Team Board Mock Draft

[WreckingCrew]

I voted Stankoven just because Stank-oven

 

[TheReelChuckFletcher]

More recently he specifically said he didn't want to be a YouTube scout much longer and would gladly take any and all NHL calls.

If they're available. Note that Scouch is only 30, so he's essentially a baby compared to the rest of the scouting industry. So there's no need for him to rush. Even if he's hired by the NHL 5 years from now, he'd still be a relative baby.

 

[GoldiFox]

I like his work and listen to his podcasts. My guess is that folks are waiting on a few years of data to see if he has insights other don't get to using their methods. Which is likely going to be a problem, because he does seem to hedge bets based on the consensus. For instance last season he said that his data clearly showed that Brett Berard had the best transitions numbers of any players he tracked. Yet in his analysis he wondered if his style would translate to the NHL. I found that problematic when on a similarly sized player in Khusnutdinov with less impressive stats by Scouch's own measures, he said the numbers indicated future success. By the time he came to that conclusion most services had Khusnutdinov in the 25-40 range, so Scouch really didn't add much.

More recently he specifically said he didn't want to be a YouTube scout much longer and would gladly take any and all NHL calls.

Analysis is interpreting raw data with other factors. I don't think it is fair to knock on Scouch for Berard's rank when his own numbers actually indicated his breakout, even if his personal analysis of the player didn't agree on that count. Data analysis informs the viewing and the viewing informs the direction of data analysis.

That is also not true about Khusnutdinov IIRC and I followed it closely. Scouch had him in the top-15 all year while most outlets had him ranked in the 3rd+ round. The general consensus came around to scouches view on that one. And Khusnutdinov was injured all year so it isn't really fair to compare to Bedard at this point.

I know you are a big raw data PSF fan. A metric known to you alone. But raw data can only go so far.

 

[NotOpie]

I'm guessing, and that's all it is, a guess, that if the draft falls the way of this mock, then the Canes will end up with one of Samoskevich, Bolduc, or maybe Koivunen. But I haven't really doen much research this season.

 

[emptyNedder]

I know you are a big raw data PSF fan. A metric known to you alone. But raw data can only go so far.

Yes I don't give all the PSF information out. If I am on to something, then it has value which I want to protect. It would be great if I could figure it out for forwards, but haven't found anything that makes sense.

As far as raw data versus "informed" viewing, I think this scene takes only slight license with the way scouts (probably more so with hockey) think/work.

There are still many who will argue that Teräväinen is not among the best in the league defensively despite everything from simple stats (GA/60) to deeper analytics (xGA) indicating that he is a defensive force. The thing about raw data is that in its truest form it lacks almost all bias--with the caveat that any metric can be created with a bias.

with one of Samoskevich, Bolduc, or maybe Koivunen.

Koivunen would be a good pick, even though few have him ranked quite this high.

 

[majormajor]

Still, it begs the question why isn’t he well known in his community? Clearly we involved fans know him and he is well enough known to make money on YT and via patreon, so he must be on real scouting services radar and this team radars. So why doesn’t he have a job? Are the scouting groups to dumb to find him, to set in their ways to hire from outside, or is there something flawed in his opinions that make him someone they actively avoid?

Not saying any of us can know the answers to those questions, but it makes me wonder.

I like Scouch and I could imagine hiring him for his opinion but he's not that serious.

A lot of his data work is really skimpy. It's a few games here and there in different leagues with no data work for a player's teammates to know how they're doing in context. Basically low context low sample-size data isn't worth a whole lot. If he was hired full time he could help build a full database but teams usually already have that internally. Scouch is just doing a cheap-o free version of it. So it's not really a market advantage for him.

And his opinions are sometimes really not going to impress teams. He doesn't like the playoffs. He prefers regular season hockey, and he considers the Maple Leafs a great success. He likes a certain style of play more so than winning when most GMs (and fans) think matters the most. If the Ottawa Senators ever win anything with this current corps, it is going to be interesting, because Scouch has dumped all over many of their high profile picks. He was not a Brady Tkachuk fan and that take isn't aging well. He also had a strange moment about Jake Sanderson last year, where he acknowledged that this is shaping up to be a superb all situations D-man with a great transition game, and basically said "who cares" and ranked him much lower without any adequate explanation. More power to Scouch, he has built a good brand, but he isn't trying to do what teams are trying to do.

