Tank Nation UNITE!!!

[Heroic Shrimp]

Well, for one, he perpetuates the stereotype of people of Dutch descent being tall.

See, if it were some sort of Ginger-based prejudice, that I could get behind.

Your capitalization of Ginger intrigues me.

 

[pmrules]

It looks like the only two people to compare Hanifin to Bouwmeester are Craig Button and Dave "Emonton's Steve Simmons" Staples. So yeah, I wouldn't put much stock in that.

Speaking of Button, saw a ranking of his from 2009 of his Top 10 for that draft - had Tim Erixon 10th overall, had Jacob Joseffson 6th (he went 20th) and didn't even have Evander Kane in the top 10 at all.

I'm pretty much at the point of ignoring anything he says.

This is interesting - Is there a website that goes back and see how full of crap the Scouting experts/scouting community are in their assessment of talent prior to the draft?

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

It looks like the only two people to compare Hanifin to Bouwmeester are Craig Button and Dave "Emonton's Steve Simmons" Staples. So yeah, I wouldn't put much stock in that.

Speaking of Button, saw a ranking of his from 2009 of his Top 10 for that draft - had Tim Erixon 10th overall, had Jacob Joseffson 6th (he went 20th) and didn't even have Evander Kane in the top 10 at all.

I'm pretty much at the point of ignoring anything he says.

This is interesting - Is there a website that goes back and see how full of crap the Scouting experts/scouting community are in their assessment of talent prior to the draft?

Not that I know of, I wish.  I found that randomly on hfboards.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

If Edmonton beats Colorado tonight they'll be 5 points back of us and GP will be even. Just 8 games left though so the Leafs would have to keep doing what they're doing and the Oilers would have to finish with a very good record. Not expecting it to happen, but that's closer than I thought.

 

[Kin]

Your capitalization of Ginger intrigues me.

I figure, collectively, they've achieved proper noun status.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Speaking of Button, saw a ranking of his from 2009 of his Top 10 for that draft - had Tim Erixon 10th overall, had Jacob Joseffson 6th (he went 20th) and didn't even have Evander Kane in the top 10 at all.

I'm pretty much at the point of ignoring anything he says.

Had Matt Finn as the 9th best player in the 2012 draft. Fell to #35. I know a lot of outlets had Finn in the 1st round somewhere but that was still very high. Also had Dumba as the 2nd best player and Murray and Trouba were both out of the top-10.

 

[pmrules]

It looks like the only two people to compare Hanifin to Bouwmeester are Craig Button and Dave "Emonton's Steve Simmons" Staples. So yeah, I wouldn't put much stock in that.

Speaking of Button, saw a ranking of his from 2009 of his Top 10 for that draft - had Tim Erixon 10th overall, had Jacob Joseffson 6th (he went 20th) and didn't even have Evander Kane in the top 10 at all.

I'm pretty much at the point of ignoring anything he says.

This is interesting - Is there a website that goes back and see how full of crap the Scouting experts/scouting community are in their assessment of talent prior to the draft?

Not that I know of, I wish.  I found that randomly on hfboards.

Here is what I found for 2009 (for example).

Number 12 is laughable.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Speaking of Button, saw a ranking of his from 2009 of his Top 10 for that draft - had Tim Erixon 10th overall, had Jacob Joseffson 6th (he went 20th) and didn't even have Evander Kane in the top 10 at all.

I'm pretty much at the point of ignoring anything he says.

Had Matt Finn as the 9th best player in the 2012 draft. Fell to #35. I know a lot of outlets had Finn in the 1st round somewhere but that was still very high. Also had Dumba as the 2nd best player and Murray and Trouba were both out of the top-10.

I suppose this all falls into the category of why he is a bit-piece on TSN and not with an actual team anymore.

 

[Kin]

This is interesting - Is there a website that goes back and see how full of crap the Scouting experts/scouting community are in their assessment of talent prior to the draft?

There was a mild scandal earlier in the year when it was revealed that someone at ESPN was retroactively altering one of their NBA draft expert's rankings to make them seem better than they were at the time. Accordingly, I wouldn't be surprised if most organizations trying to sell you on their expertise would scrub that, especially given that pro teams/scouts get it wrong so often.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

Speaking of Button, saw a ranking of his from 2009 of his Top 10 for that draft - had Tim Erixon 10th overall, had Jacob Joseffson 6th (he went 20th) and didn't even have Evander Kane in the top 10 at all.

I'm pretty much at the point of ignoring anything he says.

