Player Discussion The missed franchise turning point was drafting Price over Kopitar

[Chet-Nick]

I don't think Price is a sure Hall of Famer. His MVP season and Vezina are huge credentials. But Theodore ain't going. Price has accomplished much more than Theo they're not even in the same universe. But if Price were to fall off a cliff at 33 or 34, not sure he makes it.

Carey was named to the NHL All-Rookie Team. Has played in countless All-Star Games. Won the Jennings Trophy too.

I'm not even bringing up his success at the World Cup of Hockey or Olympics.

When observing their careers as a whole. One can't compare Jose to Carey. Not even close.

 

[26Mats]

Carey was named to the NHL All-Rookie Team. Has played in countless All-Star Games. Won the Jennings Trophy too.

I'm not even bringing up his success at the World Cup of Hockey or Olympics.

When observing their careers as a whole. One can't compare Jose to Carey. Not even close.

Isn't that what I said?

 

[HotPie]

Ive identified mine. Thus far I haven't seen yours.

Not all ideas or concepts are equal.

A context of "good" that ignores the landscape or comparables and assesses effectiveness from a purely subjective lens make for entertaining sport talking head fodder & hyperbole, but little else.

It's true that perhaps not all ideas or concepts are equal, but I believe you're mistaken if you think yours is somehow "better" because it's more "simple", and quantifiable. Moreover, the vast majority of sports talk in general is almost entirely subjective, and to claim that it isn't is absurd.

Take your metric for example. You define a good scouting/drafting record purely as number of games played in the NHL. That in itself is arbitrary, and thus subjective. Sure, it's simple, and easy to quantify and thus compare, but it's nevertheless arbitrary, there's absolutely no consensus on this definition. Moreover, I'd even make the argument that it's reductive, overly simplistic, and fails to capture what it actually means to have a good drafting record. Of course, according to your conceptual scheme, Timmins has a "good" draft record, but it's nothing more than your conceptual scheme, and the value derived from it is questionable. I, and I'm sure many, don't see much value in the ability to consistently draft NHL plugs, and it's certainly not an indication of good drafting. Just look at the thread of the list of 1st rounders we've drafted over the last 12 years; that list is pretty shameful.

I think a far better scheme is to determine a good drafting record based, as others have already pointed out in this thread, on the number of quality players. Now, surely you'll object to this by saying that player quality is far more "abstract", and difficult to quantify, but that doesn't necessarily make it less valuable, merely more difficult to assess. Your criteria is way too reductive, and fails to even capture what the scouting team is even trying to do when drafting. Scouts don't draft based on their perception of how many games (x) player is going to play in the NHL, they draft based on the (perceived) quality of that player. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to use that as a criteria for evaluating a good drafting record; certainly not as the only criteria. It makes a lot more sense to judge a scouting department based on what their job actually is, rather than some other arbitrary notion that their job doesn't entail.

 

[Miller Time]

It's true that perhaps not all ideas or concepts are equal, but I believe you're mistaken if you think yours is somehow "better" because it's more "simple", and quantifiable. Moreover, the vast majority of sports talk in general is almost entirely subjective, and to claim that it isn't is absurd.

Take your metric for example. You define a good scouting/drafting record purely as number of games played in the NHL. That in itself is arbitrary. Sure, it's simple, and easy to quantify and thus compare, but it's nevertheless arbitrary, there's absolutely no consensus on this definition. Moreover, I'd even make the argument that it's reductive, simplistic, and fails to capture what it actually means to have a good drafting record. Of course, according to your conceptual scheme, Timmins has a "good" draft record, but it's nothing more than your conceptual scheme, and the value derived from it is very debatable. I, and I'm sure many, don't see much value in the ability to consistently draft NHL plugs, and it's certainly not an indication of good drafting. Just look at the thread of the list of 1st rounders we've drafted over the last 12 years; that list is pretty shameful.

I think a far better scheme is to determine what's a good drafting record based, as others have already pointed out in this thread, as the number of quality players. Now, surely you'll object to this by saying that player quality is far more "abstract", and difficult to quantify, but that doesn't necessarily make it less valuable, merely more difficult to assess. Your criteria is way too reductive, and fails to even capture what the scouting team is even trying to do when drafting. Scouts don't draft based on their perception of how many games (x) player is going to play in the NHL, they draft based on the (perceived) quality of that player. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to use that as a criteria for evaluating a good drafting record, certainly not as the only criteria. It makes a lot more sense to judge a scouting department based on what their job actually is, rather than some other arbitrary notion that their job doesn't entail.

A long post with little substance and guilty of the very thing in purports to critique...

A scouts primary job is to identify NHL talent. Games played at the NHL level is both the most accurate and simple way to evaluate that.

The complex nature of player development and team success is neither negated nor ignored by that reality.

