Given that you've not yet said that you've watched Soderstrom much, what should I go off?
I was responding to your claim that Huska=Soderstrom. Since I have no right to have an opinion that Huska is not equal to Soderstrom, would it be fair to say that you have no right to an opinion that Huska=Sodestrom? Or how does this work? If you think that a Rangers prospect is great, then you can just say it, no proof needed, but if you have any doubts whatsoever, then you must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt?
Should I assume you've watched him play a lot when it seems from the way you are describing him that you haven't?
I probably watched Sod exactly the same as you: in the two WJCs he played.
My opinion of Sod is based on: 1) WJC; 2) him playing in one of the best leagues in the world at a very young age; 3) his overall stats; 4) the fact that none of other 3 goalies who played for the same team have stats nearly as good, so it cannot be merely that he's on a good team. What are you basing Sod=Huska?
Huska may not cancel out Soderstrom. I have not seen Soderstrom enough to know for sure and you are right that statistically Soderstrom has been very good. Saying that, I just can't agree with you that Huska wasn't very good at the WJC's.
Let's keep in mind that I began pimping Huska in the WJC a year ago before anyone else did. However, Huska's performance is tough to judge because he was shelled from all sides by superior teams. We give him a break for giving up bad goals because he must've been tired from all the high-percentage chances Slovakia gave up against him, but what proof is there that he wouldn't have given up those goals had he played for Sweden? Sod proved he can consistently stop the puck at the WJC level. Huska proved he can do it a lot, but not that he can do it consistently since he obviously gave up some awful goals.
Ray Ferraro who does the commentary at TSN for like half the WJC games played was asked after the tournament on the radio which player surprised him that he thought had an NHL future, and his first answer was Huska.
Frankly, who cares about Ray Ferraro? Being on TV does not make you special. I assure you, if he weren't a former NHLer, he'd be commenting on HF instead of NHLN. In 1984 Neil Smith (who went on to become a Cup-winning GM) said that Kirk Muller is a better prospect than Mario Lemieux. People are wrong sometimes. Not saying Ferraro is necessarily wrong here, I do think Huska is a very good prospect, I just think Sod has done much more in his career given his play in the WJC and the SHL.
I think Huska showed enough in that one period against Canada to show he has the ability to play at a very high level.
Our prospect Jamie Ram shut out the Colorado Avalanche for one period the year when they won the Stanley Cup. He never played in the NHL before or after. Mackenzie Skapski gave up 1 goal in 2 NHL games - he is now a below average goalie at the ECHL level. A period at the WJC level proves nothing.
Huska gave up many goals in that tournament and the previous one, but most of that is because Slovakia is always outclassed badly.
True, but is this proof that had he played for Team Sweden, he'd be great?
I think his stats might undercut how good he is.
Probably, but Sod seems to be more than good, he seems to be one of the elite goalie prospects. Huska may catch up, and he has shown a lot of improvement. But why not wait for it?
What if Shestyorkin played on a bad KHL team?
Talbot played on an awful Alabama team and still ran up .925 SV%, got them into Sweet-16 and almost knocked out the #1 ranked team out of the playoffs purely on the strength on his own effort playing behind a bunch of kids most of whom would never play for 80% D1 teams. He played for a Wolf Pack team that was probably the worst team in the AHL and almost got them into the playoffs. They would have so many defensive breakdowns in front of him, it was insane. It was almost as if they were doing it on purpose. Good players figure out a way to look good on bad teams.
