HF Habs: Scouting Discussion Thread

[Treb]

Any and all talk about scouting should be done here.

Actually your not " scouting " them either

Watching several game focusing on a prospect is scouting. Although nothing can beat sitting in the arena scouting, video scouting is an integral part of scouting and is miles ahead of stat scouting.

Click to read more...

 

[Vachon23]

Watching several game focusing on a prospect is scouting. Although nothing can beat sitting in the arena scouting, video scouting is an integral part of scouting and is miles ahead of stat scouting.

You need to see the player live to be real scouting why do you think about travel the world and not just look at video ? And in a real scouting report , they are all the intangibles, he doesn’t know any intangible on the player and it’s normal. For us his scouting are interesting because he saw the game but for a real scout this mean anything

 

[Mrb1p]

You need to see the player live to be real scouting why do you think about travel the world and not just look at video ? And in a real scouting report , they are all the intangibles, he doesn’t know any intangible on the player and it’s normal. For us his scouting are interesting because he saw the game but for a real scout this mean anything

And yet I hit on more players than scouts actually do There's no difference between watching a video and in real life, thats just old men talk.

As for the intangible thing, welp, too bad, anyway, most teams don't win on "intangibles".

 

[Treb]

You need to see the player live to be real scouting why do you think about travel the world and not just look at video ? And in a real scouting report , they are all the intangibles, he doesn’t know any intangible on the player and it’s normal. For us his scouting are interesting because he saw the game but for a real scout this mean anything

Which is exactly what I said.

Arena scouting>>>Video scouting>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stat scouting

 

[Vachon23]

And yet I hit on more players than scouts actually do There's no difference between watching a video and in real life, thats just old men talk.

As for the intangible thing, welp, too bad, anyway, most teams don't win on "intangibles".

So why are you not postuling for a job ? Don’t compare making a choice on forum and making a choice for a team that worth billions … they are difference between watching real life hockey and on video, they are alotes of things you don’t see in video

 

[Andrei79]

So why are you not postuling for a job ? Don’t compare making a choice on forum and making a choice for a team that worth billions … they are difference between watching real life hockey and on video, they are alotes of things you don’t see in video

I agree with you on the general points. But, video gets a bad rep whereas I feel its a crucial and essential part of analysing a player.

 

[Mrb1p]

So why are you not postuling for a job ? Don’t compare making a choice on forum and making a choice for a team that worth billions … they are difference between watching real life hockey and on video, they are alotes of things you don’t see in video

What do we not see in video? Thats actual crazy talk. In fact, you probably see more quicker in video. I usually replay a sequence 3 or 4 times to evaluate a play, especially for goals scored. Cant do that in real life.

Also, I doubt teams would hire a forum member who claims to have good scouting credentials.

 

[sandviper]

You need to see the player live to be real scouting why do you think about travel the world and not just look at video ? And in a real scouting report , they are all the intangibles, he doesn’t know any intangible on the player and it’s normal. For us his scouting are interesting because he saw the game but for a real scout this mean anything

I think maybe you are taking it to literal. I don’t think anyone is claiming to be an actual scout but quite a few people here do some activities an amateur or pro scout does. This would include video as well as attending games. They probably don’t actually speak to players unless they have a connection, and of course, they stat check.

I think the start of this discussion was some people have opinions based on what they’ve read or heard. That is fine, but the friction that happens is sometimes these people will completely disregard other opinions because they aren’t “real scouts”.

Like, I had this stupid argument last June with some person because he says that we should had drafted “whoever” because Pierre McGuire said so and my opinion was trash. I never claimed to be a scout, and since I was pretty confident we were drafting Kotkaniemi, I invested a lot of time analyzing his game.

A HF member doesnt have to agree with me, but if you are simply going to regurgitate a media member’s opinion as gospel and that member has nothing to back it up or even give me a structured opinion, well, that person loses credibility.

This is really the gist of the point I am trying to make. You can have an opinion, but it should be yours. I have been hyping Caufield because I’ve invested some time studying him. Of course I don’t “know” him and any intangibles outside of what regular folks have access to but at least if asked why I like him, I can give a reasonable answer and support it.

