2009 Born for the 2025 OHL DRAFT

[OMG67]

I have to agree with few points on both ends of the argument, but in the end, if you guys are "accepting" that there is corruption in the process, then your argument goes out the window and people will start to question the credibility of the whole process. It doesn't matter how many rounds you increase or decrease the draft, there will always be a few rounds where well to do families and agents will pay, favors will be done and Ex-NHLer's kids will be given the benefit of the doubt, under the guise of "upside potential" vs some kids that maybe deserve a chance to GROW into a hockey player.
Is the answer coming up with a statistical approach with an independent panel? Therefore you can show that Nikitia Ilechenko, who has 3 points in 23 games, deserves an opportunity to grow into a player vs other kids or Aiden Biachnini who has 6 pts in 33 games, is a better skater, has higher IQ and ice time efficiency rating than the kids mentioned above. If you argument has data to back it up, then people wont be as pessimistic.
I love the game to much to watch it be diluted by money or nepotism.

You cannot apply a statistical approach because scouting is very subjective. I guess you could create some sort of mathematical forecasting tool where you plug in a bunch of data and the forecasting tool would spit out the statistical likelihood of a player playing in the NHL but some of the attributes that woudl be input into the forecasting tool would still be subjective. And, you would also need to normalize the scoring to make it apples to apples and I doubt that would happen with multiple people analyzing the attributes and the number of times each analyzer is exposed to the recruit.

For example, a scout may apply a score or rating on specific attributes and then give the player a final score. But you still have a bunch of different people viewing the player on different days under different performance metrics etc. I don’t’ see a way to normalize the data in such a way that you could apply a statistical approach.

 

[OHL4Life]

I have to agree with few points on both ends of the argument, but in the end, if you guys are "accepting" that there is corruption in the process, then your argument goes out the window and people will start to question the credibility of the whole process. It doesn't matter how many rounds you increase or decrease the draft, there will always be a few rounds where well to do families and agents will pay, favors will be done and Ex-NHLer's kids will be given the benefit of the doubt, under the guise of "upside potential" vs some kids that maybe deserve a chance to GROW into a hockey player.
Is the answer coming up with a statistical approach with an independent panel? Therefore you can show that Nikitia Ilechenko, who has 3 points in 23 games, deserves an opportunity to grow into a player vs other kids or Aiden Biachnini who has 6 pts in 33 games, is a better skater, has higher IQ and ice time efficiency rating than the kids mentioned above. If you argument has data to back it up, then people wont be as pessimistic.
I love the game to much to watch it be diluted by money or nepotism.

there is one team that has taken money for a draft pick, that is all. i believe its happened 4 times, but only can confirm 3. please dont spread miss-information and suggest that it is wide-spread unless you have actual proof.

 

[OHL4Life]

if you

diluted by money or nepotism.

favours take up about 0.06 percent of the draft roughly, good lord is this a new level of complaining.

look at society, this is probably better then your typical hiring process at a company.

im legit shocked at the level of complaining about it.

 

[HKYLVR72]

You cannot apply a statistical approach because scouting is very subjective. I guess you could create some sort of mathematical forecasting tool where you plug in a bunch of data and the forecasting tool would spit out the statistical likelihood of a player playing in the NHL but some of the attributes that woudl be input into the forecasting tool would still be subjective. And, you would also need to normalize the scoring to make it apples to apples and I doubt that would happen with multiple people analyzing the attributes and the number of times each analyzer is exposed to the recruit.

For example, a scout may apply a score or rating on specific attributes and then give the player a final score. But you still have a bunch of different people viewing the player on different days under different performance metrics etc. I don’t’ see a way to normalize the data in such a way that you could apply a statistical approach.

Very good points my friend. Normalizing the data would be the harder part of the evaluation. But it would be done on weighted scale for tournaments and leagues they play in. The big tournaments would include Titans Early bird, Marlboros Xmas tourney, Crossover weekend in the OMHA, GTHL Showcase weekends etc. etc.
Maybe creating Showcase weekend tournaments for all leagues together, just the top teams from each league HEO, OMHA, Alliance, GTHL, NOHA. It would benefit the northern kids, since they see little action against the other leagues through out the year, for "best on best" hockey? It would save you gentleman from standing in the cold rinks in December / January and bring some data to back up the subjective portion of your evaluation.
The questioning of a process is not complaining, its trying to understand it and of course make it better if we can. The program I've seen this year, that would be a good starting point, was done by PDA Evaluations, they outline the core skills looked at, that make a player a true prospect (skating speed, skating edges, breakaway speed, IQ, Stick handling, Shooting etc.)

thoughts?

