Prospect Info: Olli Juolevi II

[Bleach Clean]

You are entitled to your opinion. You are not the only and final arbiter of reasonableness.

No, but I think a large sample of scouting opinion at the time serves as the best gauge. You use 2-3 hand picked quotes. I use full lists from 14 different sources, including the same sources that provided you those quotes. Somehow, you think my research is lacking and yours is the more accurate barometer...? Weird. I'm including your evidence and still countering your point with even more evidence. How then can you possibly believe that Tkachuk was not generally regarded as the better player? It's mind boggling. Anyone reading this should be concluding the same. In fact, Pitseleh posted about this very same thing independent of our conversation. He too remarked that it wasn't close, at all. Only you think it was close due to a few quotes.

Everyone reasoned that Tkachuk was ahead. Everyone. Not a single source agreed with your interpretation via ranking.

McKenzie doesn't project anything. Did you read what Mark Edwards and his staff wrote?

Again. Don't be cheap. If you're going to rely on a draft guide's rankings, presumably you think the draft guide has done the work and seen the kid play. If you're going to rely on a draft guide's rankings, at least read what they have to say about the prospects and try to gleam the process in which they came to having certain players ranked higher. Maybe they tell you right there in the guide. Go and buy the draft guides and read things for yourself.

When I say Mckenzie "projects", it should be understood that I am referring to the 10 scouts behind his ranking. Or, did you need me to point that out to you explicitly every time out?

You want me to GLEAM (do you mean glean?) the process they utilized when ranking certain players higher, but not pay attention to who they ended up ranking higher... That's a great bit of common sense right there. Forget the result of the rationale, and only focus on the rationale. Not both. Just the rationale. Hmmm... awesome!

I've learned that when you probably look at a ranking from a vetted source, you assume that no due diligence or rationale went into it... If you can't see a quote, it's meaningless. Maybe some sub-employee at Hockey Prospect was throwing darts on a board to get to a list. Then, some writer comes along and fills in the blanks, to make the rankings legit. No one is thinking about the order before that writer comes along and writes. Darts on a board they are. The order is random. Has to be. The list has no meaning. It doesn't actually mean that that writer or employee thinks one player is better than the other. Nah, that can't be it, can it? There are no quotes!

Click to read more...

 

[Chairman Maouth]

Previous thread.

 

[Bleach Clean]

im gonna be honest fan/BC your argument over this topic is kind of insane at this point. a couple times i’ve tried to catch up and it’s just incomprehensible

i have no doubt bc has like a 95% of being right but right about WHAT? nobody knows

It's a long and winding road to get here Verv.

I've taken this response to the Juolevi thread, where it all started.

Basically, this is about judging the Juolevi pick both with and without the backdrop of public knowledge. Overall, my approach to the draft is that any team can pick any player, but they have to be right. The draft is both process and result. And so, if the process appears to be wrong, as in going against the general wisdom at the time, then the pressure on the result to turn out is that much greater. This is fine when the result is there. When it's not, it can be viewed as a colossal mistake.

For example, the Juolevi pick seemed wrong at the time. He was then under the microscope from that point onward to out-duel the clear cut pick at the time, Tkachuk. He has failed miserably in that regard. Tkachuk has soared ahead. As a result, what seemed wrong at the time, has borne itself out over time. Bad process, bad result.

To lead back to the discussion at hand: FAN justifies the pick in the following ways:

• Some scout quotes have Juolevi as being within the same class as Tkachuk.
• Picks within that class could be made arbitrarily.
• Juolevi was seen as the best Dman of his draft class.
• There's no such thing as BPA, teams have their own BPAs.
• Dahlin is somehow a clear BPA though. In his case, BPAs exist.
• Drafting for need is OK because Centres and Dmen carry more value.

To contrast this:

• Consensus BPA lists, such as those gleaned from taking the aggregate rankings across 14 public scouting services, do not matter. Only select quotes from specific scouts within those 14 scouting services matter.
• Every single ranking list provided by those 14 services had Tkachuk ahead of Juolevi. Every single one. Yet, that too doesn't matter.
• Rankings are nothing without accompanying quotes to explain the rationale behind the rankings.

