Bob Barker
Registered User
- Jun 2, 2008
- 1,831
- 420
HF Prospect Ratings
- Thread starter Bob Barker
- Start date
leoleo3535
Registered User
Keep in mind these "ratings" are not done by hockey people and most of the players have never ever even been seen by the "writer".
Bjorn Le
Hobocop
You post this in every single thread you post in...about people not seeing a player
You have such an elitist attitute towards people talking about prospects that you have to be a scout to know anything and if you haven't seen the player live you don't know anything about them.
Lighten up man, there's giving critism then there's being cynical about it.
Important/relevant prospects are updated regularly, the rest not so much. I think it depends on the team writer.
As for reliability, they might paint a picture of a prospects current ceiling, but in terms of long term reliability look no further than the prospect ratings 5-10 years back to see how inaccurate they are.
Take them with a grain of salt
As for reliability, they might paint a picture of a prospects current ceiling, but in terms of long term reliability look no further than the prospect ratings 5-10 years back to see how inaccurate they are.
Take them with a grain of salt
leoleo3535
Registered User
Not at all.
The original poster asked how reliable the rankings were.
How reliable are they when for the most part the players have been not seen, the people are not hockey people etc. etc.
Like a film critic who hasn't seen the movie or a food critic who hasn't sampled the meal.
You tell me how you can accurately rate/rank a player without seeing him play?
You can't.
The ratings are updated with each top-20 article, which come out in the Spring and Fall. The Spring ones are in the process of being done right now, most are out. For teams who don't have a new top-20 up, the ratings are from the Fall.
I've seen every one of the Kings prospects I rate. Most writers have seen all of their own prospects. I can't claim to see every prospect listed on the site, but the ones I write about, I've seen.
I have issues with a lot of the HF site material, but a lot of these lists are built from consultations with scouts who:
A) do see the players
B) understand what they're seeing better than most message board posters.
Your unilateral dismissal is, quite frankly, the least helpful thing possible.
leoleo3535
Registered User
Then why do they often list and rank players that are no longer even property of said club?
Many of the prospects are playing around the world....you believe these people are flying around the globe?
At best a glimpse at a camp 6 months ago may have occurred.
Ever notice that basically every team is "stacked" ....amazing!
If Josh travels the globe to see the Kings propsects I respect that but would also say that is the exception not the norm.
SpezDispenser
Registered User
- Aug 15, 2007
- 26,758
- 6,274
Bjorn Le
Hobocop
You really do and I don't think you notice it. These people do see the prospects, and you make a quick judgement that they haven't because they're not scouts or involved with teams.
They're not here to inform teams, we're not here to inform teams, this is information and no matter what none of it is completely wrong and there more right then wrong. Another example was a recent post of yours, it was a backhand attack on Dan Sallows when you said you can count the number of times hes watched a player live on his fingers, you're taking shots at peoples credibility when you know nothing about them or the work they do.
Like I said, critisms fine, but your elitist attitude in your posts doesn't help get your opinions across.
in all fairness you can watch games for pretty much every prospect on the internet, otherwise you could get in contact with beat writers of thier perspective teams for opinions. That being said I get the impression that most writers on this site dont put that level of effort in.
A bit OT but I'm starting to get annoyed every time I see a comment including "with a grain of salt". If we took everything with a grain of salt that is recommended here in the posts we'd die of natrium overdose. It's so over used, even more than Olli photoshops. Just sayin'!
If only I had the money and time, I would.I see them at prospect camps, training camps, from live feeds of CHL/AHL games, at international competition, and in highlights online. Some of the writers on here post their viewing reports on the staff board and communicate them to others, so that helps as well.
Between camps, live feeds, archived games, international tournaments, highlights and online scouting reports, do you really think it's that hard to get an idea of what a player might be like?
As for this business about players being listed with clubs they're not even on, the site isn't updated every minute. Even so, they do their best to keep up.
leoleo3535
Registered User
Bjorn Le
Hobocop
I don't even care if its true or not about someones credibility.
You can't just go around insulting people saying "they're not hockey people" and thus they have no valid opinion. You don't have any idea about what people have seen or not seen, you really don't and its ridiculous you think you do when you go off about how certain people aren't credible.
