The following article is lifted in it's entirety from Hockey's Future, "Home of the #1 Hockey Prospects Site" where it appeared as 'Eagle Eyes'-What the scouts look for - on June. 1, 1999

Looking through HF's homepage, one gets the feeling that a lot of armchair (or real) scouts read these pages. So, as someone who once scouted prospects for the WHL and still maintains a great interest in picking out the best future prospects, I've decided to write this five-part series on what a scout should look for when rating a prospect. I hope that armchair or wannabe scouts will find something new and stimulating in these pieces. The first piece:

Handicapping The Entry Draft

Some young guns are older than others...

Generally speaking, the top prospects in the 1999 Entry Draft will have been born between Sept. 16/1980 and Sept. 15, 1981. While all born in this period share the same 'draft year' we can see that certain players are already a full year older than others. When players are 17 or 18 years of age this can represent a disparity of a full season's ice hockey. Thus, it is likely that players born in the months of June to Sept. 15th in a draft have a slightly better upside than those born in late Sept. to Dec. In the upcoming draft Pavel Brendl, Tim Connolly, Taylor Pyatt, Jani Rita and Alexander Buturlin are all top prospects who have late birthdates. On the other hand, Patrick Stefan was a single day from being available last year. The Sedin brothers and Dennis Shvidki are all 'early' birthdates' and thus nearly a full season older than those mentioned earlier. NCAA prospects are even a full year older than that. One can't forget this when watching them play other prospects in head-to-head competition. The advantage of a near full season's development is something a scout takes into account when handicapping a draft.
----------------------------------------------------------------

'The best player available...'

When do you take the 'best player available' and when do you not- With players drafted so young there is little sense in drafting a player for position in the early rounds (stocking up on deficient depth positions is a good option later in the draft however). This is not the NBA with players aged 20+ ready to alter the five-man rotation. Since almost all players are at least a few years away from making an impact, the idea that prospect X can be slotted into a particular position makes little sense. Before that prospect becomes a factor the team could have traded for a player to fill the role or have had another, older prospect develop to fill it. If the team finds that they are overloaded in the position that they choose the 'best available player' in, his trade value will be much greater than that of a lesser player who was drafted for position.
---------------------------------------------------------------

...And in the later rounds...

After the first three rounds however I recommend throwing this principle aside. The draft become a real crapshoot at that point and instead of choosing second tier players who are unlikely to become anything more than minor league fodder I would stock up on 'special choices', even if it means ignoring players who are currently superior in ability. By 'special choices' I mean:
a) Europeans- More gems from the later rounds come from Europe than anywhere else as it is very difficult to get accurate rankings and information on player development from those countries.
b) Goalies- Goalies are notoriously hard to handicap and are often late bloomers.
c) NCAA and Tier Two players- Again it is harder to get an accurate reading of players in these leagues. And in the case of NCAA players you get the liberty of a longer development period to be sure.
d) Small hotshots- Now's the time to take a chance on a Doug Gilmour or Theoren Fleury type.
e) Big, muscle types- Big players are also often late bloomers and reliable character players or tough guys can often be found available in later rounds.
f) Injured players- Dave Morissette of Seattle was considered a top prospect coming into 1998-1999. He got injured early and missed almost the entire season. Many have forgotten about him. Of course the injury may affect his future but late in the draft is the time to take a chance on it!
g) 'Overaged' players-Some guys just have mediocre draft years. And even
though they may turn into pretty good, or even dominating, junior players often if they aren't gobbled up in their first draft-available year scouts tend to forget about them. Dylan Gyori of Tri-Cities (Do I see Mark Recchi here?) and Tom Kotsopolous of London could be real darkhorses here. At least with these guys, as they are a year or two older, you've got a better idea of what you're getting.
-------------------------------------------------------------

'A good player on a bad team...'

A lot of people believe that if two players are of equal size, play the same position and score equally IF one of those players is on a strong team and the other on a weak team, that one should choose the player on the weak team earlier. After all, the logic goes, it's much harder to do well on a weak team...

Or is it? On a strong team, a decent 17 year old prospect (we're not talking about Pavel Brendl-type prodigies here) is not likely to play to play on the first two lines, nor is he likely to see much power play action. Although he may be on a strong team there is a good chance that he will NOT be on a line with the team's strongest, most skillful, experienced players. In fact, good young players on top teams are often put on the 3rd-4th lines with the explicit command from the coach to learn a well-rounded, two-way game and not worry about scoring. A similar prospect on a weak team however is likely to play with that team's top players, see more ice time and get plenty of power play opportunities. He will likely be expected to score. Remember when Adam Coligiacamo was a top player for a terrible London team as a 16yr old? Remember how little his stats improved with better teams as a 17-18 year old? Not only that, but the possible negative psychological effects of playing with a team that loses regularly is a constant consideration when gauging a prospect.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Rate of improvement...

Looking at this season's stats alone doesn't allow one to make many useful projections for the future. One has to compare not only to past seasons but over the course of the season. Players who start hot but fade down the stretch, in particular in the playoffs, likely had some early success due to some surprise element and the fact that more borderline players will play on opposition teams in the early going. If they were unable to increase their performance as they should have become more used to the league and team, if they didn't pick up the pace when the chips were down, it doesn't auger well for an NHL future. Having seen something of this quality in Mike Zigomanis (Kingston) makes him a 2nd or 3rd round pick rather than a top prospect, in my opinion.

This also goes, of course, for year-to-year development too. Players who don't show marked improvement from ages 16-18 are likely to follow the laws of inertia- the tendency for motion to continue in the set pattern. Thus long-time junior players such as Ryan Lauzon (Hull), Pierre-Luc Courschene (Sherbrooke), Christian Chartier (Saskatoon) and Preston Mizzi (Peterborough) who were all hyped previously but have not appreciably improved in the last two or three years will have to forget all their past press clippings. They are huge question marks. Of course injuries, internal club matters, personal problems may have affected their play but, again, a top future prospect tends to overcome such obstacles.

On the other hand, major junior and NCAA rookies who start slowly but have built up their role and utility as the season progresses are the ones to watch out for. This is the hockey equivalent of the Billboard charts- if the tune is moving up with a bullet we can predict it's eventually going to hit the top ten. Players who show adaptation to higher levels of play, particularly as the season wears on and culminates in the playoffs, are worth watching. Jamie Lundmark is a potential franchise player, in my opinion, precisely because of this quick in-stride adaptation from Tier 2 junior to the WHL. Jeff Jillson's rapid improvement over the course of the NCAA season makes him a desirable commodity too.
------------------------------------------------------------

Go to next in series Scouting Skating: Is it only speed?