That's the contradiction in his position. He selectively emphasizes quotes of sources to point to a justification for the pick. When I point out that those very same sources all had Tkachuk ahead, and that Tkachuk finished 3 spots ahead in the aggregate rankings across those 14 services → He turns around and says that rankings do not matter unless there is an accompanying quote or context... Mind boggling stuff here.

Strangely, we actually both agree on the result portion of the debate. The Juolevi pick has not turned out well, and he has a less than 50/50 to chance to meet or surpass Tkachuk's current level of play. To FAN's credit, this is light years ahead of some of the other posters here. What we cannot agree on is the process behind the pick. I contend that besides my own read on Juolevi at the time, there was a mountain of information pointing to Tkachuk as the stronger pick. He contends that it was even money. Where it starts to get comical is that he's ignoring swathes of data to maintain that position.

I'm sure he'll have a totally different take than I do, and say I'm misrepresenting his position or misreading things etc... The few people who were following along have already contested his points. He ignores this. Pitseleh said exactly the same thing about the consensus BPA rankings here:

The problem is that positional value is part of the reason defencemen and centres tend to get ranked slightly higher when ranking prospects, and then using that positional preference to make your selection double counts that factor, which leads teams to make mistakes exactly like this. Juolevi as a defence prospect was nowhere near Tkachuk as a wing prospect, but the two were seen as close in value because Juolevi was a defenceman.

I also think the idea that Juolevi was seen as on the same tier is misframing the situation. Juolevi was consistently ranked as part of the same group of players as Tkachuk, perhaps placing them on the same tier, but it was essentially universal across lists that Tkachuk was the higher ranked of the two. That gives the false impression they were close when they weren't really. (Unless by tier you mean based on the Canucks' rankings, in which case it is their mistake.)



You're underselling Tkachuk here. He scored at a 60 point pace as a 19/20 year old, and its reasonable to project more upside for him given forwards tend not to peak until 23/24. For players who have played 100+ games from 18-20 over the past decade, in terms of PPG he's right behind Pastrnak, Aho, MacKinnon, Skinner, Forsberg and immediately ahead of Ehlers, Monahan, Barkov, Kane, and Landeskog. That's absolutely the kind of player you could get a quality defender for.

Let me know how you see it?

 

[lawrence]

Meanwhile no one thought hayton was a top 5 pick. Not one. Teams scouting team sees it at a different angle. So at the end of the day what they say means jack squat.

 

[krutovsdonut]

it's almost july guys. he has not hockeyed in months.

can we give it a rest until september.

 

[M2Beezy]

it's almost july guys. he has not hockeyed in months.

can we give it a rest until september.

I agree. Time to cool off on the Juolevi hate train and accept what he can bring and for all we know at this point can still be what this team saw in him when was drafted. Time to move fwd and hope it works out

 

[Bleach Clean]

Meanwhile no one thought hayton was a top 5 pick. Not one. Teams scouting team sees it at a different angle. So at the end of the day what they say means jack squat.

No, the public understanding is important. It allows us to judge a team's performance against the lowest bar possible. If it turns out that Hayton is one of the best players picked in the draft, then ARZ's scouting staff added value above and beyond the public understanding. If he's not one of the best picks, then ARZ's scouting staff was outperformed by the public understanding.

This is a major reason why Benning is taking heat from media and fans alike. He made a pick that seemed wrong at the time, and it's looking more wrong the more that time passes. Why did it look wrong at the time? Because of this public understanding.

 

[Scott Stevens]

No, but I think a large sample of scouting opinion at the time serves as the best gauge. You use 2-3 hand picked quotes. I use full lists from 14 different sources, including the same sources that provided you those quotes. Somehow, you think my research is lacking and yours is the more accurate barometer...? Weird. I'm including your evidence and still countering your point with even more evidence. How then can you possibly believe that Tkachuk was not generally regarded as the better player? It's mind boggling. Anyone reading this should be concluding the same. In fact, Pitseleh posted about this very same thing independent of our conversation. He too remarked that it wasn't close, at all. Only you think it was close due to a few quotes.

