Scouting is half art and half science. You can either see it, or you can't - and nobody hits on it 100% anyway, even among the best of scouts.
You have to really be a great scout to look at a prospect who isn't putting up a lot of numbers, and still see talent there. You look at a prospect and ask yourself questions like: "Does he have the talent, but hasn't been given the opportunity?", "is that talent translatable?". "Kid has talent, but is raw - does he have the work ethic and discipline to improve?".
I think a lot of kids get passed over who COULD make it, but aren't given the opportunity. Maybe if Stromgren stayed where he was, maybe the opportunity would arrive too late, not allowing him to further develop offensively enough. This is the problem I see with some kids playing in higher leagues right away, or kids playing in lower leagues that they are too good for. Is a kid getting too much opportunity, and without the challenge, is he plateauing? Or is does he have the work ethic and drive to continually improve by trying new things and learning with the opportunity?
For a guy like Stromgren, he wasn't getting enough opportunity, and now he is. I thought Morin and him were the two best prospects at camp last year. Morin really blew me away, but Stromgren to me looked like a guy that was ready for a bottom-six role. I am glad that he didn't actually make it (and I didn't think he would, really) but the opportunity that this kid got on the Wranglers really seemed to propel him.
At any rate, this year's prospect additions - from the trades right through the draft - have been significant to say the least. Listening to Conroy, there is probably another 2 years of this (or more). Things are starting to look very promising suddenly, right?
I think this upcoming season will be the toughest in terms of interest on the Flames. I think Parekh gets sent back, so there won't be a 'shiny new toy' to watch. If the owners can stomach this, then judging by the crowds during the prospects development camp, attendance won't be too bad in subsequent seasons. Just a tough upcoming season I think.
I will be looking forward to guys like Zary, Pospisil, Coronato and Pelletier take a step forward. Then guys like Solovyov and probably Klapka pushing themselves into everyday NHL'ers. Stromgren might be one of those as well. Grushnikov is another that seems ready. Wolf of course also. These will all be fun and interesting to watch IMO, and hopefully the attendance will be there. I think their will be a legitimate buzz next season with Parekh making the squad (I anticipate anyway - can't see him going back to junior for another 2 seasons), plus probably the Flames 1st round pick (guessing a centre!) will probably be NHL ready (most likely - but I have them picking in the top 3 at least).
This is really fun. Seeing these kids competing and developing, and all the story-lines and effort that will open up. Nothing beats having a championship level team to draw interest and excitement. The next best thing is a young team full of high-end prospects to watch. The worst thing is watching a mediocre team you know can't win, but also doesn't have any sustained excitement around it. I am glad that we as fans are no longer watching the last example.
The Following 20 Users Say Thank You to Calgary4LIfe For This Useful Post:
Exactly this. Racking up points in D+1 and D+2 years in the CHL is of little value. What is more important is working on skating, getting stronger, and working on the weaker aspects of their game. Fans don't follow those things at all, they just look at points.
Two examples that show the opposite ends of this:
Coronato: has been working on his skating, his positioning, etc. and fans are disappointed that he wasn't dominating the prospects camp.
Savoie: fans immediately call the Savoie trade a complete bust for BUF and a home run for EDM because he puts up points. Maybe the BUF scouts are seeing things fans aren't. There is more to development than dominating the CHL.
Yeah, and this is also why it's more difficult to get excited about a European prospect who's drafted out of the Swedish league, or like Silayev, out of the KHL.
They might have the fundamentals to put up huge numbers, but it's difficult for 17 and 18 year olds to put up big points against 28 year old professionals -- and they don't get the prime ice time as kids in a mens' league.
The problem is a lot of people conflate generating points as development. They see a kid in junior racking up the goals and assists and think a kid is developing well, when in fact they may not be developing in any positive way, they are just floating to the top based on physical maturity and experience. Scoring points is meaningless if the player is not working on the weaknesses in their game and making a commitment to improving the areas where improvement is needed. Wait until you see these kids in the pro ranks before making a determination of what they likely are. That step to the next level will tell you about the player's development.
Points aren't irrelevant either though, as they are generally a strong indication of performance, but they don't indicate progression.
IMO there are three steps that prospects generally take if they are progressing and going to be an NHLer.
