evnted
Registered User
- Apr 14, 2016
- 831
- 2,152
its hard to say, i dont think i really have a consistent template for how i evaluate players, its just a feel i get as i watch them. but i can definitely go into more detail than thatQuestion for our draft prospect gurus here...
When you're evaluating a prospect, what flaws do you think are most or least correctable? I mean, obviously lanky players will likely add size and strength but are unlikely to add height (unless you're a giraffe), but what about other aspects? Skating, top speed, first step, shot, vision, shot, hockey IQ, defensive positioning, defensive awareness, high motor, compete level, etc.
Also, how do you account for how size and strength will translate in a men's league, like if you think the a large prospect is using his size to dominate his peers, but won't be able to do so against NHL sized players?
compete is a big one. i dont like players with glaring compete issues. thats not to say i completely avoid them, but these types of prospects are the ones that burn you because you fanatasize about their skillset and their highs and lose track of the fact that the lows will prevent them from becoming everyday players on an nhl roster. imo theres some nuance to compete when it comes to players picking spots, for example, the ones who look like they arent super engaged but they still make correct plays and never quite check out. this is difficult to evaluate (whether its an issue or not) and ties into iq, which ill get to
overall, if theres one framework i adhere to, i try to scout based on intent rather than results as much as possible. stats help me decipher who i should and shouldnt pay attention to, but outside of listing accomplishments for the sake of doing so, i rarely ever focus on them. a player with huge numbers wont impress me if they arent making primary plays on the goals, and likewise a player with crap numbers will pique my interest if im seeing a lot of smart decisions with the puck, translatable/pro level habits, and a skillset that they are trying to apply productivey. for example, this is why i liked sennecke early season when it was common to see him ranked as a late 1st rounder. i saw a lot of good ideas with the puck, good ideas with how he attacked space, and just a lot of near misses or overplays or incomplete sequences that felt more readily correctable
hand-in-hand with this is scouting with context in mind. environments matter and can greatly alter our perception of a player. someone being spoonfed top line/top pp minutes on a loaded junior team will, predictably, put up numbers and attract attention. on the flip side, a hard worker who has minimal support or a young kid in a pro league will understandably struggle to show off their skill to the same degree. this is why i liked ritchie around lotto range last year and thought the avs got a huge steal in him. oshawa was bad and offered him little actual talent to play with, and add on top of that ritchie was a heart and soul player who would never cheat for offense or give up his center responsibilities to pad his totals. thus, on a better team this year, he predictably took off
now, another big one: hockey iq. i could write a dissertation on hockey iq. this has to be the most complex concept when it comes to scouting (and at times grossly underestimated) firstly, because its a handwavy all inclusive term no one can properly define/bound, and secondly, because, without being able to talk to these kids, we're basically making educated guesses that we can understand their vision, awareness, intent, etc. from tape. with enough experience, i do trust its possible to be sufficiently good at reading play to this degree, but it can still be a challenge. that said, its hugely important in terms of projecting players and can matter both in terms of finding better-bet gambles late in the draft or helping decide between two franchise level prospects (ie why i ultimately preferred carlsson to fantilli last year)
so hockey iq is an umbrella term that requires being significantly broken down to properly understand. how a player challenges defenders is as much hockey iq as their ability to know where their linemates are off the rush, or even their decision making with the puck in the first place. good hockey iq doesnt mean a player does all three of those things well, and bad hockey iq doesnt mean a player fails at all three things either. im sure you can see this going down the route of another book report but to pull it back, every time i see a prospect botch a play, i try to ask myself what he was going for, whether or not that was a good choice, and what other options he couldve taken. when i see good plays, i ask myself whether theyre tools driven or processor driven. these types of questions help me come to a verdict on how much i trust their iq
compete cant be taught outside of exceedingly rare instances, you either have it or you dont. hockey iq has teachable traits (pattern recognition, zone positioning, etc.) but when its used to describe vision or awareness or split second decision making, it also cannot be taught. these are the things you bet on because theyre very nearly intrinsic to the player. shot? meh, we see players bolster their shots all the time. im more concerned with how the player is driving scoring lanes and whether or not theyre putting themselves in places to succeed (ie nemo was excellent at activating and finding space in his DY, he just had a weaker shot at the time). skating? im not as much in the mechanical side of things but again this is still correctable to a degree. i care about how they vary their speed, whether they can make quick cuts along the boards, do they know how to attack space (as opposed to relying on elite level skating to force open lanes). and so on, i wont go down every single attribute lol
i think my big takeaway is this: prospects can develop facets to their game, but their baseline game rarely ever changes, even as you scale it. what youre seeing in other leagues/at other levels is very likely to carry over to the nhl to a significant degree. results can absolutely disappear along the way, but the intent of what theyre trying to accomplish on the ice never will. if that gives me optimism, i like the player. if it doesnt, its usually asking to be burned to project that everything will come together