Everyone reasoned that Tkachuk was ahead. Everyone. Not a single source agreed with your interpretation via ranking.





When I say Mckenzie "projects", it should be understood that I am referring to the 10 scouts behind his ranking. Or, did you need me to point that out to you explicitly every time out?

You want me to GLEAM (do you mean glean?) the process they utilized when ranking certain players higher, but not pay attention to who they ended up ranking higher... That's a great bit of common sense right there. Forget the result of the rationale, and only focus on the rationale. Not both. Just the rationale. Hmmm... awesome!

I've learned that when you probably look at a ranking from a vetted source, you assume that no due diligence or rationale went into it... If you can't see a quote, it's meaningless. Maybe some sub-employee at Hockey Prospect was throwing darts on a board to get to a list. Then, some writer comes along and fills in the blanks, to make the rankings legit. No one is thinking about the order before that writer comes along and writes. Darts on a board they are. The order is random. Has to be. The list has no meaning. It doesn't actually mean that that writer or employee thinks one player is better than the other. Nah, that can't be it, can it? There are no quotes!

I love this post because you also caught someone using “gleam” Hahahaha

In fact, I think it’s the same guy.

 

[F A N]

No, the public understanding is important. It allows us to judge a team's performance against the lowest bar possible. If it turns out that Hayton is one of the best players picked in the draft, then ARZ's scouting staff added value above and beyond the public understanding. If he's not one of the best picks, then ARZ's scouting staff was outperformed by the public understanding.

This is a major reason why Benning is taking heat from media and fans alike. He made a pick that seemed wrong at the time, and it's looking more wrong the more that time passes. Why did it look wrong at the time? Because of this public understanding.

But had Benning traded down and drafted the same player you would have been okay with it no? Same with Arizona? But then the player wouldn't be there because whatever the "public understanding" is it isn't reality.

 

[F A N]

No, but I think a large sample of scouting opinion at the time serves as the best gauge. You use 2-3 hand picked quotes. I use full lists from 14 different sources, including the same sources that provided you those quotes. Somehow, you think my research is lacking and yours is the more accurate barometer...? Weird.!

Did you go to university? Pretty sure you can't pass an academic writing course by taking everything out of context the way you do.

 

[Bleach Clean]

But had Benning traded down and drafted the same player you would have been okay with it no? Same with Arizona? But then the player wouldn't be there because whatever the "public understanding" is it isn't reality.

A trade signifies that a team sees value in a prospect beyond the public understanding. It absolutely is reality. It's how GMs determine how risky it is to trade down. How far they can trade down. Etc... How do they do this without first looking at how the public scouts/reporters see the draft? They have to take it all in, including intel from other teams, to make the best move.

Did you go to university? Pretty sure you can't pass an academic writing course by taking everything out of context the way you do.

2 Universities and 1 College. Writing was a passion, among other things. I'll be OK with my interpretations of context. No need to worry.

Did you disagree with my interpretation? If so, please explain why.

I'll also request that @Verviticus chime in here and see where I have erred.

 

[xtra]

I’m getting old cause I have no idea what an astroturfer is

 

[Verviticus]

Let me know how you see it?

i get what you're saying and i think its pretty obvious that juolevi was an inferior pick to tkachuk - both at the time and with hindsight

that said, i care more about reasoning for off-the-board picks (we think this player is undervalued because of [good reason]) and whether or not a team maximized the return on the location they pick at. if benning had traded down to 10-11 for each juolevi and virtanen and got them there i would have said ok, not the players i wanted, but the process was good

all things considered, i'm not really results oriented when it comes to draft picks

 

[VanJack]

If Hughes signs next week as expected, Juolevi starts the year in the minors...particularly because he won't have been able to train much over the summer. And just can't see how there's enough room on the same blueline for Hughes and Stecher either. And Stecher's still an RFA. Something else must be brewing in terms of trades/free agency to address the Canuck blueline.

