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

[surixon]

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.

No, he predominantly plays in defensive situations and on the PK. He gets very little PP time.

 

[Hank Chinaski]

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.

The argument isn't about pitting stats vs. scouts. It never has been.

 

[Boreal]

I've suspected that the Jets brass have considered Stanley as a Byfuglien replacement. Not in the offense-driving, point-delivering capacity, but as a physical beast who can anchor the backend with some muscle. To that end, if he is a 4/5 D-man he will still serve the Jets organizational purposes well. I'm sure the upside is intriguing too, but this is an org that hasn't been overly shy about its appreciation for big bodies who can puck.

 

[Weezeric]

No, he predominantly plays in defensive situations and on the PK. He gets very little PP time.

Next year will be interesting for sure. He should get more opportunity and will be stronger and quicker. (hopefully)

 

[KingBogo]

I've suspected that the Jets brass have considered Stanley as a Byfuglien replacement. Not in the offense-driving, point-delivering capacity, but as a physical beast who can anchor the backend with some muscle. To that end, if he is a 4/5 D-man he will still serve the Jets organizational purposes well. I'm sure the upside is intriguing too, but this is an org that hasn't been overly shy about its appreciation for big bodies who can puck.

I can agree about the organization seeing him as a big physical presence. His reach is also pretty astounding. I also see Stanley as a main stay in that 4/5 role and playing a lot of PK and being seen as the team's shut down defender.

 

[Whileee]

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.

I don't disagree with much of the core of your argument, but my point is that the dismissive attitude of some posters towards pro scouts strikes me as a bit overblown, particularly if the substitute source of knowledge is other HF Jets posters. I have a lot of respect for most of the HF Jets posters, but I expect that most, like me, aren't able to delve into the underlying numbers and assessments, discuss issues of character, get the views of other scouts, etc.

I understand downplaying the CSS, but I expect that a lot of their rankings are based on interactions with other scouts and there is a general "group think" that influences their rankings, meaning that they aren't that far off where many NHL teams would position players.

I would bet that most NHL scouting staffs use stats quite a bit in their assessments. They probably deviate too often from the statistical approach, but sometimes it makes sense (e.g. Scheifele over Couturier). I remember reading a quote from a scout last year who said that he wasn't keen on what he had seen in Cam Dineen but he wanted to go and scout him some more because he was putting up very good numbers. In that case, clearly most teams saw some negatives beyond the numbers to push him down draft boards (I'm not using him as an example to rankle posters here, but he's a good illustration of how scouts processed the numbers with their scouting and made a determination). Conversely, the Jets probably wouldn't have considered Lukas Sutter at all if he hadn't put up half decent scoring numbers in his draft year (contributed points to about 23% of team goals). Clearly, they missed badly, and probably should have figured out that his scoring rates weren't good considering his age, and his terrible scoring in his d-1 should have been a red flag. However, as scouts they obviously missed a lot of other issues with Sutter, too (bad attitude and work ethic, most prominently). My guess is that they didn't get an accurate picture of his character from his junior coaches, etc.

In any case, Stanley will remain a polarizing pick. I still think that they could and should have done better, but I hope I'm wrong. I do think that the fact that most consensus rankings had him as a clear first rounder suggests that the Jets were not alone is seeing something in him. Time will tell whether the general consensus was way off base.

 

[Daximus]

I don't disagree with much of the core of your argument, but my point is that the dismissive attitude of some posters towards pro scouts strikes me as a bit overblown, particularly if the substitute source of knowledge is other HF Jets posters. I have a lot of respect for most of the HF Jets posters, but I expect that most, like me, aren't able to delve into the underlying numbers and assessments, discuss issues of character, get the views of other scouts, etc.

There is also a dismissive attitude towards people who are not. We aren't getting paid to be scouts therefore we know jack **** about hockey and we should just shut up and go along with anything the Jets scouts do because they drafted Scheifele that one time. [mod] It's basically the same logic everyone uses to defend the Stanley pick. We can't be critical of it or him because 6 years ago the Jets scouts managed to identify a very good player that was ranked a few picks lower than he went therefore Stanley is a good pick because they did that. It's some seriously flawed logic.

