C Berkly Catton - Spokane Chiefs, WHL (2024, 8th, SEA)

[ReHabs]

Every year there is a Berkly Catton. There was a Benson and Perreault last year, an Eklund in 2021, and so on.

Not every year is there a Claude Giroux. And the reasons why the former don't turn into the latter every time are why the criticisms come up every time - because they're the likely reasons why the player doesn't become Claude Giroux.

Of course Catton could. But so could every highly skilled, intelligent, undersized player who lights up juniors every year. But not all of them do. Catton is a great prospect but he's still not likely to become Claude Giroux.

1) Is it not worth betting on the highly skilled, intelligent, not-even-undersized player who lights up juniors to turn into Claude Giroux?

2) Other players drafted before and after him will bust, for many of them, their ceilings will be lower than Claude Giroux.

I understand if the argument was in support of others ahead of him who have a more prestigious prospect profile. But what's really the knock against Catton? He's not even undersized, he's the same frame as the NHL's leading scorer this year.

 

[Random Forest]

Every year there is a Berkly Catton. There was a Benson and Perreault last year, an Eklund in 2021, and so on.

Not every year is there a Claude Giroux. And the reasons why the former don't turn into the latter every time are why the criticisms come up every time - because they're the likely reasons why the player doesn't become Claude Giroux.

Of course Catton could. But so could every highly skilled, intelligent, undersized player who lights up juniors every year. But not all of them do. Catton is a great prospect but he's still not likely to become Claude Giroux.

I could say this of every prospect of every archetype. You can say the same for Lindstrom and his comps. You can say the same for Parekh and his comps. You can say the same for Demidov, Helenius, Yakemchuk, and every other eligible player and their comps. None of these players are “likely” to become their best comps. Catton is no different.

But it’s typically only one archetype who gets unduly knocked for having “bust” potential, even though every single player has considerable bust potential. Most other archetypes, people salivate over “what they could become”. But with players like Catton (and, yes, Perreault, Benson, etc), instead, people reach for every reason they can think of as to why they’re unlikely to reach their potential. And they’re not untrue concerns! But that same level of scrutiny & concern doesn’t get applied to other top prospects.

 

[Guadana]

No, it was clear - the other guy validated it for me and I read it again and it's very clear.

You just want to use it to springboard into a conversation on how you don't think Catton is as good as Benson. I was never making a comparison between the players themselves, only their situations.

I said clearly that situation is different and why and why there are about 7-10 guys who is "in the same situation". They are not. If you dont understand - its not on my side. Good luck.

 

[jfhabs]

Looking at the drafts since 2020 where does Catton rank with these below 6' players

20' - 9th pick Rossi
20' - 10th pick Perfetti
20' - 13th pick Jarvis
21' - 7th pick Eklund
21' - 13th pick Coronato
22' - 3rd pick Cooley
22' - 9th pick Savoie
22' - 13th pick Nazar
22' - 17th pick Kemell
23' - 7th pick Michkov
23' - 13th pick Benson

First of, that's a very good list and most of these guys have had success in the NHL already.
For me he's closer to Cooley in terms of play style and upside.
None of them look like bust right now, doesn't seem like size is a determining factor as much as it has been in the past. At the same time, I think many of these players will tend to disapear the way the playoffs are played at the moment. However, the game is evolving very quickly and by the time these guys hit their prime, it is very possible the playoff game isn't what it is now.

 

[MichaelFarrell]

Looking at the drafts since 2020 where does Catton rank with these below 6' players

20' - 9th pick Rossi
20' - 10th pick Perfetti
20' - 13th pick Jarvis
21' - 7th pick Eklund
21' - 13th pick Coronato
22' - 3rd pick Cooley
22' - 9th pick Savoie
22' - 13th pick Nazar
22' - 17th pick Kemell
23' - 7th pick Michkov
23' - 13th pick Benson

First of, that's a very good list and most of these guys have had success in the NHL already.
For me he's closer to Cooley in terms of play style and upside.
None of them look like bust right now, doesn't seem like size is a determining factor as much as it has been in the past. At the same time, I think many of these players will tend to disapear the way the playoffs are played at the moment. However, the game is evolving very quickly and by the time these guys hit their prime, it is very possible the playoff game isn't what it is now.