They can bring in all the grit, character and toughness they want up front, but won't matter a damn with that soft-as-butter blueline.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

Nothing is brewing. Benning was on the radio today and said “we can deal with it later” (referring to log jam). He clearly has NO plan at all. Just flys by the seat of his pants.

If Hughes signs next week as expected, Juolevi starts the year in the minors...particularly because he won't have been able to train much over the summer. And just can't see how there's enough room on the same blueline for Hughes and Stecher either. And Stecher's still an RFA. Something else must be brewing in terms of trades/free agency to address the Canuck blueline.

They can bring in all the grit, character and toughness they want up front, but won't matter a damn with that soft-as-butter blueline.

 

[arttk]

Meanwhile no one thought hayton was a top 5 pick. Not one. Teams scouting team sees it at a different angle. So at the end of the day what they say means jack squat.

That’s called making a bad pick, especially if Hayton doesn’t hit.

Yeah some teams do that from time to time, it’s kind of highly not recommended.

 

[PuckLife]

That’s called making a bad pick, especially if Hayton doesn’t hit.

Yeah some teams do that from time to time, it’s kind of highly not recommended.

Mckenzie’s survey of 10 teams had one team rating Hayton in the top 5. This article says lots in the top 10 were high on him. The Yotes did their homework and picked the best player available from their perspective. Lots of insiders agree. Just because some casual followers were surprised doesn’t make it a bad pick. Hayton convinced Coyotes ‘there was really no reason not to take him’ - Arizona Sports

 

[arttk]

Mckenzie’s survey of 10 teams had one team rating Hayton in the top 5. This article says lots in the top 10 were high on him. The Yotes did their homework and picked the best player available from their perspective. Lots of insiders agree. Just because some casual followers were surprised doesn’t make it a bad pick. Hayton convinced Coyotes ‘there was really no reason not to take him’ - Arizona Sports

I don’t know, HF is pretty damn hardcore and frankly has a better record than almost any team when it comes to the 1st round.

Pretty sure in every list, nobody had him over Zadina.

 

[PuckLife]

I don’t know, HF is pretty damn hardcore and frankly has a better record than almost any team when it comes to the 1st round.

Pretty sure in every list, nobody had him over Zadina.

Wait and see. Zadina dropped for a reason IMO. Poor showing at the Combine?

 

[arttk]

Wait and see. Zadina dropped for a reason IMO. Poor showing at the Combine?

I think both Montreal and Arizona wanted center more.

 

[Bleach Clean]

i get what you're saying and i think its pretty obvious that juolevi was an inferior pick to tkachuk - both at the time and with hindsight

that said, i care more about reasoning for off-the-board picks (we think this player is undervalued because of [good reason]) and whether or not a team maximized the return on the location they pick at. if benning had traded down to 10-11 for each juolevi and virtanen and got them there i would have said ok, not the players i wanted, but the process was good

all things considered, i'm not really results oriented when it comes to draft picks

That's fine because the results have already been agreed upon by FAN and I: Juolevi is lagging behind.

The heart of the issue remaining is the perception of Juolevi relative to Tkachuk at the time of draft. You've said that the Juolevi pick was an inferior pick to Tkachuk (at the time). That's my understanding as well. That's also the understanding of 14 public services. Sadly, this is not FAN's understanding. But really, he has the minority opinion here. Most sources disagree with his assertion. That's really what that debate was about.

Mckenzie’s survey of 10 teams had one team rating Hayton in the top 5. This article says lots in the top 10 were high on him. The Yotes did their homework and picked the best player available from their perspective. Lots of insiders agree. Just because some casual followers were surprised doesn’t make it a bad pick. Hayton convinced Coyotes ‘there was really no reason not to take him’ - Arizona Sports

So one team had him in the top5 = Hayton is a deserving of a top7 selecton? No.

The article says that CHI was high on him, and two teams past ARZ wanted him. Great. How many teams wanted Wahlstrom? Dobson? Bouchard? Etc...

