Is Bedard more McDavid or Drai/Matthews/Mackinnon level talent?

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Okay let's play your little game as dumb as it is.

Wright- is this a joke? Draft year wasn't even top 5 scorer in OHL let alone dominating it. Didn't make Canada at U20. Weak crap here.

Lafreniere- done proven already.

Hughes- a bit harder comparison. But Hughes scored a lost less on a US team that plays USHL (nit as good as CHL) and exhibition games vs college teams. Only direct comparison is WJC-20. Hughes 1ppg vs Bedard at 3.29 ppg. Ya not even close, so don't bring up your war excuse on this.

Dahlin- he plays D why even bring up his name. Can't compare stats.

Svechnikov- another joke right? Not even top 10 in points in the OHL. WJC-20 he had 5 assets in 5gp. Do I need to list Bedards stats again?

Patrick- another joke? Was averaging 1.39 ppg we he got hurt in the WHL, not in the same universe as Bedard.

Matthews- another hard comparison as he played in the NLA in draft year. Only direct comparison is WJC-20. Matthew 1.57 ppg t4th in scoring. Bedard 3.29 ppg 1st in scoring and dominanted. So ya don't bring up that weak war excuse.

Laine- tough direct comparison as he was in Liiga. So on to the WJC-20. Laine was very good 1.86 and 3rd in scoring. Didn't come close to dominanting like Bedard.

Eichel- the closest as he lead NCAA in ppg. But then fell way short of Bedard in the WJC-20 at under a ppg.


There happy. Sorry none of those guys had the statistical domminace as Bedard in his draft year. A couple of the closet were Eichel/Matthews (both 8/9 months older) both fell way short in the WJC-20, and the war excuse doesn't cover the gap not even close.

Look you can say I don’t think Bedard will be a generational NHL player because such and such skill, cause that is an opinion. But to try and deny that Bedard had an historic draft/17 year old season from a statical points is just flat wrong and sticking your head in the sand. Pretty much every scout and hockey historian acknowledge how dominant he was as a 17 year old. Now that doesn't guarantee anything in the NHL, but what he did/accomplished as a 17 year old is very very rare.

I give you credit for not taking the easy way out and trying to back up your claim.

However, I'd still like to know what is the statistical measurement that proves Bedard is better. Because anyone can manipulate certain numbers in their favor to come up with an all-encompassing conclusion. We are comparing across leagues at different points in each leagues history to players born at various times of the year to players playing different positions.

There are a lot of players that have been discussed in this category, and my opinion is that it's very hard to come up with any easy metric to prove superiority of one vs another. However, if one is going to make this claim that Bedard is undeniably superior or at least back it, they should be able to lay out clearly what is the measurement. Then we can proceed to evaluating the claim.

Sounds difficult? I agree. That's why it's a bogus argument there's no real way to prove.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

I give you credit for not taking the easy way out and trying to back up your claim.

However, I'd still like to know what is the statistical measurement that proves Bedard is better. Because anyone can manipulate certain numbers in their favor to come up with an all-encompassing conclusion. We are comparing across leagues at different points in each leagues history to players born at various times of the year to players playing different positions.

There are a lot of players that have been discussed in this category, and my opinion is that it's very hard to come up with any easy metric to prove superiority of one vs another. However, if one is going to make this claim that Bedard is undeniably superior or at least back it, they should be able to lay out clearly what is the measurement. Then we can proceed to evaluating the claim.

Sounds difficult? I agree. That's why it's a bogus argument there's no real way to prove.

I think the problem is you want irrefutable proof, even when people have given you sufficient evidence to support their case. What you're asking for is impossible for *any* discussion, not just this one.

It's like if someone's arguing that Micheal Jordan is the greatest basketball player ever and gives a handful of reasons why, and you respond with "but I need more proof of this dominance. Why doesn't he have the most career points? Why did other players average more points per game over a full season?".

You're asking an impossible question to answer because you're dismissing the examples they've given you already.

 

[blundluntman]

not when you're not even 5'10

big and slow can work...see: Mark Stone

small and slow isn't a recipe for success though..now obviously Bedard isn't slow, he's an above average skater but he doesn't have that "elite" gear in his arsenal that separates him from defenders

to be fair, the World Juniors is watered down without Russia in it

He doesn't need to be extremely fast to outmaneuver defenders. He's agile and a very good lateral skater in particular. He doesn't tend to generate most of his offense on the rush anyways, he's very good in the offensive zone and can get his shot off very quickly. He also can make great passes and keeps goalies guessing since he's dangerous both ways. Crosby wasn't fast either but he was strong and shifty, Bedard is pretty similar to him physically and skating-wise. He has more than enough skills to make up for his above average skating.

Even if you argue the world juniors wasn't as competitive, that only accounts for one or 2 games. He averaged well above 3ppg in international play. If you wanna trim his numbers down to adjust for team Russia, he'd still be comfortably above 2ppg. Not to mention, if it was watered down, that wouldn't only affect his numbers; why did nobody else come close even still?

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

I think the problem is you want irrefutable proof, even when people have given you sufficient evidence to support their case. What you're asking for is impossible for *any* discussion, not just this one.