 

[leafs4life94]

I'm curious, in past years, how many players that were "shockingly" undrafted or passed over for nepo-picks ended up turning into regulars? I tried to look back through some old threads but there weren't a lot of names.

I know a few of the names I saw mentioned as snubs last year have been mentioned in the U18 draft thread

 

[OHL4Life]

I'm curious, in past years, how many players that were "shockingly" undrafted or passed over for nepo-picks ended up turning into regulars? I tried to look back through some old threads but there weren't a lot of names.

I know a few of the names I saw mentioned as snubs last year have been mentioned in the U18 draft thread

In the last 5 years? I think it’s 11, with 3/4 legit good OHL players 3 borderline every day guys and 5 or so healthy in and out of the lineup players

OHL teams miss on average about 2 -2.5 players a year

 

[OHL4Life]

in theory, that’s probably a better ratio then nhl teams have lol

 

[OHL4Life]

Very good points my friend. Normalizing the data would be the harder part of the evaluation. But it would be done on weighted scale for tournaments and leagues they play in. The big tournaments would include Titans Early bird, Marlboros Xmas tourney, Crossover weekend in the OMHA, GTHL Showcase weekends etc. etc.
Maybe creating Showcase weekend tournaments for all leagues together, just the top teams from each league HEO, OMHA, Alliance, GTHL, NOHA. It would benefit the northern kids, since they see little action against the other leagues through out the year, for "best on best" hockey? It would save you gentleman from standing in the cold rinks in December / January and bring some data to back up the subjective portion of your evaluation.
The questioning of a process is not complaining, its trying to understand it and of course make it better if we can. The program I've seen this year, that would be a good starting point, was done by PDA Evaluations, they outline the core skills looked at, that make a player a true prospect (skating speed, skating edges, breakaway speed, IQ, Stick handling, Shooting etc.)

thoughts?

You realize scouts rate all those things as well subjectively right? It’s just not posted publically

 

[HockeyPops]

A quick scan of the team rosters has the following players from the U18 draft rostered on OHL teams this year. There are quite a lot more than I realized. How many of them are impact players though? 2? 3? And many didn't get much more than a cup of coffee in the O.
BRA - Julian Demiglio
BRA - Graeme MacAuley
BFD - Daniel Chen
ERI - Jack Clarke
ERI - Oliver Phillips
ERI - Brett Hammond
GUE - William Haley
GUE - Liam Conway
KGN - Riley Clark
KGN - Max Shewfelt
KIT - Jack LaBrash
LDN - Jacob Julien
NIA - Hayden Jeffery
NIA - Linkin Stinson-Kurz
NB - Jonathan Kapergeridis
OSH - Hayden Sabourin
OTT - Theo Avila
OTT - Liam Conway
OS - Trent Gates
OS - Bruce McDonald
OS - Sam Ethier
PBO - Dylan Turcotte
PBO - Brennan Faulkner
PBO - Matthew Jenken
SAG - Calem Mangone
SAG - Lincoln Moore
SAR - Nick Surzycia
SOO - Noah Tegelaar
SBY - Joey Brehmer
SBY - Rowan Henderson
SBY - Nate Krawchuk
SBY - Luke Suys
WSR - Alec Stewart
WSR - Evan Hjelholt
WSR - Michael Newlove

 

[OHL4Life]

A quick scan of the team rosters has the following players from the U18 draft rostered on OHL teams this year. There are quite a lot more than I realized. How many of them are impact players though? 2? 3? And many didn't get much more than a cup of coffee in the O.
BRA - Julian Demiglio
BRA - Graeme MacAuley
BFD - Daniel Chen
ERI - Jack Clarke
ERI - Oliver Phillips
ERI - Brett Hammond
GUE - William Haley
GUE - Liam Conway
KGN - Riley Clark
KGN - Max Shewfelt
KIT - Jack LaBrash
LDN - Jacob Julien
NIA - Hayden Jeffery
NIA - Linkin Stinson-Kurz
NB - Jonathan Kapergeridis
OSH - Hayden Sabourin
OTT - Theo Avila
OTT - Liam Conway
OS - Trent Gates
OS - Bruce McDonald
OS - Sam Ethier
PBO - Dylan Turcotte
PBO - Brennan Faulkner
PBO - Matthew Jenken
SAG - Calem Mangone
SAG - Lincoln Moore
SAR - Nick Surzycia
SOO - Noah Tegelaar
SBY - Joey Brehmer
SBY - Rowan Henderson
SBY - Nate Krawchuk
SBY - Luke Suys
WSR - Alec Stewart
WSR - Evan Hjelholt
WSR - Michael Newlove

they may be rosters but on that list there may be 11 full time OHL players? they cut the Windsor d after training camp

