Winnipeg Jets select D Logan Stanley (1/18) Part II (Mod warning in OP)

[Mortimer Snerd]

You're certain that it was a bad pick. Presumably based on models, or articles about models, and maybe a couple of games.

More comprehensive scouting and interviews may have made all the 'better' picks riskier than you think, though.

It's fun to speculate and project, and I merely have a hope for Stanley instead of real expectations, but I think the 'pfft, scouting departments and big guys' hubris is a little much.

That is always possible. I usually try to allow for the unknown. Sometimes though I see enough circumstantial evidence to allow a high degree of certainty. I don't think that is hubris but you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[Daximus]

This X 100. Some of those D's were ranked highly here around draft time and there were people that said they were a better option than Stanley. Those D's struggled this year which shows uncertainty of any drafted player not just one like Stanley. I like Stanley and think he will continue to improve every season, I don't see him getting worse but better. But I do like your point about guys like Dineen, Johansen, Cholowski et al, lots that were high on them are quiet now but still rip on Stanley.

Having watched at least 50 or so Rockets games this year I can say unequivocally that Johansen has only regressed statistically because his deployment changed completely from last season. I'm still much higher on him than Stanley. This is one of those situations were people just stat watch and say look they had similar scoring. But if Johansen was being deployed in offensive situations this year as much as he was last year he likely scores a lot more. He was tasked with more defensive deployments while Foote took on the more offensive load.

 

[Hobby Bull]

IMO, it was bad decision making. There is no mystery characteristic they saw in him that only pro scout eyes are capable of detecting. They drafted him because he is huge. We know this a)because it is the only outstanding characteristic he has and b)because all Hillier could do afterward was gush about his size. That is a poor criteria to use.

That doesn't mean they can't get lucky. If you want to call that a good pick, go ahead.

If they base their drafting strategy for the future on getting lucky we are in trouble.

I'm of two minds on this...

I often wonder if the Jets traded up to get Chychryn based on him falling ever so close... almost close enough... and then he was gone...

****. Now what?

Who's next? We need D. O.K. "Logan Stanley".

or

They loved his work ethic and character, along with his raw tools, and thought, "This may be the defensive equivalent of Mark Scheifele. He could be another home run!"

However, we can never know what factored in. What I do know, though, is that the scenarios I've suggested above, and your suggestion that it was just his size or a let's get lucky approach that got him drafted by the Jets are ridiculously simplistic. They fit in the twitterverse, in a short attention span world, but I think professional hockey executives in the best league in the world have a more thorough approach.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I'm of two minds on this...

I often wonder if the Jets traded up to get Chychryn based on him falling ever so close... almost close enough... and then he was gone...

****. Now what?

Who's next? We need D. O.K. "Logan Stanley".

or

They loved his work ethic and character, along with his raw tools, and thought, "This may be the defensive equivalent of Mark Scheifele. He could be another home run!"

However, we can never know what factored in. What I do know, though, is that the scenarios I've suggested above, and your suggestion that it was just his size or a let's get lucky approach that got him drafted by the Jets are ridiculously simplistic. They fit in the twitterverse, in a short attention span world, but I think professional hockey executives in the best league in the world have a more thorough approach.

I had forgotten but we were warned from a couple of sources, well in advance that the Jets were high on Stanley. He was the target.

I don't like the comparison to Scheifele. Yes, they were impressed with his dedication and work ethic. I think Hawerchuk's strong recommendation was influential. But Scheifele had shown considerable talent too. He scored at well over a ppg pace in his draft year.

 

[Daximus]

I'm of two minds on this...

I often wonder if the Jets traded up to get Chychryn based on him falling ever so close... almost close enough... and then he was gone...

****. Now what?

Who's next? We need D. O.K. "Logan Stanley".

or

They loved his work ethic and character, along with his raw tools, and thought, "This may be the defensive equivalent of Mark Scheifele. He could be another home run!"

However, we can never know what factored in. What I do know, though, is that the scenarios I've suggested above, and your suggestion that it was just his size or a let's get lucky approach that got him drafted by the Jets are ridiculously simplistic. They fit in the twitterverse, in a short attention span world, but I think professional hockey executives in the best league in the world have a more thorough approach.

I believe we traded up after Chychrun had already been taken.

 

[Hobby Bull]

I believe we traded up after Chychrun had already been taken.

That very well could be. I'm not sure how frantic the action is at that point, or how we know what is done when.

