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

[Mortimer Snerd]

The rumour was that the Yotes were the only team called as well. As in no other GM's were made aware that Detroit was willing to trade their pick for a team to take Datsyuk's contract. Some would say they were trying to help the Yotes out.

Any other team was free to call Detroit. The situation was no secret.

Ari was the obvious candidate with the room to do the deal without any other move. Jets would have needed to clear space, i.e. trade Stafford, buy out Pav, or both.

 

[ffh]

Isn't this pretty much just stating the obvious? Of course they were trying for a home run. What else could they have been doing? They certainly were not trying for a strike out. The problem is that they swung for the fences on a high outside pitch.

If they were really that unimpressed with the remaining defensemen then they should have taken BPA. German Rubtsov, Henrik Borgstrom, Tage Thompson, Sam Steele were all available at 22 and good prospects.

I don't think you move up in the draft to swing for the fences you move up to draft to get who you want. and they said as much after the draft. also out of 100 people there will be 100 bpa players. I'm sure if you ask the jets they took the bpa . and were quite happy with it.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I don't think you move up in the draft to swing for the fences you move up to draft to get who you want. and they said as much after the draft. also out of 100 people there will be 100 bpa players. I'm sure if you ask the jets they took the bpa player. and were quite happy with it.

They certainly seemed pleased with themselves. That's what really worries me. And all they could talk about was how big he was.

 

[Imcanadianeh]

The most troubling thing about Stanley is how many professional scouts had him as a first round talent.

Hard to believe there are that many people horrible at their job.

Clearly HF Jets knows better.

 

[Daximus]

Any other team was free to call Detroit. The situation was no secret.

Ari was the obvious candidate with the room to do the deal without any other move. Jets would have needed to clear space, i.e. trade Stafford, buy out Pav, or both.

Well the rumour was that the Wings called Arizona. I think everyone knew Datsyuks contract could be moved. But it was Detroit who made the offer to Arizona. So it wouldn't have mattered who called Detroit if they knew what they wanted. They likely targeted the Yotes to get Stanley at 20 plus their 2nd rounder. But the Jets made a move in response to take Stanley at 18. I think both teams wanted Stanley and the Jets made a reactive move to snag him after the Wings moved back. We'll never truly know but it does make a lot of sense when you think about it.

 

[Daximus]

The most troubling thing about Stanley is how many professional scouts had him as a first round talent.

Hard to believe there are that many people horrible at their job.

Clearly HF Jets knows better.

You should come work with me for a day. You'd be surprised at how many people are horrible at their job.

 

[Grind]

It's really not that surprising when your job is

Takes a)your team actually listening to your input over others b) using that input and making the final decision off of it, c) waiting five plus years to see if your decision/input was the right one, D) determining whether outside influences (development, injury, etc) influenced the outcome of the decision or if the decision was wrong in the first place.

Add in the fact that many GMs aren't with a team for the five plus years necessary to actually validate any of their scouts work, all of the validation comes from internal scouting directors, who in turn have very rarely actually been validated by anyone, and it's gets muddy really quick.

Finally, when you think about it, we're changing the fundamental view of what's effective/good hockey right now. The new viewpoints have not had time to trickle all the way down through every hockey function and so scouts are still likely to mis-prioritize certain attributes.

Players like Stanley represent a market ineffeciency exactly BECAUSE many scouts rank them high, when their probabilities of success are actually quite low.

 

[ffh]

Funny when listening to button when he talks about stanley and all his attributes and what will make him successful in the nhl he barely mentions his size at all.

 

[Imcanadianeh]

You should come work with me for a day. You'd be surprised at how many people are horrible at their job.

You should come work with me for a day. You'd be surprised at how many people think they know more than the professionals doing the work.

 

[Hank Chinaski]

You should come work with me for a day. You'd be surprised at how many people think they know more than the professionals doing the work.

Lol "professionals". Is there a certification exam for NHL scouts? Schooling?

They're lay people with a combination of playing experience and personal connections. Some are great at identifying talent, some are completely clueless. Many have worked their way up through the ranks, many have simply been gifted jobs with an NHL team.

 

[Whileee]

Lol "professionals". Is there a certification exam for NHL scouts? Schooling?

They're lay people with a combination of playing experience and personal connections. Some are great at identifying talent, some are completely clueless. Many have worked their way up through the ranks, many have simply been gifted jobs with an NHL team.

I think most NHL teams orient their scouts to their specific scouting metrics, and likely have overlapping assessments to get some standardization in their rankings. I think it's a lot more organized than it might have been in the past.

