Prospect Info: 2019-20 Flyers Prospects - Top 30 SKATERS, #14

[Ghosts Beer]

Be smug about how allegedly more educated about prospects you are than everyone, but the bet is on the table: Ginning plays more NHL games than Vorobyev.

 

[wasup]

Yes. Saying a top 50 pick from a year ago isn't a top 15 (or top 30) prospect in the system isn’t going against the grain.

This place sucks. Give someone too much praise = overrated. Criticize someone too much = whipping boy.

Not like the last whipping boy didn’t turn out to be quite possibly the worst defenseman in the league or anything. Or the most overrated prospect in hockey turned out to be a bonafide stud. It’s almost like some people know what they are taking about and aren’t just taking out of their asses about players they’ve never taken time to actually watch and evaluate. Just lazy.

Is this your attempt at patting your self on the back . On here is a bunch of video watchers and guys that like hockey and think they know more that people who work for the Flyers full time and watch these players live , and 10 times more . I’m not saying Ginning is great but flat out calling him a scrub when Sweden uses him on their top pair and playing in the SHL last year does count for more than scrub status. Personally I have him just making the cut but that’s just me .

 

[TB87]

This place sucks. Give someone too much praise = overrated. Criticize someone too much = whipping boy.

Yep. It seems we’re incapable of thought independent of outside influence!

If I heap praise on a player or criticize a player’s flaws it is entirely based on my own observations. If you fine people see the same things I’m seeing....cool. If not, also cool. This place doesn’t run on groupthink. Anyone who thinks so are members of the Thought Police and no one can convince me otherwise.

 

[Striiker]

Is this your attempt at patting your self on the back . On here is a bunch of video watchers and guys that like hockey and think they know more that people who work for the Flyers full time and watch these players live , and 10 times more . I’m not saying Ginning is great but flat out calling him a scrub when Sweden uses him on their top pair and playing in the SHL last year does count for more than scrub status. Personally I have him just making the cut but that’s just me .

Hagg got used on our top pair and he's still a scrub, so the elevated usage of a player doesn't really mean all that much.

 

[Rebels57]

I do think there is quite a bit of arrogance around here, but that doesnt change the fact that Ginning is dookie on skates.

 

[Magua]

Is this your attempt at patting your self on the back . On here is a bunch of video watchers and guys that like hockey and think they know more that people who work for the Flyers full time and watch these players live , and 10 times more . I’m not saying Ginning is great but flat out calling him a scrub when Sweden uses him on their top pair and playing in the SHL last year does count for more than scrub status. Personally I have him just making the cut but that’s just me .

I don't think there's a sport that so mythologizes in-person scouting like hockey, though it's pretty par for the course given it's the most backwards major professional sport. I sense ulterior motives (and a hint of professional worry) when I read some of these things. Every sport video scouts, often as a primary method. When teams themselves prepare and analyze opponents......guess what they use? If a player looks like shit on video, no special sound his blades make when they cut the ice will make you think topsy-turvy.

You're someone who watches these guys -- a former USHL scout yourself. You have strong opinions on prospects and never are reluctant to share them. To belittle someone else for sharing their researched opinion -- often against the grain or calling their shot early or resolutely sticking by that opinion through thick and thin -- seems a little hypocritical, no?

You slag on someone like O'Brien. Guess what? You think you know more than the people who work for the Flyers full time and watch these players live and 10 times more....and used a 19th overall pick, not a 50th, on him? I'm being facetious, but my point is clear. Appeals to authority -- authorities wrong time and time again and not just at the guess work amateur level -- regularly come up limp.

Have a well-thought out opinion? Speak it. I can give you many specific details in Ginning's game that concern me. Saying Sweden plays him a lot of minutes, or that he plays in the SHL (I should hope so for a 2nd round pick!) is no justification or breakdown to me. It's the exact opposite.

 

[FLYguy3911]

Is this your attempt at patting your self on the back . On here is a bunch of video watchers and guys that like hockey and think they know more that people who work for the Flyers full time and watch these players live , and 10 times more . I’m not saying Ginning is great but flat out calling him a scrub when Sweden uses him on their top pair and playing in the SHL last year does count for more than scrub status. Personally I have him just making the cut but that’s just me .

Appeal to authority 101.

You can pretty much replace the name Ginning with Hagg and it’s HF 2014.

