C/W Jesperi Kotkaniemi - Ässät, Liiga (2018, 3rd, MTL) Part II

[TwoPiece]

Your opinion is the differing one...

To his draft position, yes, but I never said anything is certain. His/her opinion, quoting and differing mine, s/he claimed is "certain", which it is not.

 

[TwoPiece]

I'm the jabroni you're whinning about and I will tell you again: I can't take a Detroit's fan seriously when they say Montreal should not have picked Kotkaniemi at #3. I thought I clearly stated the reason why. Now stop your whinning, it's getting old.

Winning, or whining? Make up your mind.

I can't take you seriously if you can't communicate in English when it's my 2nd language lol.

 

[Hfbsux]

Winning, or whining? Make up your mind.

I can't take you seriously if you can't communicate in English when it's my 2nd language lol.

It is my 2nd language too.. Only difference is I don't scream it to everyone when someone does not understand my post, like you did. I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to understand what word I was trying to say. Says a lot when you have to resort to grammatical mistake. Go home grammar police, we don't need those here.

 

[Captain Mountain]

Then what was the point of your replies..?

Your responses seem to corroborate my wonder on why my opinion could be invalidated by one of my favorite teams. It didn't make sense and it seems your share that outlook.

Uh, this:

No need for hyperbole here. I never said in any fashion that I can predict the future. What I did say, and imply, is that well-educated Red Wings fans have the capacity to better judge prospects based on the amount of great players that have skated for the team. Seeing as they typically watch their team more than most others, they have seen more great players on a consistent basis than most other fans can/do.

Regardless of whether or not you choose to listen to my opinion doesn't matter to me. I've been wrong and I will be wrong again. I just wanted to discuss the prospect and share that I think it was a big reach to select him @ #3. I don't think he'll ever be more than an above-average #2 center. To me, that potential isn't worth that price (Top-3 selection). Same as Frans Nielsen isn't worth $5.2 million/season.

Passing over the completely incongruous comparison of a prospect to a bad UFA signing, you specifically claimed that a well educated Red Wings fan has the capacity to better judge prospects based on the number of great players that have been on the Wings.

Your opinion is not invalidated because of your favourite team. It also isn't better because of your favourite team.

 

[TwoPiece]

It is my 2nd language too.. Only difference is I don't scream it to everyone when someone does not understand my post, like you did. I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to understand what word I was trying to say. Says a lot when you have to resort to grammatical mistake. Go home grammar police, we don't need those here.

Scream it? Holy sensitivity, Batman. I'll just ignore the rest of your whiny posts.

 

[TwoPiece]

Uh, this:



Passing over the completely incongruous comparison of a prospect to a bad UFA signing, you specifically claimed that a well educated Red Wings fan has the capacity to better judge prospects based on the number of great players that have been on the Wings.

Your opinion is not invalidated because of your favourite team. It also isn't better because of your favourite team.

I never said it is better, it was my counter-argument to the stupidity of the original post. I personally find that fans of successful teams with successful players who have an excess of hockey knowledge tend to have better "scouting reports" on prospects of all ages in all leagues, etc. Is that always the case? No, but personal history speaks for itself. There is no fan-base with concretely better amateur scouts. And by amateur, I mean fans, or people not paid to scout for a professional team.

 

[Mrb1p]

I never said it is better, it was my counter-argument to the stupidity of the original post. I personally find that fans of successful teams with successful players who have an excess of hockey knowledge tend to have better "scouting reports" on prospects of all ages in all leagues, etc. Is that always the case? No, but personal history speaks for itself. There is no fan-base with concretely better amateur scouts. And by amateur, I mean fans, or people not paid to scout for a professional team.

Except you kinda did, huh?

 

[Hfbsux]

Scream it? Holy sensitivity, Batman. I'll just ignore the rest of your whiny posts.

You're the emotional one here, you've litterally been yapping the whole morning. But in all seriousness, you're input is so constructive that I suggest you to not only ignore my future post, but to ignore this thread. Maybe you can use your crystal ball on your team's prospect instead of others. But then again, like you said, they don't need a crystal ball since they can evaluate prospects better than other teams' fans. Hahahaha, wow!

