They haven't done anything to warrant credit. Nevertheless, I find that just about every hockey prospect evaluation I've read is utterly subjective, lacking statistical basis.
I don't have a better mousetrap to offer, but I can spot a non-working mousetrap from a mile away. Okay, maybe not a mile, with mountains and trees and such in the way, but a couple hundred feet. We need a system developed from numbers, where we can evaluate successful NHL players late in their careers or retired and through a pseudo-regression can try to find a commonality in their junior or minor-league statistics. We need a way to attach a numerical value to prospects. Many people in baseball have gone through great lengths to mind a better method of prospect evaluation. I think it would be more difficult in hockey due to a significantly more limited historical record, though not impossible. We have many quantitative, intrinsic statistics now. With the future limitations on payroll, finding young (read: cheap) players who can step into a situation and produce will be of the utmost importance.
Lacking this hard data, I suspect a few things based on my own observations in life and knowledge of the baseball evaluation process:
1) College, minor-league, or more foreign players might be better investments than high-school players. More specifically, 20-year-olds (or older) over 18-year-olds. They're more developed, more experienced in life.
2) People who can do many things well tend to be underrated; people who do one thing really well tend to be overrated.
--------
I'm interested in all prospects, but mainly undrafted prospects.