Like you said, 3 maybe that are difference makers. The rest are injury call ups

 

[HKYLVR72]

You realize scouts rate all those things as well subjectively right? It’s just not posted publically

Yes my friend. What I am suggesting is that we have a data driven and analytic analysis done, that is not subjective. This brings credibility and validity to the decisions to the process, IMO. Moreover it would be done on a number of tournaments, games throughout the year, so it brings in a wider set of data.

What this means is, kids who are picked for not putting up points like Nikitia Ilechenko, who has 3 points in 23 games, deserves an opportunity to grow into a player vs other kids or Aiden Biachnini who has 6 pts in 33 games, is a better skater, has higher IQ and ice time efficiency rating than the kids mentioned.

 

[OHL4Life]

Yes my friend. What I am suggesting is that we have a data driven and analytic analysis done, that is not subjective. This brings credibility and validity to the decisions to the process, IMO. Moreover it would be done on a number of tournaments, games throughout the year, so it brings in a wider set of data.

What this means is, kids who are picked for not putting up points like Nikitia Ilechenko, who has 3 points in 23 games, deserves an opportunity to grow into a player vs other kids or Aiden Biachnini who has 6 pts in 33 games, is a better skater, has higher IQ and ice time efficiency rating than the kids mentioned.

Show me the analytics model that puts Konnor smith in the OHL at 17, let alone signing a pro contract.

As shown above, the league misses on average of two kids a year that become good regular players in the league. Your complaining and wining about a system that misses 2 out of 900 they don’t get drafted

And your a hockey advisor?

 

[OMG67]

Yes my friend. What I am suggesting is that we have a data driven and analytic analysis done, that is not subjective. This brings credibility and validity to the decisions to the process, IMO. Moreover it would be done on a number of tournaments, games throughout the year, so it brings in a wider set of data.

What this means is, kids who are picked for not putting up points like Nikitia Ilechenko, who has 3 points in 23 games, deserves an opportunity to grow into a player vs other kids or Aiden Biachnini who has 6 pts in 33 games, is a better skater, has higher IQ and ice time efficiency rating than the kids mentioned.

I think the issue is the ratings are subjective and then translated into numbers. You can measure with a stop watch how fast a player can get around the ice from point A to point B. You can measure reaction time fromt he time the whistle blows to when the player first twitches. But, when you drop that player into the game situation and throw a whole bunch of other factors at them, how do thy react? Better question, how do you subjectively as a scout create a metric to capture it?

Look at Pro Baseball. They have a tools rating system. Speed, Power, defence, arm, hot for average etc…. But, baseball is a very individual sport. Ball gets pitched and batter hits ball. Ball gets hit and defender retrieves ball. Very simple. Hockey isn’t as simple. Anticipation of play, ability to react instinctively, ability to react and change direction….so many aspects of the game that are more difficult to measure because of all the other actions happening around them. Ability to play in close games. Ability to play physically. Ability to play physically in close games. So many variables. How would you statistically capture that and even if you could, is the scout still required to take a subjective look at the player and assign a rating that is based solely on a metric? Tough task.

As @OHL4Life mentioned, the scouts do assign “scores” to attributes but they also have to have a feel for the players ability to grow, a feel for measuring maturity, how they can handle adverse situations. In so many cases, regular metrics align with a group of players but it is the scouts that gets that “sense” of whether the players has “it” or doesn’t which will separate which player is picked.

Look at this past OHL draft. All we heard about was Murata and Warren through around January/February. Why? Metrics. Skill set. Point totals. But, once the scouts saw enough of the players to get a better “sense” of the player, the subjective “rating” dropped those players down the chart and raised others above them.