 

[TheReelChuckFletcher]

I like Scouch and I could imagine hiring him for his opinion but he's not that serious.

A lot of his data work is really skimpy. It's a few games here and there in different leagues with no data work for a player's teammates to know how they're doing in context. Basically low context low sample-size data isn't worth a whole lot. If he was hired full time he could help build a full database but teams usually already have that internally. Scouch is just doing a cheap-o free version of it. So it's not really a market advantage for him.

And his opinions are sometimes really not going to impress teams. He doesn't like the playoffs. He prefers regular season hockey, and he considers the Maple Leafs a great success. He likes a certain style of play more so than winning when most GMs (and fans) think matters the most. If the Ottawa Senators ever win anything with this current corps, it is going to be interesting, because Scouch has dumped all over many of their high profile picks. He was not a Brady Tkachuk fan and that take isn't aging well. He also had a strange moment about Jake Sanderson last year, where he acknowledged that this is shaping up to be a superb all situations D-man with a great transition game, and basically said "who cares" and ranked him much lower without any adequate explanation. More power to Scouch, he has built a good brand, but he isn't trying to do what teams are trying to do.

I don't think that Scouch's issue is that he isn't a serious and detailed talent evaluator, because he almost certainly is exactly that. It's more that he is a very raw and still-highly inexperienced talent evaluator. The guy's only 30 years old! It also explains why he has an overly optimistic view of the Maple Leafs and the Avalanche, because he has an (IMO unfounded) expectation that the playing style of postseason hockey is going to dramatically change in the coming years to suit the more fast-paced styles. I talk about that a lot with him in my DMs, where I find that the truly great teams like Tampa Bay can change their playing styles on a dime to fit any opponent.

 

[GoldiFox]

Yes I don't give all the PSF information out. If I am on to something, then it has value which I want to protect. It would be great if I could figure it out for forwards, but haven't found anything that makes sense.

As far as raw data versus "informed" viewing, I think this scene takes only slight license with the way scouts (probably more so with hockey) think/work.

There are still many who will argue that Teräväinen is not among the best in the league defensively despite everything from simple stats (GA/60) to deeper analytics (xGA) indicating that he is a defensive force. The thing about raw data is that in its truest form it lacks almost all bias--with the caveat that any metric can be created with a bias.



Koivunen would be a good pick, even though few have him ranked quite this high.

Any metric taken on its own is not worth much. It's why we see a lot of WAR and GAR Frankenstein's monsters of advanced stat parts and pieces.

Take your example of Berard and Khusnutdinov who both excelled at transitions. Two similar sized players with similar, impressive unbiased offensive and defensive transition data. So why would Scouch rank one higher than the other? Why would every outlet in the league rank Khusnutdinov a few rounds higher? Why was Berard a 5th round pick vs Khusnutdinov going in the 2nd?

If you look at Scouch's analysis of the two, he thinks that Khusnutdinov's skating is better and he is more dangerous. Transition data from one player in the USHL versus one player in the MHL isn't apples to apples. Some context should be applied.

For me if I have two players with similar profiles and similar transition data and I think that one is a better skater who attacks the dangerous areas of the ice more then I would be higher on the better skater. It doesn't have to be because he is kneeling to the consensus.

And for all that, Scouch ranked Berard #42 overall. Berard was taken at #134. Every single team passed on him multiple times versus where Scouch would have taken him in his ratings. He himself said that Berard was a Scouch analytics darling.

 

[Hasbro]

Stankoven it is.

Thanks Jerks!

 

[GIN ANTONIC]

Like bleed has been saying for a while, this low in the draft I don’t really recognize anybody. It’s just a list of names.
So my logic is to pick the best name. And since Chaz Lucius is off the board, Stankoven wins by default.

