McKenzie's list is the closest because it's not his opinion...he does surveys with leading scouts...people who are involved in those decisions. Haven't checked in details but if you look at this years first round, I'm sure he's pretty close again.
Regarding Bolduc and Lysell, those are not the type of players you should take at 16 in any years draft.
First..... hahahahahaha. The last line you wrote is pure comedy.
Regarding McKenzie, you have the stats to back that up? The claim that his is "the closest"? Or is that just a process bias? His final list was hardly different than most lists, aside from a few specific players being either behind or ahead of other rankings/mocks. I would bet that most lists/mocks are generally within a similar range of "best". Unless you could prove he has statistically superior outcomes than his lists really shouldn't be any more "valued" than many others.
And it is still opinion. Especially when filtered into other people's mocks. Perhaps he basis his ranking lists off some numerical value system dependent on these "leading scouts" but I haven't seen that. And even if he does, how can you actually confirm that process is accurate and not just some arbitrary system he assumes, like you, that makes sense?
Now, do you think the "leading scouts" would be completely honest with him, knowing he puts the information out there to the public relatively immediately? Or do you think that perhaps, scouts, knowing this, "use him" just as much as they might be honest with him? If I were a scout, I sure would be telling him all kinds of vague and/or bogus opinions. Stuff that means nothing, like "You know we really love Guenther but we see a lot in Eklund too." And then what? McKenzie puts his lists together and says to himself "well, they said they really love Guenther so let me put him at this spot, but you know they loved Eklund too, so I'll give Eklund a point or two also"? And how then does this effect the mocks that people often make relying on someone like McKenzie? How would you decipher that same previous hypothetical statement by these scouts, filtered through the lens of McKenzie rather than say, any other pundit or even amateur scout?
And then we look at draft day, and no one I know saw Tyler Boucher going to the Sens at 10. Certainly not McKenzie who had him ranked 29th. Did he just not talk to any Sens scouts or anything? What about Wallstedt? Everyone and their mom, including me, thought Wallstedt was the best goalie prospect since Vas, more or less. And had him well ahead of Coassa. On every ranking. Yet Cossa gets drafted ahead of Wallstedt and Wallstedt doesn't even get taken until 20th? When he was clearly a top 10-15 player on most lists and mocks.
Frankly, I don't see McKenzie being any more tuned in to the minds of NHL teams than pretty much any other pundit, outlet or even just amateur Youtubers or whatever. Everyone has the same basic information. And a wide range of people can have different insights into hockey and prospects which could be superior in certain areas and inferior in others. So again, aggregate, is the way to go. And then once you have a relatively good sample size, you make your own subjective judgments.
Like you beleiving Lysell and Bolduc are "not the type of players you should take at 16 in any years draft." A patently absurd statement. A relatively meaningless statement also, as there is absolutely NOTHING but your dislike of the players to support it. Lysell was considered a possibility to go in the top 10 let alone at 16. Bolduc went at 17, so some NHL scout and GM must have thought your statement completely bonkers. You don't take a player at 17 if you wouldn't take him at 16. One spot in the middle of the 1st round is fairly meaningless. Lysell fell all the way to 21, only 5 spots off of 16. The difference between 16 and 21 is so minimal. There is a difference yea, but it's not as significant as your statement would suggest about these players.
There are always steals in the middle and end of the 1st round. Suggesting "those are not the type of players you should take at 16 in any years draft." makes me think you just started watching hockey yesterday. And NHL teams, let alone scouts, pundits, outlets and amateurs, completely disagree with you. Both Lysell and Bolduc could turn into absolute stars. And that's why they could have theoretically gone at 8, 12, 16, 21 or 28. But both absolute first rounders. I am sure there were people popping off about late firsts like Tomasino, McMichael, Eli Tolvanen, or non first rounders like Sebastian Aho (2nd round), Kiril Kaprizov (5th), Kucherov (2nd), Fox (2nd) and Point (3rd) who are all studs in the NHL now. But you would have said, "you don't pick a player like Kucherov at pick 16." And you know what, plenty of NHL teams are now crying because they probably had someone with that very same opinion that people listened to at the time of the respective drafts. And if even one of Bolduc or Lysell turns into a star, your statement is automatically debunked. That alone would cut it to smithereens.
You are obviously very opinionated. And I am sure you are right, like a clock, twice a day. But your hockey insight seems, well, naive to say the least. You simply don't make a statement about two clear 1st round players, that they "stink anyway", if you are even moderately insightful about the sport.