If we are basing this solely on draft year performance, I would draft them in this order:

1. Matvei Michkov
2. Logan Cooley
3. Zach Benson
4. Berkley Catton
5. William Eklund
6. Marco Rossi
7. Matthew Savoie
7. Cole Perfetti
8. Seth Jarvis
9. Joakim Kemell
10. Frank Nazar
11. Matt Coronato

 

[jfhabs]

If we are basing this solely on draft year performance, I would draft them in this order:

1. Matvei Michkov
2. Logan Cooley
3. Zach Benson
4. Berkley Catton
5. William Eklund
6. Marco Rossi
7. Matthew Savoie
7. Cole Perfetti
8. Seth Jarvis
9. Joakim Kemell
10. Frank Nazar
11. Matt Coronato

Than you asked yourself where would Benson be in a re-draft? One would assume he goes in the top 10.
IMO if Catton goes out the top 10, one team will be very very happy.

 

[Castle8130]

Looking at the drafts since 2020 where does Catton rank with these below 6' players

20' - 9th pick Rossi
20' - 10th pick Perfetti
20' - 13th pick Jarvis
21' - 7th pick Eklund
21' - 13th pick Coronato
22' - 3rd pick Cooley
22' - 9th pick Savoie
22' - 13th pick Nazar
22' - 17th pick Kemell
23' - 7th pick Michkov
23' - 13th pick Benson

First of, that's a very good list and most of these guys have had success in the NHL already.
For me he's closer to Cooley in terms of play style and upside.
None of them look like bust right now, doesn't seem like size is a determining factor as much as it has been in the past. At the same time, I think many of these players will tend to disapear the way the playoffs are played at the moment. However, the game is evolving very quickly and by the time these guys hit their prime, it is very possible the playoff game isn't what it is now.

Catton is probably only lower than Michkov and Cooley in terms of draft year talent level. Eklund and Benson are just below him in my opinion. Catton's size is the only concern with him. He gets pushed to the outside too much for scouts wanting to draft him in the top 5-7. He is a magician though and about as good of a perimeterish player as you can get. Elite skill for sure, just not superstar level like Bedard or Kane

 

[WarriorofTime]

But it’s typically only one archetype who gets unduly knocked for having “bust” potential, even though every single player has considerable bust potential. Most other archetypes, people salivate over “what they could become”. But with players like Catton (and, yes, Perreault, Benson, etc), instead, people reach for every reason they can think of as to why they’re unlikely to reach their potential. And they’re not untrue concerns! But that same level of scrutiny & concern doesn’t get applied to other top prospects.

Why do you think they do this? Just to be mean? Discrimination against shorts? Or the type of players, whether they hit their ceilings, are closer to their floor, or somewhere in between, do best in the postseason?

 

[NA Hockey]

If we are basing this solely on draft year performance, I would draft them in this order:

1. Matvei Michkov
2. Logan Cooley
3. Zach Benson
4. Berkley Catton
5. William Eklund
6. Marco Rossi
7. Matthew Savoie
7. Cole Perfetti
8. Seth Jarvis
9. Joakim Kemell
10. Frank Nazar
11. Matt Coronato

Perfetti had more points and points per game in his draft year than Benson and Savoie who you put ahead of him. Benson (98) and Savoie (95) had each other and McLennon (92) who all put up huge points and helped each other reach those heights. Perfetti had 111 points while his next two highest team mates were Cole Coskey with 80 points and Damien Giroux who had 75 points. Those performances and overall play are not even close.

I would say that Rossi leading his league in scoring with a higher point total than Benson, Catton while being league MVP in his draft year should easily have him ahead of them.

Catton and Perfetti's draft year are almost identical. Same at Hlinka with Perfetti having a slightly higher ppg in regular season.

1. Matvei Michkov
2. Logan Cooley
3. Marco Rossi
4. Cole Perfetti
5. Berkley Catton
6. William Eklund
7. Zach Benson
8. Matthew Savoie
9. Seth Jarvis
10. Joakim Kemell
11. Frank Nazar
12. Matt Coronato

 

[Random Forest]

Why do you think they do this? Just to be mean? Discrimination against shorts? Or the type of players, whether they hit their ceilings, are closer to their floor, or somewhere in between, do best in the postseason?

Lots of silly biases persist because of conventional wisdom and inertia. The persistence of those tropes is not evidence of their wisdom.

One of the few remaining arbitrage plays at the draft is to take advantage of these mis-perceptions of “small” players, and also be weary of bigger players whose ranking assumes a level of impact they have not yet shown.