Completely unprofessional and not to mention the fact your doing it on a message board. Which makes it worse. Three times a charm, critism is fine, dismissing people as "not hockey-people" thus their opinions aren't credible is laughable.
leoleo3535
Registered User
R S
Registered User
- Sep 18, 2006
- 25,468
- 10
I have to agree with you for once
It's fine to laugh at HF's ratings and have your own opinions on the ratings and the players involved.
But it's pretty weak to call out people you have never even met for doing the ratings. Who knows who they are? Who knows what their hockey backgrounds are?
leoleo3535
Registered User
I have to agree with you for once
It's fine to laugh at HF's ratings and have your own opinions on the ratings and the players involved.
But it's pretty weak to call out people you have never even met for doing the ratings. Who knows who they are? Who knows what their hockey backgrounds are?
I agree if you do not know their hockey background your questioning their knowledge is offside.
Joseppi
Registered User
Aaron Vickers
FCHockey
Another thing to consider is this:
HF has writers scattered around the WHL, OHL, QMJHL, throughout the NCAA, and around the globe.
It used to be (cant speak for it now because I haven't been HF staff in quite some time) that a lot of collaboration went on, with team writers checking in with guys in each region on the progress of each prospect.
So for example, if the LA Kings writer is based on the west coast, he'll contact guys from the OHL and QMJHL to check on Kings prospects.
With so the size of staff HF has, it is pretty easy to have eyes in a lot of arenas.
HF has writers scattered around the WHL, OHL, QMJHL, throughout the NCAA, and around the globe.
It used to be (cant speak for it now because I haven't been HF staff in quite some time) that a lot of collaboration went on, with team writers checking in with guys in each region on the progress of each prospect.
So for example, if the LA Kings writer is based on the west coast, he'll contact guys from the OHL and QMJHL to check on Kings prospects.
With so the size of staff HF has, it is pretty easy to have eyes in a lot of arenas.
LuckyLuke87
Registered User
Have you ever tried to measure body temperature with plastic toothbrush? Result you will get is as reliable as HF rankings.
Benttheknee
Registered User
Personally speaking, I find the rating system quite basic, and kind of misleading, in particular the Alpha portion, which is almost meaninless.
A- In the NHL, nobody gets A
B - The guys has one foot in the door, will be off the rankings very soon
C - The big bucket where 90% of players go
D - Bust potential is big.
E - E? No such thing!
Most guys start as a C, and graduate as a C. So what does it really mean? It tells me he still has a chance, somewhere between, cold day in heck, and pretty good actually!
IMO the rating needs to be expanded quite a bit, and estimate how close a guy is to the NHL.
I.E.
1st round picks get a B-C type rating
7th round picks get a E-F type rating
As players develop, F-E-D-C-B giving an indication that they are not only a prospect, but one that is in fact passing other guys drafted above him
If a guy looks like a Bust, B-C-D-E-F progression should be noted.
Example Jim O'Brien (late first rounder from Sens)
First rank C (just drafted
2nd C (Meh first year)
3rd D (Meh 2nd year, others passing him by)
4th D
5th E (Sens told him to pick up or pack up, he responded)
6th B (sees NHL time as a grinder)
A- In the NHL, nobody gets A
B - The guys has one foot in the door, will be off the rankings very soon
C - The big bucket where 90% of players go
D - Bust potential is big.
E - E? No such thing!
Most guys start as a C, and graduate as a C. So what does it really mean? It tells me he still has a chance, somewhere between, cold day in heck, and pretty good actually!
IMO the rating needs to be expanded quite a bit, and estimate how close a guy is to the NHL.
I.E.
1st round picks get a B-C type rating
7th round picks get a E-F type rating
As players develop, F-E-D-C-B giving an indication that they are not only a prospect, but one that is in fact passing other guys drafted above him
If a guy looks like a Bust, B-C-D-E-F progression should be noted.
Example Jim O'Brien (late first rounder from Sens)
First rank C (just drafted
2nd C (Meh first year)
3rd D (Meh 2nd year, others passing him by)
4th D
5th E (Sens told him to pick up or pack up, he responded)
6th B (sees NHL time as a grinder)
Ad
Latest posts
-
Confirmed with Link: All-Purpose Coyotes Arena Talk: Land Auction Date Set - 6/27- Latest: JasonDemersWasOkay
-
-
Series Talk: WCQF: Winnipeg Jets Vs. Colorado Avalanche (Series tied 1-1)- Latest: TruePowerSlave
-
-