Chaz Lucius isn’t a good hockey name. I could see it as an overhyped QB though.

He’s the name you give to the asshole pretty boy character in a late 90s high school rom com.

 

[emptyNedder]

For me if I have two players with similar profiles and similar transition data and I think that one is a better skater who attacks the dangerous areas of the ice more then I would be higher on the better skater.

Good point and more to consider in an ongoing discussion that I thoroughly enjoy.

This strategy doesn't always improve on raw data. Because "better skater" is highly subjective.

Two drafts ago Pronman expressed doubt about Connor McMichael due to his speed. I responded to one of his Athletic Q&As that McMichael was in the top 3 in the CHL prospect showcase for speed. Pronman's response was that a straight-line speed test had "too much noise." That doesn't make any sense and sounds quite like the "Moneyball" quote about the ball exploding off the bat of a player who can't really hit. Pronman saw a slow skater and dismissed contradictory data as not applicable. Now I fully accept that similar to the NHL combine where a 40-yard dash number could hide an inability to make quick cuts, the straight-line skating speed doesn't mean McMichael is an exceptional skater. But Pronman didn't see that saying he lacked speed was objectively wrong--due to his bias.

Sometimes raw data is almost unacceptable, so we construct reasons to not accept it. I work in insurance underwriting. Some of the most experienced underwriters were hardest to convince as analytics became more prevalent. Let me provide the classic example that everyone from the general public to CEOs found difficult to believe. Being "in" an accident was almost as good an indicator of future losses as "causing" an accident. Now we all like to think that being the victim of an accident doesn't make you a poorer driver--and that is true. However, the majority of accidents are a combination of poor driving and external circumstances such as poor weather, poor road conditions, heavy traffic, etc. Often when someone is not-at-fault they are still driving in situations where multiple factors that lead to accidents are present. So while we all want to believe that being hit by another vehicle doesn't indicate anything about our driving, it often indicates someone driving where there are numerous external conditions that lead to more accidents. Therefore, that driver is more likely than a driver who hasn't been hit to be at-fault in a future accident.

Now before folks who read this get up in arms, no insurance commission would allow an insurer to increase rates based on being a victim in an accident. What insurers have discovered is how to track the underlying conditions (think micro-data in hockey and other sports) by using telematics to measure the number of quick stops, swerving to avoid potholes or wildlife, etc.

My guess is many teams are figuring out how to be more precise in what they measure and less subjective in dismissing the data that doesn't fit their scouting team's biases.

 

[Anton Dubinchuk]

Chaz Lucius isn’t a good hockey name. I could see it as an overhyped QB though.

He’s the name you give to the asshole pretty boy character in a late 90s high school rom com.

He sounds like an overhyped QB that Madden randomly generates for the draft in Franchise Mode.

 

[GoldiFox]

Good point and more to consider in an ongoing discussion that I thoroughly enjoy.

This strategy doesn't always improve on raw data. Because "better skater" is highly subjective.

Two drafts ago Pronman expressed doubt about Connor McMichael due to his speed. I responded to one of his Athletic Q&As that McMichael was in the top 3 in the CHL prospect showcase for speed. Pronman's response was that a straight-line speed test had "too much noise." That doesn't make any sense and sounds quite like the "Moneyball" quote about the ball exploding off the bat of a player who can't really hit. Pronman saw a slow skater and dismissed contradictory data as not applicable. Now I fully accept that similar to the NHL combine where a 40-yard dash number could hide an inability to make quick cuts, the straight-line skating speed doesn't mean McMichael is an exceptional skater. But Pronman didn't see that saying he lacked speed was objectively wrong--due to his bias.