Had Matt Finn as the 9th best player in the 2012 draft. Fell to #35. I know a lot of outlets had Finn in the 1st round somewhere but that was still very high. Also had Dumba as the 2nd best player and Murray and Trouba were both out of the top-10.

I suppose this all falls into the category of why he is a bit-piece on TSN and not with an actual team anymore.

I'm as big a fan of calling out blowhards as anybody.  But the truth honestly is that it's beyond generous to call scouting, both by teams and by the media, an inexact science.  I'm certain there's way more hunch-y guesswork than most draft nerds imagine for the construction of formal lists.  A very small handful of players are clearly dominant and relatively easily identified.  Many others are very good as compared to their peers, but it remains educated guesses at best as to who will thrive the most in the NHL.  So many variables confound evaluations:  different leagues, different physical and emotional growth rates, team success or lack thereof, linemates that help or hinder, different team situations, the coach's discretion about the use of a player, their actual age (to the day) within their draft class.  It goes on and on.

On the pre-draft list of whatever actual authority one chooses, is the guy at #1 going to be better than the guy at #5?  Almost for sure.  Is the guy at #5 actually going to be better than the guy at #10?  Probably more than likely, but certainly it's far from certain.  Is the guy at #10 going actually going to be better than the guy at #20.  I think it's almost coin toss at this point.

If and when a guy like Button or whoever spouts off with certainties and bold statements, then I'm all for knocking them down.  But I think the fact is that professional scouts and media scouts alike are given credit for way more skill at prognostication than they or any other human could possibly have, at least beyond projecting the success of a very small handful of clearly dominant and special players.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Speaking of Button, saw a ranking of his from 2009 of his Top 10 for that draft - had Tim Erixon 10th overall, had Jacob Joseffson 6th (he went 20th) and didn't even have Evander Kane in the top 10 at all.

I'm pretty much at the point of ignoring anything he says.

Had Matt Finn as the 9th best player in the 2012 draft. Fell to #35. I know a lot of outlets had Finn in the 1st round somewhere but that was still very high. Also had Dumba as the 2nd best player and Murray and Trouba were both out of the top-10.

I suppose this all falls into the category of why he is a bit-piece on TSN and not with an actual team anymore.

I'm as big a fan of calling out blowhards as anybody.  But the truth honestly is that it's beyond generous to call scouting, both by teams and by the media, an inexact science.  I'm certain there's way more hunch-y guesswork than most draft nerds imagine for the construction of formal lists.  A very small handful of players are clearly dominant and relatively easily identified.  Many others are very good as compared to their peers, but it remains educated guesses at best as to who will thrive the most in the NHL.  So many variables confound evaluations:  different leagues, different physical and emotional growth rates, team success or lack thereof, linemates that help or hinder, different team situations, the coach's discretion about the use of a player, their actual age (to the day) within their draft class.  It goes on and on.

On the pre-draft list of whatever actual authority one chooses, is the guy at #1 going to be better than the guy at #5?  Almost for sure.  Is the guy at #5 actually going to be better than the guy at #10?  Probably more than likely, but certainly it's far from certain.  Is the guy at #10 going actually going to be better than the guy at #20.  I think it's almost coin toss at this point.

If and when a guy like Button or whoever spouts off with certainties and bold statements, then I'm all for knocking them down.  But I think the fact is that professional scouts and media scouts alike are given credit for way more skill at prognostication than they or any other human could possibly have, at least beyond projecting the success of a very small handful of clearly dominant and special players.

I agree, but I think Button is unique compared to pretty much all other scouts.  He seemingly has 2 or 3 guys wayyyyyyy off almost every other projection.  I think someone else said it on here before, it's like he does it just for publicity/reaction.

 

[L K]

Speaking of Button, saw a ranking of his from 2009 of his Top 10 for that draft - had Tim Erixon 10th overall, had Jacob Joseffson 6th (he went 20th) and didn't even have Evander Kane in the top 10 at all.

I'm pretty much at the point of ignoring anything he says.

Had Matt Finn as the 9th best player in the 2012 draft. Fell to #35. I know a lot of outlets had Finn in the 1st round somewhere but that was still very high. Also had Dumba as the 2nd best player and Murray and Trouba were both out of the top-10.

I suppose this all falls into the category of why he is a bit-piece on TSN and not with an actual team anymore.