 

[Juxtaposer]

Catton is a great skater in the sense that it’s an asset for him and will help him translate and compensate for the fact that he’s 5’10” and slight. But I really don’t see Catton as an elite skater and he’s not going to blow by defenseman at the NHL level.

 

[coooldude]

I could say this of every prospect of every archetype. You can say the same for Lindstrom and his comps. You can say the same for Parekh and his comps. You can say the same for Demidov, Helenius, Yakemchuk, and every other eligible player and their comps. None of these players are “likely” to become their best comps. Catton is no different.

But it’s typically only one archetype who gets unduly knocked for having “bust” potential, even though every single player has considerable bust potential. Most other archetypes, people salivate over “what they could become”. But with players like Catton (and, yes, Perreault, Benson, etc), instead, people reach for every reason they can think of as to why they’re unlikely to reach their potential. And they’re not untrue concerns! But that same level of scrutiny & concern doesn’t get applied to other top prospects.

Yes, you can say it for every prospect, and therefore why is Catton exempt?

Lindstrom is being knocked for having bust potential ("he's big and skilled but he has no IQ and therefore isn't going to succeed on the wing and I don't see him driving play, not worth a top 5")

Levshunov ("Phaneuf, all tools no toolbox") and Silayev ("Myers at best, no puck skills, just big, why do people love big guys so much") are being knocked and they are in the top 5. And those archetypes get knocked for those things often.

People aren't reaching for "every reason" to knock Catton. They're saying he should go 6-15. That's a very high pick. I don't see the problem with pointing out that he's going to have to grow and excel in order to succeed in the NHL at 5'10" and 175, just like every other average-sized human athlete. There's a reason why the average height and weight in the NHL is higher than the regular population (where Catton is an average size adult). That pretty much guarantees that it's harder to succeed as a smaller player.

 

[57special]

I am not buying into the narrative being pushed by some on here that if you aren't a Hughes or McDavid level skater then you have no chance to beat NHL players with your feet. It's complete and utter nonsense. Speed, skating, and IQ(i.e. beating others to spots because you see the play more quickly than most) are always important. Raw speed(and size, for that matter) alone is not the main thing, or McLeod, Wood, and the like would be much better players.

Kaprizov is not unusually fast, and undersized, but he blows by people on a consistent basis because of his superb combination of the above skills.

Catton is near the top of the list when it comes to 2024 draft eligible skaters. He also mentioned in his interviews that he needs to work on his lower body strength. There is something to be said for investing in a late maturing kid rather than a man child who was 6'1" and shaving at 13 yo, and dominating because of it. Fast 18 yo players(Catton)can, and usually do, get faster with work, especially if they are smart, coachable kids like him.

 

[JeffreyLFC]

I suspect if old prospect threads of Claude Giroux could be dug up from 2006-07, they’d read a lot like this one.

Not that Cattton will turn out like Giroux, but the “flaws” being described here don’t really strike me as good reasons why his obvious talent won’t translate.

Giroux had even more flaws and he was from the Q who has a lesser reputation.

 

[Random Forest]

Yes, you can say it for every prospect, and therefore why is Catton exempt?

Lindstrom is being knocked for having bust potential ("he's big and skilled but he has no IQ and therefore isn't going to succeed on the wing and I don't see him driving play, not worth a top 5")

Levshunov ("Phaneuf, all tools no toolbox") and Silayev ("Myers at best, no puck skills, just big, why do people love big guys so much") are being knocked and they are in the top 5. And those archetypes get knocked for those things often.

People aren't reaching for "every reason" to knock Catton. They're saying he should go 6-15. That's a very high pick. I don't see the problem with pointing out that he's going to have to grow and excel in order to succeed in the NHL at 5'10" and 175, just like every other average-sized human athlete. There's a reason why the average height and weight in the NHL is higher than the regular population (where Catton is an average size adult). That pretty much guarantees that it's harder to succeed as a smaller player.

…I explicitly said it should be applied equally.

Despite those questions, the players you cite are preferentially ranked in the top 5. Indicating that they get the benefit of the doubt. Those players get the “if they can figure this stuff out, they’ll be great” treatment. They get up-ranked because their holes are filled with projection. Catton (and similar players) get no such benefit. Instead, his question marks get filled with real doubt, hence why he’s (unfairly) trending down.

I think the Catton treatment is probably the more reasonable and realistic way of evaluating. My point is that it doesn’t get applied the same way to other players, hence why they’re ranked higher despite having questions about their game (as virtually all prospects have).

