Your Prospect Rankings
- Thread starter jc17
- Start date
i see. He was lower than certain others so I thought you were't particularly high on him.
I run my little ranking system. I'm not just arbitrarily putting him somewhere. He's actually tied with Armia... here's what it looks like with the scoring...
Rank Name Total
1a Ristolainen 8.7
1b Zadarov 8.7
3 Larsson 7.8
4 Compher 7.2
5 Grigorenko 7.1
6 Ullmark 6.9
7a McCabe 6.8
7b Baptiste 6.8
9a Armia 6.7
9b Fasching 6.7
11 Hurley 6.6
12 Deslauriers 6.2
13 Kea 5.9
14a Bailey 5.8
14b Ruhwedel 5.8
16 C.Peterson 5.6
17 Carrier 5.3
18a Possler 5.1
18a Malone 5.1
18c Catenacci 5.1
21a Locke 5
21b Florentino 5
23a Lieuwen 4.9
23b Varone 4.9
25 Mackenzie 4.8
For purposes of this rating system to make it easier on Sabretooth
Ristolainen=Zadaorov>Larsson>Compher>Grigorenko>Ullmark>McCabe=Baptiste>Armia=Fasching>Hurley>Deslauriers>Kea>Bailey=Ruhwedel>Cal Peterson>Carrier>Possler=Malone=Catenacci>Locke=Florentino>Lieuwen=Varone>Mackenzie
JLewyB
Registered User
In terms of Offensively talent, yes you're right. But Baptiste beats him every other category-skating, physicality, compete, leadership, versatilility. He was best prospect for us at the Traverse city tourney while also being the youngest. He's not leaning on anybody on his team to produce offensively. His size, speed and compete level will translate well into the NHL while Grigorenko's issues in those area have made his talent irrevelent at NHL game so far. He(Grigs) has clearly improved his skating but it will never be a strong point, IMO. I think a good projection, if all pans out, is to a player similar to CoHo. Maybe his length will make him better defensively and maybe he fills out to be more physical than Coho but I don't see him being a 1C anymore.
OcAirlines
Registered User
- Jul 18, 2009
- 2,693
- 14
Interesting, didn't know about that system so far. What are the advantages compared to just using a system that attributes 20 points for 1st, 19 pts for 2nd etc though, because right of the top of my head I don't see them (but obviously I have no idea what I'm talking about
). Just looks like it's a lot more work for you and that people who rank players equally basically give up a lot of their voting power. Just curious for some more insight 
.1. Zadorov
2. Risto
3. Larsson
4. Fasching
5. Ulmark
6. Compher
7. Armia
8. Grigo
9. McCabe
10. Possler
11. Carrier
12. Hackett
13. Hurley
14. Cat
15. Deslauriers
16. Lieuwen
17. Kea
18. Baptiste
19. Bailey
20. Petersen
2. Risto
3. Larsson
4. Fasching
5. Ulmark
6. Compher
7. Armia
8. Grigo
9. McCabe
10. Possler
11. Carrier
12. Hackett
13. Hurley
14. Cat
15. Deslauriers
16. Lieuwen
17. Kea
18. Baptiste
19. Bailey
20. Petersen
1. Ristolainen
2. Zadorov
3. Larsson
4. Grigorenko
5. Armia
6. Compher
7. McCabe
8. Ullmark
9. Baptiste
10. Fasching
11. Possler
12. Deslauriers
13. Hurley
14. Bailey
15. Kea
16. Ruhwedel
17. Carrier
18. Peterson
19. Catenacci
20. Lieuwen
2. Zadorov
3. Larsson
4. Grigorenko
5. Armia
6. Compher
7. McCabe
8. Ullmark
9. Baptiste
10. Fasching
11. Possler
12. Deslauriers
13. Hurley
14. Bailey
15. Kea
16. Ruhwedel
17. Carrier
18. Peterson
19. Catenacci
20. Lieuwen
FamilyGuy716
Registered User
I like your rankings except for Larsson. I just don't think he'll ever be better than 3rd liner between 30-40 points. I think he's a safe bet to stick on our team next year but I just don't think he'll ever be a top 6 forward. I would have him below Fasching.
Other than that...great job.
tmack224
Registered User
1. Ristolainen
2. Zadorov
3. Grigorenko
4. Larsson
5. Compher
6. McCabe
7. Armia
8. Ullmark
9. Baptiste
10. Fasching
11. Hurley
12. Deslauriers
13. Possler
14. Carrier
15. Kea
16. Ruhwedel
17. Bailey
18. Peterson
19. Catenacci
20. Lieuwen
2. Zadorov
3. Grigorenko
4. Larsson
5. Compher
6. McCabe
7. Armia
8. Ullmark
9. Baptiste
10. Fasching
11. Hurley
12. Deslauriers
13. Possler
14. Carrier
15. Kea
16. Ruhwedel
17. Bailey
18. Peterson
19. Catenacci
20. Lieuwen
Sabretooth
Registered User
Interesting, didn't know about that system so far. What are the advantages compared to just using a system that attributes 20 points for 1st, 19 pts for 2nd etc though, because right of the top of my head I don't see them (but obviously I have no idea what I'm talking about
Well, a points based ranking is just another way of determining an average ranking. It's not necessarily wrong, it doesn't necessarily represent the beliefs of the majority. Here's a hypothetical example of what I mean:
Say we have 10 people voting. 9 of the 10 rank Risto 1st and Zads 2nd, While the other voter leaves Risto off their list for some reason and rank Zads first.
