Like I said, there isn't a number, because no amount of production fundamentally changes the type of prospect he is.
Let's recap:
It is statistically disingenuous to argue he is not producing at a level that is only comparable to the two clear best draft prospects in the last 30 seasons. He is dominating, not just being the leading producer, as a 17 year old in a CHL league.
In response, you throw Crosby's pace, and a cherrypicked one to boot,
but not McDavid's, as an argument that he is not producing at a "generational pace".
You argue that he is producing at a Matthews/Eichel/Hughes pre-draft level; three players that, at best, appear to be fighting for a "Top 3- 5 forward in the league" position, despite no precedence in the WHL for what he is doing to measure against. I argue that we can reasonably point to the similar production at age 16 by Matthews/Eichel/Hughes in the U18 program as an indicator of a "franchise/#1 C" level player; not a once a decade level player like Crosby/McDavid.
In response, you throw out subjective opinion that Eichel's and Matthews' 17 year old seasons, both of which were on the older side of age 17, were of the same caliber as Bedard's.
You point to Kane as an example of a player who produced like Bedard did but did not reach Crosby/McDavid level. Yes, Kane lead the O in scoring pre-draft, but a clear level below Bedard's level of domination, The eye test sees Bedard closer to Crosby than Kane in terms of physical play.
The point here is you tease us with hints that you would put Bedard on Crosby/McDavid level if only a statistical argument would back it up but then you fall back to "it doesn't matter how many points he scores, his size will hold him back".
You are reasonably being called out for your inconsistency.
You say
"no amount of production fundamentally changes the type of prospect he is."
I say: no amount of production fundamentally changes the type of prospect you are hoping that he will be labeled as.
