Why are you better than a scout at drafting?

[Simplicity]

Pretty straight forward thread. I see this arrogance in the draft thread every year. Why do you think you are more qualified to draft a player than the team of scouts (albeit a small team) who do this job year round?

Click to read more...

 

[Sens1Canes2]

Love it.

 

[NyQuil]

I think scouts end up building emotional attachments to some players and it hampers their objectivity.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

I think scouts end up building emotional attachments to some players and it hampers their objectivity.

Which would go hand in hand with the average fan watching the players play more than the scouts do

 

[Agent Zub]

I think scouts end up building emotional attachments to some players and it hampers their objectivity.

It's also why some GMs (like Dorion) are terrible.

 

[FolignoQuantumLeap]

Oh geez, why could I do someone's job who makes a relatively meager salary and is performed by legions of white men with a history of brain trauma? I dunno watching hockey seems real hard.

 

[Brannstorm]

So you mean Ottawa Senators team of scouts now? Of course not.

However, that being said, there are always one or two things that happen that seem almost obviously wrong to most of the people watching.

Like 99% of the time of course. But in 2015 when Boston picked Zboril, DeBrusk, Senyshyn whith chabot, connor, boeser, barzal etc. coming almost right afterwards I think we all were like what were they thinking there? In hindsight i like debrusk, real crafty player.

And this applies to everything really. I mean With respect to GM's I think Peter Charielli seems to be a walking and mostly talking conundrum. Trades away hall for a defenceman, still looking for a defenceman, signs lucic long term, etc. etc.

So sometimes the average person can just look at their surface knowledge and kind of see errors that are clear to everyone but the people making them. As far as the deep insight needed to draft I don't think anyone here would be able to provide it consistently, A) becuase they would need to full time watch everything and B) if they were that good they would be getting paid for their ideas and turn A) into a full time job.

 

[Torso9000]

This is just an appeal to authority.

While the response to the picks yesterday - Tkachuk in particular - may be annoying or frustrating to some in light of the overwhelming negativity that's surrounded the team in recent weeks, I don't think fans should just shrug their shoulders and blindly defend the decisions of the scouting department either. Although the team has had a pretty good track record with mid and late round picks over the years, they have a much more checkered history with their first round picks. This is the same team that has selected Jared Cowen, Stefan Noesen, Matt Puempel, Cody Ceci, and Curtis Lazar in the first round, and Andreas Englund with their first pick in the second when the team had no first.

It's fair if you're tired of the consistent negativity, but I don't think this is a reasonable response.

 

[Peptic Balcers]

So you mean Ottawa Senators team of scouts now? Of course not.

However, that being said, there are always one or two things that happen that seem almost obviously wrong to most of the people watching.

Like 99% of the time of course. But in 2015 when Boston picked Zboril, DeBrusk, Senyshyn whith chabot, connor, boeser, barzal etc. coming almost right afterwards I think we all were like what were they thinking there? In hindsight i like debrusk, real crafty player.

And this applies to everything really. I mean With respect to GM's I think Peter Charielli seems to be a walking and mostly talking conundrum. Trades away hall for a defenceman, still looking for a defenceman, signs lucic long term, etc. etc.

So sometimes the average person can just look at their surface knowledge and kind of see errors that are clear to everyone but the people making them. As far as the deep insight needed to draft I don't think anyone here would be able to provide it consistently, A) becuase they would need to full time watch everything and B) if they were that good they would be getting paid for their ideas and turn A) into a full time job.

You pretty much need to be a former player or know somebody to get a gig as a scout. It isn't exactly merit based

 

[Brannstorm]

You pretty much need to be a former player or know somebody to get a gig as a scout. It isn't exactly merit based

I did not know that.

 

[scallionjj11]

I never said i was?

 

[Benjamin]

They went to 'watch hours and hours of hockey over years' college and had proper connections in the industry while I just stayed home and watched hours and hours of hockey over years.

But seriously, you know its very common for amateurs to be better then pros for many different talents...

 

[PeterSidorkiewicz]

To me it feels like fans of every team get upset if their team goes off the “draft board” which makes me believe a lot of fans really don’t know a heap about these players minus maybe a little bit of internet research. That doesn’t mean every Fan, but I figure a lot of fans don’t have the same time to invest in this. For me, I don’t know shit anymore about rookies coming into the league because I don’t pay attention to them like I used to although I’ll still go to a few CHL games here and there. I tend to stay away from rookie discussion.

I don’t see it as an appeal to authority at all I see it has trusting someone in the profession who in this instance has much more access than I do and then you can let the results speak for themselves.

Also, I had an idea that I totally forgot about but it got like zero responses on this board. We could still do it but it’s for everyone to track their pick at where Ottawa picked and over the course of a few years we can evaluate how HF boards members picks compared to the score. No fantasy trading or anything , you pick at the same spot Ottawa picks. I thought it would be a cool experiment.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Lost in this particular situation is the idea that virtually every single list we have seen has had Brady at 3rd - 5th and Macs consensus list had him mostly 3rd.

This isn't an appeal to authority, this is the entire scouting community leaning one way, and a few fans who watched youtube videos thinking another way. If you look at the main detractors around here they have to diminish BT's skill set dramatically to make their case. It's doesn't exactly inspire confidence in their opinions.

