Prospect Ranking

[Bingo]

had another inquiry into doing our annual prospect ranking list again ... I'm going to put it to a poll to help me to decide to go forward or not.

We usually do it in teh summer, but I didn't get around to it.

Takes some work but I'm for it to keep the continuity going if there's interest.

[Ro]

For sure! Especially with that HF list a couple threads below generating so much disagreement/discussion.

I forget how we did them in the past... Would a series of online polls (a la West and East top 15 polls) be the easiest way this time?

[CaptainCrunch]

I'd love to see it. It also helps that we have members in Quad City that seem to be pretty active as well.

[Cliche]

It will make for a good mid-season activity. And more users will be around to understand and analyse the reports coming from the farm and around the WHL.

[Tilley]

I really enjoy looking back at previous prospect rankings and see what people thought in the past. I think it's a great idea.

[Azure]

Great idea.

Especially considering how messed up the HF one was.

[Reggie Dunlop]

First of all, I think you use a breakdown of categories into potential vs. pro-readiness. Secondly, you pare down the list to a workable ten or a dozen players at most. Thirdly (and this is an idea I've been kicking around) is refraining from assigning numerical ratings. Maybe a list in alphabetical order?

[Bingo]

I think we kind of covered the same thing the past few years Reggie ... I call it Potential and Likelihood which I guess is a little different than "readiness" but along the same bain.

Either way I think it covers it, and you have to keep the analysis the same or it fails in year to year comparison in my mind.

Here's last year's result btw http://www.calgarypuck.com/Future.htm

I like the wide open element to it ... I think it speaks to a prospect to some degree if he's obscure (not on everyone's list) but highly rated by those that include him. Makes it more interesting if he breaks through.

[SeeGeeWhy]

I do like how HF presents the prospects in 'depth chart' type format - it gives some insight to what positions are strongest/weakest.

[JiriHrdina]

Yes but I'd like to see it done mid-season - gives us a chance to make more accurate assessments with half a season completed.

[Reggie Dunlop]

Either way I think it covers it, and you have to keep the analysis the same or it fails in year to year comparison in my mind.

I'm not so interested in maintaining a legacy of applied criteria if the methodology can be improved upon. There is still a tendency for these sorts of things to devolve into popularity contests (which I suppose is fair enough because it's fan-driven).

Since so many variables come into play in crystal-balling, I think concentrating on the individual's own attributes as opposed to lining up a group in an orderly, descending row might be a fresh approach.

Tilley privately suggested a good idea to me: Using "riser" and "dropper" arrows.

[Bingo]

I'm not so interested in maintaining a legacy of applied criteria if the methodology can be improved upon. There is still a tendency for these sorts of things to devolve into popularity contests (which I suppose is fair enough because it's fan-driven).

Since so many variables come into play in crystal-balling, I think concentrating on the individual's own attributes as opposed to lining up a group in an orderly, descending row might be a fresh approach.

Tilley privately suggested a good idea to me: Using "riser" and "dropper" arrows.

It's not a list though ... they have to rate each on potential and likelihood, not "give me your favourite future Flames in order"

and I am interested in keeping a legacy of applied criteria, that's the most valuable thing in this in my mind when you get to look back on say a Brent Krahn (drafted 2000) and his roll through future analysis history. Useless if you have different rules each year.

[Reggie Dunlop]

It's not a list though ... they have to rate each on potential and likelihood, not "give me your favourite future Flames in order"

But at the end of the day, that's how the compiled information is presented.

and I am interested in keeping a legacy of applied criteria, that's the most valuable thing in this in my mind when you get to look back on say a Brent Krahn (drafted 2000) and his roll through future analysis history. Useless if you have different rules each year.

With all due respect, we now have a devoted forum to prospects due to increased interest. With that in mind, you could argue there's a different audience that might warrant a new approach. An evolution with more informed, sophisticated contributers.

What was done in the past becomes less relevant, especially given the focus should be on the future. Let's face it, in the past there was a largely indifferent, if not openly hostile, reaction to prospect discussion. So things have already changed.

[Bingo]

But at the end of the day, that's how the compiled information is presented.

