That will be a tough one. Checking out a few previous years rosters, USHL guys who had been on the team (Rullers, Lavins, Veinbergs, Silkalns) all had about the same +/- 0.5 PPG in USHL. In the WJC they all usually had 1-3 points max. While Murnieks slightly surpasses their club stats, it is not by a lot - however talented he is, he is still very young. But we do not have anyone better at center.
Berzkalns probably does not make it. He didnt even play U18 yet, and in a fair competition, disregarding his potential, his club stats dont hold against older EU players. Flugins's 1 goal in 15 games is even worse, had he not been only 16, he would be searching for a new club already. Same with Klaucans and his 0+5. You yourself compared NAHL to the Latvian league, so, by that logic, there are 6 players in HS Riga alone with better stats than him.
Plus, I always see this bias towards older players. Whenever coaches decides who plays, whenever they decide the best players of the game or tournaments, these are always guys in their last year. Both because in this age, experience is valued highly over talent, and because they want to give these players one last chance to play, one last best player award, on last big tournament. Most of them will never put on a Latvian jersey for a high level tournament again, and they will not be snubbed in favor of guys who have 3 more years of junior hockey ahead of them.
Murnieks and Osmanis, while talented, are probably notably worse than 20 year old Locmelis and Vilmanis. Bulans is definitely worse than Fenenko. Mateiko, while good, especially by Latvian standards, is mostly a complement player. Being deep is good, but this is certainly the year we risk relegation the most. Sure hope 2005 guys dont end up costing our 2006-2008 generation a year or two playing with France and Hungary.
Oh dear, so many flaws in your reasoning here.
On a sidenote, the Latvian league has been watered down with Lithuanian and Estonian teams, while NAHL seems to have improved slightly.
More importantly, HS Riga consists of U18s. Someone has to play on the top line and on PP1. You cannot compare a player in the bottom 6 and someone on PP1 by using points as the sole measuring stick. You have to adjust for that. Our 16 year olds Flugins, Berzkalns, Murnieks, Klaucans have mostly played on the 4th line. They will move up the pecking order both during the season and next year.
Furthermore, it makes zero sense to use point equivalency and do cross-league comparisons when we're assessing players who have played against or with each other in the Latvian U17 league or U18 WJC or Finnish juniors. Klaucans is clearly superior.
You cherry picked a few USHL graduates, but failed to look at: a) a bigger USHL sample b) a NAHL sample so that we can compare apples to apples c) a larger major junior sample.
There's been plenty of USHL players on the Latvian WJC roster not scoring even close to 0.50 ppg. If you're scoring above 0.50 ppg, you're one of the leading players. Scoring at a roughly 0.50 ppg rate in USHL/CHL, which are both roughly comparable, with Q actually being worse than USHL, means you're usually a 2nd to 3rd line forward, depending on how deep the team is.
Borozinskis was 2LW, Bukarts 2C, Rullers 3C. All 0.50 ppg guys.
This year we have limited top 6-tier forwards at center. We don't have great 2005-born prospects in general.
So when you have a guy like Murnieks who scores at a 0.67 ppg pace, he would normally be a 2C even if he was 19 yo. You're making it look like it's some desparate move to place him on the top line. It's not.
Your commentary in general makes me think you aren't following junior hockey for a very long time. We have had so many backwater-league players in our lineup, yet you're discarding major junior players? It makes no sense.
Now, about Berzkalns. There have been plenty of Latvian WJC players with worse USHL stats. USHL is a tier above the Tier II NAHL and the point equivalencies are pretty crazy, if you account for that, scoring at a 0.36 ppg rate in USHL would usually mean you're a 3rd/4th line forward. This year he might not even crack the roster. You're telling me that indicates an increased risk of relegation. It does not make any sense. The opposite is true.
Some examples of less productive USHL-based WJC players are Polcs, Klavins. However, a lot of our forwards have also been NAHL scrubs. Look at our last year's WJC roster. We've literally had NCDC kids too.
Which leads us to Klaucans. Please, just take a look at the last 10 Latvian WJC rosters. Look up the statlines of our 4th liners in NAHL. He would be an average 4th liner on most years, even if he was 19.
To summarize, Murnieks is our leading C and he is not a part of the discussion here. As for the rest of the names, there are some strong arguments to be made in favor of them.
The rest of your points are also either incorrect or invalid. Mateiko showcased himself extremely well with the Capitals. In contrast to Locmelis, he has an actual NHL contract. Osmanis actually plays pro hockey in Sweden and has been very productive there, yet you're telling me he's definitely and "notably" worse than Vilmanis or Locmelis. How did you come to that conclusion? Osmanis is one of the best prospects we've had in recent years. Name 5 other U20 Latvian kids who played pro hockey and scored at a 0.50 ppg rate.
Murnieks is probably our best prospect in a decade.
The entire argument about favoring older players is sort of self-defeating and pointless. If our coaches are biased, it means by default that they are not going to make the right choices. But then you go on and claim that there's actually a rationale behind it or 'experience' as a factor, as you put it. So are they biased or not? Also, what kind of experience specifically does a 19 year old kid playing in NAHL or Latvia has that a 16 or 17 year old playing major junior hockey against NHL draftees doesn't? Could you please elaborate on that?
And what do you mean by Mateiko being a complement player? He's a 196 cm/95 kg unit who is going to do much of the same as Vilmanis did last year. He has the size and reach to dominate against junior players, he enables and maintains puck possession in the offensive zone. How the f*** is that a downgrade?
Fenenko is a shutdown defenceman, Bulans is a two-way defenceman. Why are you comparing them? And how on Earth did you conclude that Bulans is worse than Fenenko, if Bulans was more productive offensively than Fenenko in the WJC already last year being a year younger? Our entire D corps is pretty much the same as last year. Yet somehow this makes us worse, not better?
I see no reason to worry about relegation at all. Our odds of getting relegated are about 20 to 25%. Same as last year. Since the expulsion of the former Golden Horde states our chances of getting relegated are very low.
