Rate the players concept

[73 Percent]

Question. I understand the scale is 1-5 but what exactly are we rating. 5 being the best player in the game? Or 5 being the players best performance. For example. Richardson's might make a couple good plays to get noticed for playing well do we rate him like a 5 because he's a bottom 6 guy? Because bonino might do the Sam but more is expected from him because he's a top 6 guy and he might earn a 2 or 3 doing the same things.

To simply are we grading on a curve?

Also I really like this. Good job OP.

[Canuck Surfer]

Very well done, don't listen to the haters. Keep it up. Could be fun for the season

perfect!

[UFCanuck]

Rate the ice girls in other arenas.

[pmalina]

A "didn't notice" option might be good too.

Ok, let's make a poll about Where should this poll be posted.

Vote here:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1PuQZo2lmT7YjzTrc7cvYaVlyWqNselnm_hPuijpTb0Q/viewform?usp=send_form

Edit:

Arguments I see:

Option 1 - Rate the players thread is different from PGT because it brings discussions about player grades, statistics and rating idea as well + It is easier to find a link

Option 2 - New thread is creating a mess in which discussions about quite similar topic are held in separate threads

[Dogbyte]

I agree completely. I like having a separate voting thread. Nice idea. I don't necessarily want to search for the poll in the PGT.

And I assume we can comment on the players. Obviously Lack was the star for the Canucks. JB and WD want a clear #1 and #2 but the fans will love Eddie Lack and if Miller struggles early look for a lot of push-back from the fans, especially as Miller is a bit prickly (although not nearly as bad as Kesler).

And we have all been assuming that Shinkaruk will start the season in Utica but he is going make it tough to send him down.

My wonder would just be that if I put a post with a poll on GDT on page let´s say 18, how many of us will notice?

As discussed in the other thread this is a great idea and needs to be separate unless the mods agree that it should be mandatory to add it to the PGT. Which I think is a good idea.

Edit: Although, could everyone that does PGT get the poll exactly right most of the time? On second thought I like the new thread idea. It's one more thread. If someone is willing to do it on a timely basis why not?

That way and especially progressing through the year we should all get better at noticing everyone in the games and get better at grading as well.

Good job.

[pmalina]

Question. I understand the scale is 1-5 but what exactly are we rating. 5 being the best player in the game? Or 5 being the players best performance. For example. Richardson's might make a couple good plays to get noticed for playing well do we rate him like a 5 because he's a bottom 6 guy? Because bonino might do the Sam but more is expected from him because he's a top 6 guy and he might earn a 2 or 3 doing the same things.

To simply are we grading on a curve?

Also I really like this. Good job OP.

Good question. I think this can be a little subjective.

My approach is that I see it as rating overall performance of each player. For example:

Player A: plays 20 mins, has 3 great offensive plays. - I liked him and vote 4

Player B: plays 10 mins, has 3 great defensive plays. - I liked him even better considering his limited TOI and vote 5.

Of course, I consider bad plays as well. How bad and how good are these plays is very sensitive to everyone's perception. So to sum it up: I see it more as the best player in the game, considering both ends of the ice. If someone is not very good (e.g. averaging rate 1.5) but have a better showing in some game than usual I would not still give him more than 3 just because he did better this time. Does it make sense?

[TheFastOne21]

I wanted to discuss this in my previous thread (see the link in my first paragraph). I was not sure if it is better to make a new thread or add such a poll somewhere else (e.g. GDT). In case of the second option, I am quite sure that no. of votes would be significantly lower than in the new thread option. I would may see a solution to add the poll in GDT original post but that needs users cooperation I guess.

If this idea is not superior than the "new thread" issue, I am okay to turn it down. That is why I am open for discussion!

I have nothing wrong with the idea what so ever, don't get me wrong. I think it would be better suited to being posted in GDT where all of this discussion should be, instead of a separate thread.