In any case, Stanley will remain a polarizing pick. I still think that they could and should have done better, but I hope I'm wrong. I do think that the fact that most consensus rankings had him as a clear first rounder suggests that the Jets were not alone is seeing something in him. Time will tell whether the general consensus was way off base.

I don't think there is any merit in consensus rankings seeing him as a 1st rounder. Consensus rankings saw Boris Valabik as a 1st rounder in 2004 as well, consensus rankings saw Vladdy Mihalik as a late 1st/early 2nd rounder, consensus rankings saw Jamie Oleksiak as a mid level 1st rounder much like they did with Stanley, or Joe Finlay or Braydon Coburn or any one whose main asset is height.
The book on these guys is always that they have great personalities, have a mean streak and what they lack in offence and skating they make up for in defence but that is usually not the case.

 

[JetsFan815]

I don't disagree with much of the core of your argument, but my point is that the dismissive attitude of some posters towards pro scouts strikes me as a bit overblown, particularly if the substitute source of knowledge is other HF Jets posters. I have a lot of respect for most of the HF Jets posters, but I expect that most, like me, aren't able to delve into the underlying numbers and assessments, discuss issues of character, get the views of other scouts, etc.

You are arguing against an argument that literally no one is making. Who here has said that scouts are useless and should be dismissed? I don't see it at all

I would bet that most NHL scouting staffs use stats quite a bit in their assessments. They probably deviate too often from the statistical approach, but sometimes it makes sense (e.g. Scheifele over Couturier). I remember reading a quote from a scout last year who said that he wasn't keen on what he had seen in Cam Dineen but he wanted to go and scout him some more because he was putting up very good numbers. In that case, clearly most teams saw some negatives beyond the numbers to push him down draft boards

You love bringing up Cam Dineen, don't you? What you forget however is in that same draft there were many players who were downplayed by scouts as much if not more than Dineen, who then went on to have one hell of d+1 years. You also forget that many of these players were also being hyped on this board, I am talking about Frederic Allard, Sam Girard and Adam Fox, the later two esp if they were in the Jets system they'd be treated here right now like Kyle Connor was last summer.

Also I find it a bit curious that "Why won't you respect the scouts' pick? The are professionals" argument is only made when the Jets make a pick that gets negative reviews. Everyone was more than happy to **** on the Bruins during the 2015 draft, no one was calling for "Let's calm down and give it 3-5 years to see how this all plays out before getting our pitchforks out, these scouts must have seen something in Zboril, deBrusk and Senashyn. Afterall these are the same scouts that brought us David Pastrnak, Dougie Hamilton and late round gems like Bergeron and Marchand". I like to be consistent when looking at drafts of teams, I (and I bet 99% of this board) would be giving any team that used 18+36 for Stanley+79 a lot of crap for their asset managment. I like to hold Jets to the same standard.

 

[Evil Little]

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.

This chestnut.

What's more likely: a front office defers to a junior coach to help make their pick because he was a star in that city, or, they make the pick they were always going to make then play up the former star connection after the fact?

All I'm getting at is that appealing to the authority of scouts - as one poster was doing - is a bit laughable.

If this is a reference to things I've written, maybe you'd like to appeal to the authority of someone who knows what appealing to authority is.

Deferring to professional scouts because they have access to an increased data set ≠ deferring to professional scouts because they're professional scouts.

(If that was in reference to other posts please excuse my raised hackels, but I anticipated this false accusation).

There is also a dismissive attitude towards people who are not. We aren't getting paid to be scouts therefore we know jack **** about hockey and we should just shut up and go along with anything the Jets scouts do because they drafted Scheifele that one time.

This is so overstated.

Other than the odd brave soul, most posters here don't even claim to like the pick.

Some of us are just far more disgusted by testaments worth of the vitriol toward something that happens to every team--lousy picks--and didn't even ****ing happen yet.

 

[Daximus]

I can agree about the organization seeing him as a big physical presence. His reach is also pretty astounding. I also see Stanley as a main stay in that 4/5 role and playing a lot of PK and being seen as the team's shut down defender.

