Winnipeg Jets Top 20 Prospect 2016 - #9

[MrBoJangelz71]

Actually it is pretty far fetched. You seem to suggest that NHL teams purposely chose to ignore watching and producing scouting reports on Stanley. This even while they were in the building watching Sergachev among others. Most teams would do their lists after the combine. Why would any NHL team purposely ignore a draft eligible prospect? That seems extremely improbable to me.

When I say mock, I am not referring to pro scouting, which I would never assume does not take the time to watch players.

Talking about media mocks and how those were compiled. You usually do not see many players with such a variance in their mocks as we saw with Stanley.

 

[boanst]

When I say mock, I am not referring to pro scouting, which I would never assume does not take the time to watch players.

Talking about media mocks and how those were compiled. You usually do not see many players with such a variance in their mocks as we saw with Stanley.

Well the media does contain a few donkeys, so I could see how you came to that conclusion about them.

 

[Aavco Cup]

When I say mock, I am not referring to pro scouting, which I would never assume does not take the time to watch players.

Talking about media mocks and how those were compiled. You usually do not see many players with such a variance in their mocks as we saw with Stanley.

There were lots of players with variance this year. Now it's only the media? You seem to be backtracking

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

There were lots of players with variance this year. Now it's only the media? You seem to be backtracking

What am I backtracking on exactly?

I was talking about mock draft variances when I made the statement, and even if I back tracked that into pro scouting, doesn't change the message, scouts and media assessed Stanley's ability in a variety of ways.

And where did I suggest that pro scouts would purposely ignore watching a player?

I said that I hazard a guess that those who mocked him in lower rounds probably did not watch Stanley at all, or as much as those that ranked him higher.

I posted back in March in our draft thread about Stanley being a solid fit for us at 22. Stated he has solid skating and puck moving abilities, he start to perform well on the PP, and he was very solid defensively while offering a physical element to his game.

I was told repeatedly by a couple of posters that Stanley's game had none of those ingredients, he was a slow big Dman that was being overvalued because of his size.

After being drafted, and shedding an actual light on Stanley's game, the latter was false.

Hazard a guess, those that argued Stanley was slow and big, hadn't watched him closely last season.

 

[garret9]

Looks like you are wrong in that case too in his variance:

 

[Aavco Cup]

What am I backtracking on exactly?

I was talking about mock draft variances when I made the statement, and even if I back tracked that into pro scouting, doesn't change the message, scouts and media assessed Stanley's ability in a variety of ways.

And where did I suggest that pro scouts would purposely ignore watching a player?

I said that I hazard a guess that those who mocked him in lower rounds probably did not watch Stanley at all, or as much as those that ranked him higher.

I posted back in March in our draft thread about Stanley being a solid fit for us at 22. Stated he has solid skating and puck moving abilities, he start to perform well on the PP, and he was very solid defensively while offering a physical element to his game.

I was told repeatedly by a couple of posters that Stanley's game had none of those ingredients, he was a slow big Dman that was being overvalued because of his size.

After being drafted, and shedding an actual light on Stanley's game, the latter was false.

Hazard a guess, those that argued Stanley was slow and big, hadn't watched him closely last season.

You suggested that scouts and others who rated Stanley poorly didnso only on stats. That was baseless speculation that you have yet to provide any evidence for. Instand by that statement. It was all just baseless speculation on your part

I suggested that anyone who performed the way way you suggested would not be fulfilling their duties as an NHL scout or a commercial scouting service.

I think you are wrong to suggest that this is what happened here. There are many reasons to like Stanley and there are many reasons to not like him. Scoring is just one of those factors.

Edit: BTW I did watch Stanley in person twice before the draft. My opinion of him had nothing to do with stats.

 

[garret9]

Speaking of which, I wrote on Stanley today.

 

[Evil Little]

My point is sometimes Jets are wrong...

Agree 100%.

...just like scoring can be wrong.

Agree 100%.

The difference is, I'm not going to demand that they make every pick in deference to scoring models. I'm fine with them going 'off-model' every once in a while, as long as they're aware of the risk that entails. You may think they aren't but I feel their history of drafting shows them to be 'on-model' enough as to be effectively the case.

And as much as I take some small amount of perverse glee in the instant and predictable meltdown of HF Jets, I don't like the Stanley pick. But just as scoring models have shown efficacy when it comes to draft analysis, so has the Jets' scouting.

In cases where they contradict, I'll just wait and see.

 

[garret9]

Agree 100%.



Agree 100%.

The difference is, I'm not going to demand that they make every pick in deference to scoring models. I'm fine with them going 'off-model' every once in a while, as long as they're aware of the risk that entails. You may think they aren't but I feel their history of drafting shows them to be 'on-model' enough as to be effectively the case.

And as much as I take some small amount of perverse glee in the instant and predictable meltdown of HF Jets, I don't like the Stanley pick. But just as scoring models have shown efficacy when it comes to draft analysis, so has the Jets' scouting.

In cases where they contradict, I'll just wait and see.

The issue I had is the idea behind one asking for others to give the team the benefit of the doubt.
Just a form of appeal to authority.