 

[deadhead]

Except if Hagg had continued to improve, instead of regressing, rebounding and then flatlining, he'd be a solid 3rd pair D-man, and could still become one with good coaching. He can skate, he has some offensive chops, Hagg just needs to stop chasing hits, play within himself and use his size effectively in front of the net. He's still young enough to turn his career around, it happens frequently.

Ginning is only 19, he's been starting in the SHL for a couple years, he's trusted by his coaches, there's something to work with there. He's not going to be a top 4 defensemen, but most guys picked late in the 2nd round are unlikely to be NHL defensemen, period (25-30% or so). Right now he may not look very smooth, but bigger players often take longer to mature (see Morin), if he hasn't improved in a couple years, then write him off.

I think some people are fixated on mobile, skilled offensive defensemen, but there's only one puck, if you have one defenseman being aggressive in the O-zone, having a partner CYA isn't a bad idea, if you have one undersized guy on a pair, having a bigger guy who can clear the crease and go get the puck behind the net often helps, especially when you have to actually play defense.

There's still a big role for big defensemen in the NHL, they can't be stiffs, but they don't have to be offensive juggernauts either.
Brandon Coburn has managed to last a decade.

 

[TB87]

I don't think there's a sport that so mythologizes in-person scouting like hockey, though it's pretty par for the course given it's the most backwards major professional sport. I sense ulterior motives (and a hint of professional worry) when I read some of these things. Every sport video scouts, often as a primary method. When teams themselves prepare and analyze opponents......guess what they use? If a player looks like **** on video, no special sound his blades make when they cut the ice will make you think topsy-turvy.

You're someone who watches these guys -- a former USHL scout yourself. You have strong opinions on prospects and never are reluctant to share them. To belittle someone else for sharing their researched opinion -- often against the grain or calling their shot early or resolutely sticking by that opinion through thick and thin -- seems a little hypocritical, no?

You slag on someone like O'Brien. Guess what? You think you know more than the people who work for the Flyers full time and watch these players live and 10 times more....and used a 19th overall pick, not a 50th, on him? I'm being facetious, but my point is clear. Appeals to authority -- authorities wrong time and time again and not just at the guess work amateur level -- regularly come up limp.

Have a well-thought out opinion? Speak it. I can give you many specific details in Ginning's game that concern me. Saying Sweden plays him a lot of minutes, or that he plays in the SHL (I should hope so for a 2nd round pick!) is no justification or breakdown to me. It's the exact opposite.

I’m interested in hearing your specific detailed concerns about Ginning. As in, your read on his game right now (not at the time of the pick...which I just read). I tend to learn something new from your detailed player breakdowns.

 

[wasup]

I don't think there's a sport that so mythologizes in-person scouting like hockey, though it's pretty par for the course given it's the most backwards major professional sport. I sense ulterior motives (and a hint of professional worry) when I read some of these things. Every sport video scouts, often as a primary method. When teams themselves prepare and analyze opponents......guess what they use? If a player looks like **** on video, no special sound his blades make when they cut the ice will make you think topsy-turvy.

You're someone who watches these guys -- a former USHL scout yourself. You have strong opinions on prospects and never are reluctant to share them. To belittle someone else for sharing their researched opinion -- often against the grain or calling their shot early or resolutely sticking by that opinion through thick and thin -- seems a little hypocritical, no?

You slag on someone like O'Brien. Guess what? You think you know more than the people who work for the Flyers full time and watch these players live and 10 times more....and used a 19th overall pick, not a 50th, on him? I'm being facetious, but my point is clear. Appeals to authority -- authorities wrong time and time again and not just at the guess work amateur level -- regularly come up limp.

Have a well-thought out opinion? Speak it. I can give you many specific details in Ginning's game that concern me. Saying Sweden plays him a lot of minutes, or that he plays in the SHL (I should hope so for a 2nd round pick!) is no justification or breakdown to me. It's the exact opposite.

Wait a second hear . Someone else was defending Ginning on here and I mentioned that I kind of agreed with them . Then we got ripped for having a different opinion , go back and look at the posts . Also you bet I have opinions on here and so do you and everybody else , am I right most of the time , nope , can consistently I predict development , nope . I give opinions on what I see as does everyone else and if I disagree you will usually know . If I’m wrong for that Oh well . It’s also funny that you say teams use video scouting as their primary way of scouting cause junior and college games I go to have several scouts at every game and that costs them a pile more money doing that than just getting video.