 

[Bubbles]

I am not buying into the narrative being pushed by some on here that if you aren't a Hughes or McDavid level skater then you have no chance to beat NHL players with your feet. It's complete and utter nonsense. Speed, skating, and IQ(i.e. beating others to spots because you see the play more quickly than most) are always important. Raw speed(and size, for that matter) alone is not the main thing, or McLeod, Wood, and the like would be much better players.

Kaprizov is not unusually fast, and undersized, but he blows by people on a consistent basis because of his superb combination of the above skills.

Catton is near the top of the list when it comes to 2024 draft eligible skaters. He also mentioned in his interviews that he needs to work on his lower body strength. There is something to be said for investing in a late maturing kid rather than a man child who was 6'1" and shaving at 13 yo, and dominating because of it. Fast 18 yo players(Catton)can, and usually do, get faster with work, especially if they are smart, coachable kids like him.

Agreed. By those "people's" rationale, Dylan Larkin would be the best player on the planet.

Pretty obvious to me who has seen and not seen the player actually play. I'm been in this thread all season and it's funny to see when people show up in this thread just near the draft. It's why I tend to avoid all threads here until after the draft. Gets a bit silly here pre-draft.

Also, Catton had a hip injury most of the 2nd half of the season. That alone would impact any "perceived" fault in skating. His skating is just fine.

 

[coooldude]

…I explicitly said it should be applied equally.

Despite those questions, the players you cite are preferentially ranked in the top 5. Indicating that they get the benefit of the doubt. Those players get the “if they can figure this stuff out, they’ll be great” treatment. They get up-ranked because their holes are filled with projection. Catton (and similar players) get no such benefit. Instead, his question marks get filled with real doubt, hence why he’s (unfairly) trending down.

I think the Catton treatment is probably the more reasonable and realistic way of evaluating. My point is that it doesn’t get applied the same way to other players, hence why they’re ranked higher despite having questions about their game (as virtually all prospects have).

This post is reasonable, your original post said "people are looking for any reason."

Some people are ranking Silayev and Levshunov below top 5, even below top 10. They're outliers, yes, but it's not like there is a consensus 2-5 right now. Size just happens to be something that is very clearly and accurately measured, and projectable, where "IQ" is nebulous and things like puck handling can improve a lot more than size or "IQ".

So the concerns are applied equally, it just so happens that the size concern is both important and measurable. There's your likely answer why small players drop. We can all agree on Catton's size, we can't agree on whether Levshunov has good hockey sense or not.

 

[WarriorofTime]

The gatekeeping is a bit odd, where if you don't have Catton Top 5 it's because you don't watch him play, but scouts/GM who presumably have seen him play, may not draft him top 5, but they're also wrong because old biases die hard or whatever. And of course, going 9/10 (which is his betting odds O/U) doesn't mean people think you suck. How many players play hockey and are technically eligible based on age for the draft? To go 10th in the whole world speaks highly to his ability.

 

[MNRube]

This post is reasonable, your original post said "people are looking for any reason."

Some people are ranking Silayev and Levshunov below top 5, even below top 10. They're outliers, yes, but it's not like there is a consensus 2-5 right now. Size just happens to be something that is very clearly and accurately measured, and projectable, where "IQ" is nebulous and things like puck handling can improve a lot more than size or "IQ".

So the concerns are applied equally, it just so happens that the size concern is both important and measurable. There's your likely answer why small players drop. We can all agree on Catton's size, we can't agree on whether Levshunov has good hockey sense or not.

Now imagine you are a GM. It’s a dream job. Not only do you get paid handsomely to build an NHL team, but you also get to travel across North America staying in the finest hotels and you get to be part of the camaraderie of a professional team. The downside of all this, is that you have bad job security.

So when you’re up to pick and there is a small guy who scored like crazy but isn’t a terrific skater and also a huge guy who may not be a quick enough processor to survive in the NhL, you will generally take the big guy. It’s safer. You don’t want to lose the amazing job and all its perks and you figure the big guy seems like a safer pick. It’s why the small guys tend to fall and often present better value. I agree with others here that Catton is one of those patented small guys who will prove a great value.

 

[Random Forest]

The gatekeeping is a bit odd, where if you don't have Catton Top 5 it's because you don't watch him play, but scouts/GM who presumably have seen him play, may not draft him top 5, but they're also wrong because old biases die hard or whatever. And of course, going 9/10 (which is his betting odds O/U) doesn't mean people think you suck. How many players play hockey and are technically eligible based on age for the draft? To go 10th in the whole world speaks highly to his ability.