I think he'll be pretty lucky to be seen as a 4/5 kind of guy. I think best case scenario we get a Braydon Coburn type. 20~ point defender who can play on a 2nd line if need be as more of a shutdown guy. I think middle ceiling is a guy that can play limited 3rd pairing minutes and be a physical presence while also PKing and has a hard shot who puts up around 10~ points... so essentially Ben Chiarot but with an extra 4 inches in height and a longer reach.
Floor is probably someone who is playing in Europe by his 23 year old season.

 

[Daximus]

You are arguing against an argument that literally no one is making. Who here has said that scouts are useless and should be dismissed? I don't see it at all



You love bringing up Cam Dineen, don't you? What you forget however is in that same draft there were many players who were downplayed by scouts as much if not more than Dineen, who then went on to have one hell of d+1 years. You also forget that many of these players were also being hyped on this board, I am talking about Frederic Allard, Sam Girard and Adam Fox, the later two esp if they were in the Jets system they'd be treated here right now like Kyle Connor was last summer.

Also I find it a bit curious that "Why won't you respect the scouts' pick? The are professionals" argument is only made when the Jets make a pick that gets negative reviews. Everyone was more than happy to **** on the Bruins during the 2015 draft, no one was calling for "Let's calm down and give it 3-5 years to see how this all plays out before getting our pitchforks out, these scouts must have seen something in Zboril, deBrusk and Senashyn. Afterall these are the same scouts that brought us David Pastrnak, Dougie Hamilton and late round gems like Bergeron and Marchand". I like to be consistent when looking at drafts of teams, I (and I bet 99% of this board) would be giving any team that used 18+36 for Stanley+79 a lot of crap for their asset managment. I like to hold Jets to the same standard.

You can bet every red cent in your bank account that the same people in this thread constantly standing up for the Stanley pick would be all over him if he was taken by Boston or Toronto with an 18th overall pick. But because our organization did it there must be some hidden special abilities he has that we glossed over the umpteen times we watching him play or that is only accessible when speaking to him directly in an interview like setting.

 

[Daximus]

This is so overstated.

Other than the odd brave soul, most posters here don't even claim to like the pick.

Some of us are just far more disgusted by testaments worth of the vitriol toward something that happens to every team--lousy picks--and didn't even ****ing happen yet.

Then why is it so surprising when it happens? Every teams fans **** on their bad prospects. You should have seen the Bruins board after the 2015 draft. This thread is nothing compared to that but it is a similar situation. Why are people so surprised that this happens? It's a message board and frustrations are often vented here. Every single time Stanley has a bad game and someone see's it you can bet your ass you're gonna hear about it in this thread. You can bet your ass you will hear if he has a good game too. Though I can imagine those will be more few and far between.

 

[KingBogo]

I think he'll be pretty lucky to be seen as a 4/5 kind of guy. I think best case scenario we get a Braydon Coburn type. 20~ point defender who can play on a 2nd line if need be as more of a shutdown guy. I think middle ceiling is a guy that can play limited 3rd pairing minutes and be a physical presence while also PKing and has a hard shot who puts up around 10~ points... so essentially Ben Chiarot but with an extra 4 inches in height and a longer reach.
Floor is probably someone who is playing in Europe by his 23 year old season.

Personally I'd bump each of those ceilings a touch, but since he is now one of our own I will be standing in his corner cheering him on. And even if he only hit your ceiling for him, isn't that pretty much what we need at the moment.

 

[Whileee]

You are arguing against an argument that literally no one is making. Who here has said that scouts are useless and should be dismissed? I don't see it at all



You love bringing up Cam Dineen, don't you? What you forget however is in that same draft there were many players who were downplayed by scouts as much if not more than Dineen, who then went on to have one hell of d+1 years. You also forget that many of these players were also being hyped on this board, I am talking about Frederic Allard, Sam Girard and Adam Fox, the later two esp if they were in the Jets system they'd be treated here right now like Kyle Connor was last summer.

