Interview with Leafs Director of Scouting Dave Morrison

[Mark Edwards]

It's from before the OHL Playoffs but still worth a listen.

FWIW, Dave is one of my fave scouts I've met since I've been doing this.

LINK

Click to read more...

 

[RoyalGremlin]

And this is when it sucks to be deaf.

 

[GBLeaf]

I'm surprised computers nowadays can't have a function that converts audio to text, like subtitles can for TV.

Or maybe they do?

 

[Bullseye]

Very interesting interview especially with regards to Finn and Verhaeghe - Morrison really believes in those 2 guys but that they will require more time to mature physically.

He wants to see Finn settle down and play a more simple game than he did in Guelph until he understands the talent level around him better. Morrison alludes to both Carter and Matt hitting the weight room and becoming Pro's in int that respect. Finn's learning curve this year was completely derailed by a logjam on defence but then a series of lengthy injuries.

 

[timlap]

Thanks for posting,Mark!

Most interesting thing to me was a small remark buried near the beginning where Dave said there are "certain things" they're looking for more than ever now. A trifle vague, but hinting that there are indeed concrete differences in how they are going to select players for the draft under the Shanahan/Hunter regime.

 

[Macman]

Thanks for posting,Mark!

Most interesting thing to me was a small remark buried near the beginning where Dave said there are "certain things" they're looking for more than ever now. A trifle vague, but hinting that there are indeed concrete differences in how they are going to select players for the draft under the Shanahan/Hunter regime.

I have to think a couple of those things are compete and work ethic -- something that's been sorely lacking in this organization for a couple of decades.

 

[CalgaryLeaf*]

Shane Malloy points out that the Leafs are rated the 9th best in scouting for the period 2000-2009...The ratings are based on prospects playing 150 games or more in the NHL.

This to me is a flawed ratings system...I mean it shouldn't be just games played but the quality of the players should be figured into the equation...For example,you could have the most players fitting that description but 95% of them might be 4th line quality. They would rate that scouting #1 in the NHL.

 

[Joey Hoser]

Shane Malloy points out that the Leafs are rated the 9th best in scouting for the period 2000-2009...The ratings are based on prospects playing 150 games or more in the NHL.

This to me is a flawed ratings system...I mean it shouldn't be just games played but the quality of the players should be figured into the equation...For example,you could have the most players fitting that description but 95% of them might be 4th line quality. They would rate that scouting #1 in the NHL.

Measuring quality outside of points is entirely subjective though.

Obviously they were going for an objective analysis.

Neither is necessarily flawed. You just take it for what its worth.

 

[CalgaryLeaf*]

Measuring quality outside of points is entirely subjective though.

Obviously they were going for an objective analysis.

Neither is necessarily flawed. You just take it for what its worth.

Quality can be measured...They could come up with a formula which includes goals,assists,points,PP time,allstar game appearances,the amount of shifts on the #1,#2 and #3 lines,etc.

If they have the Leafs #9 during that 2000-2009 period their ratings system is indeed flawed.

 

[deletethis]

This interview is from before the front office purge (before April 1 2015). It's probably an interview with a lame duck who remains simply because he holds the data of more than a dozen fired scouts. I wonder why it took so long to be posted?

I don't expect the Director of Amateur Scouting to do anything different in terms of playing the cards close to the chest like he did in this interview. Morrison tempered expectations of prospects and went to the "physical maturity" well quite a few times which I think stays away from publicly criticizing directly or indirectly the individual players' skills.

Maybe its my personal biases but I heard equal regard for Verhaeghe and Gauthier as prospects plus a lukewarm response to Finn as a prospect.

 

[timlap]

Measuring quality outside of points is entirely subjective though.

Obviously they were going for an objective analysis.

Neither is necessarily flawed. You just take it for what its worth.

I have tried evaluating drafting and I would say it's very hard to do. I like your thoughts, though. The best thing you can hope for, I think, is to use several different techniques and simply allow the results to be somewhat contradictory and unclear.

 

[timlap]

This interview is from before the front office purge (before April 1 2015). It's probably an interview with a lame duck who remains simply because he holds the data of more than a dozen fired scouts. I wonder why it took so long to be posted?

I don't expect the Director of Amateur Scouting to do anything different in terms of playing the cards close to the chest like he did in this interview. Morrison tempered expectations of prospects and went to the "physical maturity" well quite a few times which I think stays away from publicly criticizing directly or indirectly the individual players' skills.

Maybe its my personal biases but I heard equal regard for Verhaeghe and Gauthier as prospects plus a lukewarm response to Finn as a prospect.

I find that Dave Morrison never oversells a prospect, but takes a wait-and-see approach with everyone.

And, personally, I doubt he's a lame duck. Many HFBoarders want to get rid of him but I get the sense he's well respected professionally. Nothing concrete, just a gut feeling based on remarks and interviews here and there. Also, if they wanted to fire him I suspect they would have done so already. I don't buy that idea that they somehow need him on draft day even though they don't actually want him.

 

[timlap]

I have to think a couple of those things are compete and work ethic -- something that's been sorely lacking in this organization for a couple of decades.

Seems reasonable. Might have been interesting if the interviewers had explored that question in more detail.

 

[Quadruple Dion]

And this is when it sucks to be deaf.

So, I used a web app called VoiceBase to generate a transcription: http://pastebin.com/7AVFuESZ. There are still a lot of errors. I've started cleaning it up, but if someone wants to jump in and take the back half, that'd be great. Otherwise, I'll probably take care of it tomorrow morning.

