GDT: 2019 IIHF World Championship III (OP Warning)

[Nubmer6]

That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that there is no doubt a group think involved here. And I am saying once that ball gets rolling it's a hell of a lot easier for everyone to be wrong than to stick your neck out and say hey something isn't right here.

Just the fact that he refers to it as the "scouting community" should give you some indication of the club mentality at work.

I *DO* think there's a fair amount of group think in the scouting community. What I've seen is that some reports are almost apologetic about ranking someone far out of line compared to others. I can't remember who it was, but someone had Podkolzin at 14th and was busy defending himself before he even got any criticism. As it turns out, it seemed to open the flood gates and suddenly everyone had him dropping drastically too (although not that far).

Even @StevenToddIves likes to point out where his ratings are far different than others... maybe not apologetic about it, but at times it almost feels like he's challenging us to question him to get his explanation. I think that's partially because there's a lot of criticism from the fans when a prognosticator is way off the beaten path.

 

[BenedictGomez]

someone had Podkolzin at 14th and was busy defending himself before he even got any criticism. As it turns out, it seemed to open the flood gates and suddenly everyone had him dropping drastically too (although not that far).

What dropped Podkolzin was that he was absolutely invisible against his peer-group throughout the entirety of the U18 tournament.

 

[Nubmer6]

What dropped Podkolzin was that he was absolutely invisible against his peer-group throughout the entirety of the U18 tournament.

True, but that was just one tournament. Yes, it should drop him, but from 3rd (as many had him) to 14 is a bit harsh. Then again, I'm not sure where HE had him before that last ranking.

 

[Setec Astronomy]

I *DO* think there's a fair amount of group think in the scouting community. What I've seen is that some reports are almost apologetic about ranking someone far out of line compared to others. I can't remember who it was, but someone had Podkolzin at 14th and was busy defending himself before he even got any criticism. As it turns out, it seemed to open the flood gates and suddenly everyone had him dropping drastically too (although not that far).

Even @StevenToddIves likes to point out where his ratings are far different than others... maybe not apologetic about it, but at times it almost feels like he's challenging us to question him to get his explanation. I think that's partially because there's a lot of criticism from the fans when a prognosticator is way off the beaten path.

You would be noticing group think if the quality of NHLers were distributed close to randomly across draft position. But that isn’t the case, which means generally the scouting community knows what it’s talking about. Yes, you’ll sometimes see it come to pass that the consensus 15th overall prospect ends up having a better career than anyone in the top 5 and so forth. But that’s not group think, because group think isn’t the same thing as people who do something for a living generally agreeing on things and sometimes being incorrect to varying degrees about those things.

 

[Setec Astronomy]

What dropped Podkolzin was that he was absolutely invisible against his peer-group throughout the entirety of the U18 tournament.

And he also hasn’t produced at the level of what you’d expect a top 3 pick. The meh production at the U18s adds to those concerns.

 

[devilsblood]

What dropped Podkolzin was that he was absolutely invisible against his peer-group throughout the entirety of the U18 tournament.

So small samples do count?

 

[devilsblood]

You would be noticing group think if the quality of NHLers were distributed close to randomly across draft position. But that isn’t the case, which means generally the scouting community knows what it’s talking about. Yes, you’ll sometimes see it come to pass that the consensus 15th overall prospect ends up having a better career than anyone in the top 5 and so forth. But that’s not group think, because group think isn’t the same thing as people who do something for a living generally agreeing on things and sometimes being incorrect to varying degrees about those things.

Conversely the consensus can be correct, yet still be the product of group think.

And I don't know how often NHL scouts are guilty of it. But the various internet draft websites? I think group think is pretty prevalent. But again, it can still be correct.

 

[MadDevil]

There's a difference between consensus and group think.

 

[Nubmer6]

There's a difference between consensus and group think.

I think it depends on HOW you reach the consensus.

 

[devilsblood]

There's a difference between consensus and group think.

if that was in response to my post, I did say in the first sentence that the consensus was a product of group think. One thing leading to another. So yes, I know there is a difference.

 

[devilsblood]

True, but that was just one tournament. Yes, it should drop him, but from 3rd (as many had him) to 14 is a bit harsh. Then again, I'm not sure where HE had him before that last ranking.

Maybe the question should be, why was he ranked so high to begin with?

 

[Blender]

What dropped Podkolzin was that he was absolutely invisible against his peer-group throughout the entirety of the U18 tournament.

I disagree, the U18 contributes its small part but his entire season has been underwhelming. He didn't play that many games in Russia and bounced between the KHL, VHL, and MHL with not very good stats in any of them, and his international tournaments didn't stand out either. Every time I have watched him play as well he has reminded me of a shorter Zacha without the huge shot.

 

[Oneiro]

The kids who pick stocks better than mutual funds do so because they recognize the obvious and don't let any noise interfere with the basics.

Depending on your camp, the obvious might be:

A) Kakko is dominating every opportunity he's been given and hasn't missed a step for a good year now.

OR

B) Hughes has a combination of skills that cannot be easily found elsewhere in the league, let alone another draft.

You could call each option "group think" either way. But every single thing about the context surrounding these players is different, which is why the debate is worth having.

 

[BenedictGomez]

I disagree, the U18 contributes its small part but his entire season has been underwhelming. He didn't play that many games in Russia and bounced between the KHL, VHL, and MHL with not very good stats in any of them, and his international tournaments didn't stand out either. Every time I have watched him play as well he has reminded me of a shorter Zacha without the huge shot.

IMO the U18 was the real nail-in-the-coffin though. He was ranked #3 to #5 going in to that tournament. It wasn't just that he didnt produce, it's myopic when people just look at "points", and scouts dont do this, but he genuinely looked poor. I watched about 1/2 of Russia's games, and not only did he not stand out, he didn't even look like a 1st-liner on his team. Turned the puck over, wasnt using his big body to effect, etc..... I saw nothing from him.

 

[Setec Astronomy]

The kids who pick stocks better than mutual funds do so because they recognize the obvious and don't let any noise interfere with the basics.

Depending on your camp, the obvious might be:

A) Kakko is dominating every opportunity he's been given and hasn't missed a step for a good year now.

OR

B) Hughes has a combination of skills that cannot be easily found elsewhere in the league, let alone another draft.

You could call each option "group think" either way. But every single thing about the context surrounding these players is different, which is why the debate is worth having.

Your statement about Kakko is not correct. His production in the Liga was great for someone his age, but it’s hardly unprecedented or the equivalent of someone who necessarily becomes an NHL superstar, much less immediately as some people seem to believe being over six feet tall destines him to be. His U20 tournament was not dominant by any stretch, and actually not on par with Pulujarvi, who crushed that tournament in his draft year. He’s only “dominated” a handful of games at this particular tournament.

He’s not Mario Lemieux, which is what people are all the sudden touting him to be it seems.

 

[Lou is God]

I don't understand where this is coming from...The idea that I or anyone else is willing to throw away his history.

But these games are his very first against non-amateurs...It certainly is a new milestone in his journey. I don't see how expecting a better performance against a step up in competition is unreasonable at all.

You can expect a better performance, just don't judge on it harshly and unfairly if you don't get one.

 

[Oneiro]

Your statement about Kakko is not correct. His production in the Liga was great for someone his age, but it’s hardly unprecedented or the equivalent of someone who necessarily becomes an NHL superstar, much less immediately as some people seem to believe being over six feet tall destines him to be. His U20 tournament was not dominant by any stretch, and actually not on par with Pulujarvi, who crushed that tournament in his draft year. He’s only “dominated” a handful of games at this particular tournament.

He’s not Mario Lemieux, which is what people are all the sudden touting him to be it seems.

I agree with you on all counts. Dominated is probably too strong a word. But given that neither player is as good as Lemieux, McDavid, Crosby or Ovy, you can say that he's done what he can within reasonable limits (his age, league, role, etc) to make it interesting in a real way. That actually gets to the heart of it: we can add on a bunch of caveats to each of these guys, but it's difficult to weigh these factors (strength of teammates, QoC, roles at each tier of play, etc) appropriately. Especially when you are dealing with top tier guys, who are, by their very exceptional nature, outliers in their respective programs.

Again, in picking Hughes, I'm going with what I can't get elsewhere. Players with that combination of skating, vision and hands just do not come around very often, and the childishness in his game is going to get "experienced" away in a year or two of NHL play.

I'd also point out that this year's post-season has been about converting on special teams as much it has been about "heavy" play. I think Hughes is equipped to be one of the best PP QBs in the league.

(While I'm at it, I also have a theory about Barzal, which is that, once he hit the NHL level, he was finally around players who were trained to see the game as fast as he does, so he actualized a lot of his game which was wasted/"hidden" on inferior teammates and QoC. I mention this because, if we see Hughes far outpace Kakko next season, that'll likely be a bigger reason. Less time, less space - these factors favor the quick, not necessarily the resilient.)

 

[JimEIV]

This would seem to be obviously correct.

Except it's not. I suppose it depends on how you look at it?

Sort a draft sometime it's a fun exercise...

A 5 year period from 2008 to 2012...I figured 7 was enough elapsed time to look at totals... sorted just by points...not a complete picture as Dmen and Goalies get cheated, I understand but I think it still interesting to look at:

Top 5 point producres by year and their selection spot

2008
#1, #15, #22, #2, #51

2009
#1, #3, #33, #2 #5

2010
#2, #1, #16, #4, #26

2011
#58, #2, #104, #1, #7

2012
#11, #3, #17, #5, #18


Would you call this "generally getting it right"? Out of 25 players 11 of the top producers are from outside of the top 10 selections. Seems shaky at best to me?

