Silver Booster
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Buppy last won the day on April 25

Buppy had the most liked content!

About Buppy

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

9,987 profile views
  1. Racist
  2. I'll tell Kucherov to f*** off too if he starts calling out individuals to whom it clearly doesn't apply just because of their nationality. In fact, I'll tell him to f*** off anyway, because I think he's full of s***. Players have s***ty years all the time, regardless of contract status. Attitude certainly can play a role, but blaming a contract is a cheap cop-out. Humans aren't that simple.
  3. So basically this whole time you've been agreeing with me, you'd just prefer to call it an inexact science with a degree of uncertainty. Reread my second post. Skill in recognizing potential, but not in predicting who will achieve it. An analogy: You might, through observing me, notice that I like jelly beans. If your observational skills are particularly sharp you might notice that I particularly favor purple jelly beans, and sometimes pink. But you can not with any significant certainty, accuracy, or repeatability determine which specific few jelly beans I'll pick out of a bowl of 200. That part is luck.
  4. John Chayka? And yeah, I think a guy with years of managerial experience and also a 20+ year relationship with the Red Wings organization would be given a similar opportunity. Broadcasting I don't think is a fair example. The goal of broadcasting is ratings. It's reasonable to assume that a former player could generate interest (especially a popular one), plus there's also at least the illusion of expertise, which in TV is likely more important than actual expertise that no one knows about. But even in that there are plenty of examples of people from outside of hockey getting opportunities.
  5. The best farmer in the world can't tell which seed will grow the tastiest fruit, but that doesn't mean that every dips*** that's ever eaten an apple should buy an orchard. So OK, every draft there are stars picked later in the draft. You're suggesting that the players that will become stars are absolutely certain to do so, and that this fact is knowable with sufficient skill. But at the same time they do fall later in the draft. Often times into the late rounds, meaning everyone in the league, including the team that eventually takes them, passes on them. Multiple times even, and often in favor of players who never make the NHL. How could that happen unless no one in the whole of the NHL had sufficient skill? So either it's not really a skill at all, or just not a skill that anyone actually has. Semantics. What I'm trying to say is that "the right pick" shouldn't be determined by whether or not that player goes on to become a star. In any given year there are 6 players drafted top 6 overall. More than 200 drafted 7th or later. Hardly a fair comparison.
  6. Out of 35-ish positions in management/coaching/scouting (not counting medical and things like VP of finance) we have like 10-12 former NHL players. There's certainly a s*** ton more former players than that, especially if you include washout prospects like Holland. There is undeniably opportunity in the NHL, not to mention far more in lower levels, for those outside "the club". While it may be easier for a former player, I think that's no different from any other industry...who you know matters. But former player or not, I don't think a person is going to retain their position (much less move up the ranks) unless they show a high level of aptitude. Yeah, there are probably people outside the NHL who would be better in some position than someone in the league, but I don't think it's accurate to say "at the expense of the quality of work being put out" or suggest that NHL management/coaching is not elite. I don't think any industry is comprised entirely of only the absolute best, if for no other reason than people and industries are constantly changing. But this is all getting way far-afield. If you're trying to say the average fan is just as knowledgeable or competent as an average NHL employee, I would say it's an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. We sit here commenting on this kid, or draft prospects, or whatever, as if we've done any scouting ourselves when all we've done is read pared-down-for-concise-publication versions of some actual scout's work, maybe watched some s*** quality highlight reel. By definition that makes us at best a pared-down-shadow of whoever provided that info.
  7. I think you're looking at my comments the wrong way. Like I said, of course someone outside of hockey could have the skills to be successful. My point was that people who are likely to pursue careers in hockey (especially at the NHL level) are quite likely to have a high level of interest in hockey, and as such there's a good chance they have played at some level. Sure, maybe 1/3rd of the management/coaching/scouting positions are filled with former players, but that means 2/3rds aren't. If it's a "club", it's not all that exclusive.
  8. Sorry if I offended you. Would you refer to power/toughness as "Black-style"? Can't really deny that most black players lean toward a tough/power game.
  9. Franchise, elite, star...whatever you want to call it. Very few players in any given year are even NHL caliber players on draft day. Drafting is an evaluation of potential, not current ability. But potential won't always be reached. What a player can become is not necessarily what they will become. There are a lot more players who have star potential than there are players who will actually be stars. There is skill in recognizing potential, but not in predicting the degree of achievement.
  10. Well, not really that. 30-odd players in like 12 draft years...less than 2% of the players drafted. There really isn't a "right" decision in that regard. There are no franchise type players available, a lot of years there isn't even a franchise player at #1. There are a ton of players with franchise potential, but only a rare few will fulfill that potential. Many of those that do will be those showing few if any signs of even having that potential at draft time. The luxury of picking high is that you'll almost certainly have multiple options of players showing good signs of that potential, and there's a high chance that those players will at the very least become good. But there's no skill in picking stars, it's luck. Sure, you can be hopeful. Can even be hopeful at 15 or 25 or 45. Just don't expect too much.
  11. Now you just need to work on realizing that "European" doesn't actually have anything to do with what you're talking about, so you'll stop sounding like a bigot and stop ignoring players you know nothing about other than where they come from.
  12. I didn't say it does, but I would say it is a prerequisite. Those with the passion and interest needed to become a student of the game; to actually be an expert on talent analysis, or game theory, or what have you, are likely to have tried playing at some point. I don't buy the "NHL club" angle. Sure, former players naturally have connections, and are thus more likely to find an opportunity than a common fan, but I would argue that they also have a high aptitude. Not because they are former players, but because the same qualities that helped them become players help to make them better scouts/coaches/GMs/etc. Of course, those who aren't former players can have those same qualities as well. And there are a large number of people in management positions who weren't, which proves there is plenty of opportunity for those not in "the Club". There was never any assertion that a non-former-player or random fan can't become just as good or better than a pro, just a specific comment about a specific person. But in general, an average fan isn't going to be near as competent as someone doing it for a living, if for no other reason than the amount of time invested in gathering and analyzing all the information. You do something 40+ hours a week, every week, as your full-time job, you're likely to be well-informed at the very least. Spend an hour on a Saturday, or ******* around online at your real job hoping your boss doesn't catch you...then maybe you never even hear of one of the top prospects, and other people rightfully question your expertise.
  13. Or Primeau was the third ranked prospect, and it was absolutely reasonable and rational to think he would be the better player. The idea that anyone knew in 1990 that Jagr would be what he ended up being, or even just better than Primeau, but ignored that because some other unrelated Czech player had had a drinking problem is such a load of bulls*** that just reading it fertilized my garden. His nationality may have been a small factor, though not really because of some Klima-inspired anti-Czech sentiment. More likely that he may have told teams other than Pittsburgh that he wouldn't come to the NHL. We all know that for you, European means "soft". Don't try to hide it, it's part of your character.
  14. You're assuming that the format's "purpose" is only to create divisional matchups. I'd say it's to increase the likelihood of them, while also conceding to the fact that one division may be stronger than another.
  15. It wasn't schooling, or lack of smarts, that anyone was making fun of. It was that you were talking like some kind of expert when in fact you had never even heard of one of the top prospects. Even worse, you didn't even try to do any research when the kid was mentioned. You just said "Europe = stupid pick". That is literally the exact opposite of "dedication to learning all you can...". Aside from maybe the late-80s influx, it was always luck. Datsyuk and Zetterberg isn't what made our scouting good, nor is it limited to Europeans. What makes our scouting good is consistently above average results in finding and developing NHL caliber talent. No, but having a high level of passion for the sport does, and it's only natural that a large percentage of those that do will try playing at some point.