It's both silly and useless to evaluate the quality of a scouting department based solely on the quality of player drafted. Unless you think the Oilers scouting team drafting McDavid or the Pens drafting Crosby are proof of their incredible skill....

Classic example of mistaking outcome for process. The very complexity you speak of is completely unaccounted for in such a poorly framed evaluation standard.

 

[HotPie]

A long post with little substance and guilty of the very thing in purports to critique...

A scouts primary job is to identify NHL talent. Games played at the NHL level is both the most accurate and simple way to evaluate that.

The complex nature of player development and team success is neither negated nor ignored by that reality.

Yes, a Scout's job is to identify player talent. They identify that talent based on the quality of that player, not by the expected amount of games that player is going to play in the NHL. Designing a criteria to assess a good drafting record based on something that scouts don't even do is ridiculous.

 

[Miller Time]

Yes, a Scout's job is to identify player talent. They identify that talent based on the quality of that player, not by the expected amount of games that player is going to play in the NHL. Designing a criteria to assess a good drafting record based on something that scouts don't even do is ridiculous.

Completely wrong.

A major part of scouting is understanding the intangibles a player possess precisely because those are better indicators of professional success than talent alone.

Professional success is the ability to sustain a career, not a one off highlight reel (see Yakupov, Nail)

 

[HotPie]

Completely wrong.

A major part of scouting is understanding the intangibles a player possess precisely because those are better indicators of professional success than talent alone.

Your post has very little to what I actually said, and in fact reinforces what I'm saying. The point is that scouts draft based on the perceived quality of that player, including intangibles; the quality of the player presupposes that they will be able to sustain a career. They don't draft based on how many games they expect that player to play in the NHL. Assessing them based on something they don't even do, is ridiculous.

Scouts draft players based on a lot more than the ability to sustain an NHL career, and thus assessing them purely on this criteria makes little sense. Number of games played doesn't help win championships, which is the end goal of every team.

 

[Miller Time]

Your post has very little to what I actually said, and in fact reinforces what I'm saying. The point is that scouts draft based on the perceived quality of that player, including intangibles; the quality of the player presupposes that they will be able to sustain a career. They don't draft based on how many games they expect that player to play in the NHL. Assessing them based on something they don't even do, is ridiculous.

Scouts draft players based on a lot more than the ability to sustain an NHL career, and thus assessing them purely on this criteria makes little sense.

you are, incorrectly, inferring the "purely on this criteria"... i never suggested that it was the only criteria from which to assess a scouting deparment.
However of the criteria available to evaluate a scouting department in a pro sport that operates from a draft system, number of pro games played by players drafter remains one of the better, and I'd argue the most important, criteria to consider in evaluating the effectiveness of a scouting department at doing what is their primary responsibility... identifying talented teens that will progress to the professional ranks.

You also seem to conflate drafting and scouting... The scouts don't draft. They evaluate.
the draft itself is rarely run, especially in the early rounds, by the scouting department. GMs more often than not hold the decision-making authority (and in some cases, even owners), and yes, often times will draft in the early rounds based on a host of factors that may lead them to ignore or go against the advice of their scouting departments, and prioritize specific skills/talent over other qualities often more tied to career success/longevity.

this is but a further reason that in evaluating the success or competency of a particular scouting department or head of scouting, number of games played is a much much better evaulation metric (again, not the SOLE metric, no matter how convenient that narrative is to your argument) than the high-end talent (which, itself is also subjective in its evaluation... are you using goals? points? wins? sv %? ice time? how exactly do you quantify this "talent" criteria you put forward).

also, the bolded is completely false... "Quality" is a subjective element, for starters, and again, scouting evaluation is often quite intentionally split between ceiling and likelihood to achieve it (talent vs odds of being a good pro), one does not at all presuppose the other.

 

[HotPie]

you are, incorrectly, inferring the "purely on this criteria"... i never suggested that it was the only criteria from which to assess a scouting deparment.
However of the criteria available to evaluate a scouting department in a pro sport that operates from a draft system, number of pro games played by players drafter remains one of the better, and I'd argue the most important, criteria to consider in evaluating the effectiveness of a scouting department at doing what is their primary responsibility... identifying talented teens that will progress to the professional ranks.

You also seem to conflate drafting and scouting... The scouts don't draft. They evaluate.
the draft itself is rarely run, especially in the early rounds, by the scouting department. GMs more often than not hold the decision-making authority (and in some cases, even owners), and yes, often times will draft in the early rounds based on a host of factors that may lead them to ignore or go against the advice of their scouting departments, and prioritize specific skills/talent over other qualities often more tied to career success/longevity.

this is but a further reason that in evaluating the success or competency of a particular scouting department or head of scouting, number of games played is a much much better evaulation metric (again, not the SOLE metric, no matter how convenient that narrative is to your argument) than the high-end talent (which, itself is also subjective in its evaluation... are you using goals? points? wins? sv %? ice time? how exactly do you quantify this "talent" criteria you put forward).

also, the bolded is completely false... "Quality" is a subjective element, for starters, and again, scouting evaluation is often quite intentionally split between ceiling and likelihood to achieve it (talent vs odds of being a good pro), one does not at all presuppose the other.

