessional fans who, for the most part, only see some of these guys at all, and even then only a few times, aren't able to "accurately" rank them? Not only that, but we have a bunch of people who have different opinions and value different types of players and different skill sets. But even aside from that there's no "accurate" prospect rankings. This isn't a video game. All of it is subjective, to a degree

We don't "need" to implement some, frankly, arbitrary system. These prospect rankings don't actually affect anything, they're just a way for us to spend time and, hopefully, have interesting discussions about some of these players.

See my post above.

You cant have discussions with that polling system if no one explains votes. Not saying that you have too. I'm just saying it because its true.

EDIT: also not everyone needs to participate in the system but for some of us more die hard fans who like to debate and see explanations I think it's a good idea to implement a system that the majority of us involved can agree on which will lead to those debates.

 

[Tapu Coco]

These are exceptions, it's not like there are supestars like this in every draft, Benn was the last one to have a massive impact like that.

While that may be true, I dont think this is a factor that can just be overlooked. The fact that these players have a distinct, albeit small, chance of becoming that sort of impact player means that you have to consider all options. It's not the magnitude of potential, it's the fact that the potential exists at all. And this isn't even considering future work that a player can dedicate themselves to in order to burst onto the scene out of seemingly nowhere

 

[dotcommunism]

See my post above.

You cant have discussions with that polling system if no one explains votes. Not saying that you have too. I'm just saying it because its true.

EDIT: also not everyone needs to participate in the system but for some of us more die hard fans who like to debate and see explanations I think it's a good idea to implement a system that the majority of us involved can agree on which will lead to those debates.

It seems like a better solution, then, would be to encourage people to explain their votes, rather than forcing people to adopt a convoluted and arbitrary ranking system

 

[Tapu Coco]

A bunch of unprofessional fans who, for the most part, only see some of these guys at all, and even then only a few times, aren't able to "accurately" rank them? Not only that, but we have a bunch of people who have different opinions and value different types of players and different skill sets. But even aside from that there's no "accurate" prospect rankings. This isn't a video game. All of it is subjective, to a degree

We don't "need" to implement some, frankly, arbitrary system. These prospect rankings don't actually affect anything, they're just a way for us to spend time and, hopefully, have interesting discussions about some of these players.

This. It's almost as if a system like this is a measure of propagating prospects that only some of us can "really" give a scouting report on and then continue to do this for many different prospects, finally being able to compare them to one another. Who has time for all this? I certainly don't, that's why I'm not able to post in many threads discussing ideology of the team and the fans: I don't have enough time to view and study all things necessary to form what's considered a "credible" opinion. Although I try to stay away from hype and stats in regards to judging prospects, sometimes you simply don't have a choice because you don't have time to evaluate each and every single one.

It's not possible to create a system like this without it being unrepresentative. Let me use the imminent prospect poll #6 as a hypothetical example:

Poster X replies "Armia, add Kea" (names don't matter)...this thread is based on eliminating simple votes such as this. Poster Y criticizes poster X for not having a "valid" opinion because of lack of time to "properly evaluate", and when the system is created, Poster Y's opinion is more reflected than that of poster X because poster Y has "numbers" to rate the prospects based on extended viewings while poster X can't really comment because of limited or no viewings

 

[Sabre the Win]

To participate you don't need to watch every game that the prospects play in to get an understanding of how their progression is coming along. Simple research such as viewing statistics and reading articles or even going on youtube and simply typing in the prospects name could give you a better understanding. The players in the AHL are easier to watch because Rochester streams their games live. I have the Ice Dogs in my city so I get to see a lot of OHL games but outside of that I rely on stats, articles and limited video.

 

[Jame]

It seems like a better solution, then, would be to encourage people to explain their votes, rather than forcing people to adopt a convoluted and arbitrary ranking system

Having a some standards makes the debate far less convoluted.

Having a scoring system makes your choice or order/rank far less arbitrary.

:

 

[Jame]

I give in...

Rank|Player|Talent|Development|Projection|T|D|P|Score
1|Ristolainen|4.5|4|4.5|4.5|2.4|1.8|8.7
2|Zadarov|5|3.5|4|5|2.1|1.6|8.7
3|Larsson|3.5|4.5|4|3.5|2.7|1.6|7.8
4|McCabe|3.5|3.5|4|3.5|2.1|1.6|7.2
5|Compher|3.5|3.5|4|3.5|2.1|1.6|7.2
6|Ullmark|4|3.5|2.5|4|2.1|1|7.1
7|Grigorenko|4.5|2.5|2.5|4.5|1.5|1|7
8|Armia|4|3|2.5|4|1.8|1|6.8
9|Baptiste|3.5|3.5|3|3.5|2.1|1.2|6.8
10|Hurley|3.5|3.5|2.5|3.5|2.1|1|6.6
11|Kea|3|3|4|3|1.8|1.6|6.4
12|Ruhwedel|3|3.5|3|3|2.1|1.2|6.3
13|Bailey|3.5|3|2.5|3.5|1.8|1|6.3
14|McNabb|3|3|3|3|1.8|1.2|6
15|Malone|3|3.5|2|3|2.1|0.8|5.9
16|Possler|3|3|2.5|3|1.8|1|5.8
17|C.Peterson|3|3|2.5|3|1.8|1|5.8
18|Catenacci|3|3|2|3|1.8|0.8|5.6
19|Varone|2.5|3.5|2|2.5|2.1|0.8|5.4
20|Locke|2.5|3|2.5|2.5|1.8|1|5.3
21|Lieuwen|2.5|3|2|2.5|1.8|0.8|5.1
22|Sundher|2.5|3|2|2.5|1.8|0.8|5.1
23|Hackett|2.5|2|3|2.5|1.2|1.2|4.9
24|Mackenzie|2.5|2.5|2|2.5|1.5|0.8|4.8
25|Florentino|2.5 |2.5|2|2.5|1.5|0.8|4.8
26|Austin|2.5|2.5|2|2.5|1.5|0.8|4.8
27|Makarov |2.5|2|2.5|2.5|1.2|1|4.7
28|Gauthier-Leduc|2.5|2|2|2.5|1.2|0.8|4.5
29|Crawford|2|2|1.5|2|1.2|0.6|3.8
30|Nelson|1.5|2|1.5|1.5|1.2|0.6|3.3

 

[WNY to NoVA]

That's why I don't think that poll is very accurate, I think people are voting because of hype rather than the actual stats and intangibles prospects are showing. That's why this voting system needs to be implemented so as a collective group we can all be on a similar page.

Just seeing this thread and post now. But agree 100%. In no way should Ullmark be considered the Sabres #8 prospect by the team's fans.