 

[TwoPiece]

Except you kinda did, huh?

No, I kinda didn't, if you actually read that post. It is, again, another opinion perpetuated by personal experience. Not factual, as the original emotional jabroni was implying.

 

[Angler]

It doesn't have anything to do with your favorite team, unless, your favorite team is bad at scouting, drafting, and developing players and they're the team you watch the majority of the time you see hockey. That's a large chunk of fandoms, wouldn't you say?

No, there isn't a metric for judging a fan's hockey education, so what was the point of that jabroni saying that people can't take my opinion seriously on Kotkaniemi because I'm a Detroit fan..?

That's interesting, because you yourself have been judging the ability of the posters in this thread to assess prospects because of the team they cheer for. The "metric" you've chosen to judge others is their favourite team... People aren't going to take you seriously because you claimed that Detroit fans know more about prospects than Habs fan because the team has better prospects... Does that mean that Toronto Fans, Winnipeg fans and in the past Pittsburg fans, are unequivocally the most educated fans in the league? It makes no sense at all. If that's not trolling, I don't know what is. Overall you come off as insecure and frankly immature.

I mean, you could cheer for the Atlanta Thrashers and technically still have a more informed opinion than anyone in this thread.

My opinion is that I think both Kotkaniemi and Zadina are good prospects. I think Kotkaniemi has a higher ceiling because of his excellent vision and playmaking ability. His shot is hard and has a quick release. He's also defensively responsible. He could potentially be a #1 center if things go well for him. On the other hand, Zadina has a awesome shot, can find open space and has some nice hands. He's got the right mindset to compete at a high level. Outside of that, he falls into the average category especially when it comes to physicality. Frankly, he's not very strong. With that said, either player at #3 would have been fine with me, but I think the Habs chose the right guy. Time will tell.

Also the Habs, Sens and Coyotes all passed on Zadina. It wasn't just one team. There has to be something that these scouts and GMs were worried about...

 

[Captain Mountain]

I never said it is better, it was my counter-argument to the stupidity of the original post. I personally find that fans of successful teams with successful players who have an excess of hockey knowledge tend to have better "scouting reports" on prospects of all ages in all leagues, etc. Is that always the case? No, but personal history speaks for itself. There is no fan-base with concretely better amateur scouts. And by amateur, I mean fans, or people not paid to scout for a professional team.

No need for hyperbole here. I never said in any fashion that I can predict the future. What I did say, and imply, is that well-educated Red Wings fans have the capacity to better judge prospects based on the amount of great players that have skated for the team. Seeing as they typically watch their team more than most others, they have seen more great players on a consistent basis than most other fans can/do.

Regardless of whether or not you choose to listen to my opinion doesn't matter to me. I've been wrong and I will be wrong again. I just wanted to discuss the prospect and share that I think it was a big reach to select him @ #3. I don't think he'll ever be more than an above-average #2 center. To me, that potential isn't worth that price (Top-3 selection). Same as Frans Nielsen isn't worth $5.2 million/season.

Its right there man.

And personal history that only you are privy to doesn't speak for itself. Generally its the opposite, since you haven't challenged personal biases at all. Its why organizations in all sports and businesses that can competently accrue data and interpret it to draw meaningful conclusions are moving ahead of those that don't.

 

[TwoPiece]

That's interesting, because you yourself have been judging the ability of the posters in this thread to assess prospects because of the team they cheer for. The "metric" you've chosen to judge others is their favourite team... People aren't going to take you seriously because you claimed that Detroit fans know more about prospects than Habs fan because the team has better prospects... Does that mean that Toronto Fans, Winnipeg fans and in the past Pittsburg fans, are unequivocally the most educated fans in the league? It makes no sense at all. If that's not trolling, I don't know what is. Overall you come off as insecure and frankly immature.

I mean, you could cheer for the Atlanta Thrashers and technically still have a more informed opinion than anyone in this thread.