Sometimes raw data is almost unacceptable, so we construct reasons to not accept it. I work in insurance underwriting. Some of the most experienced underwriters were hardest to convince as analytics became more prevalent. Let me provide the classic example that everyone from the general public to CEOs found difficult to believe. Being "in" an accident was almost as good an indicator of future losses as "causing" an accident. Now we all like to think that being the victim of an accident doesn't make you a poorer driver--and that is true. However, the majority of accidents are a combination of poor driving and external circumstances such as poor weather, poor road conditions, heavy traffic, etc. Often when someone is not-at-fault they are still driving in situations where multiple factors that lead to accidents are present. So while we all want to believe that being hit by another vehicle doesn't indicate anything about our driving, it often indicates someone driving where there are numerous external conditions that lead to more accidents. Therefore, that driver is more likely than a driver who hasn't been hit to be at-fault in a future accident.

Now before folks who read this get up in arms, no insurance commission would allow an insurer to increase rates based on being a victim in an accident. What insurers have discovered is how to track the underlying conditions (think micro-data in hockey and other sports) by using telematics to measure the number of quick stops, swerving to avoid potholes or wildlife, etc.

My guess is many teams are figuring out how to be more precise in what they measure and less subjective in dismissing the data that doesn't fit their scouting team's biases.

It seems likely to me that, on the whole, good drivers avoid accidents caused by bad drivers. Primarily by driving predictably. Conversely, bad drivers don't avoid accidents caused by other bad drivers. Proactive drivers are less likely to be involved in accidents whether they are the victim or the cause.

I don't see the match between Pronman and your differing opinion of Connor McMichael and Scouch's individual comparison of the speed of two players. He is transparent about his methods and data and tries to utilize metrics like speed blueline-to-blueline. It is as flawed as any other analysis, but I don't get any sense that he is hedging versus consensus.

 

[mikeyfan]

Don’t overlook


Francesco Pinelli

2020-21 Team: HDD Jesenice (#71)
Date of Birth: Apr. 11, 2003
Place of Birth: Hamilton, Ontario
Ht: 6-foot-1
Wt: 185 pounds
Position: C
NHL Draft Eligibility: 2021 first-year eligibility
Rankings

• NHL Central Scouting: 15th (amongst NA skaters)
• FC Hockey: 16th
• TSN/McKenzie: 24th
• Elite Prospects: 20th
• McKeen’s Hockey: 17th
• Dobber Prospects: 27th
• Smaht Scouting: 31st
• The Hockey Writers (Zator): 23rd
• The Hockey Writers (Baracchini): 19th
• The Hockey Writers (Forbes): 24th

Pinelli made the Rangers out of training camp prior to the 2019-20 season and made his OHL debut with the team that same year. He would go on to have an impressive year, putting up 18 goals and 41 points through 59 games before the pandemic put a halt to the OHL season.
With the 2020-21 season looming and no plans for an OHL season in sight, Pinelli joined fellow 2021 draft prospects such as Brandt Clarke, Carson Lambos, Brennan Othmann, and Mason McTavish by making the decision to play in Europe in his draft season. Options were limited, however, and Pinelli ended up playing for HDD Jesenice of the Alps Hockey League on loan.
Going from playing in a league with guys your age and being close to home to playing in a league with grown men almost seven thousand kilometres away from home would be a challenging set of circumstances for any junior hockey player. But Pinelli took it in stride.
Living on his own for the first time in a foreign country where he didn’t speak a lick of Slovenian, Pinelli put up 11 points through 13 games for HDD Jesenice. Albeit a small sample size, he impressed and definitely appeared to make the best of an unusual situation.
To follow up his stint in Slovenia, Pinelli earned the opportunity to represent Team Canada at the 2021 Under-18 World Hockey Championships. Playing alongside future draft phenoms in Connor Bedard and Shane Wright, he finished the tournament tied for second in points with 11 through seven games.
Now standing at 6-foot-1 and 185 pounds, Pinelli is an incredibly flashy player who’s electric offensively and reliable defensively. He has an above-average shot with a minimal windup, as his wrists are strong enough to generate effective shots without one. His skating is also above-average, and he’s a player you can trust to generate plays in all areas of the ice.
Pinelli is also good on the forecheck and has no issue throwing the body. He’s a very unselfish player who will let his linemates create the plays as much as he enjoys creating them himself. He can be just as effective as a finisher as a playmaker.