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

17[hockeydisk] Re: Faceoff rating

Expand Messages
  • Tim
    Jul 5, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      The APBA Disk is a yearly Disk and should reflect how a player played during
      that "year" otherwise the ratings would never change and there would be no
      need for a big disk change every year, just a stats updated disk. The Disk
      reflect what that player did during "that" year. Nothing more nothing less.

      Tim Stewart
      SSHL Commissioner

      -----Original Message-----
      From: nickh68@... <nickh68@...>
      To: hockeydisk@egroups.com <hockeydisk@egroups.com>
      Date: July 5, 1999 5:51 PM
      Subject: [hockeydisk] Re: Faceoff rating

      >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
      >FreeShop is the #1 place for free and trial offers and great deals!
      >Try something new and find out how you could win two round-trip tickets
      >anywhere in the U.S.! http://clickhere.egroups.com/click/368
      >eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/hockeydisk
      >http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications


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