Teams wanting Hayton does not designate his position in the draft.

We won't know if it's a bad pick later on. It looks like a reach right now, based upon what we know. That's all that really needs to be acknowledged. People can go on and on about the player not being there after a trade down, but it makes no difference. The perception is that it's a reach. That's not going to change based on the difficulty a team faces in trading down.

 

[Verviticus]

how did you guys debate for a full year+ about that if its fundamentally "i think juolevi was worth a 5oa/wasnt worth a 5oa"

 

[lawrence]

No, the public understanding is important. It allows us to judge a team's performance against the lowest bar possible. If it turns out that Hayton is one of the best players picked in the draft, then ARZ's scouting staff added value above and beyond the public understanding. If he's not one of the best picks, then ARZ's scouting staff was outperformed by the public understanding.

This is a major reason why Benning is taking heat from media and fans alike. He made a pick that seemed wrong at the time, and it's looking more wrong the more that time passes. Why did it look wrong at the time? Because of this public understanding.

The example of hayton I am trying to make is that the Arizona coyotes made a pick with their which was number 5 on a player that based on public understand is a player that had no business being number 5. The highest rating he scored was number 7 by Craig button and people called that crazy let alone 5. I’m trying to tell you is that stuff like this happens when a player gets drafted higher then the so called “public understand” which I assume based on 3rd party ranking sources which no one had him in the top 10.

This choice was made based on the Arizona coyotes scouting staff, and they did depend on these so called 3rd party ranking sources.

There is really nothing more we can explain, it’s just that he Vancouver Canucks in 2016 had him ranked higher for whatever reason.

In 2016 hayton for whatever reason of the Arizona coyotes had him as the top player available , like is going against public understanding, but in both teams case, public understand can go screw themselves because the scouting group is hired to rank players, and public understanding is not always right.

 

[Bleach Clean]

how did you guys debate for a full year+ about that if its fundamentally "i think juolevi was worth a 5oa/wasnt worth a 5oa"

From my perspective, it's intellectual dishonesty. When the goal posts shift and the same/similar information is accepted and then rejected arbitrarily, this is where it leads.

From FAN's perspective, it's probably that I "misinterpreted or misunderstood" whatever he's saying - even though I've laid out in full here. He can explain his side.

FAN is clinging to "context". The context of a few scouts viewing Tkachuk and Juolevi to be within the same class. This justifies the reach to pick Juolevi as being reasonable. I obviously disagree. My evidence is that those very same scouting sources, the ones where he pulled the quotes about class, ranked Tkachuk ahead. Not only that, every scouting service did. Tkachuk also finished 3 spots ahead in aggregate rankings. But apparently, rankings don't mean anything without the context of accompanying quotes. It's an absurd defense. It really wasn't close between these two.

 

[Bleach Clean]

The example of hayton I am trying to make is that the Arizona coyotes made a pick with their which was number 5 on a player that based on public understand is a player that had no business being number 5. The highest rating he scored was number 7 by Craig button and people called that crazy let alone 5. I’m trying to tell you is that stuff like this happens when a player gets drafted higher then the so called “public understand” which I assume based on 3rd party ranking sources which no one had him in the top 10.

This choice was made based on the Arizona coyotes scouting staff, and they did depend on these so called 3rd party ranking sources.

There is really nothing more we can explain, it’s just that he Vancouver Canucks in 2016 had him ranked higher for whatever reason.

In 2016 hayton for whatever reason of the Arizona coyotes had him as the top player available , like is going against public understanding, but in both teams case, public understand can go screw themselves because the scouting group is hired to rank players, and public understanding is not always right.

You're right, the public lists aren't always right. Neither are scouts. That said, scouts are paid to outperform the public. Yes or no? If they cannot, what is the value they provide to the franchise over and above a public list? The public list should be viewed as the lowest bar available. Scouts should be outperforming it.

If a team does reach, it has to be right. The backlash is even greater when the team appears to go off the board and is confirmed to be wrong in doing so. Likewise, the praise is that much greater when they appear to have unearthed a gem none could have predicted.