Just like when I use stats, no one should just assume I'm going to be right when I use stats.

Weight things out and come to a decision of your own.

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

You suggested that scouts and others who rated Stanley poorly didnso only on stats. That was baseless speculation that you have yet to provide any evidence for. Instand by that statement. It was all just baseless speculation on your part

I suggested that anyone who performed the way way you suggested would not be fulfilling their duties as an NHL scout or a commercial scouting service.

I think you are wrong to suggest that this is what happened here. There are many reasons to like Stanley and there are many reasons to not like him. Scoring is just one of those factors.

Edit: BTW I did watch Stanley in person twice before the draft. My opinion of him had nothing to do with stats.

This is exactly what I stated:

As in Stanley's situation, there was a reason he was ranked in mocks at such a wide range, anywhere from the first round in the teens, to the late third round. I hazard a guess, those ranking him in the later rounds only watched his stat sheet, those ranking him in the first more than likely watched him play on multiple occasions and they are either overvaluing what they see, or they are identifying the value that the stats do not identify?

Not sure were you are reading pro scouts?

My experience is mock drafts are done by media, which is why they are a mock.

Mock draft
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mock draft is a term used by sports websites and magazines in reference to a simulation of a sports league draft or fantasy sports league's draft.

So your attempt to suggest I suggested pro scouts did not watch Stanley, is more baseless than my assessment that his variance in assessment was influenced by statistical analyses, over observational analyses.

And further to that, I know you are wrong to believe that was not the case in explaining this variance; some of the time. It would be naïve to think otherwise.

As well, when someone states "I hazard a guess" does that not insinuate baseless speculation? I mean, is that not what this board is primarily made up of, us speculating.

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

The real test would be to compare mock drafts done by media, to pro scouting draft lists, to see on average, which one ranked Stanley higher.

My speculation is mocks are done primarily through statistical analyses, as it is difficult to impossible for media to see players in person

Pro scouts will obviously visit the player and make observational analyses.

If my speculation is correct, Stanley will be ranked on average higher on pro scouts draft lists, over media mocks draft lists.

 

[Evil Little]

The issue I had is the idea behind one asking for others to give the team the benefit of the doubt.
Just a form of appeal to authority.

Just like when I use stats, no one should just assume I'm going to be right when I use stats.

Weight things out and come to a decision of your own.

That I can agree with.

But just as some are stating that the Jets' scouts should be followed blindly to the depths of hell, there are others--not you, as you've once again written today--who are stating that the scoring models prove unequivocally that Stanley will never be an NHL contributor. Both are wrong, in my opinion. To what degree, I'm willing to let time tell.

 

[Aavco Cup]

This is exactly what I stated:



Not sure were you are reading pro scouts?

My experience is mock drafts are done by media, which is why they are a mock.




So your attempt to suggest I suggested pro scouts did not watch Stanley, is more baseless than my assessment that his variance in assessment was influenced by statistical analyses, over observational analyses.

And further to that, I know you are wrong to believe that was not the case in explaining this variance; some of the time. It would be naïve to think otherwise.

As well, when someone states "I hazard a guess" does that not insinuate baseless speculation? I mean, is that not what this board is primarily made up of, us speculating.

You assume all mocks are done by media. They are not. Repected scouting services also do mocks like McKeens and they do employ scouts.

You are free to share your opinions and the rest of us are free to disagree with them.

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

You assume all mocks are done by media. They are not. Repected scouting services also do mocks like McKeens and they do employ scouts.

You are free to share your opinions and the rest of us are free to disagree with them.

I assumed

You were the one that assumed my definition of a "mock" drafts is that they are primarily compiled by pro scouts, which they are not. I would hazard a guess (BASELESS SPECULATION) that 90% of "mock" drafts are done by media sorts.

It would make much more sense for you to assume I meant that, than what you tried to insinuate; that I was proclaiming pro scouts do not watch players, which is laughable.

Seems like you are the one backtracking now.....

 

[Aavco Cup]

I assumed

You were the one that assumed my definition of a "mock" drafts is that they are primarily compiled by pro scouts, which they are not. I would hazard a guess that 90% of "mock" drafts are done by media sorts.

It would make much more sense for you to assume I meant that, than what you tried to insinuate; that I was proclaiming pro scouts do not watch players, which is laughable.

Seems like you are the one backtracking now.....

Not at all I am at exactly the same point I was.

Baseless speculation was the basis of that paragraph you wrote. And extremely unlikely

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

Not at all I am at exactly the same point I was.

Baseless speculation was the basis of that paragraph you wrote. And extremely unlikely

This was the point:

Media compile mock drafts based heavily on statistical analyses over observational analyses?

That those mocks where Stanley was rated low, IMO suggest that statistical analyses outweighed observational analyses?

That is extremely unlikely?

Sorry, but its extremely unlikely that my observation is extremely unlikely.

 

[garret9]

Mocks are fairly agnostic to statistical models.

 

[Aavco Cup]

This was the point:

Media compile mock drafts based heavily on statistical analyses over observational analyses?

