Prognosticating

Like the majority of hockey fans--at least those of us in the USA--I get most of my hockey news on the interwebs.  Gone are the days when I was able to go to the nearest newsstand and buy at least TWO hockey publications per week.  But at this time of year--as long as I'm somewhere that actually CARRIES hockey mags--I'm able to get a bunch of magazines that will preview the coming season.  And I read every one of them--for better or for worse.  This week, I'm reading The Hockey News yearbook. 

It amuses me to read the lists of 'what team will end the season where'--especially the way these mags have been SO wrong in the past.  Obviously, these lists are done 'by committee' and I'm sure personal opinions come into play when picks are made.  After all, these ARE just human beings doing the lists, so personal favorites would HAVE to be part of the decision making process.  And for the most part, that is why the different mags will come up with different results.  And this year, The Hockey News has decided that the Vancouver Canucks will win the Stanley Cup.  AND that Detroit will be third in the west.  AND that Pittsburgh is quite strong--and will place second in the east.  AND that Chicago might have lost a lot, but is still an elite team that will be in the mix for defending their title.  Whatever.  As I said, I read these mostly for amusement--and then I read them halfway through the season and again at the end of the season, just so I can laugh at how wrong the predictions were.

The one thing from all of these magazines that DOES bother me, however, are their 'Top {insert number here}' lists.  The Hockey News has their Top 50 players and, of course, I take exception with the position of some of the players.  As a Red Wing fan, I can't believe that Datsyuk is a #4.  Or Lidstrom is #17.  Or Zetterberg is #22.  AND that they are the only Wings to make the list.  But, I AM biased.  ;)

Of course, #1 and #2 are Crosby and Ovechkin.  Everyone can be grateful that I am not a GM, because I would never have either one of these guys on my team.  I WILL admit that they are talented, but I couldn't be a GM because I look at players too emotionally and not as to how well they play.  Crosby wouldn't be on my team because--well, he's CROSBY!  We all know the reasons to hate him.  And I really don't like Ovechkin.  And the reason?  I think Ovechkin is the complete stereotypical, over-the-top athlete that people point to when they say why they hate sports.  While some people say he is good for the sport because he adds excitement--much like some feel about Sean Avery--I am very old-fashioned and enjoy the low-key, humble, typical hockey player.  Something Ovechkin would NEVER be accused of being.  But enough of this.

I know that The Hockey News got input from "GMs, pro scouts and analysts," but I still don't understand why some of these players made the list.  I guess I don't know HOW they picked some of these players as the best "right here and right now" with comments about them such as this: 

"his scoring totals and plus-minus took a serious dip last season"

"he can...be a disaster in his own end and his playoff performance has been seriously lacking"

"...reputation has taken a beating...largely due to his inability at key moments"

" the team "had to put out an APB on him during the playoffs...and he sometimes has tunnel vision when it comes to offensive play...has the skill to become an elite NHL goal-scorer" but "does he have the will to do it?"

"you just wish he'd get a little more...involved"


The Hockey News measured the "on-ice contributions" of the players in order to decide who made this list.  "...future potential and, to a lesser extent, past performance" were factors in rating the "best players going into the 2010-11 season."  If past performance isn't going to be the BIGGEST factor in deciding the best players, how did they factor in on-ice contributions?  It just isn't computing for me.  But again, these are JUST human beings making the list, so bias will DEFINITELY be present.

Of course, I have no suggestion as to how these lists SHOULD be made.  You could always put all of the info into a computer and have a list made in a simple, logical manner, but we ALL know that statistics aren't the only factors in deciding great players.  And the longer I watch hockey, I see this more and more clearly.