In Reply to the DeBrincat and dumb GMs thread: Brayden Point.

[Filthy Dangles]

Okay, so I felt this was deserving of it's own thread. Mods move or merge if you see fit...

Back on point, there has been a recent popular thread here talking about Alex DeBrincat and how him falling was simply because he was short. A premise which was properly dispelled by a few posters. DeBrincat had a few other legitimate concerns such as his skating and ability to create time and space for himself and if he was merely a product or finisher of elite linemates and play creators like McDavid, Strome etc.

Now to exhibit B, Brayden Point. He fell all the way to the 3rd round back in 2014 despite him not having the concerns Alex DeBrincat had. This appears more of an example of a player who might have fell because of size.

Point lit up the Western League in his Draft season. On a bad team full of overagers, he scored 91 points and led the team in Goals and Assists. The next leading scorer on that Moose Jaw team was a D+2 nobody who had 55 points, almost 40 less than Point. Clearly, Point was not leeching off anyone and could create his own time and offense (at least in the Western league).

So how on Earth did he fall all the way to Round 3? 2014 was a while ago, 2 years before DeBrincat was drafted. I wonder if the old-school mentality was still a factor that discriminated against pure size? 2014 was still an era in the NHL that was loaded with goons before they were weeded out a few years later.

Was he underscouted? Was it size? Was it somehow projection (I don't see how)....I don't recall a major injury or off ice thing....

Click to read more...

 

[thrillhous]

He was not under-scouted, not in the WHL. Blinders re: size.

 

[LordNeverLose]

Just FWIW the "nobody" D+2 guy was Jack Rodewald, who got 4 games for the Sens last season. Obviously not a star but "nobody" seems harsh considering he made the show.

 

[MrHeiskanen]

Lots of players put up big CHL numbers and never see the show. That is why scouts don't just look at point totals.

 

[Deficient Mode]

He fell due to size, and he wasn't nearly as good of a skater as he is today. Small and mediocre skater is not a good recipe for a high NHL draft pick.

 

[King'sPawn]

Jordan Weal put up 102 points in his draft year in the WHL. He was second on the team scoring with Jordan Eberle; however, he continued to put up points even after Eberle left the team.

Some players show habits in juniors that may not translate well in the pros.

I can't say that's why Point fell. More likely than anything there's not a good singular explanation, as different teams had different criteria and he was just stuck behind some other players on the list.

 

[dirk41]

Lots of players put up big CHL numbers and never see the show. That is why scouts don't just look at point totals.

Yes, lot of players who put up big CHL numbers never see the show--and lots of players who put up shitty number don't either. The questions should be whether scouts outsmart themselves.

Among first round CHL forwards, points per game in the draft year is better at predicting PPG in the NHL than draft position. In other words, teams would have been better of, in general, taking the CHL forwards who scored the most points per game than listening to their scouting staffs.

THE EYE TEST IS FAILING (WHEN DRAFTING CHL FORWARDS IN THE 1ST ROUND)

 

[HisNoodliness]

A lot of it was certainly size, but his skating has developed a ton since being drafted. I know that female Olympic skater that does a lot of work for the bolts is known for having revolutionized Point's skating. For GMs to overlook size concerns you have to be fast. Point became so successful because he developed that speed, but it was a valid worry on draft day.

 

[ottawah]

Yes, lot of players who put up big CHL numbers never see the show--and lots of players who put up ****ty number don't either. The questions should be whether scouts outsmart themselves.

Among first round CHL forwards, points per game in the draft year is better at predicting PPG in the NHL than draft position. In other words, teams would have been better of, in general, taking the CHL forwards who scored the most points per game than listening to their scouting staffs.

THE EYE TEST IS FAILING (WHEN DRAFTING CHL FORWARDS IN THE 1ST ROUND)

I think the issue here though is that while points for is, IMHO, not a great predictor for NHL success, the lack of points is an indicator of higher likelihood of failure.

Lets face it, if you have NHL talent you should be lighting up the junior ranks by D+1. There needs to be something in your arsenal making you an NHL talent, skating, intelligence, shot, etc, and if you have multiple of those at an NHL level, then it should be enough to put you head and shoulders above your competition in junior and result in large scoring numbers. If you cannot score at a great rate at the junior level, that tells me there are many areas of your game which is just above overage at the junior level, which equates to weak at the NHL level. Remember, 3rd line role players at the CHL level do not make role players at the NHL level, its the high skill CHL players who just cannot make it as a top 6 that adapt to roles and become the valuable role players.

You see it in all the prospect polls, fan continually rate players high who have what I would call suspect point totals at the CHL level because they are a great skater (they tend to call them elite, but they are just great) forgetting that a great CHL skater is simply an above average NHL skater. They forget the other areas of their game.


For those who do score at a great clip though, you have to evaluate how that translates to the NHL level. It is not an exact science, especially at that age.

 

[TheWhiskeyThief]

Michael St. Croix put up similar numbers, never made it out of the ECHL, I think he’d be a decent player in Finland but he went education path after junior.

That being said, numbers only tell half a tale.

 

[Henkka]

Interesting also how Tampa took three busts before Point.

 

[BruinsBtn]

Hawryluk was a small, skilled guy that ended up scoring more than Point in the WHL. He was also a better skater at the time. He played in the ECHL last year.

It's almost as if scouting is about more than just numbers, but projecting which guys will improve.
Christian Dvorak also did absolutely nothing in his draft year and turned into a pretty good NHLer.

 

[Skinnyjimmy08]

always easy to look back after the fact. Every year there are players that people wonder how they weren't taken higher and NHL management gets ripped apart by fans. It's what makes the NHL draft fun.

