Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

14[hockeydisk] Re: Faceoff rating

Expand Messages
  • nickh68@hotmail.com
    Jul 5, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      Brett Hall wrote:

      > Judging by his statistics . . . Francis would most likely be given a 4
      > 'FO' rating. In the past he has certainly been one of the best, and if
      > statistics were not readily available for faceoffs, he would probably
      > receive a 5 based upon his reputation. However, a 4 would be the
      > 'correct' rating.
      > You may disagree with this, but permit me to ask you, sir, would
      > you rather the players be rated on reputation or how they actually
      > performed that particular year? There are players that receive
      > tremendous ratings year after year, based on reputation alone.

      ---> I think that the "veterans" in the league, who have been
      around for a couple of seasons, should be given ratings going
      by reputation, but not reputation only. But when it comes to
      Francis, you know that he's one of the best faceoffers in the
      league, so you give him 4 or 5 on faceoffs instead of maybe 3,
      because of his reputation. That's correct (at least that's my
      opinion). But when we talk about other ratings, such as skating
      or speed, a player can be known for his speed or skating abilities,
      but over the years his age might have caught up with him and he
      shouldn't get 5's on skating and speed anymore.

      So I think that reputation is important, but it depends what
      ratings we're talking about. A guy like Messier is so good
      allround, that he should still have 4's and 5's, but not for
      skating and speed and maybe some other ratings if he's not
      worth them.

      I also think that the players shouldn't be judged by their +/-
      too much. Players in Tampa Bay get very bad +/-, but might
      actually be solid or even good defensively. One good example
      is rookie Pavel Kubina, who had -32. I've seen him play when
      the Czech Republic won the World Championships. I know that
      you can't compare it to the NHL, but he was very impressing
      in his own end and should get 3 on D...I don't know what he'll
      get, but it's not impossible that he'll end up with 2 or maybe
      even 1 because of his poor +/-. He was playing a lot while
      killing penalties, which also proves that he is solid on D.
      There are many examples I could bring up here, but I think
      that Kubina is a perfect example. Bad team, bad ratings.

      > Chelios and Messier are good examples. Chelios is still a very
      > good defensive defenseman, but has he deserved a 5 'D' and 'CL'
      > rating the last couple of years? I would say 'no'.

      ---> True, but I still think that they should stay good, since
      they are valuable to their teams as Captains or veterans
      and they bring leadership. This leadership must be shown in
      the ratings and to give them high D ratings and other important
      ratings, will mean that they help your team in the playoffs.
      (When it comes to Messier and Chelios that is)
      At least I like to think so.

      > Mark Messier is more of a perimeter player now, but continues to
      > receive high marks in 'PH' and 'IN' due to his reputation.
      > It's really no different than a top scorer having an 'off-year' or a
      > mediocre player having a 'career-year'. The idea is for the players
      > to perform, as close as possible, the way they did that particular
      > year.

      ---> I agree, but I also think that when there is a top scorer
      having an "off-year", then he still should recieve the good
      ratings and not get worse. His stats are worse, so he'll perform
      worse. The ratings should be changed when a player goes from 1st
      or 2nd liner to the checking line or 4th line. Or when someone
      has a tremendous year without having done much in earlier seasons,
      then he should get the ratings of a good player or star.

      > Bruce Carriker could give you the exact cutoff points, as I don't
      > remember them. However, the amount of faceoffs is taken into
      > consideration when determining the faceoff rating. Someone like
      > Francis with a 51% FOW% might normally receive a 3 (or maybe a
      > 2 if he only took 20 faceoffs or some low figure), however since he
      > took almost 30% of his team's faceoffs, he would be raised to a 4.
      > Hope this helps.

      ---> Yes, this was what I was looking for, thanks !
      And I'm glad to see that reputation will be considered when it
      comes to faceoffs, something I think is very important in the NHL
      as well as in APBA leagues.

      Once again, thanks Brett.

      Nick Houda


      eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/hockeydisk
      http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
    • Show all 10 messages in this topic