How do you place a metric on a player that shrugs his shoulders when he doesn’t get passed the puck? Is that simply an attitude metric? I don’t know. But, it is all of those subtle things that make a difference at the highest levels because all of these kids can play. Even the worst AAA kid is still a great hockey player compared to the global cohort of 15 year old players.

 

[OHL4Life]

I think the issue is the ratings are subjective and then translated into numbers. You can measure with a stop watch how fast a player can get around the ice from point A to point B. You can measure reaction time fromt he time the whistle blows to when the player first twitches. But, when you drop that player into the game situation and throw a whole bunch of other factors at them, how do thy react? Better question, how do you subjectively as a scout create a metric to capture it?

Look at Pro Baseball. They have a tools rating system. Speed, Power, defence, arm, hot for average etc…. But, baseball is a very individual sport. Ball gets pitched and batter hits ball. Ball gets hit and defender retrieves ball. Very simple. Hockey isn’t as simple. Anticipation of play, ability to react instinctively, ability to react and change direction….so many aspects of the game that are more difficult to measure because of all the other actions happening around them. Ability to play in close games. Ability to play physically. Ability to play physically in close games. So many variables. How would you statistically capture that and even if you could, is the scout still required to take a subjective look at the player and assign a rating that is based solely on a metric? Tough task.

As @OHL4Life mentioned, the scouts do assign “scores” to attributes but they also have to have a feel for the players ability to grow, a feel for measuring maturity, how they can handle adverse situations. In so many cases, regular ethics align with a group of players but it is the scouts that gets that “sense” of whether the players has “it” or doesn’t which will separate which player is picked.

Look at this past OHL draft. All we heard about was Murata and Warren through around January/February. Why? Metrics. Skill set. Point totals. But, once the scouts saw enough of the players to get a better “sense” of the player, the subjective “rating” dropped those players down the chart and raised others above them.

How do you place a metric on a player that shrugs his shoulders when he doesn’t get passed the puck? Is that simply an attitude metric? I don’t know. But, it is all of those subtle things that make a difference at the highest levels because all of these kids can play. Even the worst AAA kid is still a great hockey player compared to the global cohort of 15 year old players.

and why are we redoing an entire system that for all intensive purposes is missing 2 players a year with roughly 1300 eligible?

 

[OMG67]

and why are we redoing an entire system that for all intensive purposes is missing 2 players a year with roughly 1300 eligible?

I agree with what you are saying in this regard but, IMO, you are not focusing on the right side of the equation. It is not about missing players. It is about elevating players that are clearly not deserving of being elevated.

This conversation should not be about who SHOULD have been picked. That is subjective at best. The conversation is about who should NOT have been picked. There is a massive difference between the two.

For example, one team could have a ranked list of 400 players. The 200th player on that list could be the 400th player on another teams list. So, that is a reason why a player isn’t picked. He quite simply isn’t high enough on the RIGHT list.

The issue being highlighted by some is a player who would “likely” be ranked 900th at best across all teams lists are being picked above players that are at worst 400th across all teams lists.

IMO, I don’t care. Life isn’t fair so get used to it as early in life as possible. AND, I also agree with you that it really doesn’t matter because it may affect 10 players per year that would have squeezed into the last ten picks of the 15th round. Why some feel that being drafted 300th overall is an endorsement on their efforts vs not being drafted doesn’t make sense to me. Why do you need to be endorsed at all? Are you honestly going to run around at age 30 saying that you were once drafted 300th overall in the OHL by the Kitchener Rangers, attended two training camps for two days and it was fun? No.

 

[OHL4Life]

I agree with what you are saying in this regard but, IMO, you are not focusing on the right side of the equation. It is not about missing players. It is about elevating players that are clearly not deserving of being elevated.

This conversation should not be about who SHOULD have been picked. That is subjective at best. The conversation is about who should NOT have been picked. There is a massive difference between the two.

For example, one team could have a ranked list of 400 players. The 200th player on that list could be the 400th player on another teams list. So, that is a reason why a player isn’t picked. He quite simply isn’t high enough on the RIGHT list.

The issue being highlighted by some is a player who would “likely” be ranked 900th at best across all teams lists are being picked above players that are at worst 400th across all teams lists.