It’s not gatekeeping to merely observe a double standard as to how prospects are treated and ranked. You’re free to rank prospects however you like. He’s obviously very well regarded in a general sense as a prospect, even by his critics. That says nothing about the existence of a double standard.

 

[coooldude]

1) Is it not worth betting on the highly skilled, intelligent, not-even-undersized player who lights up juniors to turn into Claude Giroux?

2) Other players drafted before and after him will bust, for many of them, their ceilings will be lower than Claude Giroux.

I understand if the argument was in support of others ahead of him who have a more prestigious prospect profile. But what's really the knock against Catton? He's not even undersized, he's the same frame as the NHL's leading scorer this year.

Of course it's worth taking the risk. Typically, it's worth talking the risk at pick 5-15. For example:

Looking at the drafts since 2020 where does Catton rank with these below 6' players

20' - 9th pick Rossi
20' - 10th pick Perfetti
20' - 13th pick Jarvis
21' - 7th pick Eklund
21' - 13th pick Coronato
22' - 3rd pick Cooley
22' - 9th pick Savoie
22' - 13th pick Nazar
22' - 17th pick Kemell
23' - 7th pick Michkov
23' - 13th pick Benson

First of, that's a very good list and most of these guys have had success in the NHL already.
For me he's closer to Cooley in terms of play style and upside.
None of them look like bust right now, doesn't seem like size is a determining factor as much as it has been in the past. At the same time, I think many of these players will tend to disapear the way the playoffs are played at the moment. However, the game is evolving very quickly and by the time these guys hit their prime, it is very possible the playoff game isn't what it is now.

Wow, there you see that all these undersized players were drafted generally in the 7-13 range. They're good! So good, in fact, that they're drafted this high despite their small size. But you have to be very very very good to be drafted even higher, and still be small. Because it's still a contact sport.

Smaller point, while I just used this list to make a point in favor of Catton and extremely good small players, this list is not complete. A full analysis would require showing every player in the draft, their size, and how they turned out. We Sharks fans have a 2020 prospect from the second round - Bordeleau 5'9" 175 - who finally played a few games last year, but the problem is, if he's not scoring 40 points or more, what do you do with him? Especially when we already have sub 6' Eklund, Granlund, Zetterlund in the top 6? Sharks are a great example of why you can't always take advantage of "GMs don't like small players" arbitrage, because not every one of them becomes Claude Giroux and you end up with a small team that gets bullied around for 82 games then goes golfing.

There is room for a highly skilled undersized player on every team, maybe even room for multiple, but show me the last cup winning team where all the forwards were under 6'0". If you take this player, you have to really love this player. And some team will! But it's not an archetype that is very flexible.

There is no double standard for small players. There's just an uphill battle to have a long, successful career versus the exact same prospect but bigger.

 

[57special]

The gatekeeping is a bit odd, where if you don't have Catton Top 5 it's because you don't watch him play, but scouts/GM who presumably have seen him play, may not draft him top 5, but they're also wrong because old biases die hard or whatever. And of course, going 9/10 (which is his betting odds O/U) doesn't mean people think you suck. How many players play hockey and are technically eligible based on age for the draft? To go 10th in the whole world speaks highly to his ability.

Is that what is being said, really? What I was responding to was someone who said that Catton wasn't a really good skater.

Many on here are saying that Catton will go 5-15. I have no problem with that. Some teams really need size, and toughness(BUF/NJD). Others need Dmen, or RHD specifically. Others are willing to gamble on a high risk, high reward like Sennecke, others can't afford to blow their lottery pick, and will pick more of a sure thing, like Dickinson.

A team looking for skill, speed, IQ, and character could do a lot worse than pick Catton. I would love it if my team got him at #13. Almost all of the WHL watchers on here have good things to say about him. I've only watched a few games when he played against PG, and he stood out, even if he wasn't putting points on the board. Same way that Buium stands out when i see him, though he has a different skillset.

 

[Fistfullofbeer]

With how far Senneke has jumped up the rankings, I think he will go before Catton. But I don't know what Catton could have done differently this season. He killed it in juniors, but it looks like Senneke's playoffs and size will influence GM's enough to take him over Catton.

Will be very interesting to see where both of these kids are 5 years from now.