Even at the time of the draft, its not like many people here were screaming at the TV for someone to draft Point in the 1st round or even barely in the 2nd round

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

TBL picked Deangelo over Pastrnak, Masin over Dvorak .. before picking Point... CRAP SHOOT

 

[jc17]

Yes, lot of players who put up big CHL numbers never see the show--and lots of players who put up ****ty number don't either. The questions should be whether scouts outsmart themselves.

Among first round CHL forwards, points per game in the draft year is better at predicting PPG in the NHL than draft position. In other words, teams would have been better of, in general, taking the CHL forwards who scored the most points per game than listening to their scouting staffs.

THE EYE TEST IS FAILING (WHEN DRAFTING CHL FORWARDS IN THE 1ST ROUND)

This is so overlooked.

The crazy thing is how accurate just using pts/gm is. Once you add a little bit of scouting to it, it gets that much more accurate.

There's no reason that a player with Point's production, given his teammates production, should have been a 3rd rounder.

 

[emptyNedder]

This is so overlooked.

The crazy thing is how accurate just using pts/gm is. Once you add a little bit of scouting to it, it gets that much more accurate.

There's no reason that a player with Point's production, given his teammates production, should have been a 3rd rounder.

It is not just hockey or even sports. Though I do think "Moneyball," both the book and movie, did a great job of showing how overvalued the "eye test" really is. There is a significant amount of research that indicates that companies should not use in-person interviews. But I know very few people in business who admit that all they are doing is adding their personal bias. Everyone thinks they KNOW if an applicant will fit with the culture or has the right work ethic for the company. Yet research is pretty close to conclusive that even the best talent-pickers do little better than a coin flip.

That is the same mindset in hockey--GMs, coaches, casual fans, active posters on HFB will insist that the only way to truly evaluate prospects is to see them. Sure points in the CHL alone can't provide more information than a good scout. But eventually a refined algorithm will.

ProspectsFanatic is already closing in with his draft software!

 

[Mickey Marner]

Obviously Point should have gone higher, but he could have been ranked a top-30 prospect on every team's list and still get taken 79th. Consensus after the top 10-15 picks is almost non-existent.

Also, his most notable attribute is his hockey IQ -his skating wasn't exceptional at the time- and that isn't always immediately noticable. Moose Jaw was a shitshow that year, the whole team probably didn't receive much attention from scouts.

 

[AmericanDream]

you simply can't just go off stats. there is another main issue that always has been here for players and that is deployment.

some players are just put into situations right away where they are getting top line minutes in their draft year, while others are on deeper teams, fighting for that ice time which is why their stats are not so hot. a kid like Dvorak battled through injuries, but also for ice time on a deep London team...someone like him would not get first round consideration because he wasn't put into that situation right away. but the Yotes still actually went out and watched him and saw why the numbers weren't through the roof which is why the eye ball test still works. you have to look at deployment and actually watch players as well to see how they are getting used. he is as prime of an example of it there is.

in reverse, we have seen many kids have inflated stats because of their deployment on top lines and power plays only to fade away as they never were as talented as originally seen. why some of these kids never make it after putting up impressive d+1 or d+2 seasons is the real crap shoot...work ethic, system depth in organizations, injuries not properly diagnosed in juniors/college, mental toughness, etc are all things that lead to a player not making it after being drafted.

 

[firstemperor]

Point should have gone higher. I was higher in him, in particular, then most other players in any given draft year that are projected that late. He was one of my heaviest sleepers. I caught him the most during Rielly's D+1. He was already a good skater with great edges. Also had really good stick skills, puck protection, and a solid enough lower base/center of gravity as a smaller guy. His biggest knock was really that he was small.

Those skills were definitely already there. The only thing he might have improved on a lot since then was his explosiveness through the neutral zone. There were at least over a handful of guys on here who had Point as a sleeper here too so I do think his case study is a rare example on scouts not doing their homework well.

 

[jc17]

Obviously Point should have gone higher, but he could have been ranked a top-30 prospect on every team's list and still get taken 79th. Consensus after the top 10-15 picks is almost non-existent.

Also, his most notable attribute is his hockey IQ -his skating wasn't exceptional at the time- and that isn't always immediately noticable. Moose Jaw was a ****show that year, the whole team probably didn't receive much attention from scouts.

I agree with your first paragraph. All it takes is organizations to have "their guys" and someone falls.

As to your second paragraph, I think that's where the stats as basic as points help. The fact that Moose jaw was so bad was a reason I really wanted Point. When a guy puts up 90 points and the next closest guy puts up 55 (in fewer games I understand), it's a testament to the player's ability to produce regardless of talent around him. Of course there will be players that produce in juniors and can't carry it over to the NHL but I think it says the player is at least worth a shot.

 

[Deam78]

Point was a poor skater, that's why. He isn't anymore.

 

[Patmac40]

Point was a poor skater, that's why. He isn't anymore.

He was never a poor skater, maybe just not as exceptional as his skating is currently. His edgework and speed were above average still at the time of the draft.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

He looks a lot like he does now.. I ;m sure his stride is better and he has more power but ... looks a lot the same to me

 

[Haanz]

Obviously Point should have gone higher, but he could have been ranked a top-30 prospect on every team's list and still get taken 79th. Consensus after the top 10-15 picks is almost non-existent.

This is a really good point (no pun intended). Point was 20th on my personal draft board that year but I had Ryan Donato one spot higher, so Point wasn’t BPA for me until the 57th pick. It’s just the way it goes sometimes.