Effect of Politics on Internal Draft Lists?

[Dumpster Flyers]

After seeing a lot of odd placements on leaked internal draft lists, peculiar selections made with recently-acquired picks (e.g. Lias Andersson in 2017, DeBrusk & Senyshyn in 2015), and perceived disorganization and mismanagement in behind-the-scenes scouting staff stories/footage, I often wonder how internal politics in teams' scouting rooms affects their draft boards and ultimate decisions.

Hypothetical scenario: A scouting staff expects to pick at #20 and have a player they want whom they expect to be available. If the scouts were being completely honest, that player would rank #16. However, they know their GM won't be particularly excited about taking a #16 ranked player at #20, and may even consider trading the pick or look at players further down the list ranked #18, #19, and #20. Therefore, the scouts bump this player up to #7 on their list, ahead of highly touted prospects they have no chance at selecting (or so they think). It makes the GM happier and more confident in the pick, believing he got a steal.

But then the GM makes an unexpected trade for the 9th overall pick, and their boosted #7-ranked player is on the board. Drastically altering their draft list at the last minute to reflect their "real" rankings would make them look horrible and draw the ire of their GM, so they dig in their heels and commit.

 

[The Macho Man]

Probably would phrase the title differently. This makes me think more of "won't take Russian players because of Putin" or something like that.

Anyway - I would imagine a staff should feel comfortable enough to give an honest assessment and the GM should trust his staff enough to listen to it. If that's not happening, I'd call the organization dysfunctional.

 

[hototogisu]

After seeing a lot of odd placements on leaked internal draft lists, peculiar selections made with recently-acquired picks (e.g. Lias Andersson in 2017, DeBrusk & Senyshyn in 2015), and perceived disorganization and mismanagement in behind-the-scenes scouting staff stories/footage, I often wonder how internal politics in teams' scouting rooms affects their draft boards and ultimate decisions.

Hypothetical scenario: A scouting staff expects to pick at #20 and have a player they want whom they expect to be available. If the scouts were being completely honest, that player would rank #16. However, they know their GM won't be particularly excited about taking a #16 ranked player at #20, and may even consider trading the pick or look at players further down the list ranked #18, #19, and #20. Therefore, the scouts bump this player up to #7 on their list, ahead of highly touted prospects they have no chance at selecting (or so they think). It makes the GM happier and more confident in the pick, believing he got a steal.

But then the GM makes an unexpected trade for the 9th overall pick, and their boosted #7-ranked player is on the board. Drastically altering their draft list at the last minute to reflect their "real" rankings would make them look horrible and draw the ire of their GM, so they dig in their heels and commit.

The problem with your scenario is assuming that "scouts" all act as one homogenized body with uniform opinions, and that you have a "scouts vs. GM" dynamic within the team.

The fact is there's a lot of disagreement even among scouts for the same team. Scouts are regional - so your Swedish scouts may not know as much about the OHL as your Ontario scouts. So they have to make their case that a Swedish prospect they saw is worth that #16 ranking on the draft board ahead of the OHL kid that the Ontario scouts really like.

All this hammering and back-and-forth and making the case for "your guy" is what leads to a team's final list. Frequently involving the GM himself, who may have his own opinions about certain prospects.

The scouts don't all come to an agreement and then present their list to the GM, and have internal discussions about pushing a guy up the rankings to fool their GM into taking him. That's just not how the process works.

 

[Dumpster Flyers]

The problem with your scenario is assuming that "scouts" all act as one homogenized body with uniform opinions, and that you have a "scouts vs. GM" dynamic within the team.

The fact is there's a lot of disagreement even among scouts for the same team. Scouts are regional - so your Swedish scouts may not know as much about the OHL as your Ontario scouts. So they have to make their case that a Swedish prospect they saw is worth that #16 ranking on the draft board ahead of the OHL kid that the Ontario scouts really like.

All this hammering and back-and-forth and making the case for "your guy" is what leads to a team's final list. Frequently involving the GM himself, who may have his own opinions about certain prospects.

The scouts don't all come to an agreement and then present their list to the GM, and have internal discussions about pushing a guy up the rankings to fool their GM into taking him. That's just not how the process works.

Yes, and that round table dynamic creates a whole host of additional internal politicking and groupthink problems -- all the different regional scouts jockeying for positions can create quite a cluster****. However, there still is a head scout and stronger voices prevail, and there's no reason to think these frameworks (and associated cognitive biases, etc.) are mutually exclusive.

 

[MXD]

Yeah, I'd suggest something like "Effect of Organization Politics on Internal Draft Lists?" or something like that.

As it is, I thought it was about Russian, or local players.

 

[MichaelK]

At the outset I would like to apologize for the length of this post.