I know it rankles some, but if we prefer the opinions of HF Jets posters over the past two drafts, the top ranked players were Gauthier and Zadorov (at #13 in 2015) and Dineen was ranked ahead of Girard, Johansen, Cholowski, Stanley, Hajek, etc. in 2016.

 

[Daximus]

You should come work with me for a day. You'd be surprised at how many people think they know more than the professionals doing the work.

You make it seem like there is some massive qualifications to be a scout. It's almost moreso about who you know than what you know. I always find it funny that people point to professional scouts as some be all end all to hockey knowledge. The only information they are privy to that we aren't is character interviews and some advanced statistics that aren't really public knowledge. Everything else comes down to the eye test. They are basically prospect critics. All it takes is an interest in any subject to be a critic. Some people just get paid to do it while others post on message boards. There are many posters on this board alone that probably have more fluent hockey knowledge than a lot of scouts nevermind HF in general. I always liken it to being a poltician. Just because you are paid to be one doesn't mean you're opinion is what is best for the city or the province or the country. Scouts are no different than politicians really.

 

[Daximus]

I think most NHL teams orient their scouts to their specific scouting metrics, and likely have overlapping assessments to get some standardization in their rankings. I think it's a lot more organized than it might have been in the past.

I know it rankles some, but if we prefer the opinions of HF Jets posters over the past two drafts, the top ranked players were Gauthier and Zadorov (at #13 in 2015) and Dineen was ranked ahead of Girard, Johansen, Cholowski, Stanley, Hajek, etc. in 2016.

For what it's worth I had the Jets taking Chabot in 15 and Chychrun at 6 and Johansen at 22 in 16 before the lotto. After the lotto I wanted Johansen and Clague. Don't mean to sound harsh but there is likely a lot of people who vote in those polls that haven't watched even half of these kids play.

 

[Whileee]

It's really not that surprising when your job is

Takes a)your team actually listening to your input over others b) using that input and making the final decision off of it, c) waiting five plus years to see if your decision/input was the right one, D) determining whether outside influences (development, injury, etc) influenced the outcome of the decision or if the decision was wrong in the first place.

Add in the fact that many GMs aren't with a team for the five plus years necessary to actually validate any of their scouts work, all of the validation comes from internal scouting directors, who in turn have very rarely actually been validated by anyone, and it's gets muddy really quick.

Finally, when you think about it, we're changing the fundamental view of what's effective/good hockey right now. The new viewpoints have not had time to trickle all the way down through every hockey function and so scouts are still likely to mis-prioritize certain attributes.

Players like Stanley represent a market ineffeciency exactly BECAUSE many scouts rank them high, when their probabilities of success are actually quite low.

Just a reminder, the size of the samples to make predictions about probabilities for success are often quite small, and there are large confidence intervals. Taking a point estimate from a cohort with about 45 players (that's about how many 77 inch and plus D are in the Projection Project data, as far as I can tell) leaves a lot of room for statistical error, especially when you are basing the results only on a single parameter like point production. More sophisticated models probably narrow the confidence intervals somewhat, but still leave considerable room for error.

I like your analysis of the challenge of scouting, and evaluating scouting. As I mentioned above, I think a lot of teams are starting to use more systematic ways of scouting players. I had a glimpse at the game scouting form being filled out by an NHL scout. It has quantitative assessments for skating, vision, playmaking, competitiveness, shot, etc. This would all go into a database, along with game notes and statistical parameters as a way of assessing players. I would think that the GM and Head Scout would influence how these parameters are analyzed, as a way of ranking players for a team's board.

 

[Hank Chinaski]

I think most NHL teams orient their scouts to their specific scouting metrics, and likely have overlapping assessments to get some standardization in their rankings. I think it's a lot more organized than it might have been in the past.

I know it rankles some, but if we prefer the opinions of HF Jets posters over the past two drafts, the top ranked players were Gauthier and Zadorov (at #13 in 2015) and Dineen was ranked ahead of Girard, Johansen, Cholowski, Stanley, Hajek, etc. in 2016.

And then there's this:

https://canucksarmy.com/2014/06/26/sham-sharron-takes-over-all-30-draft-tables/

There's nothing to be rankled about. For every case where the "wannabes" on HF are shown up by the "pros", you have a deliberately flawed model like Sham Sharron that actually outperform NHL scouting departments.