If I just came at you and said we need to draft Lavoie because Pierre McGuire says we should and solely use that as the basis of my argument, I won’t have any credibility.

So no, I am not a scout, nor have I spent hours reviewing 600+ prospects, but you’d be surprised how many here are into “scouting”. You can tell also when somebody gives a breakdown of a player when they’ve done their homework. In the end, they may not work for clubs, and their opinion is as accurate or flawed as anyone else, but if you can support an argument for or against a player, I’ll respect you for that even if I don’t agree with you.

 

[Vachon23]

What do we not see in video? Thats actual crazy talk. In fact, you probably see more quicker in video. I usually replay a sequence 3 or 4 times to evaluate a play, especially for goals scored. Cant do that in real life.

Also, I doubt teams would hire a forum member who claims to have good scouting credentials.

Body language, how does he act on the bench, things like that

I agree with you on the general points. But, video gets a bad rep whereas I feel its a crucial and essential part of analysing a player.

Video are important, they are just a part of the scouting and not all

 

[Andrei79]

I think maybe you are taking it to literal. I don’t think anyone is claiming to be an actual scout but quite a few people here do some activities an amateur or pro scout does. This would include video as well as attending games. They probably don’t actually speak to players unless they have a connection, and of course, they stat check.

I think the start of this discussion was some people have opinions based on what they’ve read or heard. That is fine, but the friction that happens is sometimes these people will completely disregard other opinions because they aren’t “real scouts”.

Like, I had this stupid argument last June with some person because he says that we should had drafted “whoever” because Pierre McGuire said so and my opinion was trash. I never claimed to be a scout, and since I was pretty confident we were drafting Kotkaniemi, I invested a lot of time analyzing his game.

A HF member doesnt have to agree with me, but if you are simply going to regurgitate a media member’s opinion as gospel and that member has nothing to back it up or even give me a structured opinion, well, that person loses credibility.

This is really the gist of the point I am trying to make. You can have an opinion, but it should be yours. I have been hyping Caufield because I’ve invested some time studying him. Of course I don’t “know” him and any intangibles outside of what regular folks have access to but at least if asked why I like him, I can give a reasonable answer and support it.

If I just came at you and said we need to draft Lavoie because Pierre McGuire says we should and solely use that as the basis of my argument, I won’t have any credibility.

So no, I am not a scout, nor have I spent hours reviewing 600+ prospects, but you’d be surprised how many here are into “scouting”. You can tell also when somebody gives a breakdown of a player when they’ve done their homework. In the end, they may not work for clubs, and their opinion is as accurate or flawed as anyone else, but if you can support an argument for or against a player, I’ll respect you for that even if I don’t agree with you.

Just kidding, great post man.

 

[Vachon23]

I think maybe you are taking it to literal. I don’t think anyone is claiming to be an actual scout but quite a few people here do some activities an amateur or pro scout does. This would include video as well as attending games. They probably don’t actually speak to players unless they have a connection, and of course, they stat check.

I think the start of this discussion was some people have opinions based on what they’ve read or heard. That is fine, but the friction that happens is sometimes these people will completely disregard other opinions because they aren’t “real scouts”.

Like, I had this stupid argument last June with some person because he says that we should had drafted “whoever” because Pierre McGuire said so and my opinion was trash. I never claimed to be a scout, and since I was pretty confident we were drafting Kotkaniemi, I invested a lot of time analyzing his game.

A HF member doesnt have to agree with me, but if you are simply going to regurgitate a media member’s opinion as gospel and that member has nothing to back it up or even give me a structured opinion, well, that person loses credibility.

This is really the gist of the point I am trying to make. You can have an opinion, but it should be yours. I have been hyping Caufield because I’ve invested some time studying him. Of course I don’t “know” him and any intangibles outside of what regular folks have access to but at least if asked why I like him, I can give a reasonable answer and support it.

If I just came at you and said we need to draft Lavoie because Pierre McGuire says we should and solely use that as the basis of my argument, I won’t have any credibility.