Also I find it a bit curious that "Why won't you respect the scouts' pick? The are professionals" argument is only made when the Jets make a pick that gets negative reviews. Everyone was more than happy to **** on the Bruins during the 2015 draft, no one was calling for "Let's calm down and give it 3-5 years to see how this all plays out before getting our pitchforks out, these scouts must have seen something in Zboril, deBrusk and Senashyn. Afterall these are the same scouts that brought us David Pastrnak, Dougie Hamilton and late round gems like Bergeron and Marchand". I like to be consistent when looking at drafts of teams, I (and I bet 99% of this board) would be giving any team that used 18+36 for Stanley+79 a lot of crap for their asset managment. I like to hold Jets to the same standard.

If you read through this and other threads you will easily find references to the incompetence of NHL scouts.

I've already panned the Stanley pick, early and often. Same with Sutter. The wider issue is whether the pick has any logical rationale, or whether it's just a reflexive pick due only to size and based on a change in scouting philosophy. In that regard, the information that many other scouts ranked him as a first rounder with a consensus around #20-25 suggests that the Jets scouts weren't alone in seeing something in his game to like. I doubt you'll find any reference to a consensus among scouts that the three Bruins picks were ranked higher than Barzal and Connor. That was more of an outlier.

That brings in the general issue of NHL scouts, and the exaggerated claim about the Sham Sharron method outperforming NHL team scouts. I thought it was relevant to post their own analysis that showed that using scoring rates as a priority only out-performed many NHL teams when applied to prescouted lists (from CSS). I also noted the natural advantage of only selecting forwards, which would be a radical approach for an NHL team.

 

[DK59]

Then why is it so surprising when it happens? Every teams fans **** on their bad prospects. You should have seen the Bruins board after the 2015 draft. This thread is nothing compared to that but it is a similar situation. Why are people so surprised that this happens? It's a message board and frustrations are often vented here. Every single time Stanley has a bad game and someone see's it you can bet your ass you're gonna hear about it in this thread. You can bet your ass you will hear if he has a good game too. Though I can imagine those will be more few and far between.

What happened with Boston is so different from the Stanley pick and you are right this board would have rightfully exploded if the Jets ever did something like that. It could be argued that on all three of Boston picks they reached for players and in the process passed on some really promising talent. On the Stanley pick I would be much more concerned if we had passed on a player still available from a higher tier that had somehow fallen to us. Personally I am not that enthralled with the players that were available during the bottom third of the first round so I would not be surprised if Stanley ultimately turns out to be a decent pick compared to the group of players taken after us.

 

[Jets4Life]

So how did Stanley play this weekend?

 

[Whileee]

So how did Stanley play this weekend?

Safe.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

This chestnut.

What's more likely: a front office defers to a junior coach to help make their pick because he was a star in that city, or, they make the pick they were always going to make then play up the former star connection after the fact?

What? They reach over several more highly rated candidates because they like the personality, dedication and work ethic of a player. That assessment is not influenced by the recommendation of his coach, who knows him very well but rather is based entirely on a 5 minute interview. Right.

And where did I mention anything about Hawerchuk being a former star in Winnipeg?

 

[Samcanadian]

A nice, big, safe defenceman is kind of appealing right now.

 

[Whileee]

A nice, big, safe defenceman is kind of appealing right now.

I think the soonest he could be an NHL regular would be 3 years from now. He's by no means a short term solution.

 

[ffh]

I think the soonest he could be an NHL regular would be 3 years from now. He's by no means a short term solution.

So the same age as Morrissey. Not bad.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

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.

I really don't think that makes a lot of difference. We got Stanley and Green. If he had been available we would have got Stanley and xxx ? If xxx is Hajek we might be in worse shape. If he is Clague we are in slightly better shape. Or maybe we still get Stanley and Green.

The problem is with picking Stanley before the 3rd round. For the sake of my own sanity I'm trying to look at it as though we got Laine in the first. Had our usual 'no pick in the 2nd' and two 3rds, Green and Stanley (yes, Green first). Entirely fictional I know but viewed this way I can feel a lot more comfortable with Stanley as a longshot pick with a chance to come through. I can even follow Whileee's search for silver linings and begin to get excited a bit.

I'm never going to be happy with whatever process they used to arrive at the decision to go after Stanley. Every hypothetical scenario I have seen discussed is poor decision making in my opinion. As long as it is a 'one off' and not some new pattern I can live with it.

