"A scout said"

I've been reading a lot of copy leading up to the NHL draft and I see a lot of "one scout said...," or "another scout said..." attribution. I've also seen the same type of thing for other sports' drafts and recruiting coverage. I'm not trying to be idealistic or return to the whole anonymous sources debates, but does it seem like people are more willing to give scouts that free pass than others? I think it conjures up some doubt. Thoughts?

 

Obviously, scouts don't want other teams to know who they're watching.

What bothers me most about this is that a single scout's take on a player adds almost nothing to a story. For every scout who likes a kid, there are probably two or three who think he's a piece of shit.

 

agreed.

 

But readers, in my experience, always seem to like it.

Also, I'm pretty sure this is my first post on a thread that included the phrase "I've been reading a lot of copy leading up to the NHL draft..."

;D

 

I agree with eveything said here. Scouts won't offer up who they are really looking at because they don't want other teams to snatch the player. I can't understand why people write what scouts say. I am thinking that they don't have much to go with for their story so they need a filler and the scouts comments are it.

 

I don't know, usually if the kids good enough to merit a story, he's on the radar. I don't necessarily buy the fact that scouts need that anonymity. I think it's a pretty odd practice really.

And Wingman, I am Canadian, eh? That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.

 

I had to cover a combine at Hargrave Military Academy once, and I had to speak with a handful of scouts as to why they came to the school every year and blah blah blah. In that case, quotes from scouts are alright and necessary.

Otherwise, it's fun to hear two different scouts say two different things about a kid. Those are fun articles to read.

 

I know plenty of NHL scouts who cover the OHL and they don't have many secrets. These guys travel together, eat together and watch games together.

 

Scouts will tell you anything, but never want their name used. They're not protecting secrets as much as they're trying to escape possible wrath from the home office.

 

Readers love comments from scouts, and I think it adds another good perspective, even if anonymous. They do, after all, watch players for a living.

Agree that most of their worry is about their bosses, not other teams.

 

the scout's full-time job is to evaluate players. it stands to reason that his opinion on a player lends authority to a story. no one wants to read about johnny reporter's opinion of the player's abilities.

every scout i talked to when i was in the business told me he would be fired if i used his name. every single one.

 

Due to my paper's policy, I can't use "a scout said."

Can't use anonymity, no matter the situation. If source won't put his or her name behind it, I must find another source.