 

[FLYguy3911]

The Houston Astros don’t even scout in person. They are almost exclusively video scouting. They don’t even have traditional scouts. There are a hell of a lot more baseball players to scout than hockey players.

 

[wasup]

The Houston Astros don’t even scout in person. They are almost exclusively video scouting. They don’t even have traditional scouts. There are a hell of a lot more baseball players to scout than hockey players.

Base ball is a completely different sport , a radar gun and stats are huge . Video scouting in hockey has merits for sure and the video quality has improved for sure but the video follows the puck and focuses on smaller area of the game . Hockey is one of the fastest moving sports and is constantly changing direction it’s hard to follow at times . Skating and skills can be picked up on video but hockey iq and what guys are doing when they don’t have the puck , positioning etc are very hard to follow on video . When you are scouting you don’t go to watch the game you go to watch the player you at there to scout . You follow him everywhere to watch for tendencies , anticipation etc ... the time he has his stick on the puck in a game is actually quite small . Video gives you some but it tougher with hockey.

 

[deadhead]

Baseball games also have more cameras, and the action is focused on pitcher/hitter.
Even then, you'll see scouts at every game behind home plate, as a check on the distortion from the CF camera.

 

[Ghosts Beer]

We're voting for the Flyers' #14 prospect. Thinking Adam Ginning, who has played 88 SHL games at age 19, and just was on the first pairing for Sweden at the WJ Showcase, is likeliest to play the most NHL games of the 22 guys left on the list, is completely reasonable. There's a grudge against him because he isn't the type of player a few prominent posters like. Notice that for all the smugness there hasn't been an acceptance of my bet of whether Flyguy's choice at 14, Vorobyev, will play more NHL games than Ginning.

 

[FLYguy3911]

Base ball is a completely different sport , a radar gun and stats are huge . Video scouting in hockey has merits for sure and the video quality has improved for sure but the video follows the puck and focuses on smaller area of the game . Hockey is one of the fastest moving sports and is constantly changing direction it’s hard to follow at times . Skating and skills can be picked up on video but hockey iq and what guys are doing when they don’t have the puck , positioning etc are very hard to follow on video . When you are scouting you don’t go to watch the game you go to watch the player you at there to scout . You follow him everywhere to watch for tendencies , anticipation etc ... the time he has his stick on the puck in a game is actually quite small . Video gives you some but it tougher with hockey.

Baseball has just as many benefits, if not more, with in person scouting.

I mean maybe back in the day there was a distinct advantage to in person scouting as availability and quality were tough to come by on the video side, but you can get video from pretty much every league and the quality is pretty good in most places.

The main benefit to in person scouting, in any sport, is networking and doing the background work on the player. Talking to the player directly, coaches, parents, etc. and trying to nail down the makeup.

 

[Foggy14]

I wonder where K'Andre Miller would have landed in these polls.

Probably 5. Probably where I’d slot him too. I could see people putting him above York though simply due to being in the organization longer with a college season under his belt. I wouldn’t.

I'd have York slightly ahead. He's a kid who seems to really know how to use all the skills he has and he plays his position almost instinctively.

While K'Andre had a solid freshman season at Wisconsin, I still have a bit of a question about him applying his formidable skills as seamlessly as York at defense, since he's only played the position for three seasons. If he does, look out.

 

[mja]

I do think there is quite a bit of arrogance around here, but that doesnt change the fact that Ginning is dookie on skates.

I do not participate in debates on players I haven't seen. I haven't seen Adam Ginning play aside from a few clips and gifs. Hence, I don't have an informed opinion and keep quiet. I don't take anybody's word as bible on here and I'm perfectly willing to wait to make my own conclusions until I can actually see a guy play, but I'm at least concerned that the people who called Sanheim and correctly identified Hagg's flaws before either of them got anywhere near NHL ice are as down on Ginning as they are.

The arrogance, or perception of it, all results from the fact that people who clearly haven't watched players play keep attacking the opinions of people who clearly have watched players play pointing to superficial nonsense like team usage, what league they play in, or what round they were picked in (ignoring that only around 25% of 2nd rounders go on to have a legit NHL career, and that many of those guys still suck--ahem, I'm looking at you, Robert Hagg!), all wrapped up in lame appeals to authority.

