OT: What is your background in hockey knowledge when assessing players?

[SoftDumps]

No hockey experience here but damn I have been watching since knee high to a grasshopper.

I remember rolling around on the floor and getting up to change the channel for my pop to watch the Oilers in action back in the glory days. 37 now, born in 77. 83-84 was their first cup and while I no longer have any detailed memories of that time the warm fussy feeling of the carpet and hearing all the cheering will stay with me forever.

I stuck with hockey avidly until the trap/clutch and grab/expansion years sucked the life from the game.

Came back in 2002 or so because of the office yahoo hockey pool. Reinvigorated my love of the game and opened my eyes to teams/players other than the Oilers.

Numerous hockey pools where I primarily finish in the top 3 (second this year) and a ton of watching various teams/players play the game has vastly sharpened my eye for gauging players values. Fantasy draft research is the difference between finishing 1-3 or in the bottom half.

And of course I have been an obsessed HF board and hockey blog follower for well over a decade as well. Hell I actually used to read the paper to get hockey insight going way back, before this silly thing called the internet took over.

To be honest, from things I have heard, actually playing the game yields very little insight into player evaluation. A lot of practise to hone instincts, muscle memory, and reading body languagege is far different than researching, stat crunching, or decades of analysing video.

Will have to disagree with your last point. Playing at a high level, where coaching and system play becomes important, helps you understand what the player is actually thinking when he makes a decision (right or wrong) within the system he is expected to play. No amount of video will tell you that (it will certainly tell you if the player is out of position, not so much the why of it), because you haven't seen the situation from ice level at game speed. No rewinds and slow motion replays for the players.

I think it is easier to spot things during the play if you have been in the same situation dozens of times yourself. Just my opinion though.

 

[McDoused]

I just throw oatmeal at the wall and hope something sticks.

 

[GretzkytoKurri9917]

Memories.

 

[Jumptheshark]

Will have to disagree with your last point. Playing at a high level, where coaching and system play becomes important, helps you understand what the player is actually thinking when he makes a decision (right or wrong) within the system he is expected to play. No amount of video will tell you that (it will certainly tell you if the player is out of position, not so much the why of it), because you haven't seen the situation from ice level at game speed. No rewinds and slow motion replays for the players.

I think it is easier to spot things during the play if you have been in the same situation dozens of times yourself. Just my opinion though.

The one thing that still is in my memory is going to a camp right before the NHL pre season season where some first and second year nhlers attended to get the rust off of their game. I thought I was in good shape, but they were buff and their thighs stick out in my memory.

One reason why I question the work ethic of the Hall, Nuge and Eberle. Yakupov does time in the weight room--sounds like other do not

 

[Aerchon]

Will have to disagree with your last point. Playing at a high level, where coaching and system play becomes important, helps you understand what the player is actually thinking when he makes a decision (right or wrong) within the system he is expected to play. No amount of video will tell you that (it will certainly tell you if the player is out of position, not so much the why of it), because you haven't seen the situation from ice level at game speed. No rewinds and slow motion replays for the players.

I think it is easier to spot things during the play if you have been in the same situation dozens of times yourself. Just my opinion though.

I see the advantage of it, just not sure if it's enough of one.

I can't remember the exact references where I heard that players don't always make good scouts, coaches, GMs etc... but I think the topic has been brought up a few times over the years. Obviously most people in those positions were players, but I've been told that has more to do with familiarity and personality more than actual hockey knowledge.

Taking your logical statement one step further I have to ask the question. Do you think most hockey players who have played to an professional level can scout, coach, GM effectively?

Those rolls in my mind are more intellectual, motivational/strategic, and business orientated. Areas hockey players are not overly strong in on average.

 

[GretzkytoKurri9917]

My second video Game that I played in my life:










Terrible Game when I look back.

 

[SoftDumps]

I see the advantage of it, just not sure if it's enough of one.