But see, we're arguing in circles again. Also, you seem to have changed your stance from number of games played being the sole criteria, merely to "primary" criteria.

I've already acknowledged that using player quality (which again, is neither the SOLE criteria of my assessment, and also presupposes the ability to sustain an NHL career) is more "subjective", at least in terms of qualifying what it means to be quality. And I say presupposes, because I have a hard time believing that players get drafted without any expectation that they can sustain an NHL career, although, as you said, there is a spectrum between ceiling and likelihood to achieve it.

My point is that scouts, when evaluating talent, simply do not use the amount of games a player is projected to play as a measure to evaluate that player. Their assessment seems to be based on the quality of that player, as I said, the quality of that player presupposes that they can sustain an NHL career.

Your argument seems to be that it's too difficult to assess the quality of a player, and therefore shouldn't be used as a criteria to assess scouts. Again, this is absurd. Using number of games played as the "primary" criteria fails to account for what a scout is primarily involved in doing when evaluating a player, and thus fails as a meaningful measure to evaluate them. As I stated earlier, it's reductive, and overly simplistic. You argue that my criteria is too broad and subjective, and I argue that your criteria is far too narrow and overly simplistic, and also subjective.

Either way, I'm not necessarily trying to convince you, and if you're trying to convince me, it has thus far failed. I was merely curious from the onset whether people still defend Timmins, and you confirmed to me that somehow, people still do.

 

[Miller Time]

But see, we're arguing in circles again. Also, you seem to have changed your stance from number of games played being the sole criteria, merely to "primary" criteria.

I've already acknowledged that using player quality (which again, is neither the SOLE criteria of my assessment, and also presupposes the ability to sustain an NHL career) is more "subjective", at least in terms of qualifying what it means to be quality. And I say presupposes, because I have a hard time believing that players get drafted without any expectation that they can sustain an NHL career, although, as you said, there is a spectrum between ceiling and likelihood to achieve it.

My point is that scouts, when evaluating talent, simply do not use the amount of games a player is projected to play as a measure to evaluate that player. Their assessment seems to be based on the quality of that player, as I said, the quality of that player presupposes that they can sustain an NHL career.

Your argument seems to be that it's too difficult to assess the quality of a player, and therefore shouldn't be used as a criteria to assess scouts. Again, this is absurd. Using number of games played as the "primary" criteria fails to account for what a scout is primarily involved in doing when evaluating a player, and thus fails as a meaningful measure to evaluate them. As I stated earlier, it's reductive, and overly simplistic. You argue that my criteria is too broad and subjective, and I argue that your criteria is far too narrow and overly simplistic.

Either way, I'm not necessarily trying to convince you, and if you're trying to convince me, it has thus far failed. I was merely curious from the onset whether people still defend Timmins, and you confirmed to me that somehow, people still do.

Yes, some posters do continue to evaluate the work of our scouting department differently than others... not sure a post was needed for such an obvious question.

I'm arguing that your position is nonsencical and ignores the very nature of scouting and drafting. It's not "too broad", it's simply irrelevant and not reflective of the actual profession.

and, since you continue to repeat things i have not stated, obviously your understanding of my argument is flawed. But, as a general practice, in most sport professions invovling evaluation, clearly identifying the core practices/metrics is not a question of being "too narrow/simplistic", but instead, a function of recognizing which variables are most important and appreciating that the very complexity involved demands clarity and precision of what the most significant levers/variables are That does not exclude the myriad of other considerations but instead allows for better assessments that are "better" because the more appropriately weight the elements being considered.

 

[HotPie]

Yes, some posters do continue to evaluate the work of our scouting department differently than others... not sure a post was needed for such an obvious question.

I'm arguing that your position is nonsencical and ignores the very nature of scouting and drafting. It's not "too broad", it's simply irrelevant and not reflective of the actual profession.

and, since you continue to repeat things i have not stated, obviously your understanding of my argument is flawed. But, as a general practice, in most sport professions invovling evaluation, clearly identifying the core practices/metrics is not a question of being "too narrow/simplistic", but instead, a function of recognizing which variables are most important and appreciating that the very complexity involved demands clarity and precision of what the most significant levers/variables are That does not exclude the myriad of other considerations but instead allows for better assessments that are "better" because the more appropriately weight the elements being considered.

Well, it seems we mutually view each others view as nonsensical, and not understanding the very nature of scouting and drafting.