 

[Mark Edwards]

This interview is from before the front office purge (before April 1 2015). It's probably an interview with a lame duck who remains simply because he holds the data of more than a dozen fired scouts. I wonder why it took so long to be posted?

I don't expect the Director of Amateur Scouting to do anything different in terms of playing the cards close to the chest like he did in this interview. Morrison tempered expectations of prospects and went to the "physical maturity" well quite a few times which I think stays away from publicly criticizing directly or indirectly the individual players' skills.

Maybe its my personal biases but I heard equal regard for Verhaeghe and Gauthier as prospects plus a lukewarm response to Finn as a prospect.

It took so long to be posted because I was busy completing our Draft Book. It's that simple.

Dave does not remain simply because he holds "data" from fired scouts. All the previous scouts input, A) is entered into the Rink Net database if Hunter wants to see it and B) Who cares what your fired scouts thought? They were fired because Mark Hunter obviously didn't care much for their opinion.

 

[Leafidelity]

Thanks a lot for this, Mark. Always enjoy reading your stuff.

 

[RedRenegade]

Shane Malloy points out that the Leafs are rated the 9th best in scouting for the period 2000-2009...The ratings are based on prospects playing 150 games or more in the NHL.

This to me is a flawed ratings system...I mean it shouldn't be just games played but the quality of the players should be figured into the equation...For example,you could have the most players fitting that description but 95% of them might be 4th line quality. They would rate that scouting #1 in the NHL.

Agree, and was going to post this same thing. One of the factors in why we rank high in this scale because of the quality of the team we had. We've been pretty bad so I think that makes it easier for prospects to make the team and get in 150 games. It doesn't look at the quality as you said CalgaryLeaf and I think it also doesn't address value you're getting out of the picks (ie. a 1st rounder making it versus a 5th rounder).

Nevertheless, thanks for posting the interview Mark. It was a decent listen to start my week off.

 

[91Kadri91*]

Measuring quality outside of points is entirely subjective though.

Obviously they were going for an objective analysis.

Neither is necessarily flawed. You just take it for what its worth.

At one point, sure, but with a myriad of GF/GA/shot creation/shot suppression/scoring chance/total value metrics, it isn't very subjective anymore.

 

[deletethis]

It took so long to be posted because I was busy completing our Draft Book. It's that simple.

Sorry, I didn't mean that to come across accusatory, it was just meant to be a musing about Morrison's status with the team. Thanks for doing the interview and posting it. And thanks for the web site.

Dave does not remain simply because he holds "data" from fired scouts. All the previous scouts input, A) is entered into the Rink Net database if Hunter wants to see it and B) Who cares what your fired scouts thought? They were fired because Mark Hunter obviously didn't care much for their opinion.

We'll see about that. If they're completely dismissing the work of more than a dozen scouts, that means the team has effectively not scouted huge swaths of North America and Europe for the 2015 draft.

 

[showtime8]

And this is when it sucks to be deaf.

Are you interested in having a breakdown of what they talked about here?

I'll lend a hand if you want me to transcribe it in point form

 

[The Winter Soldier]

It's from before the OHL Playoffs but still worth a listen.

FWIW, Dave is one of my fave scouts I've met since I've been doing this.

LINK

Thanks, Morrison is a good scout. He doesn't get enough credit here, people probably don't realize just how through he is.

 

[613Leafer]

Measuring quality outside of points is entirely subjective though.

Obviously they were going for an objective analysis.

Neither is necessarily flawed. You just take it for what its worth.

It is somewhat subjective, but at least introducing a vague quality rating is better than none.

Games played as the only metric means Stajan increases the Leafs drafting ability more than it increases Nashville's for Weber or Chicago's for Keith.

Not only should they include quality of player drafted, they should also handicap the value given for high picks. It doesn't take good scouting/drafting to land a solid NHLer with a top 3-5 pick.

It should actually count as a negative if you draft a depth player or non-NHLer with a top 3-5 pick.

 

[draeko17]

I have to think a couple of those things are compete and work ethic -- something that's been sorely lacking in this organization for a couple of decades.

Really? Or does it just seem that way?

 

[Mark Edwards]

Sorry, I didn't mean that to come across accusatory, it was just meant to be a musing about Morrison's status with the team. Thanks for doing the interview and posting it. And thanks for the web site.



We'll see about that. If they're completely dismissing the work of more than a dozen scouts, that means the team has effectively not scouted huge swaths of North America and Europe for the 2015 draft.

Just an FYI, I didn't do the interview. I just guest with Shane and Russ often and they gave me access to the audio files to post on HockeyProspect.com - It's called the Hockey Prospects show but I have nothing to do with the show other than I'm on it often.

They kept the scouts that Hunter valued. I know where the scouts who remain have scouted and they will be fine as far as knowing the prospects.

We can agree to disagree about the value Hunter will put into the scouting reports from scouts he fired.

 

[CalgaryLeaf*]

It is somewhat subjective, but at least introducing a vague quality rating is better than none.

Games played as the only metric means Stajan increases the Leafs drafting ability more than it increases Nashville's for Weber or Chicago's for Keith.

Not only should they include quality of player drafted, they should also handicap the value given for high picks. It doesn't take good scouting/drafting to land a solid NHLer with a top 3-5 pick.

It should actually count as a negative if you draft a depth player or non-NHLer with a top 3-5 pick.

Good point about the negative...Drafting a bust or role player in the top 10 has got to lower the scouting grade in some way.

Another issue that is related to scouting is development...One organization might be so good at developing (and not rushing) prospects that they could turn a 4th liner in some organizations into a 2nd or 3rd line caliber player.

Did Stralman fail to develop in 2 organizations because of coaching or was he just a late bloomer?