bohonos76 Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 http://www.hockeysfuture.com/articles/120871/vancouver-canucks-top-20-deep-in-blueline-prospects/ I thought this article was great thought have some questions. Is this article rating prospects as best to worse or upside? And what does the letter next to the prospect score mean? Thanks in advance. Cheers... bohonos76 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BananaMash Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 http://www.hockeysfuture.com/articles/120871/vancouver-canucks-top-20-deep-in-blueline-prospects/ I thought this article was great thought have some questions. Is this article rating prospects as best to worse or upside? And what does the letter next to the prospect score mean? Thanks in advance. Cheers... bohonos76 Basically the number score is what HF sees as their potential, and the letter is the probability of them reaching that potential. They have a chart somewhere that shows the exact definitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyhee Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 The list seems to take into account both the player's ceiling and the chances of getting there. After the name is position, then a number which is the player's ceiling, then a letter which is the chances of achieving that ceiling. 10-generational talent (Orr, Gretzky) 9-elite talent 8-1st line forward/1st pair defenceman/#1 goalie 7-2nd line forward/2nd pair defenceman/journeyman #1 goalie 6-3rd line forward/3rd pair defenceman/backup goalie 5-4th line forward/#7 defenceman/depth goaltender 4-top minor leaguer-unlikely to become NHL regulars but would get callups for injuries 3-average minor leaguer 2-minor league role player 1-borderline minor league player A-all but guaranteed to reach potential B-should reach potential, could drop 1 rating C-may reach potential, could drop 2 ratings D-unlikely to reach potential, could drop 3 ratings F-a player possessing little potential Source: http://www.hockeysfuture.com/playerprojections/ So, for example they have Virtanen at 8.0 D, which means he has the potential to be a 1st line forward but could top out as low as being a 4th line forward in the opinion of the hockeysfuture writer. Bo is given 7.5B, which means he has potential to be a 1st or 2nd line forward but could be as poor as a marginal 2nd liner (7.5-1=6.5 which would be 2nd/3rd liner.) Among defence prospects hockeysfuture rated Clendening (7.0B) as having 2nd pair potential but who could top out as a 3rd pair d-man and Pedan (7.0D) has having 2nd pair potential but who could fail to become an NHL regular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bohonos76 Posted March 26, 2015 Author Share Posted March 26, 2015 hmmm, that's very interesting, thanks for the insight and table. awesome read.... we'll see... bohonos76 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Dog Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Rates Clendening as our best defensman prospect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bohonos76 Posted March 26, 2015 Author Share Posted March 26, 2015 i agree and disagree with a lot of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Dog Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 I wonder how they write these things. They need to know a good amount of info of all 30 team's prospect pool. That seems like a tough thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicklas Bo Hunter Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Nice to see subban going from 6.5 to 7.0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hatedkid666 Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Interesting list. I thought some people should have been rated higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
73 Percent Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Interesting list. I thought some people should have been rated higher.i find hockeys future always undersells our prospects. I dont evenough read them anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baer. Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Rates Clendening as our best defensman prospect. No, they rate Clendening our most likely D prospect to make the NHL. Which I agree with. I think Corrado is better than 7.0D maybe 7.5D or 7.0C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thejazz97 Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Looking at our prospects, Pat McNally received an F... wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fateless Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 I don't really see much value in their grading system. Saying 8.0D is so extremely vague. That is like saying "they will make the NHL". Really? I never would have thought Virtanen would make the NHL. I just don't understand why they leave things so up in the air. Obviously they want to be conservative as not to spark unsubstantiated hope in fans, but I mean, give me a break. Stating someone could be anywhere from a 1st line forward to a 4th line forward is so vague... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyhee Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 Rates Clendening as our best defensman prospect. Yes, they did, but ... They rated Clendening, Corrado, Tryamkin, Pedan and Subban all as having 2nd pair potential, with McEneny, Hutton and Cederholm just behind at somewhere between 2nd and 3rd pair potential. Clendening came out ahead on the chances of achieving that 2nd pair level. Since he's older and further along in his development, with 1st and 2nd team all-star seasons in the AHL behind him and already playing at or very close to a 3rd pair level his 7.0 B doesn't seem unreasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyhee Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 I don't really see much value in their grading system. Saying 8.0D is so extremely vague. That is like saying "they will make the NHL". Really? I never would have thought Virtanen would make the NHL. I just don't understand why they leave things so up in the air. Obviously they want to be conservative as not to spark unsubstantiated hope in fans, but I mean, give me a break. Stating someone could be anywhere from a 1st line forward to a 4th line forward is so vague... and also realistic. Nobody can be sure how good most prospects will turn out to be. Suggesting certainty would be unrealistic. One could just choose a number as a guess where the prospect would turn out, but it would be less imformative than hockeysfuture's chosen method. One can disagree with the opinions which are the individual ratings, but the rating system makes sense and seeks to give more information than just a single number would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fateless Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 and also realistic. Nobody can be sure how good most prospects will turn out to be. Suggesting certainty would be unrealistic. One could just choose a number as a guess where the prospect would turn out, but it would be less imformative than hockeysfuture's chosen method. One can disagree with the opinions which are the individual ratings, but the rating system makes sense and seeks to give more information than just a single number would. There's a difference between suggesting certainty and giving an educated guess. Saying that a player like Virtanen will either make the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th line isn't an informative method. My wife would have come to that conclusion and she doesn't even watch hockey on a regular basis. I think their rank of Horvat is accurate and an educated guess. They have Horvat as likely coming in between the 1st and 2nd line with the potential of dropping to a fringe second liner. That is an educated guess. But to rank players as "making the NHL" just doesn't scream useful to me. Its not that I disagree with their ranks, I just don't see how their ranks are useful when you actually read what they're ranking people at. There are some players (take Shinkaruk) for example who will be Boom or Bust players. Meaning they have 1st line potential but may also never see time in the NHL. For those select few Boom or Bust type players, I can understand an 8.0 D rating because they may be a 1st line player, or they may drop and never even see the NHL. But they have so many C and D rankings that it makes the point moot as they're essentially saying "we have no idea where this person is going to end up, but we suspect he will play in the NHL". Great, that is just SO useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 But they have so many C and D rankings that it makes the point moot as they're essentially saying "we have no idea where this person is going to end up, but we suspect he will play in the NHL". Great, that is just SO useful. Early on after a player has been drafted it harder to predict where they'll land. While I don't put a lot of credence in HF's rankings, what you're complaining about isn't all that unreasonable. Realistically, Virtanen could end up being anywhere from a 1st to 4th line player. I think 4th is certainly less likely though. I'd say it's fairly certain he'll be at LEAST a middle 6 forward but there's arguably near equal chances he'll be a 1st line winger as a 4th line winger at this point. It all depends on how well he develops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME Posted March 26, 2015 Share Posted March 26, 2015 i find hockeys future always undersells our prospects. I dont evenough read them anymore. It'd be ok if they were a little more consistent in their ratings across organizations. But it's tough when you have volunteer writers covering each team. Homerism and bias will always come into play. For example, they rate Rocco Grimaldi (5'6" forward drafted in the 2nd round) an 8.0 C compared to Virtanen's 8.0 D. I can understand the argument for both ratings, at least on their own, but measured against each other, they make much less sense. Is Grimaldi really projecting with first line upside and a virtual lock to become a top-nine NHL regular? Seems a tad optimistic compared to Virtanen's ranking. Just one example. That said, is does seem like HF's editors are trying to make things more consistent than they were even a year or two ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
on the cycle Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 Hockeys Future is suspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amish Rake Fighter Posted March 27, 2015 Share Posted March 27, 2015 They should get apollo to write all the Canuck prospect ratings. The future would never look so bright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.