I can't remember the exact references where I heard that players don't always make good scouts, coaches, GMs etc... but I think the topic has been brought up a few times over the years. Obviously most people in those positions were players, but I've been told that has more to do with familiarity and personality more than actual hockey knowledge.

Taking your logical statement one step further I have to ask the question. Do you think most hockey players who have played to an professional level can scout, coach, GM effectively?

Those rolls in my mind are more intellectual, motivational/strategic, and business orientated. Areas hockey players are not overly strong in on average.

I see your point. But we were talking talent evaluation (so booting the business/motivational stuff from your last statement in my response). I suppose they aren't necessarily the best judges of talent, but it can't hurt. I feel that playing hockey for 2 decades has helped me in talent evaluation, but that is personal opinion. Maybe if I spent that time watching video I would be a better judge of talent.

Anyways, I don't think you need to be particularly intellectual to judge someone's talent in a sport. If you have a basic grasp of statistics and a knowledge of the game's finer points, you should be fine. What better way to grasp these nuances than to play? With every leap in competition (minor, AAA, junior/college, minor pro, pro) there is less and less separating the players from their peers. Playing at a higher level can then give you an intimate idea of what enabled some of your own peers to progress higher than you.

 

[GretzkytoKurri9917]

delete

 

[Samus44]

Didn't play hockey when I was growing up but was always interested in it and sometimes watched the local team. I did however play soccer on quite a high level. Was one of better players in my age group and a couple of my former teammates are now professional players (not stars by any means but a couple of them can live off of it / plays in the highest league in Sweden). Based on that I think I have a pretty good feel for what it takes to be an athlete and what talent actually looks like. I could probably be a somewhat decent scout in soccer. Regarding hockey I'm still learning about the game and have been immersed in it day in and day out for a couple of years now and I think my knowledge is expanding pretty well. Obviously not as knowledgable as a lot of guys here but I'm always trying to read up on stuff and view them critically and then think both one and two times before I post something.

In my experience having experience in one sport tends to enhance your ability to comprehend the nuances and compete in another. I played a bit of soccer too and i find the sports are fairly relatable.

say what you will but the subtle nuances and idiosyncrasies of the game are lost on people who have never played at a high level.

I think you're generally right but i also think that your statement implies something that isn't true, that you're knowledge of the game can be limited or guaranteed by your experience. Quite frankly not being dumb is the most important thing when it comes to how much you can learn about the game, experience/a competitive background is an important second, and success in playing ability is an often useful third. I've played with a pro guy on one beer league team who had almost no head for the game but he was big and could move and shoot well enough to play at a minor pro level which was in contrast to his smaller brother who was clearly the smarter player and afaik didn't play at an overly high level. Ken Hitchcock never excelled at a high level and he's probably going in the HoF as a coach one day. Experience as a competitor, especially in hockey, i do think enhances a person's opinion but i don't think it's the most essential trait a person requires, intelligence is.

 

[Faelko]

Too old and from rural Alberta so never had an opportunity to play above "house" level.

IMO it doesn't matter if you played elite or not, I know some guys that played at very high levels but still don't really get it....

 

[Samus44]

Will have to disagree with your last point. Playing at a high level, where coaching and system play becomes important, helps you understand what the player is actually thinking when he makes a decision (right or wrong) within the system he is expected to play. No amount of video will tell you that (it will certainly tell you if the player is out of position, not so much the why of it), because you haven't seen the situation from ice level at game speed. No rewinds and slow motion replays for the players.

I think it is easier to spot things during the play if you have been in the same situation dozens of times yourself. Just my opinion though.

This has a lot of merit, but if you are shown what to look for you will begin to understand it just as well. The game looks slower and easier on TV than it is in person. I've seen a lot of guys unfairly blamed though for mistakes that someone who played i'm sure would never blame that guy for. Certainly the greater your immersion in the game the greater your opportunity to learn about it is, but that does not infer an automatic superiority in knowledge.