That those mocks where Stanley was rated low, IMO suggest that statistical analyses outweighed observational analyses?

That is extremely unlikely?

Sorry, but its extremely unlikely that my observation is extremely unlikely.

Here's what someone wrote in one of those mocks. Someone who watched him play a lot. Who did not rely on the stat sheets to form his opinion.

It is extremely unlikely IMO

55. Logan Stanley, D, Windsor (OHL)
DOB: 5/26/98 | Ht: 6-7 | Wt: 225
GP: 46 | G: 17 | A: 16

The massive blueliner has been a lightning rod in the prospect community for a number of years, with a wide variance of opinions. I've heard scouts who wouldn't use a pick in the first two rounds on him, and others who consider him a top-10 talent. He stands 6-7 and is a pretty impressive skater and puck mover for such a big man. He's not particularly dynamic in either area, but he shows a quality athletic toolkit. Stanley leans on opponents with his large frame to win battles and gets in shooting lanes pretty well, and disrupts play with his long reach. Stanley's hockey IQ isn't sublime; while he's not a liability there, he doesn't display top-end puck-moving instincts to make him a real power-play threat. There's some offensive upside, but it's pretty evident how his bread will be buttered

PS This is my last response

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

Mocks are fairly agnostic to statistical models.

Very generalized statement that encapsulates the 100's of mocks out there, how so?

I could believe that for a top 10, perhaps top 20, but beyond that, the reliance on statistical models would be quite heavy for them to have any understanding of an entity they have no clue about because they have never seen them play.

 

[KingBogo]

I talked to a few scouts pre draft during the WHL playoffs about Stanely and they had a wide range of opinion on him. 1 scouts team had him a top 10 ranked player while the other had in him in the 2nd round.

But ironically enough all suggested he would go in the 1st round. Why? Because they felt this draft was devoid of really solid Defensive prospects.

One scout in particular told me his team felt there was too many smallish(sub 6 foot guys) D men that would never be able to play in the NHL as D. They felt that they had enough data to show that smaller D men no matter how they produced were a far longer shot to be effective(that is the key word here and that is a matter for debate too) players at the NHL level

Interesting stuff Joe. Feel free to share more if you can.

 

[garret9]

Very generalized statement that encapsulates the 100's of mocks out there, how so?

I could believe that for a top 10, perhaps top 20, but beyond that, the reliance on statistical models would be quite heavy for them to have any understanding of an entity they have no clue about because they have never seen them play.

My general statement fits the general trend. Your general statement does not.

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

My general statement fits the general trend. Your general statement does not.

sure

 

[garret9]

I talked to a few scouts pre draft during the WHL playoffs about Stanely and they had a wide range of opinion on him. 1 scouts team had him a top 10 ranked player while the other had in him in the 2nd round.

But ironically enough all suggested he would go in the 1st round. Why? Because they felt this draft was devoid of really solid Defensive prospects.

One scout in particular told me his team felt there was too many smallish(sub 6 foot guys) D men that would never be able to play in the NHL as D. They felt that they had enough data to show that smaller D men no matter how they produced were a far longer shot to be effective(that is the key word here and that is a matter for debate too) players at the NHL level

The effective comment is interesting to hear.

Not only is the mean height in the NHL decreasing the past few seasons for defenders relative to the human population average, but I have found no evidence to support this.

Height predicts NHL games but it doesn't differentiate the impact of defenders who play X numbers of games, whether that be GVT, PPG, Plus/Minus, WAR, or Point Shares.

I wonder if the data that scout is finding their results from is just them noticing the GP tend Whig could just be hockey ops bias, and then perpetuating the bias further.

 

[boanst]

A "mock draft" is an attempt to guess where players will be selected, taking into factor what certain teams may have in mind for the selections.

It isnt quite the same as straight prospect rankings which focuses on ordering prospects on expectations for future success.

I typically see countless mock drafts for the NFL, not as many for the NHL. Im guessing because of the specialized nature of football where drafting based on positional need is a common theme, and because their draft classes feature players that actually start right away. Mock drafting for NHL would have to be significantly harder to accurately predict once the very top tiers of players are gone.
The jets were actually fairly easy to predict this year for some with several mocks predicting defense heavy for us.

 

[MrBoJangelz71]

A "mock draft" is an attempt to guess where players will be selected, taking into factor what certain teams may have in mind for the selections.

It isnt quite the same as straight prospect rankings which focuses on ordering prospects on expectations for future success.

I typically see countless mock drafts for the NFL, not as many for the NHL. Im guessing because of the specialized nature of football where drafting based on positional need is a common theme, and because their draft classes feature players that actually start right away. Mock drafting for NHL would have to be significantly harder to accurately predict once the very top tiers of players are gone.
The jets were actually fairly easy to predict this year for some with several mocks predicting defense heavy for us.

That is true, mocks tend to guess. But they tend to guess based off of what teams will do, which usually leans towards BPA over need.

NFL drafts, and I am no expert, many times sees teams drafting need over BPA? That and the multiple positions that a BPA can be available at, coupled with need, dictates the pick?