My opinion is that I think both Kotkaniemi and Zadina are good prospects. I think Kotkaniemi has a higher ceiling because of his excellent vision and playmaking ability. His shot is hard and has a quick release. He's also defensively responsible. He could potentially be a #1 center if things go well for him. On the other hand, Zadina has a awesome shot, can find open space and has some nice hands. He's got the right mindset to compete at a high level. Outside of that, he falls into the average category especially when it comes to physicality. Frankly, he's not very strong. With that said, either player at #3 would have been fine with me, but I think the Habs chose the right guy. Time will tell.

Also the Habs, Sens and Coyotes all passed on Zadina. It wasn't just one team. There has to be something that these scouts and GMs were worried about...

WHAT!? Since when? All I've asserted is that (and I've used IMO every step of the way) Kotkaniemi isn't a Top-10 talent? You've got fanboy left-and-right calling up everyone else's opinion and all I'm doing is reinforcing mine. I've never said anyone is wrong (factually - IMO I think they made a mistake taking him at #3. I. M. O.). I said, multiple times, that we'll see in a few years. Some fanboys can't let other people have differing opinions. It's always "agree with me or fight 'til the death". How dumb!

 

[TwoPiece]

Its right there man.

And personal history that only you are privy to doesn't speak for itself. Generally its the opposite, since you haven't challenged personal biases at all. Its why organizations in all sports and businesses that can competently accrue data and interpret it to draw meaningful conclusions are moving ahead of those that don't.

What personal biases? How can you speak to me challenging personal biases when you don't me/them..? This is more drawing conclusions from blank pages. Wtf?

 

[Captain Mountain]

What personal biases? How can you speak to me challenging personal biases when you don't me/them..? This is more drawing conclusions from blank pages. Wtf?

Everybody has personal biases. Its not an attack, its a statement of fact. But "personal history" means nothing if you haven't actually tested your hypothesis in a repeatable way. An anonymous source saying "I personally find" or "personal history speaks for itself" means nothing.

For instance, if we're talking about someone that uses a lot of stats, we can test the predictive value of the stats. If someone is more about the eye-test, if they've published lots of scouting lists and have clear tools/skills they value, we can determine the value of their process. If someone publishes aggregate rankings, we can use this that as a rough opinion baseline. And so one.

 

[TwoPiece]

Everybody has personal biases. Its not an attack, its a statement of fact. But "personal history" means nothing if you haven't actually tested your hypothesis in a repeatable way. An anonymous source saying "I personally find" or "personal history speaks for itself" means nothing.

It's been tested repeatedly over the last 10+ years. When you see what methods are successful in the NHL, and know which teams do what, then you can more accurately gauge young talent. So, when a team like Buffalo drafts Dahlin, you have to ask... What does Buffalo offer him? What does he offer Buffalo? If he's unpolished, can BUF develop him in the ways he needs? Does he have the talents that they need and can they translate? There are dozens of questions. The majority of people stay close to home when they get into prospects. Can they judge other prospects well if their judgement is limited to the talents and developments that they've witnessed?

So, while one genius won't hesitate to question a Detroit fan's opinion, other may weigh it heavier than most fans. It's the same old crap of, "oh, you're an Edmonton fan, you haven't won in 30 years what do you know?" While I'm mainly a DET of NHL fan, I've been following prospects pre-NHL Draft since before the 2015 selections. My opinion of Kotkaniemi is related to pre-draft, and now placement in MTL's system. It isn't from highlights and other people's lists. It's from understanding dozens of NHL attributes, how he "ranks" on what he has, how/when he uses his skills, how it translates from league-to-league, how it translates within Montreal's system. Who he learns from, what is his potential, how can he grow to max potential. Dozens of things about tons of variables.

 

[Volica]

To his draft position, yes, but I never said anything is certain. His/her opinion, quoting and differing mine, s/he claimed is "certain", which it is not.

He was drafted 3rd. Thus being a top 10 draft pick is certain. Everything else is opinion.