 

[Aerchon]

I see your point. But we were talking talent evaluation (so booting the business/motivational stuff from your last statement in my response). I suppose they aren't necessarily the best judges of talent, but it can't hurt. I feel that playing hockey for 2 decades has helped me in talent evaluation, but that is personal opinion. Maybe if I spent that time watching video I would be a better judge of talent.

Anyways, I don't think you need to be particularly intellectual to judge someone's talent in a sport. If you have a basic grasp of statistics and a knowledge of the game's finer points, you should be fine. What better way to grasp these nuances than to play? With every leap in competition (minor, AAA, junior/college, minor pro, pro) there is less and less separating the players from their peers. Playing at a higher level can then give you an intimate idea of what enabled some of your own peers to progress higher than you.

I think we are on the same page.

I used coach and GM because I do think they are relevant comparable. There are a lot of X pro players in those roles and that gets called into question at times.

Scouting is judging a players talent and while I agree you maybe do not "need" to be overly intellectual I would think having more than a "basic grasp of statistics and a knowledge of the gems finer points" is better for a scout/talent analyst.

I know we are not talking about pro scouting. Just rough talent. But the principle is the same. The ability to see the patterns within a players playing habits and in how that translates to statistics is where intellect is more important than playing experience.

I would think a scout could be taught the ins and outs of why players do what they do but the ability to see patterns and have the ability to project stats in an unbiased manner is something that can't truly be taught.

All this is hypothetical. But I would even think a player turned scout may improperly assess talent because they value certain attributes that they themselves had or needed to work on.

 

[ohheyhemsky]

My dad is Bobby Orr.

 

[Oil In My Veins]

My dad is Bobby Orr.

Colton?

 

[ohheyhemsky]

Colton?

My name is Sterv. I'm not supposed to come out during the day, so I spend all my time on these stupid boards.

 

[Craig MacAtaracts]

Played minor hockey from 4-17, spent most of my childhood days from open to close at outdoor rinks (and still do to a point). Also played junior and some uni hockey.

I agree, for the most part, that some of the subtle parts of the game are lost on people that haven't played at a high level. Generally, as with everything in life, you pick up on things that you otherwise wouldn't from just observing. Experience is something that cannot be taught. However, with that said, I've played with some dumb hockey players that didn't know their ass from their elbow, and I know a few very knowledgable people that have never played competitively that can pick up on things that I don't.

 

[Muscles Glasses]

Played goalie in the Play-On tournament one year. (Were Mercy ruled every game baby!)

 

[SoftDumps]

I think we are on the same page.

I used coach and GM because I do think they are relevant comparable. There are a lot of X pro players in those roles and that gets called into question at times.

Scouting is judging a players talent and while I agree you maybe do not "need" to be overly intellectual I would think having more than a "basic grasp of statistics and a knowledge of the gems finer points" is better for a scout/talent analyst.

I know we are not talking about pro scouting. Just rough talent. But the principle is the same. The ability to see the patterns within a players playing habits and in how that translates to statistics is where intellect is more important than playing experience.

I would think a scout could be taught the ins and outs of why players do what they do but the ability to see patterns and have the ability to project stats in an unbiased manner is something that can't truly be taught.

All this is hypothetical. But I would even think a player turned scout may improperly assess talent because they value certain attributes that they themselves had or needed to work on.

I can't really agree with the bolded. Projecting stats and using advanced analysis is easier to learn than assessing a player's raw talent relative to his peers (and then judging how effective he will be at the next level). I would say projecting stats is easier to learn than accumulating a working base of hockey knowledge through watching and playing hockey; the former can be learned in weeks to months, the latter takes years (even decades).

Statistics are taught all the time, in formal settings. Not sure how they can't truly be taught.

 

[RattsSSV]

Like the title says, what expertise do you have to back up your opinions in assessing players/prospects.

I don't watch any prospects games (WHL, OHL, QMJL, College) and rely my opinion on scouting reports and any highlights on youtube when draft draws near.

Unfortunately never got a chance to play hockey, wished I did growing up.

