The Survey Says! Rich Hammond’s Player Evaluations Revealed…

Share on TwitterShare on Facebook+1Share on TumblrDigg ThisSubmit to redditShare via email
LA Kings, Los Angeles Kings, NHL Hockey,

Jonathan Quick enjoys a moment after winning the Stanley Cup – Photo: IKIRI

RICH HAMMOND’S RECENTLY COMPLETED PLAYER EVALUATIONS REVEAL HIGH MARKS AS JUDGED BY FANS AND READERS OF THE POPULAR BLOG

In his annual evaluation of Kings players, LA Kings Insider Rich Hammond looked back on the Kings’ historic season, player-by-player, as well as what fans can expect from their defending Stanley Cup Champion team in the upcoming 2012-13 campaign.

The tables below show the Kings roster on June 11th, 2012 – the day they won the Cup. Season grades, as voted by fans, are shown in parenthesis and linked to each of Rich’s evaluations. In addition, here are my observations of the grading results…

  • Of the forwards, only 2 players received an A (Brown and Kopitar)
  • Only 2 ‘starters’ received less than a B (Penner and Gagne received a C+)
  • All forward ‘scratches’ received a C or C+
  • Of the defensemen, 3 players received an A (Mitchell, Scuderi and Greene)
  • Those 3 happen to be ‘stay-at-home’ defensemen
  • No defenseman received less than a B except Davis Drewiske
  • No surprise on Quick’s grade. He received an A from 98% of fans

FORWARDS

Kyle Clifford (C+) - Andrei Loktionov (C) - Brad Richardson (C+) - Kevin Westgarth (C)

DEFENSE

DavisDrewiske (C)

  • http://kingsnewsdaily.com variable

    if yr grading the season in it’s entirety and the playoffs, then those who voted did a pretty good job, with some generous grades here and there….

    but the voting was only for the regular season…(i believe)….and in that case, how don’t richardson, penner, loktionov and maybe cliffy receive lower grades…?

    obviously, this poll should have been done the final week of the regular season….and then you could go into a more complete “season in review” after the playoffs are over.and get intricate with opinion, CORSI stats, etc….

    i think many who voted – and for the record, the only vote i casted was for quick – got caught up in the totality of what the team accomplished….and that’s okay…i know it’s human nature to exaggerate grades after you win the stanley cup…

    but many of our players had career lo lows in points and many struggled until about game 60 of the regular season….the fact that bernier and penner got a B and C+, respectively, is suspect to say the least…

    but it really doesn’t matter how you start – in this year’s kings case – than how you finish….and they will have to start all over again (CBA permitting) in a few months anyway….

    for the long-term memories, we are the champs – and that’s fuckin’ awesome…
    for the short-term memories that have now faded, like the style we used to play pre-sutter,..they have forgotten already how perilously this season was and how it came down to game 81 to make history possible….

    and either way, that’s okay, too…

    STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS….(!)

    • Paul Armbruster

      That pretty much sums up my thoughts as well. Clearly the grading is bias beyond belief and as you indicated, it’s naturally expected. There was no instruction as to how to grade so I think everyone did their best to incorporate both the regular season and playoffs. It would have been fun to have 2 polls, side by side. One for the regular season and one for the playoffs. I think we’d all agree the biggest swing would have been Penner going from and F to an A!

    • Robyn Pennington

      Based on the comments I read, I’d say most people voted with the playoffs in mind combined with the regular season, since there were no specific instructions on how fans should vote.

      • Paul Armbruster

        Yep, agreed. As I said, two polls would have been fun.

    • john

      I think it’s safe to say that I am somebody who handed out high marks due to the end result, and, had we not won, I probably would not be here. The only time the voting became unclear to me was when I read the comments about season vs playoffs. I always assumed the voting was through the Stanley Cup Finals. As things started to come together, I was influenced by Lombardi and others talking about moving people around, trying to find the right fit, and how certain players(Stoll) were put into unfamiliar roles. When Richards was featured on NHL 360 he talked about being a new guy, and how things take time. One question that I pose is how would we grade The Canucks if we are fans of the Presidents Cup winner. Best record facing an 8 seed coming off a game 7 loss the previous year to Boston.Talk about high expectations.I would think that my team looked beyond the 8 seed and because of that their grades should suffer.. I think the grades are one, as in combined. You see almost every hockey player say it in an interview and that is that the ultimate goal is to win the Stanley Cup. The Canucks proved that a great season, with everybody earning high marks, means nothing. If Burrows gets an A for the regular season, my final grade is B(although, some King trollers gave him F). My grades ranged from C to A and were heavily influenced by the complete domination thoughout. With Gagne I looked at his previous stats, concussion, playing for a new team, new line and conclude that he has not settled in. Inconclusive, so he gets an A from me because I was so moved by DS playing him, and because he won The Cup. Winning The Stanley Cup gives us certain liberties when it comes down to voting and I hope this problem haunts us for years to come.

    • Kingsfanone

      Excuse me………..”that’s fuckin’ awesome…”

      Totally fuckin’ agreed! : D

  • Michael J.

    Thanks for the work Paul.

    I’m wondering how you came up with the final grades. Did you calculate for “variable”s such as Brian Heyward’s votes? How did you come up with the standard deviation? Do the grades represent the means? Modes? How can we know that the external validity is not compromised by angre New Jersey fans? Should I be concerned that Rich was a journalism major, therefor the construct validity might not be viable?

    yes, its a very slow day…

    • Paul Armbruster

      I mainly used credit default swaps as my blogger poll derivative of choice. Therefore, the results should be completely screwed up and probably in need of a bailout. :)

  • http://jewelsfromthecrown.com Dominick (defrim65)

    Excellent work. I personally would make a few grades lower, and a few higher, but that’s my prerogitive because my list is my own.

    Interesting that all the spare forwards ended up C’s across the board when the spares jobs are to be spares that can be added to our depth, but seem to be judged on being spares simply because they’re not fultime contributors. Every team has spares, and ours are better than most teams spares.

    Just my thoughts.

    • Paul Armbruster

      I found that interesting to and believe it reflects an overall lack of knowledge of the game IMO. How can no spare get better than a C on a Stanley Cup winning team when all the other players are getting higher marks? For example, for what Westy brings to the club, he did a very good job and gave it everything he had. Grade: B or even an A.

      • http://jewelsfromthecrown.com Dominick (defim65)

        Agree whole heartedly.