1) Dominate against your own peers at your age group. Usually you have to produce points when playing against your own peers and age group to even get a sniff of the NHL. Usually role or ice time is not an issue because you will get that at 18 or 19 years old in the junior leagues.
2) Prove you can play and be effective in a professional league against grown men. (AHL, European league) Offensive production not always the best indicator because role, ice time, offensive opportunities can be very different for prospects in different leagues and on different teams.
3) Get some NHL game time to finish developing and show you can compete at the NHL level.
Where it gets tricky though is prospects aren't always given the opportunity to actually achieve each of those three things.
For example with somebody like Stromgren...he wasn't actually given the opportunity to do number 1 for a long period of time and was quickly graduated.
In his draft season he had 36 points in 44 games, which was good but not dominating. And then played 2 games in the J20 league in his draft+1 in which he had 4 goals and 6 points, and then never played in that league again and went right to the SHL (skipping the Allsvensken all together)
So then he was struggling in the SHL to produce (and get consistent ice time), but was being compared to somebody like Stankoven who was being allowed to dominate against U-20 competition. So looking at strictly points it looks like Stromgren wasn't performing but would putting up 2 PPG in the J20 Nationale in Sweden been better than playing and struggling to produce in the SHl...probably not.
Then you could tell it took him some time to find his game and his confidence at the AHL level, because it was a bit fractured after struggling at the SHL level.
But after his confidence has improved and he was given a more offensive role with the Wranglers his production started to take off. So it's like anything...looking at stats and points are still valuable but like anything understanding the context of how those outcomes occurred is required to make the required judgements.
Last edited by SuperMatt18; 07-08-2024 at 10:02 AM.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to SuperMatt18 For This Useful Post:
Points aren't irrelevant either though, as they are generally a strong indication of performance, but they don't indicate progression.
IMO there are three steps that prospects generally take if they are progressing and going to be an NHLer.
1) Dominate against your own peers at your age group. Usually you have to produce points when playing against your own peers and age group to even get a sniff of the NHL. Usually role or ice time is not an issue because you will get that at 18 or 19 years old in the junior leagues.
2) Prove you can play and be effective in a professional league against grown men. (AHL, European league) Offensive production not always the best indicator because role, ice time, offensive opportunities can be very different for prospects in different leagues and on different teams.
3) Get some NHL game time to finish developing and show you can compete at the NHL level.
Where it gets tricky though is prospects aren't always given the opportunity to actually achieve each of those three things.
For example with somebody like Stromgren...he wasn't actually given the opportunity to do number 1 for a long period of time and was quickly graduated.
In his draft season he had 36 points in 44 games, which was good but not dominating. And then played 2 games in the J20 league in his draft+1 in which he had 4 goals and 6 points, and then never played in that league again and went right to the SHL.
So then he was struggling in the SHL to produce (and get consistent ice time), but was being compared to somebody like Stankoven who was being allowed to dominate against U-20 competition.
Then you could tell it took him some time to find his game and his confidence at the AHL level, because it was a bit fractured after struggling at the SHL level.
But after his confidence has improved and he was given a more offensive role with the Wranglers his production started to take off.
Ice size was also probably a factor for Stromgren and other younger European's coming over. Axel Hurtig mentioned this in his development camp interview being something he has to figure out because everything happens a split second quicker with the smaller ice.
I thought Hurtig might be happier with smaller ice being a shutdown defender, but I guess it goes both ways that he also has less time to get rid of pucks or before attackers are on him in the corners.
In his draft season he had 36 points in 44 games, which was good but not dominating.
That was the year after his draft. In his draft year he scored 18 points in 14 J20 games, 12 points in 11 HockeyEttan games, and 9 points in 27 HockeyAllsvenskan games.
The Following User Says Thank You to Ba'alzamon For This Useful Post:
The problem is a lot of people conflate generating points as development. They see a kid in junior racking up the goals and assists and think a kid is developing well, when in fact they may not be developing in any positive way, they are just floating to the top based on physical maturity and experience. Scoring points is meaningless if the player is not working on the weaknesses in their game and making a commitment to improving the areas where improvement is needed. Wait until you see these kids in the pro ranks before making a determination of what they likely are. That step to the next level will tell you about the player's development.