 

[Oneiro]

A convenient cut-off date:

2013
#1, #6, #2, #5, #4

2014
#3, #25, #15, #2, #9

2015
#1, #2, #4, #10, #35

2016
#1, #2, #6, #39, #7

Also, some of the drafts with pleasant surprises (second rounders, late firsts) - well, most of those players are smaller, creative types (Kucherov, Gaudreau, Debrincat). The obvious 1 and 2 point leaders were also drafts where there was a clear top tier (MacKinnon/Barkov/Drouin/Jones, McDavid/Eichel, Matthews/Laine) vs the players below. Much like this year.

All this exercise proves is that they get the 1 and 2 picks correct most of the time. The general lack of No. 3 picks is funny. We will be fine either way.

 

[JimEIV]

A convenient cut-off date:

2013
#1, #6, #2, #5, #4

2014
#3, #25, #15, #2, #9

2015
#1, #2, #4, #10, #35

2016
#1, #2, #6, #39, #7

Also, some of the drafts with pleasant surprises (second rounders, late firsts) - well, most of those players are smaller, creative types (Kucherov, Gaudreau, Debrincat). The obvious 1 and 2 point leaders were also drafts where there was a clear top tier (MacKinnon/Barkov/Drouin/Jones, McDavid/Eichel, Matthews/Laine) vs the players below. Much like this year.

I personally don't think we should be looking at totals from drafts 2 and 3 years ago, that story isn't even close to written yet and those will no doubt change. Top selections frequently get early opportunity and often longer looks. I would prefer to go further back than forward to look at more years.

 

[Oneiro]

Yeah, that makes sense - looking at some of these top 5 lists, with a lot of players bound to overtake others, you can see how a Point, Kuznetsov, etc. will jump into the top 5 when they hit the same GP.

But for us, what's relevant are the top two picks in the draft. And when there's consensus for a long time about the very top, you usually don't get disappointed. The two players we're looking at are still far above their peers and, while I'd love to torch the scouting community, they don't mess up the obvious very often.

 

[MadDevil]

if that was in response to my post, I did say in the first sentence that the consensus was a product of group think. One thing leading to another. So yes, I know there is a difference.

Sorry, it wasn't directed at you. It was originally part of a larger response to somebody else that would have probably been deleted if I didn't edit it down to that.

My general point was that just because there may be a consensus on a player doesn't mean there is group think going on. It also doesn't mean that those scouts are infallible just because there is a consensus.

All of this of course gets away from actual analysis on both players, which is most likely what certain posters want so they don't have to actually back up why they feel that Kakko is "head and shoulders" ahead of Hughes. Or why they feel they can make declarative statements and then criticize others for making declarative statements.

 

[JimEIV]

Yeah, that makes sense - looking at some of these top 5 lists, with a lot of players bound to overtake others, you can see how a Point, Kuznetsov, etc. will jump into the top 5 when they hit the same GP.

But for us, what's relevant are the top two picks in the draft. And when there's consensus for a long time about the very top, you usually don't get disappointed. The two players we're looking at are still far above their peers and, while I'd love to torch the scouting community, they don't mess up the obvious very often.

#1 tends to be one of the best players almost every year but there are more than a few notable exceptions..

In the 2008 to 2012 example #1 shows up 4 out 5 years and they are actually the best 3 out of 5 years. So that is a pretty good record. RNH and Yakopov are two examples, Although RNH is 4th in his draft year. I suppose this is more of a commentary on Edmonton?

 

[Nubmer6]

I suppose this is more of a commentary on Edmonton?

I don't think I can blame Edmonton. Both were pretty universally touted as the top pick, unless you're talking about their development system? Or is this an example of groupthink? Yakopov had a pretty good 1st year then nosedived, so maybe it WAS development. I dunno.

 

[JimEIV]

Sorry, it wasn't directed at you. It was originally part of a larger response to somebody else that would have probably been deleted if I didn't edit it down to that.

My general point was that just because there may be a consensus on a player doesn't mean there is group think going on. It also doesn't mean that those scouts are infallible just because there is a consensus.

All of this of course gets away from actual analysis on both players, which is most likely what certain posters want so they don't have to actually back up why they feel that Kakko is "head and shoulders" ahead of Hughes. Or why they feel they can make declarative statements and then criticize others for making declarative statements.

I suppose this was directed at me since I did use the phrase "head and shoulders"...

I did say Kakko right now is head and shoulders above Hughes....I personally don't see how anyone could deny that....but I guess there are some that do? I mean the kid is leading a team averaging a PPG against pro competition...he has shown high level skill, a pro level ability to protect the puck, the ability score on his own, strength of much older player and very good shot. Yet some are suggesting that his ceiling is limited...this seems odd to me from what I have seen.

There seems to be a general thought that Hughes skating and play making ability will eventually surpass Kakko...The context was when will Hughes bridge that gap because Kakko is head and shoulders above Hughes right now and the play we are seeing now confirms that.

Are you actually claiming Hughes is not behind Kakko right now or is your issue with my words and the degree of how far behind he currently is?