I'd feel better about it if I knew it was done by design.

 

[Hobby Bull]

I had forgotten but we were warned from a couple of sources, well in advance that the Jets were high on Stanley. He was the target.

I don't like the comparison to Scheifele. Yes, they were impressed with his dedication and work ethic. I think Hawerchuk's strong recommendation was influential. But Scheifele had shown considerable talent too. He scored at well over a ppg pace in his draft year.

No one seems to like comparisons on H.F. I'm pretty sure that even mentioning Scheifele in the same breath as a Philly center from the same draft could get me killed in some quarters.

There is no question in anyone's mind that Scheifele and Stanley stand on equal footing.

The idea that may exist, is that attributes like work ethic and dedication may put an undervalued prospect on a higher than predicted trajectory.

That idea as it may exist within the Jets' braintrust, is what I'm trying to convey.

 

[supersonic jet]

The Spits win again but no info on how are guy did in the game. nothing on the Spits site either on him particularly.

 

[supersonic jet]

The Spits win again but no info on how are guy did in the game. nothing on the Spits site either on him particularly.

Take that back someone just quoted having Stanley back has been huge.

 

[MardyBum]

Take that back someone just quoted having Stanley back has been huge.

Who and where?

 

[Whileee]

The Spits win again but no info on how are guy did in the game. nothing on the Spits site either on him particularly.

I watched both games. He's played quite a bit, even playing his off-side occasionally, and doing a lot of PK (including a long stretch of 5v3). He's played a very simple game with the puck. He's usually made the right decisions and his passing has been quick and crisp. He's been okay defensively, but reacts a bit slowly and gets a bit puck focused. He uses his huge reach effectively. All in all, there's been nothing great in his play, but he's not been a big liability, and his team has shut down a couple of good teams. The most encouraging thing is that he appears healthy.

 

[supersonic jet]

Who and where?

On the hf spitfire site

 

[Whileee]

Take that back someone just quoted having Stanley back has been huge.

Stanley has played a very safe game and covers for D partners that are up ice a lot like Day. He hasn't been burned on the rush much.

 

[nobody important]

Take that back someone just quoted having Stanley back has been huge.

Maybe it's a pun.

 

[Channelcat]

Stanley has played a very safe game and covers for D partners that are up ice a lot like Day. He hasn't been burned on the rush much.

At the CHL level, the reach advantage is amazing. Guys get behind him all the time and he still manages to make a play. Its yet to be determined if that can carry over to the NHL level, but is it ever fun to watch. With all due respect, he's a bit of a freak. He'll certainly need to learn a little more patience and quickness......and stop pointing all over the place! It reminds of Buff a little bit when he points at guys......usually his own missed coverage

 

[Hank Chinaski]

I hated the Stanley pick, but it's silly to unnecessarily ignore his D+1 performance in comparison to other D drafted around him. But this has little to do with Stanley, per se. It's more about what seems to be some notion that NHL scouting staffs have no clue, and HFJets posters are somehow in a better position to draft than the Jets scouts. Even some of the most thoughtful and evidence based posters would have made some bad first round picks for the Jets over the past 6 drafts.

The myth that the original Sham Sharron method would out-draft most NHL teams is still promulgated here, even though the originators' own analysis shows that 26/30 NHL teams beat their simple method.

What myth? A refined version that incorporates public domain scouting (CSS) and boxcar stats outperformed roughly half of NHL scouting departments. No one is saying that Sham Sharron is an acceptable substitute. It only serves to highlight how little value some NHL teams actually get from their scouting departments and the proprietary information they use to select players.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

No one seems to like comparisons on H.F. I'm pretty sure that even mentioning Scheifele in the same breath as a Philly center from the same draft could get me killed in some quarters.

There is no question in anyone's mind that Scheifele and Stanley stand on equal footing.

The idea that may exist, is that attributes like work ethic and dedication may put an undervalued prospect on a higher than predicted trajectory.

That idea as it may exist within the Jets' braintrust, is what I'm trying to convey.

Fair enough.

Lets see what Stanley can do with hard work.

 

[Whileee]

What myth? A refined version that incorporates public domain scouting (CSS) and boxcar stats outperformed roughly half of NHL scouting departments. No one is saying that Sham Sharron is an acceptable substitute. It only serves to highlight how little value some NHL teams actually get from their scouting departments and the proprietary information they use to select players.