So no, I am not a scout, nor have I spent hours reviewing 600+ prospects, but you’d be surprised how many here are into “scouting”. You can tell also when somebody gives a breakdown of a player when they’ve done their homework. In the end, they may not work for clubs, and their opinion is as accurate or flawed as anyone else, but if you can support an argument for or against a player, I’ll respect you for that even if I don’t agree with you.

For video scouting, they are excellent point here, and they are probably scout who come here and take info. My point is to just don’t forget that we don’t have all the info

 

[DramaticGloveSave]

You definitely can see things live you can't see on TV. David Desharnais is the ultimate example to me, on TV he looked awful, and I think that's why so many folks here hated him, but live you could see that he really was a tremendously smart player- albeit one with insurmountable limitations.

 

[Hannibal]

And yet I hit on more players than scouts actually do There's no difference between watching a video and in real life, thats just old men talk.

As for the intangible thing, welp, too bad, anyway, most teams don't win on "intangibles".

Auto-proclaimed himself better than some real scouts but after all these years, he’s working from home, not even for a junior team.

Keep working

 

[DramaticGloveSave]

I tried to have this conversation last year, but noone bit, so I'll try again.

I'm making an effort to expand on the standard 5 tools of hockey aka size, skating, skills, IQ, and compete. To keep the math the same, I've started splitting each group into 2 groups. So now I'm looking at:

(SIZE)
-Length (height, stick)
-Strength (weight, power)
(SKATING)
-Speed
-Agility
(SKILLS)
-Shot
-Hands
(IQ)
-Offensive Creativity/Vision/Passing
-Defensive Smarts
(COMPETE)
-Effort
-Toughness

I also look at production and league.

Does that seem good to everybody, or is there something you'd expand on or remove?

 

[Andrei79]

I tried to have this conversation last year, but noone bit, so I'll try again.

I'm making an effort to expand on the standard 5 tools of hockey aka size, skating, skills, IQ, and compete. To keep the math the same, I've started splitting each group into 2 groups. So now I'm looking at:

(SIZE)
-Length (height, stick)
-Strength (weight, power)
(SKATING)
-Speed
-Agility
(SKILLS)
-Shot
-Hands
(IQ)
-Offensive Creativity/Vision/Passing
-Defensive Smarts
(COMPETE)
-Effort
-Toughness

I also look at production and league.

Does that seem good to everybody, or is there something you'd expand on or remove?

I guess I would make more subcategories.

Skating: top speed, acceleration, edge work, cutbacks... And how the skating is made an advantage by the player, which would overlap IQ, but be a specific way of using the skill. An example would be the way Datsyuk could get significant offense from cutbacks. Or how Gallagher uses them so much that by only being a fairly good straight away skater, he still ends up besting defensemen. I'd add stops and starts: are they crossover starts or V starts ? How many crossovers are used through the neutral zone ? How much are they used in the offensive zone ? Basically quantify and qualify each skill.

IQ: deceptiveness offensively: hows the player playing the dots. How is he trying to shift skates from defenders ? What kind of shot selections, hows he decieve goalies and defenses ? How is he getting puck touches ? From his own plays or is he forcing his teammates to think thus making them better ? Theres lots to add here.

Speed of execution I would add as well as its a make or break ability. Both in
making the NHL and how the player will rank in the NHL in relation to players with the same role.

Versatility: the ability to change roles while maintaining a players identity and maintaining a ratio of offensive chances for>offensive chances against that's still significant enough to have an impact (i.e. not post prime Plekanec). Barret Hayton was a great example of it last year. Is the player stuck in a role ?

Anyways, this is a very partial list of su groups I would add and of how I evaluate and would further a standardized report. Not going to share further cause I dont want a jabroni thinking he can get to be a main event itt now .

 

[Mrb1p]

I guess I would make more subcategories.