I'm as big a fan of calling out blowhards as anybody.  But the truth honestly is that it's beyond generous to call scouting, both by teams and by the media, an inexact science.  I'm certain there's way more hunch-y guesswork than most draft nerds imagine for the construction of formal lists.  A very small handful of players are clearly dominant and relatively easily identified.  Many others are very good as compared to their peers, but it remains educated guesses at best as to who will thrive the most in the NHL.  So many variables confound evaluations:  different leagues, different physical and emotional growth rates, team success or lack thereof, linemates that help or hinder, different team situations, the coach's discretion about the use of a player, their actual age (to the day) within their draft class.  It goes on and on.

On the pre-draft list of whatever actual authority one chooses, is the guy at #1 going to be better than the guy at #5?  Almost for sure.  Is the guy at #5 actually going to be better than the guy at #10?  Probably more than likely, but certainly it's far from certain.  Is the guy at #10 going actually going to be better than the guy at #20.  I think it's almost coin toss at this point.

If and when a guy like Button or whoever spouts off with certainties and bold statements, then I'm all for knocking them down.  But I think the fact is that professional scouts and media scouts alike are given credit for way more skill at prognostication than they or any other human could possibly have, at least beyond projecting the success of a very small handful of clearly dominant and special players.

I agree, but I think Button is unique compared to pretty much all other scouts.  He seemingly has 2 or 3 guys wayyyyyyy off almost every other projection.  I think someone else said it on here before, it's like he does it just for publicity/reaction.

That's really my take on Button as a TSN analyst.  I mean his analysis on the Leafs trade of Winnik to Pittsburgh was "I don't get it"  Pittsburgh gets the better player and I guess the Leafs have to wait and see.  They got a 2nd and 4th round pick for a 1-year contract UFA and he posited questioning of the value on the return.  I guess maybe you could wonder about the pick being a 2016 pick instead of a 2015 2nd rounder but it was a pretty fantastic return.  Were they supposed to get a 2nd + 3rd rounder instead or a 1st rounder?  That just wasn't going to
happen.

He says stuff to get reactions and attention.

 

[cw]

Speaking of Button, saw a ranking of his from 2009 of his Top 10 for that draft - had Tim Erixon 10th overall, had Jacob Joseffson 6th (he went 20th) and didn't even have Evander Kane in the top 10 at all.

I'm pretty much at the point of ignoring anything he says.

Had Matt Finn as the 9th best player in the 2012 draft. Fell to #35. I know a lot of outlets had Finn in the 1st round somewhere but that was still very high. Also had Dumba as the 2nd best player and Murray and Trouba were both out of the top-10.

I suppose this all falls into the category of why he is a bit-piece on TSN and not with an actual team anymore.

I'm as big a fan of calling out blowhards as anybody.  But the truth honestly is that it's beyond generous to call scouting, both by teams and by the media, an inexact science.  I'm certain there's way more hunch-y guesswork than most draft nerds imagine for the construction of formal lists.  A very small handful of players are clearly dominant and relatively easily identified.  Many others are very good as compared to their peers, but it remains educated guesses at best as to who will thrive the most in the NHL.  So many variables confound evaluations:  different leagues, different physical and emotional growth rates, team success or lack thereof, linemates that help or hinder, different team situations, the coach's discretion about the use of a player, their actual age (to the day) within their draft class.  It goes on and on.

On the pre-draft list of whatever actual authority one chooses, is the guy at #1 going to be better than the guy at #5?  Almost for sure.  Is the guy at #5 actually going to be better than the guy at #10?  Probably more than likely, but certainly it's far from certain.  Is the guy at #10 going actually going to be better than the guy at #20.  I think it's almost coin toss at this point.

If and when a guy like Button or whoever spouts off with certainties and bold statements, then I'm all for knocking them down.  But I think the fact is that professional scouts and media scouts alike are given credit for way more skill at prognostication than they or any other human could possibly have, at least beyond projecting the success of a very small handful of clearly dominant and special players.

I agree, but I think Button is unique compared to pretty much all other scouts.  He seemingly has 2 or 3 guys wayyyyyyy off almost every other projection.  I think someone else said it on here before, it's like he does it just for publicity/reaction.

That's really my take on Button as a TSN analyst.  I mean his analysis on the Leafs trade of Winnik to Pittsburgh was "I don't get it"  Pittsburgh gets the better player and I guess the Leafs have to wait and see.  They got a 2nd and 4th round pick for a 1-year contract UFA and he posited questioning of the value on the return.  I guess maybe you could wonder about the pick being a 2016 pick instead of a 2015 2nd rounder but it was a pretty fantastic return.  Were they supposed to get a 2nd + 3rd rounder instead or a 1st rounder?  That just wasn't going to
happen.

He says stuff to get reactions and attention.

