HF Habs: Scouting Discussion Thread

[NotProkofievian]

Having a grading system is beneficial to the process. Every scout on the planet uses a variation of one. Not having one is essentially just ranking based on feeling.

I know everyone makes these stupid grades, but that's not a reason to make them. You say you're not grading by feeling, but what else do you use to grade Philip Broberg's passing a 3 or a 4 or a 5 if not your feeling? You running this ninja through a skills course and jotting down his results?

Here's another question, let's say you have your grading system, you must have a grade for ''average.'' When you do these grades for every prospect, did you ever run through each column and make sure that the average is actually your average grade?

We all know the answer to this question is no.

 

[DramaticGloveSave]

I know everyone makes these stupid grades, but that's not a reason to make them. You say you're not grading by feeling, but what else do you use to grade Philip Broberg's passing a 3 or a 4 or a 5 if not your feeling? You running this ninja through a skills course and jotting down his results?

Here's another question, let's say you have your grading system, you must have a grade for ''average.'' When you do these grades for every prospect, did you ever run through each column and make sure that the average is actually your average grade?

We all know the answer to this question is no.

It’s on observations. Actually putting a number down by a trait gives you something of actual substance as opposed to your feeling grades where essentially you’re just mancrushing.

No grading system... no tiers... you’re the Billy Beane of hf boards eh?

 

[NotProkofievian]

It’s on observations. Actually putting a number down by a trait gives you something of actual substance as opposed to your feeling grades where essentially you’re just mancrushing.

No grading system... no tiers... you’re the Billy Beane of hf boards eh?

Lmao, observations, such as, who's on the ice (team)? You have a less than sterling record in that department.

And no, just assigning a number on its own does nothing. That number is entirely based on your feeling about a particular player's trait. What would be different if you named your tiers after your favourite kinds of donut or assigned trait grades by your favourite spice girls songs instead of numbers? How did you pick how many grades you have? These are questions with only meaningless answers: ''just because.''

What's funny about your one coherent reference to analytics (hurr durr I watched moneyball durrrr) is that you're on record saying ''traits over stats, every damn time.'' Traits like ''Brady's brother says he's even meaner'' (awfully close in relevance to ''his girlfriend's a 6 at best'') over stats like goals, assists, points, shots etc. (awfully close to on base percentage).

 

[DramaticGloveSave]

Lmao, observations, such as, who's on the ice (team)? You have a less than sterling record in that department.

And no, just assigning a number on its own does nothing. That number is entirely based on your feeling about a particular player's trait. What would be different if you named your tiers after your favourite kinds of donut or assigned trait grades by your favourite spice girls songs instead of numbers? How did you pick how many grades you have? These are questions with only meaningless answers: ''just because.''

What's funny about your one coherent reference to analytics (hurr durr I watched moneyball durrrr) is that you're on record saying ''traits over stats, every damn time.'' Traits like ''Brady's brother says he's even meaner'' (awfully close in relevance to ''his girlfriend's a 6 at best'') over stats like goals, assists, points, shots etc. (awfully close to on base percentage).

The point here is that you are ranking guys based on your moon cycle and thus shouldn’t be talking smack about how others do it. Try going to a GM and show him your player horoscopes. I’m sure he’d much prefer something a bit more quantifiable (and so would randoms reading here)

 

[NotProkofievian]

The point here is that you are ranking guys based on your moon cycle and thus shouldn’t be talking smack about how others do it. Try going to a GM and show him your player horoscopes. I’m sure he’d much prefer something a bit more quantifiable (and so would randoms reading here)

There is no point here, this is just you taking another in a long line of L's from your betters. Supposing I were to speak to a GM, I would bring a lot more than numbers fished out of my butthole. You really think they would give two f***s about your ''from 1 to bout tree fiddy'' ranking system?

Literally the only thing I would care about when hiring a scout is the scout's date-last-modified verified pre-draft lists, because thats what their end product will be.

 

[DramaticGloveSave]

Literally the only L taken in this thread was by NP in regards to our Wahlstrom/Tkachuk bet.

 

[Mrb1p]

Corey Pronman just released his list for The Athletic. Pretty damn similar to mine, and he uses the 20-80 scale measuring traits, and uses tiers, so it makes sense our lists are similar (though the traits we list are different, he only grades skating, skills, physical game, and hockey sense which I admit is pretty efficient).

He has a top 16 that features the big 11 forwards plus Kaliev, Byram, Broberg, and York. The only player among the top tiers he has that I don't is Suzuki who i admittedly haven't done much work on but am not really interested in.

If you dont have a separate ranking for shooting and passing it actually makes no sense. Skill is way too broad.

 

[ProspectsSTC]

Most would say passing falls under hockey sense more than skill though.