I'm little more stats oriented and usually take most opinions with a grain a salt.


Edit: Poll is up

You're getting out of hand Kevin.

 

[MettleMcOiler]

I played NHL 94 as a kid. Where is that option?

You really need a Junior/NCAA option in the poll, else we end up with nearly everyone in the minor hockey option.

Lol yeah true, just think of the minor hockey option as the Junior/NCAA option too. Cause you can't edit polls once you make them, well unless your a MOD XD

You're getting out of hand Kevin.

Heey...Lowe blow dude!

 

[bucks_oil]

I voted minor hockey, though I'd add these caveats:

1). Agree with eskimo44 and others, playing a similar sport at a high level (college soccer with future pros in my case ) does lend itself to a more analytical outlook on the game... Plenty of "systems play" parallels

2) I still play hockey... As a goalie... Enough said!!!

3) I was recently a GM in my 250 player beer league. We draft new teams each season (winter, spring and summer)to keep the teams even (to **** over our buddies by drafting a better team and having bragging rights)... And it isn't as easy as it seems!

4). You'll hear me chiming in more on mgmt issues since I'm a biz owner.... Also not always as easy as it seems from the outside.

 

[Delicious Pancakes]

I played high level hockey from the age of 5 up through midget and had my career cut short by injury. I was smaller and wasn't the most talented so I had to think the game better, and really focus on the technical side of things to improve. I always paid attention to the way NHLers played the game, and was always trying to soak up more hockey info.

When I see a player play I can assess what their strengths and shortcomings are as well as whether they have a good chance of improving based on how they play and think the game. Lots of players get praised for their talent, however you can often tell which players are going to hit a roadblock in their development because they can't think the game well enough. Players may look good in snippets or in highlight packages but if they're missing certain qualities in their game they won't help their team win. If you have enough experience in the game you can dissect that. However,often people fall in love with players (or hate on them) for their skills or certain good (or bad) qualities at the expense of seeing the player as a whole and what they can contribute to their team (or, as is often the case around here what they could potentially contribute to another team). The one thing that is tough to get a read on sometimes is whether a player will be able to process the game at the same high level when moving from another league to the speed of the NHL game.

 

[Oscar Acosta]

All those options are terrible.

As a kid I lived, breathed, walked hockey every day of my life. For years, I knew every stat, I was on the rink at 6am before school because thats what Gretzky did, etc. I bought newspapers of Roller Hockey in the 90s - I was determined.

My older cousin couldn't figure out who his favorite team was, didn't care. Played WHL hockey, didn't appreciate it as a dream of mine. Got drafted in the first round, played over a decade in the NHL and still is like "whatever, wasn't that hard". Last Christmas he actually asked me why I just didn't go for it, and I was like "for the same reason you didn't just be Wayne Gretzky".

Another friend of mine on Facebook I grew up with his brother is actually in the Oilers organization as a coach and they both played in the WHL, the other as a joke NHL player - but he constantly posts Pejorative Slured **** that you'd expect from a new hockey fan.

 

[Oscar Acosta]

Got myself off track, but I can spot a hockey player a mile away. I could never in a million years coach systems, I would always be confused and behind. I can see it watching a game but I don't care to watch.

 

[Up the Irons]

say what you will but the subtle nuances and idiosyncrasies of the game are lost on people who have never played at a high level.

fosho. I certainly am no expert. played minor, of course. But, sure don't know anywhere near enough to claim to be an expert. (but, I have no guilt in dissing those in the know when they make decision that make them look like they aren't, like picking Pouliot instead of Parize, Getzlaf, Kesler, Richards or Perry).

I mean, I know what gape control is. sort of. but they didn't tald about that in my day. Or puck support. In my day that was called 2 man forecheck. IOW, always try to have 2 guys to gang up one.

We fans clearly don't know much. but the pros make some glaring errors, too. and sometimes we spot problems sooner. (ie. gagner. everyone and their dog said they had to move him, KLowe and co. were the only ones that refuse to see it)