Respectfully, I believe you are reading far too much into what transpired.

1) Boards are not set by a single scout. They are the byproduct of extensive discussion between members of the scouting staff and remain fluid, even on draft day. The GM is involved to some extent, but he cannot possibly see every single player that the scouts have been following, so the GM may only see players that the scouts want his input on. On draft day boards change because you may see that the selections of other teams have either gutted a position you view as an organizational need or have left a glut of players at a position that you think will leave a comparable player to your BPA at your next pick.

2) For scouts, reputation is everything. If you have a reputation for overhyping pet sleepers and you don't have a good track record, you may find yourself out of a job and nobody will hire you.

3) The "consensus" does not match what individual teams see. A team who has a particular player they view as a sleeper may try to convince members of Central Scouting to rank that player lower or to hype other players at the same position. There are just far too many leagues and not enough scouts so teams do use Central Scouting as a way of seeing which players in less scouted leagues that they may want to follow.

4) The hypothetical you provided also fails because a GM is likely to question why someone is ranked well above the Central Scouting rankings. If you don't have a good reason for why that player is there, the GM may skip over the BPA.

5) NHL Draft is more like MLB Draft versus NFL Draft or NBA Draft. Players are not coming in almost physically mature and competing initially. You are trying to project how a player and his game will develop after year(s) in the "minors." For example, how will adding muscle change a player's skating ability? Shot? Will a player experience a growth spurt?

6) One final point I will add is that when a team has multiple first round picks they may feel less inhibition about taking a player earlier than the "consensus" that the scouts really like because they have other pick(s) to fall back on.

 

[hototogisu]

Yes, and that round table dynamic creates a whole host of additional internal politicking and groupthink problems -- all the different regional scouts jockeying for positions can create quite a cluster****. However, there still is a head scout and stronger voices prevail, and there's no reason to think these frameworks (and associated cognitive, etc.) are mutually exclusive.

I mean, now you're talking about problems inherent to any large body of decision-makers that could apply to organizations well beyond those of hockey teams...

You have departments with their own interests but you hope they are pushing together in the same direction for the common goal of bettering the organization.

 

[boredmale]

My guess in your scenario teams probably divide guys into tiers. So they might say there is a drop off after the first 2 guys, then the next 6 guys are roughly at the same level, after that we have a group of 8 guys, then 15 guys, etc etc etc

So say if player 16 was in tier 3, while player 17 was tier 4. That might make enough of a point that the guy rated 16 is that much better then the guy rated 17th

 

[Dumpster Flyers]

I mean, now you're talking about problems inherent to any large body of decision-makers that could apply to organizations well beyond those of hockey teams...

You have departments with their own interests but you hope they are pushing together in the same direction for the common goal of bettering the organization.

Well, yes. If you're saying scouts unify their voices behind a common goal, then why object to the OP on the grounds that scouts don't share a unified voice?

The scouts don't all come to an agreement and then present their list to the GM, and have internal discussions about pushing a guy up the rankings to fool their GM into taking him. That's just not how the process works.

Scouting staffs have internal discussions where individual scouts strongly advocate for their preferred players to get pushed up the rankings. And those scouts aren't going to waste their influence to push their #7 ranked player up to #3 when his team isn't picking until #20. It makes more sense for him to push their #22 ranked player up to the top 10, which is what I'm talking about.

 

[hototogisu]

Scouting staffs have internal discussions where individual scouts strongly advocate for their preferred players to get pushed up the rankings. And those scouts aren't going to waste their influence to push their #7 ranked player up to #3 when his team isn't picking until #20. It makes more sense for him to push their #22 ranked player up to the top 10, which is what I'm talking about.

But the scouts would take into consideration the fact that it's always possible their GM could trade way up in the draft. It happens every year. So why wouldn't they make the most accurate list, knowing that it's a very real possibility?

 

[MichaelK]

Scouting staffs have internal discussions where individual scouts strongly advocate for their preferred players to get pushed up the rankings. And those scouts aren't going to waste their influence to push their #7 ranked player up to #3 when his team isn't picking until #20. It makes more sense for him to push their #22 ranked player up to the top 10, which is what I'm talking about.

It doesn't make sense for a number of reasons. First, if the rest of the staff thinks a scout is overhyping a player, no lobbying will move the player up the board. Second, being wrong with a high pick is what gets scouts fired. Third, it assumes that every other team follows the "consensus." There may be players that many teams are high on but independent scouts have not caught on to. Fourth, it assumes that the 10th player is necessarily better than the 11th. Many teams these days go by tiers to rank players because the difference between two players might be so minuscule as to render it nonexistent.