Nah, passing, vision, and hockey IQ are three separate categories. E.g. Ryan Merkley: fantastic vision and passing, tries to force those passes too much and has poor decision making

 

[DramaticGloveSave]

Nah, passing, vision, and hockey IQ are three separate categories. E.g. Ryan Merkley: fantastic vision and passing, tries to force those passes too much and has poor decision making

For myself I have hands and shot under skills, and vision/passing and defensive awareness under IQ.

 

[Mrb1p]

For myself I have hands and shot under skills, and vision/passing and defensive awareness under IQ.

That would make Drouin and Laine equal, or even Rob Shremp and Michael Ryder.

 

[DramaticGloveSave]

That would make Drouin and Laine equal, or even Rob Shremp and Michael Ryder.

What? I also grade compete level and length...

 

[Mrb1p]

What? I also grade compete level and length...

No, just in the skill category, and as you can see, its not fair at all.

 

[DramaticGloveSave]

Posted it before, but this is how I break down the traits. Most scouts use the 5 tools of hockey (in brackets), but I split each of those 5 tools into 2 separate tools for a total of 10 traits.

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

In terms of grading, you can still use the 5 tools and just split the grade between the two traits under each tool, but I find doubling up the traits just paints a clearer picture.

If you really want to get into it, you can do now vs potential. Like with Kotkaniemi for examaple, he has great length but is ridiculously weak- however he can certainly add strength.

 

[G0bias]

Never personally cared for grading systems. Some things you simply can't measure so precisely.

 

[WeThreeKings]

Never personally cared for grading systems. Some things you simply can't measure so precisely.

It becomes more useful the deeper into the draft you go. I think when you're in the upper portions of the draft, the separation of the players are generally more easy to see.

It's when you're picking projects that you're going to look more at tools and their weaknesses to see if there's a player you can cultivate there.

 

[G0bias]

It becomes more useful the deeper into the draft you go. I think when you're in the upper portions of the draft, the separation of the players are generally more easy to see.

It's when you're picking projects that you're going to look more at tools and their weaknesses to see if there's a player you can cultivate there.

Only if you can really accurately make the distinction between a value of 20 vs 25 or a B+ grade vs A-. For say, some player's IQ. It just gets really messy.

 

[dackelljuneaubulis02]

Pretty sure it was Andrei79 (I think?) who said that players are more than just individual traits. They're more a gestalt. It was something like that. He summed it up really well. Obviously you can't ignore these traits but it's how they all kind of function together. I'm sure people know this but it was a thing that he said thats stuck with me.

 

[montreal]

Do NHL scouts over-value forwards from the WHL and from Europe?

 

[ahmedou]

What’s the scout’s minimum salary? What’s the scout’s maximum salary?

 

[Chili]

Behind the numbers: Blackhawks’ No. 3 pick might not be a surefire star, history shows

Found this article on third overall picks interesting.

Only about 40 percent of third overall picks end up being top-10 players in their draft class.

Only about 15 percent end up being top-three players in the class.

The success rate of third overall picks falls much more in line with that of the fourth and fifth picks than of the first and second picks.

In the 31-year sample, 74 and 77 percent of first and second overall picks, respectively, turned into top-10 players in their class. But clearly that rate tumbles sharply at No. 3, then remains steady for the next few choices — 35 percent at No. 4, 39 percent at No. 5.

 

[Chili]

An article on former Habs scout, Ryan Jankowski. He's now the amateur scouting director in Buffalo.

'Natural passion' drives Ryan Jankowski in leading Sabres' drafts

 

[montreal]

An article on former Habs scout, Ryan Jankowski. He's now the amateur scouting director in Buffalo.

'Natural passion' drives Ryan Jankowski in leading Sabres' drafts

wasn't aware he was with the sabers, not sure if that's good news for us or not.

 

[Chili]

wasn't aware he was with the Sabres, not sure if that's good news for us or not.

My take is that the division could get very competitive the next few years. Quenneville in Florida, Yzerman in Detroit. Botterill came from the Pens so he saw how a winning team was built.

 

[Mental HABuse]

I'll say one thing about Grant McCagg, I don't like his take on almost everything. But when it comes to the draft, he is not far off.

I believe he had Habs picking Poehling at 25 in 2017. And he was talking about Kotkaniemi for Habs months before most of the mainstream media started mentioning him.

And he was all over McCarron like a cheap suit!

 

[LastWordArmy]

And he was all over McCarron like a cheap suit!

And he mocked me for saying it was a terrible pick of a big guy who couldnt skate and didnt have enough skill to be a first rounder and i wouldnt take him before the third round.

So.i guess predicting the pick doesnt make you 100% right either.

He also said Michael Mcleod was a top 3 talent.