I think this applies to a guy like Morin, who struggled early on with injuries, but spent the season working on improving his defense and physicality.The points output wasn’t as impressive, but his overall game got better in the long run.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Sandman For This Useful Post:
That was the year after his draft. In his draft year he scored 18 points in 14 J20 games, 12 points in 11 HockeyEttan games, and 9 points in 27 HockeyAllsvenskan games.
Production that earned him first-round talk at times.
I think there will be enough players of interest to get fans through this season.
Zary, Pospisil Miromanov, Wolf and even Vladar are still works in progress.
Coronato and Pelletier are going to get their chances.
Bahl, Mantha, Lomberg and Bean are all new.
And I think we'll get appearances from Stromgren, Grushnikov, and maybe even Honzek, at some point.
Look back at the team during Monahan's rookie year. That was way worse than what this team has to watch.
I'm more excited to watch next years roster than this years.
Sharangovich is another for me, I still think he could be a star. Now that he is wrapped up for 5 more year, hopefully he continues to get better. Could be a huge steal for us
Points aren't irrelevant either though, as they are generally a strong indication of performance, but they don't indicate progression.
Completely disagree. Points are a red herring. A guy may be the ####tiest skater in the world and still put up tons of points in juniors. He may continue to dominate while NOT improving in an area where his weaknesses will prevent him from being even a passable player at the next level. A player may also see his team gutted and not have the supporting cast to score, but he takes a step forward in developing his skills while seeing his production drop. A player may also see his assignment change on his team, which could impact his points. Or in the case of Europeans, moving between leagues can hit your production. Points don't tell you how well a player has improved his skating, or how well he has improved his positioning or reading of the play. Points only measure how many times the player contributed to getting the puck past the goaltender. Points don't matter when it comes to determining if a player is progressing. Only looking at the sum of the player and acknowledging the player's weaknesses, and if there is improvement in those areas, can you determine growth.
I was a fan of Stromgren after the pick, notwithstanding the struggles to generate points. It just seemed like he had the skills and another gear. Having said that, I think we do need to pump the brakes a little, as dominating the development camp doesn't mean much of anything. Glad he performed well, but he was playing against guys that were drafted a week ago and others that will gear up for September, not July.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Fighting Banana Slug For This Useful Post:
I was a fan of Stromgren after the pick, notwithstanding the struggles to generate points. It just seemed like he had the skills and another gear. Having said that, I think we do need to pump the brakes a little, as dominating the development camp doesn't mean much of anything. Glad he performed well, but he was playing against guys that were drafted a week ago and others that will gear up for September, not July.
Yes of course. But he was the best of those players, which is certainly encouraging. And he has progressed significantly since last year - also very encouraging. People are capable of context.
I was a fan of Stromgren after the pick, notwithstanding the struggles to generate points. It just seemed like he had the skills and another gear. Having said that, I think we do need to pump the brakes a little, as dominating the development camp doesn't mean much of anything. Glad he performed well, but he was playing against guys that were drafted a week ago and others that will gear up for September, not July.
Yes of course. But he was the best of those players, which is certainly encouraging. And he has progressed significantly since last year - also very encouraging. People are capable of context.
Maybe? As mentioned, I am a fan, but the context is that he is an older player playing against kids. I thought Morton looked really good as well, but I am less sure he'll be cracking the big line up in September.
On the flipside, a guy like Gridin looked rather invisible. No doubt in part because he was making the jump from USHL as a teen.
The point is that not much should be gleaned from development camp.
__________________
From HFBoard oiler fan, in analyzing MacT's management:
O.K. there has been a lot of talk on whether or not MacTavish has actually done a good job for us, most fans on this board are very basic in their analysis and I feel would change their opinion entirely if the team was successful.
Just finishing listening to Conroy's interview from yesterday. He was clear to me when answering questions to separate Parekh and Brzustewicz from Jurmo, talking about Parekh's high end skill and Brzustewicz's vision of the ice and bank off the boards to a teammate coming off the bench vs. Jurmo having an unexpected offensive output at camp and how Jurmo had a good week. He definitely has much higher expectations of the first 2 vs. Jurmo. Awesome stuff to hear and read from those that attended this year. As Steinberg said, after seeing Granlund years ago at one of these, he was certain he'd turn into a player that would do a lot better than he did in the NHL.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to activeStick For This Useful Post:
