BlakChamber 8 Report post Posted June 22, 2008 Scouting is a lot of luck. There's plenty of guys who were can't miss picks that never did anything, and there's plenty of guys picked in the third round or lower that are doing just fine for themselves in the NHL. Like some of the others here, I'm not a big fan of the tone of this guys article, there's no doubt that the Wings scouting staff is probably the best in the league. But when it comes down to it, the draft is a crapshoot. Sometimes you get lucky, and its better to be lucky than good. And its just my guess, but I doubt that the Wings ever thought Datsyuk and Zetterberg would turn into the players thatA they are today. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
haroldsnepsts 4,826 Report post Posted June 22, 2008 That's my main problem wth this guy's tone. Of course scouting has a huge amount of luck involved. It's hard to predict how these kids will develop. But when you consider all the players the Wings have picked up in late rounds, all from Europe, most from Sweden, there's probably more going on there than just being luckier than everyone else. as others have said, those who work the hardest often seem to have the best luck. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dabura 12,232 Report post Posted June 22, 2008 the draft is a crapshoot. It's really not, though; there's skill, tact and overall smarts involved, and they can all pay dividends. As I said, luck is a part of it, but scouting in general is not luck-based. That's just crazy talk right there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
norrisnick 1 Report post Posted June 22, 2008 Scouting is a lot of luck. There's plenty of guys who were can't miss picks that never did anything, and there's plenty of guys picked in the third round or lower that are doing just fine for themselves in the NHL. Like some of the others here, I'm not a big fan of the tone of this guys article, there's no doubt that the Wings scouting staff is probably the best in the league. But when it comes down to it, the draft is a crapshoot. Sometimes you get lucky, and its better to be lucky than good. And its just my guess, but I doubt that the Wings ever thought Datsyuk and Zetterberg would turn into the players thatA they are today. And the Wings use loaded dice. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stevie4Pres 0 Report post Posted June 22, 2008 I also find it hard to believe another scout was serious when saying the Wings drafting was "dumb luck", as it pretty much calls into question the reason for paying scouts much. All that money the Wings spend on scouts is pretty much wasted? Why have any for that matter, when a flip of the coin is so much cheaper? Exactly the thought that came to my mind. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stevie4Pres 0 Report post Posted June 22, 2008 Exactly the thought that came to my mind. Also, if another scout is saying that his job is just "dumb luck" then he should probably be fired tomorrow. I know my boss wouldn't appreciate it if I walked into his office and said "Hey, Thanks for the nice paycheck but you could really just roll some dice and do just as good of a job" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YoungGuns1340 1 Report post Posted June 22, 2008 It would be one thing if it were a few fluke picks. Its like everyone thinks that Datsyuk and Zetterberg are the only ones. Here are some notables in the Wings past 15 years, both good prospects and players Logan Pyett - 7th round, 212 Darren Helm - 5th round, 132 Kyle Quincey - 4th round, 132 Derek Meech - 7th round, 229 Johnathan Ericsson - 9th round, 291 Henrik Zetterberg - 7th round, 210 Pavel Datsyuk - 6th round, 171 Tomas Holmstrom - 10th round, 257 And I realize this isnt really current enough, but I never realized how great the 89 draft was for us 1st - Sillinger 2nd Round - Boughner 3rd - Lidstrom 4th - Fedorov 6th - Drake 11th - Konstantinov Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Earthhuman 8 Report post Posted June 23, 2008 I have trouble believing that this guy believes this. More likely it was assigned to him or something. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BlueMonk 102 Report post Posted June 23, 2008 It's a ridiculous piece. I can't believe some people here are defending it. Of course luck is a factor. But anything resembling objective writing would at least acknowledge that half the roster of this Stanley Cup team was acquired via the draft. The team's success is a part of it, too. Having a good team with lots of depth means being able to give the young players time to develop; the Wings never need to rush anyone along. But seriously, if the other scouts around the league want to believe there's no method at all to the Wings' madness, that's fine with me. It means they won't try to emulate any of it. It reminds me of the book Moneyball, with Billy Beane talking about how there were obvious methods for evaluating players that any team could use, but the old school resistance to the new school of thought was so strong that other teams rejected them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kira 451 Report post Posted June 23, 2008 "Dumb luck" is when I manage to get a photograph to come out perfectly. "Dumb luck" is when I'm able to play a piece of music flawlessly even though I haven't tried to play it before. "Dumb luck" is NOT what the Red Wings have when it comes to scouting. There's a hell of a lot more to it than that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