In the points based system, Risto gets 180 points (20*9), while Zads gets 191 points (19*9 + 20). In the points based system, Zads is ranked ahead of Risto, even though 9/10 voters would rank Risto ahead of Zads. Or more realistically, that 10th vote could rank Risto as high as 11th (10 pts) and Risto would still lose to Zads 190-191.
In the condorcet method, the matchup Risto v. Zads is scored 9-1 in favor of Risto, and thus Risto is ranked ahead of Zads. IMO, given these hypothetical votes, ranking Risto ahead of Zads is appropriate and more representative of the 10 voters' preferences.
As far as ranking prospects equally goes, it doesn't really give up that much voting power. Say we have 10 voters again and 9 of them rank Risto=Zads at the top of their list. No matter what the 10th voter does, Risto and Zads will win 9/10 matchups with every other prospect and will end up 1 and 2 in some order. But the preference of the 10th voter would then decide which of Risto or Zads wins by a 1-0-9 margin. I'm fine with that outcome really, but I guess you could argue that the majority believes that Risto and Zads should be equal and thus the results aren't representative. Thats why I say only rank = in the condorcet method if you don't care which is ranked ahead of the other - you're not casting an = vote, you're obstaining from that matchup and letting others decide the order. I might be able to look at the results and figure out if there are more = votes than not for a matchup, but I don't know if it is that big of a deal really.
As far as the work goes, getting the lists into the proper format with the proper spelling is the hard part. Once I have that, there are websites that do the condorcet voting automatically with code, and its trivial to get a ranking from the results. I think it might actually be more work to put all the lists in a spreadsheet and add up the points for all the prospects, really
OcAirlines
Registered User
- Jul 18, 2009
- 2,693
- 14
Well, a points based ranking is just another way of determining an average ranking. It's not necessarily wrong, it doesn't necessarily represent the beliefs of the majority. Here's a hypothetical example of what I mean:
Say we have 10 people voting. 9 of the 10 rank Risto 1st and Zads 2nd, While the other voter leaves Risto off their list for some reason and rank Zads first.
In the points based system, Risto gets 180 points (20*9), while Zads gets 191 points (19*9 + 20). In the points based system, Zads is ranked ahead of Risto, even though 9/10 voters would rank Risto ahead of Zads. Or more realistically, that 10th vote could rank Risto as high as 11th (10 pts) and Risto would still lose to Zads 190-191.
In the condorcet method, the matchup Risto v. Zads is scored 9-1 in favor of Risto, and thus Risto is ranked ahead of Zads. IMO, given these hypothetical votes, ranking Risto ahead of Zads is appropriate and more representative of the 10 voters' preferences.
As far as ranking prospects equally goes, it doesn't really give up that much voting power. Say we have 10 voters again and 9 of them rank Risto=Zads at the top of their list. No matter what the 10th voter does, Risto and Zads will win 9/10 matchups with every other prospect and will end up 1 and 2 in some order. But the preference of the 10th voter would then decide which of Risto or Zads wins by a 1-0-9 margin. I'm fine with that outcome really, but I guess you could argue that the majority believes that Risto and Zads should be equal and thus the results aren't representative. Thats why I say only rank = in the condorcet method if you don't care which is ranked ahead of the other - you're not casting an = vote, you're obstaining from that matchup and letting others decide the order. I might be able to look at the results and figure out if there are more = votes than not for a matchup, but I don't know if it is that big of a deal really.
As far as the work goes, getting the lists into the proper format with the proper spelling is the hard part. Once I have that, there are websites that do the condorcet voting automatically with code, and its trivial to get a ranking from the results. I think it might actually be more work to put all the lists in a spreadsheet and add up the points for all the prospects, really
Your first Risto/Zads example seems like it's a very hypothetical one though, because I don't see anything like this happening in the actual vote so far. I see that the method is good to get rid of "troll votes", but luckily we don't have any of these so far.
On the other hand this system kind of diminishes out of the box opinions, if two or three voters have a certain player considerably higher than the rest, say at 12 instead of 18, their votes don't matter at all because that player will still lose the head-to-head match-ups against everyone ahead of them.
But i'm still looking forward to seeing the results, especially now that I know that it won't be as much work as I expected. Maybe it would be interesting to see how the results of the two different methods compare? If it's okay with you how about I compile an average list based on points and you do the concordet system, so we can see how simply changing the statistical method could change the outcome of this list - or if there are barely any changes at all
?
Thanks for explaining the Condorcet method -- it's pretty interesting.
My big question is why people keep voting Hackett so high and then refuse to explain themselves. Let's face it, he flat-out sucks right now and has sucked for the last year. The only possible explanation is that people think he is just in a prolonged slump. I'd like to hear the Hackett supporters justify how he is ahead of Lieuwen and Petersen.