 

[Dumpster Flyers]

It doesn't make sense for a number of reasons. First, if the rest of the staff thinks a scout is overhyping a player, no lobbying will move the player up the board.

Groupthink can do terrible things.

Second, being wrong with a high pick is what gets scouts fired.

Never being credited with picks also gets you fired, and being right about risks advance your career.

Third, it assumes that every other team follows the "consensus."

Why? Don't see how I assume that at all.

Fourth, it assumes that the 10th player is necessarily better than the 11th. Many teams these days go by tiers to rank players because the difference between two players might be so minuscule as to render it nonexistent.

Again, I don't see how I assume any of this. Seems off topic.

 

[WesMcCauley]

After seeing a lot of odd placements on leaked internal draft lists, peculiar selections made with recently-acquired picks (e.g. Lias Andersson in 2017, DeBrusk & Senyshyn in 2015), and perceived disorganization and mismanagement in behind-the-scenes scouting staff stories/footage, I often wonder how internal politics in teams' scouting rooms affects their draft boards and ultimate decisions.

Hypothetical scenario: A scouting staff expects to pick at #20 and have a player they want whom they expect to be available. If the scouts were being completely honest, that player would rank #16. However, they know their GM won't be particularly excited about taking a #16 ranked player at #20, and may even consider trading the pick or look at players further down the list ranked #18, #19, and #20. Therefore, the scouts bump this player up to #7 on their list, ahead of highly touted prospects they have no chance at selecting (or so they think). It makes the GM happier and more confident in the pick, believing he got a steal.

But then the GM makes an unexpected trade for the 9th overall pick, and their boosted #7-ranked player is on the board. Drastically altering their draft list at the last minute to reflect their "real" rankings would make them look horrible and draw the ire of their GM, so they dig in their heels and commit.

I wanna see them, link?

 

[MichaelK]

Groupthink can do terrible things.

Never being credited with picks also gets you fired, and being right about risks advance your career.

Why? Don't see how I assume that at all.

Again, I don't see how I assume any of this. Seems off topic.

On the first point, yes you have to take risks, but taking them indiscriminately is not good.

On the second point, you are assuming that a player was really the "16th" best player on a previous list. What is your basis for that? Not to mention you are assuming based on players thought to be reaches at the time (Andersson, the Boston duo) that it is the result of a team artificially raising a player. Where has it ever been stated that that is what happened? For all we know, Senyshyn and DeBrusk could have been there the entire time and the New York Islanders had a scout that artificially moved up Barzal so the Islanders would trade up to get him.

On the final point, you are acting like moving a player into the Top 10 suddenly changes where they are thought of without any basis. For all we know, a team had this year's draft as the Top 2 in one tier, the next 2 in a second tier, and then 10-15 players lumped into Tier 3. Even though Andersson could have been as low as 14-19 in that scenario, he could have been as high as 4 if you were going to base it on straight numbers. A team like the Rangers comes up at 7 and sees Tier 1 and 2 gone and two players taken from Tier 3. They look at the options, debate amongst themselves, explore trade options to see if they are getting enough value, and in the end choose to take Andersson. I am not prepared to presume some nefarious purpose when there are other plausible explanations. My basis for that is looking at teams in other sports such as the NFL. Even though the players may be put in some order, when it comes time to select it is not just taking the highest name left, but looking holistically at the top tier as the draft is more than one pick.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Your premise is faulty.

 

[hototogisu]

Well, yes. If you're saying scouts unify their voices behind a common goal, then why object to the OP on the grounds that scouts don't share a unified voice?

That scouts don't share a unified voice is a fact that I was correcting from what seemed like a misguided understanding of the way the operation is run in an NHL team. It doesn't mean that they don't still all share a collective goal of improving the organization.

Your scenario simply wouldn't happen because that's not how scouting staffs work. First of all, all the scouts would have to agree that they all like a player so much that they would want to move him up the rankings so the GM will want to pick him. Secondly, the scouts would have a collective concern/mistrust of their GM picking the #16 guy they ranked where they did. Thirdly, they would all decide collectively to deceive their GM by falsifying a collective and agreed-upon ranking, a ranking that the GM would have no involvement in.

And finally they would have to completely disregard the very real possibility that the GM could trade up (throwing their plan into total disarray).

AND they would have to misrepresent their own feelings on players they scouted for multiple years, or basically lie about the thing they do for a living and which sustained them as a career for in some cases many decades.

It just doesn't make any sense. From a practical standpoint, a moral standpoint, etc.

 

[Dumpster Flyers]

That scouts don't share a unified voice is a fact that I was correcting from what seemed like a misguided understanding of the way the operation is run in an NHL team. It doesn't mean that they don't still all share a collective goal of improving the organization.

Your scenario simply wouldn't happen because that's not how scouting staffs work. First of all, all the scouts would have to agree that they all like a player so much that they would want to move him up the rankings so the GM will want to pick him. Secondly, the scouts would have a collective concern/mistrust of their GM picking the #16 guy they ranked where they did. Thirdly, they would all decide collectively to deceive their GM by falsifying a collective and agreed-upon ranking, a ranking that the GM would have no involvement in.

And finally they would have to completely disregard the very real possibility that the GM could trade up (throwing their plan into total disarray).

AND they would have to misrepresent their own feelings on players they scouted for multiple years, or basically lie about the thing they do for a living and which sustained them as a career for in some cases many decades.

It just doesn't make any sense. From a practical standpoint, a moral standpoint, etc.

You're picturing some kind of cabal of scouts that conspire against the GM, but the manner of bad, group decision making isn't necessarily sinister. Like I said, it's internal politics, collective biases, and dissonant motivations/objectives.

 

[93LEAFS]

After seeing a lot of odd placements on leaked internal draft lists, peculiar selections made with recently-acquired picks (e.g. Lias Andersson in 2017, DeBrusk & Senyshyn in 2015), and perceived disorganization and mismanagement in behind-the-scenes scouting staff stories/footage, I often wonder how internal politics in teams' scouting rooms affects their draft boards and ultimate decisions.

Hypothetical scenario: A scouting staff expects to pick at #20 and have a player they want whom they expect to be available. If the scouts were being completely honest, that player would rank #16. However, they know their GM won't be particularly excited about taking a #16 ranked player at #20, and may even consider trading the pick or look at players further down the list ranked #18, #19, and #20. Therefore, the scouts bump this player up to #7 on their list, ahead of highly touted prospects they have no chance at selecting (or so they think). It makes the GM happier and more confident in the pick, believing he got a steal.

But then the GM makes an unexpected trade for the 9th overall pick, and their boosted #7-ranked player is on the board. Drastically altering their draft list at the last minute to reflect their "real" rankings would make them look horrible and draw the ire of their GM, so they dig in their heels and commit.

It is complex, and depending on set-up there are a bunch of things at play. In the most basic NHL set up, in general here is how it works.

The GM of a team, gives the scouting director/head of player personal the type of players he wants the organization to look at, and what his value system is. A gm simply doesn't have the time to pound the pavement. From there, the scouting director relay's this too his staff. Now, scouts do have relative freedom to look outside what the organization wants value wise, but they should always be respectful of it. They could love a guy who doesn't fit in with what the organization desires. At the end of the day, it is generally up to the scouting director to make the hard call of which side to take in a dispute between scouts on a specific ranking.

There are a bunch of other situations. In general, there are regional scouts, and the more respected scouts in the organization due what is known as cross checking. Say, a lower tier scout (or even a well-respected one) really likes a kid, from there, they will try to get more senior people to get a report on him. The opposite can also happen, say a regional guy doesn't like a highly touted guy but the organization will need to do their due diligence, so again they send an out of region guy to cross-check.

Now, most organizations are more complex now. You can have disputes between two AGM's over what is the proper philosophy and so on and need Gm's to make the call.

I don't think your scenario happens. They don't over pimp guys they like to appease a gm. A gm generally comes from a scouting background and would know, don't bull **** a bull ****ter. They make an honest list. The only issue is when a trade comes out of nowhere and they may not have done the proper due dilligence on a guy.

 

[tigervixxxen]

They make an honest list. The only issue is when a trade comes out of nowhere and they may not have done the proper due dilligence on a guy.

Scouting is fascinating to me for many reasons but one is the intersection between the human element and the strategic. This is one thing I'be noticed, teams target certain guys at their spot and if there's an unexpected scenario (trades, someone falls) they still tend to stick to their guys because those are the ones they've done their homework on. I know they'll rank all the top guys even if they think there's no shot at them but if the org has settled on a guy it's tougher to get out of that mold on the fly.

 

[Mach85]

I don't see this happening. Scouts repeatedly artificially pimping a player each year, or many years, is going to be noticed within the organization when their player of choice is consistently ranked higher than they should be when the smoke clears a couple years later. "Don't listen to scout x, he always is too enthusiastic about his guys."

 

[93LEAFS]

I don't see this happening. Scouts repeatedly artificially pimping a player each year, or many years, is going to be noticed within the organization when their player of choice is consistently ranked higher than they should be when the smoke clears a couple years later. "Don't listen to scout x, he always is too enthusiastic about his guys."

More like don't renew scout x's contract.

 

[Mach85]

More like don't renew scout x's contract.

Haha, most likely.