It's all predicated on an assumption that random people on the internet can't possibly know better than the professionals, except that's bullshit, because random people on the internet know better than the professionals a frightening amount of the time. Every hockey fan knew Paul Fenton, a hockey lifer, was a flaming train wreck. Chia, a GM with a Stanley Cup championship on his resume and a Harvard grad, thought Hall for Larsson was a good trade, while the internet immediately and correctly laughed in wonderment at his abject stupidity. Hockey is a good old boys network where guys who played before helmets were mandatory and through multiple concussions before CTE was understood are tasked with making a series of complex interconnected decisions based on sometimes wildly out-dated notions of how to properly build a winning hockey team. Resting your case on their supposed relative infallibility is a fool's errand.

 

[Tripod]

 

[wankstifier]

Baseball has just as many benefits, if not more, with in person scouting.

I mean maybe back in the day there was a distinct advantage to in person scouting as availability and quality were tough to come by on the video side, but you can get video from pretty much every league and the quality is pretty good in most places.

The main benefit to in person scouting, in any sport, is networking and doing the background work on the player. Talking to the player directly, coaches, parents, etc. and trying to nail down the makeup.

Can we get these scout’s eye camera angles during the broadcasts? Thanks.

 

[FLYguy3911]

Can we get these scout’s eye camera angles during the broadcasts? Thanks.

High speed cameras. They are amazing.

 

[wasup]

On a different note , Vorobyev seems to have taken the lead here lately .

 

[deadhead]

The arrogance comes from making definitive conclusions from insufficient data.
And ignoring history.

With Hagg, history says that 24 year old defensemen who already have 2 NHL seasons can improve, it doesn't say they will improve, but a lot of defensemen with similar skill sets don't even start until they're 24 years old. Whereas someone like L Schenn simply didn't skate well enough for the new NHL.

With Ginning, a big 19 year old defenseman probably has a chance to significantly improve.

Age of some defensemen when they became full-time starters - it's a long enough list not to be dismissed as a few "flukes."
Late bloomers tend not to be world beaters, but a bunch of solid guys with long career.
Jordie Benn (26)
Johnny Boychuk (26)
Justin Braun (24)
Ian Cole (24)
Brian Dumoulin (24)
Derek Engelland (28)
Jonathan Ericsson (25)
Derek Forbort (24)
Mark Giordano (25)
Andy Greene (25)
Andy Goligoski (24)
Matt Grzelcyk (24)
Eric Gustafsson (26)
Ron Hainsey (24)
Nick Holden (26)
Nick Jensen (26)
Michael Kempney (26)
Niklas Kronwall (26)
Ben Lovejoy (26)
John Manson (24)
Kevan Miller (24)
Jake Muzzin (24)
Greg Pateryn (27)
Nate Schmidt (24)
Trevor van Reimsdyk (24)

 

[GapToothedWonder]

Hopefully one day we will come up with the technology to record a wider angle view. I mean it's unlikely we ever develop a camera that can slightly zoom out but we can hope.

 

[TB87]

I do not participate in debates on players I haven't seen. I haven't seen Adam Ginning play aside from a few clips and gifs. Hence, I don't have an informed opinion and keep quiet. I don't take anybody's word as bible on here and I'm perfectly willing to wait to make my own conclusions until I can actually see a guy play, but I'm at least concerned that the people who called Sanheim and correctly identified Hagg's flaws before either of them got anywhere near NHL ice are as down on Ginning as they are.

The arrogance, or perception of it, all results from the fact that people who clearly haven't watched players play keep attacking the opinions of people who clearly have watched players play pointing to superficial nonsense like team usage, what league they play in, or what round they were picked in (ignoring that only around 25% of 2nd rounders go on to have a legit NHL career, and that many of those guys still suck--ahem, I'm looking at you, Robert Hagg!), all wrapped up in lame appeals to authority.

It's all predicated on an assumption that random people on the internet can't possibly know better than the professionals, except that's bull****, because random people on the internet know better than the professionals a frightening amount of the time. Every hockey fan knew Paul Fenton, a hockey lifer, was a flaming train wreck. Chia, a GM with a Stanley Cup championship on his resume and a Harvard grad, thought Hall for Larsson was a good trade, while the internet immediately and correctly laughed in wonderment at his abject stupidity. Hockey is a good old boys network where guys who played before helmets were mandatory and through multiple concussions before CTE was understood are tasked with making a series of complex interconnected decisions based on sometimes wildly out-dated notions of how to properly build a winning hockey team. Resting your case on their supposed relative infallibility is a fool's errand.

This post is extremely well articulated. Good stuff mja!