The myth that purely looking at offensive production performs better than NHL scouting staffs. Constraining the model to actual scouting lists sort of undermines the argument, don't you think? I'm not suggesting that NHL scouts don't use data enough or wisely, because I expect that they don't. However, also consider that the Sham Sharron model only takes forwards, which tend to be easier to project, particularly based on offensive production. But which NHL team can afford to only take forwards?

I think it's just used a bit too liberally as a way of denigrating NHL scouting systems, which clearly have holes but probably have more sensible bases these days than presumed.

 

[puck stoppa]

The myth that purely looking at offensive production performs better than NHL scouting staffs. Constraining the model to actual scouting lists sort of undermines the argument, don't you think? I'm not suggesting that NHL scouts don't use data enough or wisely, because I expect that they don't. However, also consider that the Sham Sharron model only takes forwards, which tend to be easier to project, particularly based on offensive production. But which NHL team can afford to only take forwards?

I think it's just used a bit too liberally as a way of denigrating NHL scouting systems, which clearly have holes but probably have more sensible bases these days than presumed.

Dax's eye test of johansen this year and why his point totals are down surely are a great example. Points help tell only part of the story.

 

[JetsUK]

He's looked pretty good to me for a guy who's come back after 4 months off straight into tournament hockey.

 

[puck stoppa]

He's looked pretty good to me for a guy who's come back after 4 months off straight into tournament hockey.

I've been happy. I really think people will be more critical cause of the trade to move up. Had they picked him in original slot I really think most would be less ticked.

 

[Channelcat]

I've been happy. I really think people will be more critical cause of the trade to move up. Had they picked him in original slot I really think most would be less ticked.

Its a good sign that this is our most controversial draft issue right. Its all pretty meaningless in hindsight as that whole range of players has been disappointing with the exception of Steel, Debrincat and a couple others. Speaking of Debrincat I think Erie is on SN tonight. He may have been one of the most talented players in the entire draft.

 

[Say What]

The myth that purely looking at offensive production performs better than NHL scouting staffs. Constraining the model to actual scouting lists sort of undermines the argument, don't you think? I'm not suggesting that NHL scouts don't use data enough or wisely, because I expect that they don't. However, also consider that the Sham Sharron model only takes forwards, which tend to be easier to project, particularly based on offensive production. But which NHL team can afford to only take forwards?

I think it's just used a bit too liberally as a way of denigrating NHL scouting systems, which clearly have holes but probably have more sensible bases these days than presumed.

Good luck trying to convince anyone Whileee.

Yes, gathering on Monday will be a complete waste of time for 31 Scouting Staffs. What could TNSE possibly garner from the Combine, that a scoring model couldn't just as easily outperform.

 

[Hank Chinaski]

The myth that purely looking at offensive production performs better than NHL scouting staffs. Constraining the model to actual scouting lists sort of undermines the argument, don't you think? I'm not suggesting that NHL scouts don't use data enough or wisely, because I expect that they don't. However, also consider that the Sham Sharron model only takes forwards, which tend to be easier to project, particularly based on offensive production. But which NHL team can afford to only take forwards?

I think it's just used a bit too liberally as a way of denigrating NHL scouting systems, which clearly have holes but probably have more sensible bases these days than presumed.

To me, it's never been a question of stats vs. scouting. Both are absolutely essential. Stats projections would have never unearthed a gem like Scheifele at pick #7, for example.

All I'm getting at is that appealing to the authority of scouts - as one poster was doing - is a bit laughable. For one thing, scouting opinion isn't some monolith. Plenty of NHL scouts don't think Stanley is worth a damn as a prospect; I guess they must be as clueless as the fake scouts at HF Jets?

Nothing's changed for me. I'm rooting hard for Stanley as a Jets prospect, but he appears to be a terrible pick at 18th. Hopefully he can sway my opinion with his play next season.

 

[Weezeric]

Having watched at least 50 or so Rockets games this year I can say unequivocally that Johansen has only regressed statistically because his deployment changed completely from last season. I'm still much higher on him than Stanley. This is one of those situations were people just stat watch and say look they had similar scoring. But if Johansen was being deployed in offensive situations this year as much as he was last year he likely scores a lot more. He was tasked with more defensive deployments while Foote took on the more offensive load.

Just wondering, but does Stanley get put in offensive situations at all? I wonder if next year when sergachev is gone and he plays on the powerplay more then his points will go up.