"A scout said"

[RedCanuck]

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?

 

[HeinekenMan]

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 ****.

 

[shockey]

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 ****.

agreed.

 

[Mighty_Wingman]

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

 

[Cansportschick]

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 ****.

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.

 

[RedCanuck]

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.

 

[Bucknutty]

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.

 

[Huggy]

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.

 

[Smasher_Sloan]

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.

 

[Babs]

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.

 

[leo1]

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.

 

[Central-KY-Kid]

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.

 

[Will Hernandez]

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.

You must work for a Gannett paper.

 

[Central-KY-Kid]

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.

Actually, no. There's only one Gannett paper in KY and I'm not at it.

I'm at the small daily down the road.

You must work for a Gannett paper.

 

[jdklamp]

You can't tell me this doesn't add anything to a story. It was in a Philadelphia Inquirer story this week.

"They won't trade [Kyle] Korver and [Andre] Iguodala, and if [Steven] Hunter, [Willie] Green and [Rodney] Carney are your tradeable assets at 12, would you return their phone calls?" one NBA scout said

 

[Dan Hickling]

I generally narrow it a little, (e.g. "a veteran scout from an Eastern Conference rival"), so long as I get something enlightening...("never gives away an at bat... not afraid to use all his pitches"same in both hockey and baseball...always makes that quick first pass out of the zone, etc.")....same rules of thumb apply in hockey and baseball...reasons for anonymity have already been discussed...

 

[HeinekenMan]

You can't tell me this doesn't add anything to a story. It was in a Philadelphia Inquirer story this week.

"They won't trade [Kyle] Korver and [Andre] Iguodala, and if [Steven] Hunter, [Willie] Green and [Rodney] Carney are your tradeable assets at 12, would you return their phone calls?" one NBA scout said

I don't think it adds much at all. You're assuming that the scout knows what he claims to know. Because there's no attribution, there's also no accountability. And scouts have all sorts of reasons to be manipulative.

Then there's the issue that scouts are often wrong about things even when they believe they have all the right answers. It's one thing to say that a player is generally perceived as a top prospect by scouts, but it's something else to quote one of hundres of MLB scouts regarding some rookie pitcher.

 

[Smasher_Sloan]

I generally narrow it a little, (e.g. "a veteran scout from an Eastern Conference rival")

I don't like that. It's like saying, "I won't tell you who the source is, but here's who it's not."

When the Mets were at their wildest and every beat writer had his go-to guy, they started identifying them as "a veteran pitcher," which instantly eliminated 15 position players and every pitcher with less than two years of ML service. Always struck me as semi-desperate, as though you're saying, "See, I didn't make this up."

I don't think the reader is served any better by the tease, and any effort to narrow it might make the scout edgy.

 

[Smasher_Sloan]

You can't tell me this doesn't add anything to a story. It was in a Philadelphia Inquirer story this week.

"They won't trade [Kyle] Korver and [Andre] Iguodala, and if [Steven] Hunter, [Willie] Green and [Rodney] Carney are your tradeable assets at 12, would you return their phone calls?" one NBA scout said

I don't think it adds much at all. You're assuming that the scout knows what he claims to know. Because there's no attribution, there's also no accountability. And scouts have all sorts of reasons to be manipulative.

Then there's the issue that scouts are often wrong about things even when they believe they have all the right answers. It's one thing to say that a player is generally perceived as a top prospect by scouts, but it's something else to quote one of hundres of MLB scouts regarding some rookie pitcher.

It does add something. It speaks to what people around the league are saying.

My experience has been that scouts are the least manipulative people in sports. They tend not to waste energy with ulterior motives.

 

[HeinekenMan]

You can't tell me this doesn't add anything to a story. It was in a Philadelphia Inquirer story this week.

"They won't trade [Kyle] Korver and [Andre] Iguodala, and if [Steven] Hunter, [Willie] Green and [Rodney] Carney are your tradeable assets at 12, would you return their phone calls?" one NBA scout said

I don't think it adds much at all. You're assuming that the scout knows what he claims to know. Because there's no attribution, there's also no accountability. And scouts have all sorts of reasons to be manipulative.

Then there's the issue that scouts are often wrong about things even when they believe they have all the right answers. It's one thing to say that a player is generally perceived as a top prospect by scouts, but it's something else to quote one of hundres of MLB scouts regarding some rookie pitcher.

It does add something. It speaks to what people around the league are saying.

My experience has been that scouts are the least manipulative people in sports. They tend not to waste energy with ulterior motives.

But if you only quote one or two scouts, does it really speak to what people around the league are saying?