I agree that it should have its own thread every game. Finding the link in a GDT with all the conversations and whining/cheering is difficult unless he posts it 6,000 times in each GDT.

I say create a thread everyday for each game, leave the polls open until shortly before the next game starts. This one is already closed and I did not have a chance to rate the players for you.

[pmalina]

I agree that it should have its own thread every game. Finding the link in a GDT with all the conversations and whining/cheering is difficult unless he posts it 6,000 times in each GDT.

I say create a thread everyday for each game, leave the polls open until shortly before the next game starts. This one is already closed and I did not have a chance to rate the players for you.

Sorry, I decided to close it next day at noon from the reason that majority of my time I spend in Europe so that noon time is more convenient for me. But yeah, I will think about leaving it open till next game starts.

[73 Percent]

Good question. I think this can be a little subjective.

My approach is that I see it as rating overall performance of each player. For example:

Player A: plays 20 mins, has 3 great offensive plays. - I liked him and vote 4

Player B: plays 10 mins, has 3 great defensive plays. - I liked him even better considering his limited TOI and vote 5.

Of course, I consider bad plays as well. How bad and how good are these plays is very sensitive to everyone's perception. So to sum it up: I see it more as the best player in the game, considering both ends of the ice. If someone is not very good (e.g. averaging rate 1.5) but have a better showing in some game than usual I would not still give him more than 3 just because he did better this time. Does it make sense?

ya I get ya. Its kinda hard to explain eh?

[TheCammer]

The first voting and rating performance of each Canucks player is here. Vote on scale from 1 to 5 where 5 means the best performance. This idea comes from here.

Voting is enabled after clicking on the link below:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1O4k50Sdwp1TuUATJsFC7u3_1humeQVvJ1puj8E3EInA/viewform?usp=send_form

Edit: Voting closed, RESULTS are following:

Name AVG - VAR

Eddie Lack (G) 4.87 - 0.13

Hunter Shinkaruk (F) 4.56 - 0.28

Nick Bonino (F) 4.05 - 0.47

Nicklas Jensen (F) 4.04 - 0.44

Chris Higgins (F) 3.86 - 0.52

Ryan Stanton (D) 3.78 - 0.55

Luca Sbisa (D) 3.69 - 0.55

Joacim Eriksson (G) 3.66 - 0.52

Bo Horvat (F) 3.48 - 0.42

Brad Richardson (F) 3.47 - 0.54

Frank Corrado (F) 3.18 - 0.58

Shawn Matthias (F) 2.95 - 0.57

Alex Burrows (F) 2.85 - 0.57

Henrik Tommernes (D) 2.70 - 0.67

Zack Kassian (F) 2.68 - 0.70

Jannik Hansen (F) 2.65 - 0.71

Kent Huskins (D) 2.55 - 0.73

John Negrin (D) 2.47 - 0.75

Carter Bancks (F) 2.42 - 0.77

Tom Sestito (F) 2.35 - 0.85

All Canucks 3.31 - 0.57

Goaltending 4.27 - 0.33

Defence 3.06 - 0.64

Forwards 3.28 - 0.57

where AVG = average value of the rating and VAR = variance of the rating (higher value means rating differed more among voters)

211 responses included.

Note: Sorry for the weird alignment. I must figure out what form of results will be ideal.

AA.jpg

I applaud the effort and idea, but the fact of the matter is that most people on this site can't rate a players game other than by the score sheet. Jensen potted a goal last night but his game certainly wasn't a 4 out of 5. Most casual fans don't really understand play away from the puck and how to assess that as well.

[pmalina]

ya I get ya. Its kinda hard to explain eh?

Indeed.

[jejejester]

Maybe instead of every game, you could break it up into either monthly/ bi-weekly/ weekly. So we don't have 82 threads. Just an idea.

Good concept though,

[pmalina]

I applaud the effort and idea, but the fact of the matter is that most people on this site can't rate a players game other than by the score sheet. Jensen potted a goal last night but his game certainly wasn't a 4 out of 5. Most casual fans don't really understand play away from the puck and how to assess that as well.

Thank you. I agree. Interpretation never should be as this is how good is the player and how much is this player better than the other. What this can bring is to analyze what player stats are more correlated with ratings than others or to track players rating though the season can show players progress.

[pmalina]

Maybe instead of every game, you could break it up into either monthly/ bi-weekly/ weekly. So we don't have 82 threads. Just an idea.

Good concept though,

Yeah, I am thinking now that I will keep the original thread "Rate the players concept" updated and be putting polls there as well as into PGT.

[Saved_by_Jesus]

I logged in for the first time in months just to tell you (pmalina) to ignore the guy who says this shouldn't be its own thread.

This is a great thread, should continue as its own thread each game.

It is a good idea, and don't worry about the people who say it isn't "scientific" enough - the bottom line is that this is just an indication as to the fan base's opinion on how each player performed.

I, for one, find it particularly interesting when I missed the game (as I did last night) and am curious as to how particular players performed. This poll tells me a lot more than the stat sheet does, even if it isn't the "perfect" way to truly evaluate performance.

Good job. Keep it up.

[Dogbyte]

Yeah, I am thinking now that I will keep the original thread "Rate the players concept" updated and be putting polls there as well as into PGT.

Can't you just put the same link in both the Rate the players thread and the PGT?

[pmalina]

Can't you just put the same link in both the Rate the players thread and the PGT?

Yes, that is exactly what I meant.

[Benchsplinters]

Another example where posters should not be able to create threads, how hard is it to add a post count to thread creation?

I found his post a lot more interesting than yours

[Benchsplinters]

There's a difference between whining and spamming. If we had every random post an external link after every game then there would be no point of even coming to these forums. I appreciate you backing up the new comer and I thank you both for your coordinator criticism.

Do you want medium cheese or old cheese with your whine sir?

[Tragoedia]

I really like this idea. Would you keep the results after each game for the whole season so we can look back. It think it would be interesting to track how the fan base responds to each player game by game. Obviously, it doesn't actually show how well the player literally played. What it can do though, is see how the fanbase feels after each game, or at least the portion who view the PGTs.

My rating system for myself is... 5 is played brilliant. It's reserved for the player of the game, or elite level of play. It's for a goalie standing on his head for 60 minutes or a forward driving the play every shift. Or it's for a player that had a pretty solid game but made one amazing play that made a difference, like an overtime goal. Basically, it's for players who exceed my expectations.

4 is had a really good, solid game. This is for players who meet my expectations of them. They have a good night, with little or no bad plays and a number of good plays. They were noticeable enough to be considered important to the team, but not necessarily the MVP of the game.

3 is for players who have an average night, or have a good night with a few major mistakes. They aren't really noticeable in a bad way, but don't really stand out that much either. Overall, they play good for most of the game despite not standing out. They don't make any noticeable blunders. Or, they have a night that could be rated as a 4 if it wasn't for 1 or 2 major mistakes, where they played really well for the rest of the game.

2 is for players who had a slightly disappointing night. They were unnoticeable for most of the game, but when they were it was for the wrong reasons. Overall, they weren't necessarily bad, but at best they didn't get in way of their teams success.

1 is for players who had a bad game. They made a number of mistakes and weren't very useful for the team. This rating is for players who are slumping, having an off night, or playing lazy.

These ratings are arbitrary (and I would hate to read them if I were a player) but I think they are interesting. It doesn't explain their play, but it does show how we perceive the team is playing.

I think it would be cool if you added an option to vote for the whole teams play (top to bottom, including the coach and assistants) on a scale 1-5 as well. And then compare it to the average of each of the positions as well.

If you wanted to do something funny, you could also do the same thing with the referees. Have us rate them (as a unit) after each game. That should provide a few laughs.