 

[Hank Chinaski]

You make it seem like there is some massive qualifications to be a scout. It's almost moreso about who you know than what you know. I always find it funny that people point to professional scouts as some be all end all to hockey knowledge. The only information they are privy to that we aren't is character interviews and some advanced statistics that aren't really public knowledge. Everything else comes down to the eye test. They are basically prospect critics. All it takes is an interest in any subject to be a critic. Some people just get paid to do it while others post on message boards. There are many posters on this board alone that probably have more fluent hockey knowledge than a lot of scouts nevermind HF in general. I always liken it to being a poltician. Just because you are paid to be one doesn't mean you're opinion is what is best for the city or the province or the country. Scouts are no different than politicians really.

The critic analogy is pretty good. Only difference would be that there's no objective way to say that a critic gave a poor appraisal.

In that sense, scouting is like a strange cross between being a critic and an HR recruiter.

 

[Daximus]

And then there's this:

https://canucksarmy.com/2014/06/26/sham-sharron-takes-over-all-30-draft-tables/

There's nothing to be rankled about. For every case where the "wannabes" on HF are shown up by the "pros", you have a deliberately flawed model like Sham Sharron that actually outperform NHL scouting departments.

Yeah I mean there are really no sure things in evaluating prospects for hockey. Saying scouts opinions are infallible is no different than saying a polticians opinion is infallible. Being a scout is just as much about networking as being a politician is.

 

[Whileee]

And then there's this:

https://canucksarmy.com/2014/06/26/sham-sharron-takes-over-all-30-draft-tables/

There's nothing to be rankled about. For every case where the "wannabes" on HF are shown up by the "pros", you have a deliberately flawed model like Sham Sharron that actually outperform NHL scouting departments.

As I pointed out in another thread, Sham Sharron only outperformed NHL teams if they selected from among the next 30 prospects ranked by CSS. Also, they only drafted forwards, which increases the success odds. So, I guess you could say that if you select only the top-scoring forwards from among the next 30 scout-selected prospects, you do better than NHL teams in terms of NHL games and points.

Here's the relevant table.
https://s27.postimg.org/92kwj9tc3/z_Results_Table.png

If you select only the highest scoring forwards, you only beat the drafting of 4 NHL teams (Tampa Bay, Florida, Phoenix and Vancouver). If you only select the top scoring CHL forwards among the next 30 prospects on the CSS list, you beat 15 teams, but have actually used scouting to assist in the selection. And you only have forwards in your draft.

 

[Gm0ney]

As I pointed out in another thread, Sham Sharron only outperformed NHL teams if they selected from among the next 30 prospects ranked by CSS. Also, they only drafted forwards, which increases the success odds. So, I guess you could say that if you select only the top-scoring forwards from among the next 30 scout-selected prospects, you do better than NHL teams in terms of NHL games and points.

Also, Sham only selected from the CHL. No Europeans. So yeah, there were limitations and caveats and general groupings - but that stupidly simple, (mostly) statistical model outperformed half the teams in the league. It's still pretty astonishing. These nobody fans came up with this system over the course of a few conversations for a total cost of approximately $0 and outperformed 50% of NHL scouting staffs with thousands of hours of eye-testing and millions of dollars. It's insane.

 

[Channelcat]

The most troubling thing about Stanley is how many professional scouts had him as a first round talent.

Hard to believe there are that many people horrible at their job.

Clearly HF Jets knows better.

I'm guessing this is sarcasm? I can't quite tell though.....considering the forum.

 

[surixon]

Stanley definitely looks a bit rusty as to be expected.

 

[HannuJ]

Stanley definitely looks a bit rusty as to be expected.

his legs look pretty good.
good speed. a few non-smooth Bambi-on-ice moves, but still, you see him on the ice and you can see why the Jets are high on him.
to be fair, for this whole playoff series, i only care about his skating and basic D principles.
i don't expect amazing passes or the best decisions being made.

 

[Weezeric]

his legs look pretty good.
good speed. a few non-smooth Bambi-on-ice moves, but still, you see him on the ice and you can see why the Jets are high on him.
to be fair, for this whole playoff series, i only care about his skating and basic D principles.
i don't expect amazing passes or the best decisions being made.

I thought he's made some nice breakout passes. Good on the pk. Uses his body well in the corners. He's not going to wow you offensively...

 

[surixon]

his legs look pretty good.
good speed. a few non-smooth Bambi-on-ice moves, but still, you see him on the ice and you can see why the Jets are high on him.
to be fair, for this whole playoff series, i only care about his skating and basic D principles.
i don't expect amazing passes or the best decisions being made.

His hands and control have improved as the game went on.

He still seems a split second behind on the play and he gives up too much gap still. Still a pretty solid game for how lo g he's been out.

 

[Weezeric]

Horrible giveaway there.