Skating: top speed, acceleration, edge work, cutbacks... And how the skating is made an advantage by the player, which would overlap IQ, but be a specific way of using the skill. An example would be the way Datsyuk could get significant offense from cutbacks. Or how Gallagher uses them so much that by only being a fairly good straight away skater, he still ends up besting defensemen. I'd add stops and starts: are they crossover starts or V starts ? How many crossovers are used through the neutral zone ? How much are they used in the offensive zone ? Basically quantify and qualify each skill.

IQ: deceptiveness offensively: hows the player playing the dots. How is he trying to shift skates from defenders ? What kind of shot selections, hows he decieve goalies and defenses ? How is he getting puck touches ? From his own plays or is he forcing his teammates to think thus making them better ? Theres lots to add here.

Speed of execution I would add as well as its a make or break ability. Both in
making the NHL and how the player will rank in the NHL in relation to players with the same role.

Versatility: the ability to change roles while maintaining a players identity and maintaining a ratio of offensive chances for>offensive chances against that's still significant enough to have an impact (i.e. not post prime Plekanec). Barret Hayton was a great example of it last year. Is the player stuck in a role ?

Anyways, this is a very partial list of su groups I would add and of how I evaluate and would further a standardized report. Not going to share further cause I dont want a jabroni thinking he can get to be a main event itt now .

Don't forget pivots and backwards skating. One of the reasons why Beaulieu can't defend is that he's so weak on his right side pivots.

 

[montreal]

I don't think you have to be live to scout a player.

 

[HABitual Fan]

Body language, how does he act on the bench, things like that



Video are important, they are just a part of the scouting and not all

I met a scout for the Q that told me he looks not at the goal but at the celebration. Does the player celebrate on his own or does he look for his teammates first.

 

[NotProkofievian]

I honestly don't see the point of tiers. You only get to pick one player.

 

[ahmedou]

I honestly don't see the point of tiers. You only get to pick one player.

I wanna see the big picture of that category. Which team (the 31 ones) can surprise us by picking a wdf pick (watch that forward,etc) at whatever round (1st to 7th)...

 

[WeThreeKings]

I honestly don't see the point of tiers. You only get to pick one player.

For me it's how you plan for trading up and down.

I have only this one player left in this tier. Try and trade up.

I have 7 players in this tier, I'm being offered an additional asset to move down five spots. I'll do it because I'm getting the same level of player and another pick.

 

[NotProkofievian]

For me it's how you plan for trading up and down.

I have only this one player left in this tier. Try and trade up.

I have 7 players in this tier, I'm being offered an additional asset to move down five spots. I'll do it because I'm getting the same level of player and another pick.

What does a tier even mean? How do you define a tier? IMO, this is just a common sense idea that's been applied to drafting without actually being precisely defined. I don't see the purpose. You still only get to pick one guy. You don't get to submit a selection like ''player x, but I'd also be fine with these other 3 guys.''

 

[DramaticGloveSave]

What does a tier even mean? How do you define a tier? IMO, this is just a common sense idea that's been applied to drafting without actually being precisely defined. I don't see the purpose. You still only get to pick one guy. You don't get to submit a selection like ''player x, but I'd also be fine with these other 3 guys.''

You can title the tiers however you see fit. TIER 1 could be Blue Chip Stars. IMHO, there are 4 guys in this draft who are pretty much locks to be stars in the league- Hughes, Kakko, Byram, and Dach. TIER 2 are guys who have a good chance to be great players. TIER 3 is more gambles and lower upside guys.

 

[Mrb1p]

I honestly don't see the point of tiers. You only get to pick one player.

There's an inherent ranking into your tiers too, it just helps separates murky territories.

 

[NotProkofievian]

There's an inherent ranking into your tiers too, it just helps separates murky territories.

Yeah, that's kinda my problem with it. Taking WTK's trading back example, just because you made some tier doesn't mean that, by trading back, you'll be left with only one of them. You could be left with two, and where's your tier now?

I don't see what I'm gaining by participating in the exercise of separating my list into tiers. How do we establish what a good tier even is? For example, does it mean that the worst player in the tier ahead is better than the best player in the tier below? Well, if you had a perfect ranking, any partition would be a valid ''tier.''