 

[Captain Mountain]

It's been tested repeatedly over the last 10+ years. When you see what methods are successful in the NHL, and know which teams do what, then you can more accurately gauge young talent. So, when a team like Buffalo drafts Dahlin, you have to ask... What does Buffalo offer him? What does he offer Buffalo? If he's unpolished, can BUF develop him in the ways he needs? Does he have the talents that they need and can they translate? There are dozens of questions. The majority of people stay close to home when they get into prospects. Can they judge other prospects well if their judgement is limited to the talents and developments that they've witnessed?

So, while one genius won't hesitate to question a Detroit fan's opinion, other may weigh it heavier than most fans. It's the same old crap of, "oh, you're an Edmonton fan, you haven't won in 30 years what do you know?" While I'm mainly a DET of NHL fan, I've been following prospects pre-NHL Draft since before the 2015 selections. My opinion of Kotkaniemi is related to pre-draft, and now placement in MTL's system. It isn't from highlights and other people's lists. It's from understanding dozens of NHL attributes, how he "ranks" on what he has, how/when he uses his skills, how it translates from league-to-league, how it translates within Montreal's system. Who he learns from, what is his potential, how can he grow to max potential. Dozens of things about tons of variables.

This un-cited rambling kind of confirmed what I thought, thanks.

 

[TwoPiece]

He was drafted 3rd. Thus being a top 10 draft pick is certain. Everything else is opinion.

Yes, but that does not guarantee "Top-10 talent" as you'd like to imply. Only time can test that assumption.

 

[TwoPiece]

This un-cited rambling kind of confirmed what I thought, thanks.

Well, let's see, I've been tracking and judging prospects since before the 2015 draft, so my conclusions can't really be used to confirm my success rate since they're all roughly under 22 years old. You'll know whether or not I'm correct on this specific prospect in some years.

I don't work as a professional scout (yet) so I can't/won't share my processes. Until then my opinion is as (no more, no less) valid any other fan scout is.

 

[Captain Mountain]

Well, let's see, I've been tracking and judging prospects since before the 2015 draft, so my conclusions can't really be used to confirm my success rate since they're all roughly under 22 years old. You'll know whether or not I'm correct on this specific prospect in some years.

I don't work as a professional scout (yet) so I can't/won't share my processes. Until then my opinion is as valid any other fan scout is.

Most, not all. There are plenty of posters on here that have long track records and offer up methodology.

I'm kind of surprised the degree you've been arguing too considering you've been judging prospects for only 4 years though.

 

[TwoPiece]

Most, not all. There are plenty of posters on here that have long track records and offer up methodology.

I'm kind of surprised the degree you've been arguing too considering you've been judging prospects for only 4 years though.

I'm a passionate hockey fan and spend the majority of my personal life pursuing a career involving hockey, so yes, I'm willing to live and die by the sword of my opinions. I put a lot of time and effort into my rankings. As much as some would like to jerk off his selection at #3, I think it's important to stay grounded. He was a "high/late riser". It's completely different to guys like Svechnikov, Dahlin, and Zadina who were consistently at the top and remained there.

I'll even put this out there: I had Andrei Svechnikov at #1. Laugh now, but I truly think he's going to have an easily more remarkable career than Dahlin. I'm not sure if any league scout or scouting bureau did the same. So, we'll see on that front as well in a few years, or as soon as this upcoming season.

 

[Hfbsux]

What personal biases? How can you speak to me challenging personal biases when you don't me/them..? This is more drawing conclusions from blank pages. Wtf?

Edit: Nevermind, just noticed you joined hfboards yesterday. Makes sense now. Move along people, nothing to see here.

 

[The Great Weal]

I think there is a difference between BPA and most valuable player. Let's say Zadina ends up being a 30/30 winger and Kotkaniemi ends up being a 20/35 center. While Zadina is the better player in this case, Kotkaniemi is still more valuable. I'll take the center who scores 5 less points every day of the week over the winger. Also, if you don't agree with me, you tell me in which situation Zadina plays better in: Danault-Zadina or Larkin-Zadina.

 

[TwoPiece]

Edit: Nevermind, just noticed you joined hfboards yesterday. Makes sense now. Move along people, nothing to see here.

Were you born yesterday?

 

[topshelf15]

Meh, everybody suffers from prospect overhype...Some just go a little overboard