Do you take into account team strength?
Zacha led Sarnia in points this year while Smolenak was third on his.
Not yet as it simply has not been modeled to show a correlation to future success yet, where as pure ppg scoring and height have.
we're looking and testing new things but don't have the data to confirm %of team points or relative team strength has an impact.
edit: also to those saying "points aren't everything" keep this in mind:
Simple equations using points per game and height in draft year have outdrafted nearly half the teams in the league over a 10 year span.
Are they everything? No, but that's a sign that roughly 50% of the scouting community isn't putting as much weight on them as they should be.
If you're high on a player and he doesn't score, you should be looking at why, how, and how far off should a guy you like this much "be" scoring? The actual of the value is probably somewhere between where you value him, and where the points value him (and...unless your willing to say your a better scout then almost half the NHL's, it's probably CLOSER to the stats then your opinion).
This is meant mainly for the bigger gaps (40% for a guy like Zacha vs 70+% for guys like Connor and Svechnikov). When your looking at guys maybe within a 10% swing, i think you can probably feel a little more confident in trusting your scouting. But consider how you'd view a guy like Zacha vs Connor or Svechnikov. Does your "scouting" make you feel he is more then DOUBLE either of those players, as if you apply equal weight to stats and scouting, that's how much you'd have to like him for him to be "better".
I just wanted to through that out there.
The whole "points aren't everything" is a slippery slope, as unfortunately, for the past 10-15 years they've actually been undervalued by scouts at the draft table, not overvalued.