 

[Juxtaposer]

The gatekeeping is a bit odd, where if you don't have Catton Top 5 it's because you don't watch him play, but scouts/GM who presumably have seen him play, may not draft him top 5, but they're also wrong because old biases die hard or whatever. And of course, going 9/10 (which is his betting odds O/U) doesn't mean people think you suck. How many players play hockey and are technically eligible based on age for the draft? To go 10th in the whole world speaks highly to his ability.

I think part of this mentality comes from the Benson debate of last year. I just don’t think the players are comparable at all outside of “small skilled WHL winger”.

With Zach Benson, very genuinely if you hadn’t seen him play, there’s no way you’d “get it” with him. Literally the least impressive thing about him was his point totals, in that he was elite defensively, elite on the forecheck, elite on special teams, elite in transition, physically engaged, you name it.

Catton is a much more prototypical “small skilled forward”. He’s shifty, great hands, super agile, and no slouch in the defensive zone, but his point total does a pretty good job of painting the picture of what he is. I came away from every Zach Benson viewing last year blown away and thinking that maybe I was ranking him too low, and I already had him ranked 5th. Every Catton viewing this year has been like “yep, that’s Catton, he’s skilled, shouldn’t fall out of the top-10”, but that’s it.

Catton doesn’t have the B-game of a Zach Benson type, who was going to be a clear-cut NHLer in some type of role even if the offense didn’t translate. If Catton’s offense doesn’t translate at an elite level, what role does he have? If he isn’t at least a 50 point guy, then I don’t really have time for him on my team. He’s worth a pick in the 7-10 range because the upside is so high without a doubt, but it’s reasonable to cast doubt on his projection.

 

[biturbo19]

I could say this of every prospect of every archetype. You can say the same for Lindstrom and his comps. You can say the same for Parekh and his comps. You can say the same for Demidov, Helenius, Yakemchuk, and every other eligible player and their comps. None of these players are “likely” to become their best comps. Catton is no different.

But it’s typically only one archetype who gets unduly knocked for having “bust” potential, even though every single player has considerable bust potential. Most other archetypes, people salivate over “what they could become”. But with players like Catton (and, yes, Perreault, Benson, etc), instead, people reach for every reason they can think of as to why they’re unlikely to reach their potential. And they’re not untrue concerns! But that same level of scrutiny & concern doesn’t get applied to other top prospects.

I think this is kind of missing the crux of the issue, by focusing on it being about a "boom/bust" factor, rather than what it often really boils down to.

Frankly...in a lot of cases, these smaller, extremely smart, high skill players are often actually a "safer" bet to make it to the NHL in some capacity. Heck, big "power forwards" tend to be about as boom or bust as it comes. But that's not really what the sliding or perceived devaluation of smallish skill players is about.

The critical piece of analysis missing here, is that a large portion of it is about what happens between those two extremes of "boom" or "bust". What is a player's more realistic range of outcomes, and what is their value in that realm?

It's not really about those 99th percentile outcomes of hitting their absolute "ceiling" or absolute "floor" as a complete and total bust.

What really matters, is that "meat" of the curve. What happens if that player ends up in the far more likely middle ~68% of potential outcomes? What is that player's value going to be for your team? As a contributor to build around, or as a trade chip to go out and get what you need in an established player.



That's where you can often get some perceived skew toward bigger, physical type players. Because what happens if a guy like Catton ends up being a small ~40pt "tweener" with lots of smarts and skill but not enough juice to be a star scorer? Contrast with say...a guy like Lindstrom, maybe his hockey IQ and vision really hold him back and he's just a 15G-30pt middle six winger with size and speed. Which one is more "valuable" to most teams?

There's usually a fair bit of wiggle room in that range...but that's what a lot of teams and scouts are really assessing. With their actual jobs and livelihood on the line, it's not always about just "swinging for the fences" on every pitch. What is a prospect going to be worth and contribute if they end up somewhere around halfway between "total bust" and "absolute ceiling". A more common and realistic expectation or projection range than talking about black and white boom/bust outcomes.

And in that equation...due to the way the game of hockey is played, small skilled wingers and little offensive defencemen just often do not tend to fare as well as other types that are generally perceived by fans as "overvalued". There just isn't as much utility, or room for smallish, creative, riskier, east-west high skill players in the bottom half of most coaches rosters.

That's often a factor even with very "smart" management groups and scouting staffs, more so than just "hurrr durrr dinosaurs and biases hate small players just because".