I mean guys are actively making excuses as to why 3 teams passed on the 'better player', their player. The reality is that guys took a personal vested interest in picking Zadina, and now they are left feeling like they have to defend themselves.

It's pretty normal on draft day, and really most people around here are happy, and we haven't had much of that in a year.

 

[Liver King]

well scouting is 90% subjective, and you are evaluating 18 year old kids.

when the margin for error is so massive - everyone can be an expert

(e.g I watched a 5 minute highlight video of K Miller and read up on him, same with Bokk - wanted one of them at 22 - if they pan out, Ill look smart lmfao)

It's also HF boards where people are crazy insecure about being wrong/think their opinions are the be all and end all

 

[RICKY SPANISH]

Amazing thread.

If anything, the orgs. scouting dept has earned (should have) fans respect, and should have leeway.

Scouting is a bright spot for mgmt. With everything else going on, just take the W.

Not surprising to see it's the same usual group/trope that bash every move.

It's rediculous to argue futures/the unknown, when even the scouts are going off a hunch. At least they're professionals, and not neck-bearded, cheeto-dusted keyboard warriors

 

[topshelf15]

I have no idea about half these kids other than seeing small clips and their play at the WJC,some of the posters here like SOA have helped turn me gaze a few times with some impressive highlight clips and stat lines...I think we got a good kid ,but like everyone drafted yesterday time will tell in the end

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

The thing about scouting vs watching hockey and being so astute as to identify the better players right now is projecting. Seeing elements / factors in the players game and estimating where they are developmentally and where they can be projected to be. That 2nd part is not easy and a whole bunch of things can affect their development. It is certainly not an exact science and mistakes can certainly be made. I think its naive to think you would be better or as good as the vast majority of full time amateur scouts let alone the top guys like Mann and Lowes and even Dorion that have spent years developing their skills in that area

 

[LeProspector]

Some fans like myself go out of the way to watch these players and do our own research and develop our own opinions on these players. Difference between me and a scout is they get paid to do what they do and they spend their lives doing it. I do it more as a pass time.
I'm not saying I'm better than them but I have my opinions, just like they do.

 

[BonkTastic]

It's also why some GMs (like Dorion) are terrible.

This is the one part of Dorion's job that he is excellent at, though.

As much as I wish we had a different GM, I wish we could retain Dorion as an Assistant GM for his scouting acumen.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Some fans like myself go out of the way to watch these players and do our own research and develop our own opinions on these players. Difference between me and a scout is they get paid to do what they do and they spend their lives doing it. I do it more as a pass time.
I'm not saying I'm better than them but I have my opinions, just like they do.

More importantly though, you don't ever have anything at stake along with your decision-making and no one has ever put themselves on the line based on your opinions. Your drafting preferences have zero lasting effects if they are even noticed at all by anyone else (no disrespect intended).

It's the often ignored part of all this. It's easy to have a bunch opinions, only share the easy ones, and have all of them quickly forgotten on a website like this. It's not exactly authentic, nor is it comparable in the least to the pros, and not just because they are paid, it's because their decisions matter, and carry all of the weight and expectations that come along with it.

Given that most people form their draft attachments based on the work other people do (compile you tube clips, read scouting reports, etc,) should tell you all you need to know.

 

[RICKY SPANISH]

Oh geez, why could I do someone's job who makes a relatively meager salary and is performed by legions of white men with a history of brain trauma? I dunno watching hockey seems real hard.

What purpose does race play in this conversation?

 

[dumbdick]

Because I have bobs list, that's why.

 

[Torso9000]

Lost in this particular situation is the idea that virtually every single list we have seen has had Brady at 3rd - 5th and Macs consensus list had him mostly 3rd.

This isn't an appeal to authority, this is the entire scouting community leaning one way, and a few fans who watched youtube videos thinking another way. If you look at the main detractors around here they have to diminish BT's skill set dramatically to make their case. It's doesn't exactly inspire confidence in their opinions.

I mean guys are actively making excuses as to why 3 teams passed on the 'better player', their player. The reality is that guys took a personal vested interest in picking Zadina, and now they are left feeling like they have to defend themselves.

It's pretty normal on draft day, and really most people around here are happy, and we haven't had much of that in a year.

I think Tkachuk will be a good NHL player, but I don't think deferring to the consensus rankings is a compelling argument for why a given selection is good or bad either. While these are very much cherry-picked examples, Bob McKenzie's final rankings in 2014 featured Dal Colle, Ritchie, and Virtanen as the 5th, 6th, and 7th best players. Pavel Zacha and Lawson Crouse were rated 6th and 7th in 2015.

I think we should try to do better as fans than defaulting to rankings or consensus when discussing picks. Using Tkachuk as an example, detractors of the pick point immediately to his low goal totals. Perhaps that's a function of his low shooting percentage (~6%), maybe it's a function of his line mates and the role he played with them - whatever the case may be, I think we should aim to discuss the specifics of the player's abilities and how they might translate to the NHL instead of falling back on the rankings of other people.

 

[Grizwald]

I saw Eugene Melnyk sitting at our draft table...that's why.