If you look at the one link sure ...

but the side links show all the detail. Here's the combined analysis showing both rating scores for high ranking players

http://www.calgarypuck.com/Combined_2006.htm

here's the link for a look at likelihood specifically
http://www.calgarypuck.com/Likelihood2006.htm

and here's the one for potential
http://www.calgarypuck.com/Potential2006.htm

here's a like that shows the actual analysis
http://www.calgarypuck.com/Detail2006.htm

and article looking at the big moves between years
http://www.calgarypuck.com/Movers_2006.htm

a look back at when we were right
http://www.calgarypuck.com/On_The_Money_2006.htm

and when we were wrong
http://www.calgarypuck.com/Off_The_Mark2006.htm

maybe you didn't dig deep enough.

Those are available for every analysis year and the links are all down the right side of every single one of them.

not the "here's my favourite guy" list that you suggest

[Reggie Dunlop]

not the "here's my favourite guy" list that you suggest

Well, I'm hope I'm not coming across as unduly critical. Far from it. I realize that you've put a great deal of work into this in the past.

Just suggesting some out-of-box suggestions to change things up a bit. I don't think a database need be written in stone.

[Bingo]

No I'm cool with any suggestions for presentation and analysis ... I love that stuff. But the drivers behind it ... that consistency is important in my mind so you can tie the years together.

[Reggie Dunlop]

No I'm cool with any suggestions for presentation and analysis ... I love that stuff. But the drivers behind it ... that consistency is important in my mind so you can tie the years together.

What's in the vault is in the vault -- taken out, dusted off and examined from time to time. Still a worthwhile activity.

The game evolves, player selection criteria changes. Here's an example: the changes in the economic structure of European leagues might necessitate the inclusion of a new criteria of "Flight Risk" being added. Again, this is but an example of the sort of thing that can influence evaluations differently than in the past.

In my mind, how to improve the CalgaryPuck feature going forward is worth examining.

[Bingo]

you know what ... whatever

I get tired of this endless bickering to be honest. I believe there's a few things in play here.

1. it's a fan site. You can't make it too complex or you don't get enough people in it.
2. I like the historical link
3. I'm good for analytical suggestions.

I hope that works for you.

[Reggie Dunlop]

I get tired of this endless bickering to be honest. I believe there's a few things in play here.

1. it's a fan site. You can't make it too complex or you don't get enough people in it.
2. I like the historical link
3. I'm good for analytical suggestions.

I hope that works for you.

Well, I hope I wasn't coming across that way for the sake of being argumentative. I was suggesting some new ideas I thought have merit.

But you're right, it's your call.

[icarus]

I say stick to the old methodology. There is no way of ranking prospects that will ever be perfect, Bingo's way is pretty good IMO, and it keep things consistent and simple.

[Reggie Dunlop]

I say stick to the old methodology. There is no way of ranking prospects that will ever be perfect, Bingo's way is pretty good IMO, and it keep things consistent and simple.

Feller asked if he should continue the feature. That suggests to me that there was some hestitation. Since that was the case, I thought it was fair to offer some input on how it might be approached differently.

[icarus]

Feller asked if he should continue the feature. That suggests to me that there was some hestitation. Since that was the case, I thought it was fair to offer some input on how it might be approached differently.It is fair to offer input. That's why I offered mine.

[Ro]

Maybe we can add a couple new twists to things this year? Like the suggested "rising" or "dropping" or "stagnant" categories, and maybe instead of a straight up ranking of our prospects from 1-25 or whatever, perhaps we could vote on each guy's most likely NHL career potential.

Something like this:

Dustin Boyd:

1) top six guy who will be a superstar
2) top six guy who will get 50-70 points a season during his prime
3) top nine forward who will get 30-50 points...
4) bottom six guy
5) fringe NHLer
6) career minor leaguer

Something to that effect. Maybe a few more options in there. We could even tweak it based on the type of player each kid is projected to be (scorer, two-way, top six, bottom six, checker, fighter, defensive d-man, two-way d-man, etc.).

Feller asked if he should continue the feature. That suggests to me that there was some hestitation. Since that was the case, I thought it was fair to offer some input on how it might be approached differently.

That's how I read things too Reg. One, is it even worth it (are people interested), and two, should we tweak how it's done. Personally, I like the idea of putting up a series of polls. Might get more votes than in the past, and it gives all the mods the option to put them up, instead of just one or two guys being responsible for all the work.

I dunno.

[Bingo]

that's pretty close to our potential guide I think

http://www.calgarypuck.com/Rating_Guide2003.htm

[SebC]

It's like it the way it is... let's us look back more easily. Bingo, looks like you have some work to do! The people have spoken!