My big question is why people keep voting Hackett so high and then refuse to explain themselves. Let's face it, he flat-out sucks right now and has sucked for the last year. The only possible explanation is that people think he is just in a prolonged slump. I'd like to hear the Hackett supporters justify how he is ahead of Lieuwen and Petersen.
It's pretty common for first-year pros to go through growing pains and they will slide on a list compared to shiny new toys and guys tearing up lesser leagues. The end of their first year and then on into the second is often a great indicator of what they may become. It'll be interesting to see what they ask Cat to focus on. Does Murray view him as a checking line guy or a complementary speed scorer?
1) Zadorov
2) Ristolainen
3) Armia
4) Larrson
5) Fasching
6) Grigorenko
7) Compher
8) McCabe
9) Deslauriers
10) Baptiste
11) Ullmark
12) Ruhwedel
13) Bailey
14) Hurley
15) Peterson
16) Carrier
17) Possler
18) Catenacci
19) Kea
20) Hackett
It's an impressive list of prospects, especially when you consider that Flynn, Girgensons and Pysyk are JUST graduated.
2) Ristolainen
3) Armia
4) Larrson
5) Fasching
6) Grigorenko
7) Compher
8) McCabe
9) Deslauriers
10) Baptiste
11) Ullmark
12) Ruhwedel
13) Bailey
14) Hurley
15) Peterson
16) Carrier
17) Possler
18) Catenacci
19) Kea
20) Hackett
It's an impressive list of prospects, especially when you consider that Flynn, Girgensons and Pysyk are JUST graduated.
Zadarov>Ristolainen>Grigorenko>McCabe>Compher=Baptiste=Fasching>Ullmark=Compher=Larsson>Possler=Hurley=Deslauriers>Carrier>Peterson=Catenacci>Ruhwedel=Kea=Varone=Malone=Bailey>Florentino=Lieuwen=Locke=Makarov
Lots of equal signs, but I do not get a chance to see many of those guys a lot (really a CHL watcher) so I have to go on reports/stats.
Lots of equal signs, but I do not get a chance to see many of those guys a lot (really a CHL watcher) so I have to go on reports/stats.
Not sure if this was posted already, or if anyone cares, but Jonathan Willis of Bleacher Report re-ranked teams prospect pools post deadline. He has Buffalo #1.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...s-prospect-pool-after-the-2014-trade-deadline
Edit: I see someone already put this in the prospect repository.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...s-prospect-pool-after-the-2014-trade-deadline
Edit: I see someone already put this in the prospect repository.
OcAirlines
Registered User
- Jul 18, 2009
- 2,693
- 14
@ZeroPT, AdamsApple, yahhockey & 7 11 14: Could you add some players to your list so you have a full Top-20?
Last edited:
1.Ristolainen
2.Zadorov
3.Grigorenko
4.Larsson
5.McCabe
6.Compher
7.Fasching
8.Armia
9.Ullmark
10.Baptiste
11.Deslaurier
12.Carrier
13.Hurley
14.Bailey
15.Possler
16.Kea
17.Lieuwen
18.Ruhwedel
19.Catenacci
20.Varone
OK - I went back through the thread and may have over-reacted. I saw his name listed a lot of times, but some people listed 25 players. Only 3 people have him in the top 20 (and one person has him at 12, which is what got me confused originally). So, nothing to see here after all.
All in good fun, I didn't see him either and was wondering if I missed someone listing him out high.
OcAirlines
Registered User
- Jul 18, 2009
- 2,693
- 14
You have Compher twice but no Armia, I guess one of the JTs was meant to be Armia?
Zman5778
Moderator
1.) Ristolainen
2.) Zadorov
3.) Grigorenko
4.) Compher
5.) McCabe
6.) Fasching
7.) Armia
8.) Larsson
9.) Ullmark
10.) Hurley
11.) Baptiste
12.) Carrier
13.) Ruhwedel
14.) Deslauriers
15.) Possler
16.) Bailey
17.) Kea
18.) Petersen
19.) Catenacci
20.) Lieuwen
2.) Zadorov
3.) Grigorenko
4.) Compher
5.) McCabe
6.) Fasching
7.) Armia
8.) Larsson
9.) Ullmark
10.) Hurley
11.) Baptiste
12.) Carrier
13.) Ruhwedel
14.) Deslauriers
15.) Possler
16.) Bailey
17.) Kea
18.) Petersen
19.) Catenacci
20.) Lieuwen
cybresabre
prōject positivity
Some of the more intelligent among us posit that goalies are such a crapshoot that they are most accurately projected by the coolness of their masks. The Blue/Brodeur spectrum.
John Blue's mask: boring
Brodeur's mask: classic
Hackett's mask: not bad
Lieuwen's mask: meh
It even allows you to compare single players over extended time periods.
Noronen's mask in Finland: badass
Noronen's mask in Rochester: hardcore
Noronen's mask in Buffalo: a step down
Noronen's mask in Vancouver: unimpressive
I know what you're all thinking, but you're wrong. While Hasek's mask wasn't flashy, it was iconic in its simplicity.
