Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
There has to be some balance between perceived potential and actual results. Just because player X was drafted early does not mean he retains that high potential. Player Y may be drafted after player X but vault past him because of actual development.
|
Of course this is true, but if you do not factor in actual results for just drafted prospects, who have not had the chance yet to play in the NHL, then this will always prejudice the results against them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
For example, Nail Yakupov was drafted 1st overall. He has huge potential. Teuvo Teravainen was drafted 17 picks later, so should have lesser potential. I would say the better prospect is Teravainen because he has shown some excellent development while Yakupov has fallen on his face.
|
Sure, but one of the reasons for these annual polls is not just to see how players project in the minds of fans, it is also to help track the development of players over the years. Yakupov started his career as a higher rated prospect than TEravainen—I don't think that is at all beyond dispute. But he currently is probably no longer to projected as better, since his history is trending in the wrong direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
I personally don't like including just drafted players in these polls because they haven't been given an opportunity to display if the investment has potential to payoff. I can see Bennett getting the nod because of his top five draft status, but he will naturally have a lot to do to maintain his ranking.
|
NO. Bennett is getting the nod because his top-five draft status is an accurate reflection of just how good a player he is compared to his peers. Of course his potential and fans' perceptions about him are liable to change. But when assessing the value of assets within the organisation, it makes little sense to ignore some of those assets simply because we know a little less about them. We know enough to make educated guesses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
Other players have been given that opportunity to prove themselves and show a positive growth curve, so they should be considered better prospects. Players that don't prove to be improving should see their potential and ranking diminish, no?
|
Absolutely. But if we are not ranking the newest prospects in the first place, then there is no base point from which to gauge how they are progressing / regressing in the eyes of fans.
One of the best things about Bingo's polls is the ability we have to look backwards. If we don't start ranking prospects on their long-term potential from the beginning, then this picture in hindsight is less complete, and much less interesting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
...Or is that nonsense too?
|
The shoe fits.