IMO, I don’t care. Life isn’t fair so get used to it as early in life as possible. AND, I also agree with you that it really doesn’t matter because it may affect 10 players per year that would have squeezed into the last ten picks of the 15th round. Why some feel that being drafted 300th overall is an endorsement on their efforts vs not being drafted doesn’t make sense to me. Why do you need to be endorsed at all? Are you honestly going to run around at age 30 saying that you were once drafted 300th overall in the OHL by the Kitchener Rangers, attended two training camps for two days and it was fun? No.

it’s funny. I had a friend a few years ago that had his kid in the draft, rated by central to go late, he did not. I could argue he probably should have. The guy did not once complain about anything, said his kid wasn’t good enough, encouraged his keep to keep going, etc.

Why is it so hard for some to say that vs crying and saying ‘we were screwed’.

I don’t understand that mentality. If you need to wait unit the 15th round you didnt do enough to differentiate yourself, simple as that

 

[oldtymehockeyguy]

So defensive again and missing the point and exaggerating / altering what is being said, over and over, now belittling. Taking away opportunities systematically with selfish / corrupt / lazy practices from when kids start (at mass scale) removes ones with great potential left undeveloped, this is just one last time for some. Your self-serving #"s are meaningless. As yes, most do may not come back rejuvenated in u18 etc. when rejected so unjustly again, with self-righteous scouts and paid for player reviews / rankings which lazy scouts use when not bothering to take time for those lower on their potential curve and putting up lower points, but still very good for their situation and opportunities (ice time, little to no power play etc.) Unbiased statistics from vision software will soon be used and negate the bias, providing incredible statistics on everything from play with and without the puck, defensive and offense skills throughout games, everything from takeaways, opposition shut down, pass aim, speed, completion, skating acceleration, IQ, (options available vs chosen) etc. etc., then the archaic and corrupt practices will be gone. It will be fair, impartial and adjust to whom a player is against on each play. Then likely a case like Konnor Smith would be validated by these statistics and prove their worth / effectiveness, as there are different types of players, and roles that aide in a team being successful. Though don’t think he would get drafted this year. Though surely, you'll tell me this will never happen even though it's well on its way.

 

[OHLTG]

WSR - Alec Stewart
WSR - Evan Hjelholt
WSR - Michael Newlove

Stewart gets a cup of coffee on the fourth line if they really need someone. Hjelholt is the same way on D, but fewer games. Newlove is the first of the trio to get called up; played a game or two with the club and looked okay. I'd imagine they're the highest on him.

 

[OHL4Life]

So defensive again and missing the point and exaggerating / altering what is being said, over and over, now belittling. Taking away opportunities systematically with selfish / corrupt / lazy practices from when kids start (at mass scale) removes ones with great potential left undeveloped, this is just one last time for some. Your self-serving #"s are meaningless. As yes, most do may not come back rejuvenated in u18 etc. when rejected so unjustly again, with self-righteous scouts and paid for player reviews / rankings which lazy scouts use when not bothering to take time for those lower on their potential curve and putting up lower points, but still very good for their situation and opportunities (ice time, little to no power play etc.) Unbiased statistics from vision software will soon be used and negate the bias, providing incredible statistics on everything from play with and without the puck, defensive and offense skills throughout games, everything from takeaways, opposition shut down, pass aim, speed, completion, skating acceleration, IQ, (options available vs chosen) etc. etc., then the archaic and corrupt practices will be gone. It will be fair, impartial and adjust to whom a player is against on each play. Then likely a case like Konnor Smith would be validated by these statistics and prove their worth / effectiveness, as there are different types of players, and roles that aide in a team being successful. Though surely, you'll tell me this will never happen even though it's well on its way.

the ohl misses 2 players a year out of the 900 that are not drafted

yet, we also find them later

All this crying over 2 players a year.

that is fact, backed up by what you see on the ice over the past 5/6 years.

that ratio is better then the nhl, which surprises the hell out of me.

 

[OHL4Life]

I agree with what you are saying in this regard but, IMO, you are not focusing on the right side of the equation. It is not about missing players. It is about elevating players that are clearly not deserving of being elevated.

This conversation should not be about who SHOULD have been picked. That is subjective at best. The conversation is about who should NOT have been picked. There is a massive difference between the two.

For example, one team could have a ranked list of 400 players. The 200th player on that list could be the 400th player on another teams list. So, that is a reason why a player isn’t picked. He quite simply isn’t high enough on the RIGHT list.

The issue being highlighted by some is a player who would “likely” be ranked 900th at best across all teams lists are being picked above players that are at worst 400th across all teams lists.