None of that affects my feeling towards Logan Stanley himself. If he can turn his assets into a good hockey player I will be happy. I am a little encouraged by his progress this year. His offensive production has not improved enough but his high shot rate is a good sign. I am more concerned with his ability to get the puck and get it out of the D zone. If he can become a good shutdown D man I won't worry much about his scoring. I think it will come down to positioning, decision making and first pass. If he makes it to the NHL and scores a bit that will be a bonus.

 

[Whileee]

I really don't think that makes a lot of difference. We got Stanley and Green. If he had been available we would have got Stanley and xxx ? If xxx is Hajek we might be in worse shape. If he is Clague we are in slightly better shape. Or maybe we still get Stanley and Green.

The problem is with picking Stanley before the 3rd round. For the sake of my own sanity I'm trying to look at it as though we got Laine in the first. Had our usual 'no pick in the 2nd' and two 3rds, Green and Stanley (yes, Green first). Entirely fictional I know but viewed this way I can feel a lot more comfortable with Stanley as a longshot pick with a chance to come through. I can even follow Whileee's search for silver linings and begin to get excited a bit.

I'm never going to be happy with whatever process they used to arrive at the decision to go after Stanley. Every hypothetical scenario I have seen discussed is poor decision making in my opinion. As long as it is a 'one off' and not some new pattern I can live with it.

None of that affects my feeling towards Logan Stanley himself. If he can turn his assets into a good hockey player I will be happy. I am a little encouraged by his progress this year. His offensive production has not improved enough but his high shot rate is a good sign. I am more concerned with his ability to get the puck and get it out of the D zone. If he can become a good shutdown D man I won't worry much about his scoring. I think it will come down to positioning, decision making and first pass. If he makes it to the NHL and scores a bit that will be a bonus.

There is some statistical evidence that Stanley's d+1 performance (offensively) was better than Green's. I think Green was a bit disappointing in his D+1. Next season will give more clarity about both of them.

 

[surixon]

There is some statistical evidence that Stanley's d+1 performance (offensively) was better than Green's. I think Green was a bit disappointing in his D+1. Next season will give more clarity about both of them.

Well Green got marooned in St John's and seemed to perform quite a bit better for his new team. Hard to really say how disappointing his year was as from what I've heard of his situation in St John's. Next year will be interesting for both, I expect Green to get big minutes in all situations for his team. I also expect Stanley will see consistent PP time next year which should help his numbers.

 

[Whileee]

There is also a dismissive attitude towards people who are not. We aren't getting paid to be scouts therefore we know jack **** about hockey and we should just shut up and go along with anything the Jets scouts do because they drafted Scheifele that one time. [mod] It's basically the same logic everyone uses to defend the Stanley pick. We can't be critical of it or him because 6 years ago the Jets scouts managed to identify a very good player that was ranked a few picks lower than he went therefore Stanley is a good pick because they did that. It's some seriously flawed logic.




I don't think there is any merit in consensus rankings seeing him as a 1st rounder. Consensus rankings saw Boris Valabik as a 1st rounder in 2004 as well, consensus rankings saw Vladdy Mihalik as a late 1st/early 2nd rounder, consensus rankings saw Jamie Oleksiak as a mid level 1st rounder much like they did with Stanley, or Joe Finlay or Braydon Coburn or any one whose main asset is height.
The book on these guys is always that they have great personalities, have a mean streak and what they lack in offence and skating they make up for in defence but that is usually not the case.

I have respect for folks that take the time to review and collect scouting information. However, I think that it's too easy to cherry pick examples of flawed scouting by NHL scouting staffs, and critique should be based on an objective assessment of performance. I think Scheifele was a good pick, but more importantly, it shows the value of looking beyond strict statistical analysis as part of scouting. That is the issue in this discussion, from my point of view.

I'm not sure I agree that it is irrelevant that Stanley was a consensus first rounder. You and I disagree with that assessment, but it likely means that there were some reasonable criteria that were used to rank him there. Those criteria almost certainly over-valued size, but it seems unlikely that size was the only criterion because a lot of scouting groups, including ones that don't tend to overvalue size, ranked him as a first rounder.