I like most lists, especially the ones that describe the player and make you understand why the person putting together the list really feels that way.
McKenzie's lists are aggregate, so no explanation needed really.
I may not agree with Pronman, or Craig, or whomever, but they put their lists out there every year, and they usually describe why they feel that way about each selection. They are able to defend it. To me, that's worth more than just a list that is just stat watching with vague descriptions. FC describes the players in-depth too. The Hockey Writers. Etc.
It is a tough thing to do, IMO. How do you make the top 50 kids sound different enough from one another, even if you have watched them a lot. How do you pick up on their strengths and weaknesses, especially on a year like this? How do you start ranking them. Do that, and then explain it to me and defend it, and I will appreciate your work a heck of a lot more.
Craig Button is often right. He is often wrong. I respect him because he does his own thing, explains what he sees and defends it.
|