IMO, I don’t care. Life isn’t fair so get used to it as early in life as possible. AND, I also agree with you that it really doesn’t matter because it may affect 10 players per year that would have squeezed into the last ten picks of the 15th round. Why some feel that being drafted 300th overall is an endorsement on their efforts vs not being drafted doesn’t make sense to me. Why do you need to be endorsed at all? Are you honestly going to run around at age 30 saying that you were once drafted 300th overall in the OHL by the Kitchener Rangers, attended two training camps for two days and it was fun? No.

i can tell you working on a few different staffs and seeing different lists over the years. Ive seen kids not rated on a 500 person list that the team i worked for previously had 120 or so.

your right, hes not high enough on the right list. at the end of the day, the league and its team members are accountable to the owners and the fans, if they do not see the results in drafting and development, then the staff will move on.

they are not accountable to random advisors who are pissed that his client was not selected and the players parent who cant say 'sorry, you were not good enough', to his son.

 

[leafs4life94]

I'm a numbers guy. I love looking at stats and I think there is a massive place for them in all sports, not just hockey, when it comes to scouting. BUT - the numbers are a tool. Scouts would have several different tools in their tool box - alongside numbers you'd have to evaluate personality, leadership, intelligence, hockey IQ, coachability.

If you only look at numbers, there is a lot you'll miss out.

Imagine looking at a car, seeing it goes 0 to 60 in 2.5 seconds. If that is the only aspect you look at in purchasing a car (like only looking at numbers for a hockey player) - that's some damn good acceleration, and you'll spend your money on this car. But because you only looked at the 0 to 60 time, you missed the braking ability of the car (let's call this Hockey IQ). If the car cannot brake at all, that car is not going to be a positive experience. Same with hockey - if someone puts up all the numbers in the world, but has no hockey IQ (as an example of a non-quantifiable trait) - that player is not going to succeed the way someone with slightly lower numbers, but much better non-quantifiable traits will.

 

[oldtymehockeyguy]

the ohl misses 2 players a year out of the 900 that are not drafted

yet, we also find them later

All this crying over 2 players a year.

that is fact, backed up by what you see on the ice over the past 5/6 years.

that ratio is better then the nhl, which surprises the hell out of me.

Again same irrelevant #’s and denial of the cause and effects. “ No problem here “ why the denial of serious systemic issue?

 

[OHL4Life]

Again same irrelevant #’s and denial of the cause and effects.

Of course it’s the same numbers. It’s documented from league rosters. @HockeyPops numbers are similar.

2 players a year, that’s what gets missed. 0.002 percent of undrafted kids end up being missed a year.

Worth crying about for sure

 

[HockeyPops]

They also might not even have been missed. They legitimately might be late bloomers that had no business being drafted at 16.

 

[HKYLVR72]

Show me the analytics model that puts Konnor smith in the OHL at 17, let alone signing a pro contract.

As shown above, the league misses on average of two kids a year that become good regular players in the league. Your complaining and wining about a system that misses 2 out of 900 they don’t get drafted

And your a hockey advisor?

Sorry, I can tell you are taking this personally and I will refrain from trying to have a conversation about the draft and its need for improvement. But to clarify my point, its not "whining" its trying to increase the the prospect list.

I'm a numbers guy. I love looking at stats and I think there is a massive place for them in all sports, not just hockey, when it comes to scouting. BUT - the numbers are a tool. Scouts would have several different tools in their tool box - alongside numbers you'd have to evaluate personality, leadership, intelligence, hockey IQ, coachability.

If you only look at numbers, there is a lot you'll miss out.

Imagine looking at a car, seeing it goes 0 to 60 in 2.5 seconds. If that is the only aspect you look at in purchasing a car (like only looking at numbers for a hockey player) - that's some damn good acceleration, and you'll spend your money on this car. But because you only looked at the 0 to 60 time, you missed the braking ability of the car (let's call this Hockey IQ). If the car cannot brake at all, that car is not going to be a positive experience. Same with hockey - if someone puts up all the numbers in the world, but has no hockey IQ (as an example of a non-quantifiable trait) - that player is not going to succeed the way someone with slightly lower numbers, but much better non-quantifiable traits will.

I made the argument you can not have one with out the other. you still need scouting to evaluate the kid, that stats are "part" of the tools not end all be all.