eva unit zero 271 Report post Posted June 23, 2008 And its just my guess, but I doubt that the Wings ever thought Datsyuk and Zetterberg would turn into the players thatA they are today. I should hope the Wings thought that way...and here's why: I registered the name "h_zetterberg_future_superstar" on Yahoo! before Z was drafted. I should hope that if I was able to pick him out as a future star based on seeing a few televised games, that a professional scout like Hakan Andersson who had seen him a few times in person and met and spoken with him, and is the best at what he does, would have been able to make that call. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Doc Holiday 0 Report post Posted June 23, 2008 It would be one thing if it were a few fluke picks. Its like everyone thinks that Datsyuk and Zetterberg are the only ones. Here are some notables in the Wings past 15 years, both good prospects and players Logan Pyett - 7th round, 212 Darren Helm - 5th round, 132 Kyle Quincey - 4th round, 132 Derek Meech - 7th round, 229 Johnathan Ericsson - 9th round, 291 Henrik Zetterberg - 7th round, 210 Pavel Datsyuk - 6th round, 171 Tomas Holmstrom - 10th round, 257 And I realize this isnt really current enough, but I never realized how great the 89 draft was for us 1st - Sillinger 2nd Round - Boughner 3rd - Lidstrom 4th - Fedorov 6th - Drake 11th - Konstantinov Had Konstantinov not gotten in that accident I can assure you he would have been a top player for the Wings. Of course that makes it all the more heartbreaking that he didn't get that shot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
w00p33 2 Report post Posted June 23, 2008 I don't think many people here are defending the article so much as ackowledging the spots of truth it states. It's luck vs. skill and much like the game itself, it shows much of both. We have gotten lucky that so many late-rounders have become what the scouts thought of them but it's also a skill to not let their eagerness for some people show enough to let our secret away that these are people we want in our organization. It's a bit like poker. Our scouts/GM made so little noise about people they wanted that nobody else picked up a vibe, because over the years don't you think the other scouts/GM's would have picked up on our preferences and tried to grab players before we did? Yet it's luck that the players we did keep quiet performed to, or more likely above their wildest speculations.... It's not so much skill or luck as the combination of the two... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dabura 12,232 Report post Posted June 23, 2008 it's luck that the players we did keep quiet performed to, or more likely above their wildest speculations.... Is it, though? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NeverForgetMac25 483 Report post Posted June 23, 2008 This coming from a guy who's nothing but an Anaheim-slappy, and said Burke was the best GM this past season. Of course drafting comes down to some luck, but it also takes the right people in place to find these gems. No one will deny that the Wings got lucky with Z or Dats, but that can be said about any GM who finds late round stars. The Wings' brass just find them more often, which speaks volumes for the the type of scouts the Wings have. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
selkie 10 Report post Posted June 23, 2008 (edited) A quick google tells me that 12% of players drafted in the 3rd round or greater between 1990-2000 became career NHL players. (defined as playing 200 or more NHL games) http://proicehockey.about.com/od/prospects...aft_success.htm Anyone here want to run the numbers for Wings picks in recent years? If they're around 18%, (which I wouldn't be surprised at) then you're talking about a club doing 50% better than the NHL as a whole in finding and developing useful NHL players from late rounds. Though I probably would admit to fudging the career NHL criteria a little if a young guy's looking on pace to play 200. Call it two 55 game seasons or something. Edited June 23, 2008 by selkie Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DatsMyWings13 4 Report post Posted June 23, 2008 This guy should just stop writing about hockey unless it's for the local paper in Anaheim. Here's to getting lucky again and again!! Go Wings!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Spinner 6 Report post Posted June 23, 2008 I rarely even go to the SI.com site anymore. In fact, I didn't order their tribute to the Wings package, which I really would've like to have, because I don't want the 56 issues attached to it that will rarely cover hockey. It seems they would rather cover a guy spitting into a bucket of spooge from 20 yards than cover hockey regularly. They add to the reasons, along with ESPN the poker network, of why hockey isn't so popular. I've written them a few times and never get answered. Not that I'm that upset over it. I just don't read their mag or watch ESPN anymore, or rarely do, I should say. So if I missed the new spitting of the spooge record, I'm sorry. Maybe it's 25 yards now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