He's not always wrong but he isn't very reliable relative to a number of others. I'll listen to what he's got to say if I happen to flip it on but I don't seek his opinion and don't rely on it.

 

[Al14]

It looks like the only two people to compare Hanifin to Bouwmeester are Craig Button and Dave "Emonton's Steve Simmons" Staples. So yeah, I wouldn't put much stock in that.

Speaking of Button, saw a ranking of his from 2009 of his Top 10 for that draft - had Tim Erixon 10th overall, had Jacob Joseffson 6th (he went 20th) and didn't even have Evander Kane in the top 10 at all.

I'm pretty much at the point of ignoring anything he says.

This is interesting - Is there a website that goes back and see how full of crap the Scouting experts/scouting community are in their assessment of talent prior to the draft?

Not that I know of, I wish.  I found that randomly on hfboards.

Here is what I found for 2009 (for example).

Number 12 is laughable.

Some draft picks work out, some don't.  Carter Ashton didn't work out for our Leafs in the short term.  There is still time for him to work out, but, his window to work out, as a full time NHL player, is beginning to close!

 

[Kin]

If and when a guy like Button or whoever spouts off with certainties and bold statements, then I'm all for knocking them down.  But I think the fact is that professional scouts and media scouts alike are given credit for way more skill at prognostication than they or any other human could possibly have, at least beyond projecting the success of a very small handful of clearly dominant and special players.

Yeah and I think there's always going to be a problem when you compare the work of any one scout to a sort of common consensus. Button may be outside the norm on Hanifin but I'd imagine that if you took any one scout's ranking and compared them to a common consensus there would be all manner of small differences and one or two large ones. I've seen draft rankings that don't rate Marner particularly highly or that have Crouse above Strome or whatever.

I might buy that someone working in the media as opposed to a team might be biased towards uncommon rankings that look to drive discussion but just the fact that those discrepancies exist doesn't really say much.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

If and when a guy like Button or whoever spouts off with certainties and bold statements, then I'm all for knocking them down.  But I think the fact is that professional scouts and media scouts alike are given credit for way more skill at prognostication than they or any other human could possibly have, at least beyond projecting the success of a very small handful of clearly dominant and special players.

Yeah and I think there's always going to be a problem when you compare the work of any one scout to a sort of common consensus. Button may be outside the norm on Hanifin but I'd imagine that if you took any one scout's ranking and compared them to a common consensus there would be all manner of small differences and one or two large ones. I've seen draft rankings that don't rate Marner particularly highly or that have Crouse above Strome or whatever.

I might buy that someone working in the media as opposed to a team might be biased towards uncommon rankings that look to drive discussion but just the fact that those discrepancies exist doesn't really say much.

I agree.  And, beyond that, for somebody to be a scout, by nature they have to be decisive, they almost need to be outspoken, and I think they need to be willing to go against the grain.  There would be nothing easier for any type of scout to generally parrot whatever general consensus there might be, outside of moving players a few spots up or down.  I don't doubt there are scouts out there who keep their jobs to some extent doing just that.  I actually appreciate anybody's willingness to put their neck out in their assessment of a player, so long as it's an honest assessment, at least as best as it can be judged to be honest.

 

[Jolly good show chaps]

If Edmonton beats Colorado tonight they'll be 5 points back of us and GP will be even. Just 8 games left though so the Leafs would have to keep doing what they're doing and the Oilers would have to finish with a very good record. Not expecting it to happen, but that's closer than I thought.

I'd settle for Edmonton having the third worst record and hope Carolina finish with a better record than us.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

If Edmonton beats Colorado tonight they'll be 5 points back of us and GP will be even. Just 8 games left though so the Leafs would have to keep doing what they're doing and the Oilers would have to finish with a very good record. Not expecting it to happen, but that's closer than I thought.

I'd settle for Edmonton having the third worst record and hope Carolina finish with a better record than us.

Oh yeah I'd be completely fine with things staying as they are. As much as I realize Hanifin is a better prospect than Strome, I really, really want Strome anyway.

 

[Highlander]

Strome fits our greatest need, a strong talented Centre. D Men seem to come with a lot of risk.

 

[L K]

Strome fits our greatest need, a strong talented Centre. D Men seem to come with a lot of risk.

Our greatest need is talent, not a #1 centre.

I think think you can make just as much of an argument for having a defenseman who can potentially play 25-30 minutes a night in the postseason being pretty essential to winning.  It wouldn't be an unreasonable argument to make that the Leafs have lacked that true #1 guy a lot longer than they have been missing a true #1 center.