It's like if someone's arguing that Micheal Jordan is the greatest basketball player ever and gives a handful of reasons why, and you respond with "but I need more proof of this dominance. Why doesn't he have the most career points? Why did other players average more points per game over a full season?".

You're asking an impossible question to answer because you're dismissing the examples they've given you already.

I agree with parts of your post, but what you miss is that the claim was not a subjective opinion that Bedard is generational because of the eye test. If someone says that, that's their opinion. Can't really prove it right or wrong.

It was stated as objective that Bedard is generational because his stats are so superior to everyone since McDavid. When someone makes a claim based on stats, it's actually something that can be proven right or wrong, so that's the crux of this argument. It has not been proven, yet if it was so undeniable, it should be able to be proven because it's a stats-based argument, not an eye-test based argument.

 

[blundluntman]

I give you credit for not taking the easy way out and trying to back up your claim.

However, I'd still like to know what is the statistical measurement that proves Bedard is better. Because anyone can manipulate certain numbers in their favor to come up with an all-encompassing conclusion. We are comparing across leagues at different points in each leagues history to players born at various times of the year to players playing different positions.

There are a lot of players that have been discussed in this category, and my opinion is that it's very hard to come up with any easy metric to prove superiority of one vs another. However, if one is going to make this claim that Bedard is undeniably superior or at least back it, they should be able to lay out clearly what is the measurement. Then we can proceed to evaluating the claim.

Sounds difficult? I agree. That's why it's a bogus argument there's no real way to prove.

Points are a statistical measurement... Nobody's manipulating numbers, they're literally stating how much each player outproduced their competition and accounting for the difficulty of the leagues they played in, you're making comparing production across leagues sound like quantum physics. Use context clues and compare their number to their competition. It's so much simpler than you're making it out to be. You keep saying it's extremely hard to compare dominance but it really isn't.

People have clearly provided you with a measurement, it's called points. That is the best way to evaluate the level of dominance. Believe it or not, if someone scores more points than somebody else, they're probably a better player. No need to bring out a Ti83 calculator. You can also look at their performance in international play since that integrates all draft prospects. Even if you want to argue the tourney was weaker without Russia, you can still look at his game-by-game performances against teams like the USA, Sweden, Finland, etc. You can also compare his play to other highly touted prospects such as Fantili and Carlson. You keep making this more difficult than it actually is. These are literally how teams and scouts evaluate prospects. This is how McDavid was evaluated, how Crosby was evaluated, Lindros, Lemieux, etc.

 

[Happyhary9]

I give you credit for not taking the easy way out and trying to back up your claim.

However, I'd still like to know what is the statistical measurement that proves Bedard is better. Because anyone can manipulate certain numbers in their favor to come up with an all-encompassing conclusion. We are comparing across leagues at different points in each leagues history to players born at various times of the year to players playing different positions.

There are a lot of players that have been discussed in this category, and my opinion is that it's very hard to come up with any easy metric to prove superiority of one vs another. However, if one is going to make this claim that Bedard is undeniably superior or at least back it, they should be able to lay out clearly what is the measurement. Then we can proceed to evaluating the claim.

Sounds difficult? I agree. That's why it's a bogus argument there's no real way to prove.

You use what all sports historians use to compare different eras. Production over peers. Obviously nothing is perfect as all leagues are different. But just look at all those guys you listed that played in the CHL (more direct comparison). Bedard averaged .79 ppg over the 3 next highest scorers in the WHL. That is just a crazy number. Out of all those guys you listed that played in the CHL Lafreniere was the only one to even lead in scoring and only at a .26 ppg more. If you add in goal scoring it gets even more ridiculous.

You look at WJC as well despite this being a smaller sample size, because it is a more direct apples to apples comparison and almist all prospects play in it (of have the chance to). But you look at production over peers because different eras. This would also throw out the whole UT was watered down theory because of the war, because production relitve to peers would about for this. As Bedard scored 23 points, the next 2 highest players on his team didn't score that.

Basically if you look at just the CHL this decade, it is very rare for a 17 yo to lead in scoring. And then even more rare for a 17 year old to dominant in the CHL like Bedard. Only two in the same breath in the CHL are Crosby and McDavid as far as production over peers.

You can do the same for the WJC-20. It is very rare for a 17 year old to win the scoring title in that let alone dominant in the fashion of Bedard.

This is why hockey scouts and historians say Bedard had an historic 17 year old season in hockey. The things he did just don't happen but once in a blue moon.

Look at the end of the day none of it is a guarantee he will be a generational NHL player. But you don't try and belittle what he accomplished either.

Also I jeep asking you for these so called prospects labeled generational going into the draft by NHL scouts? Just because the HF hype was in full effect, doesn't equal actual NHL scouts. The only 3 this century (forwards only) was Crosby, McDavid and Bedard. 3 others that were kinda borderline was Eichel, Matthews and AO.

 

[Happyhary9]

I agree with parts of your post, but what you miss is that the claim was not a subjective opinion that Bedard is generational because of the eye test. If someone says that, that's their opinion. Can't really prove it right or wrong.

It was stated as objective that Bedard is generational because his stats are so superior to everyone since McDavid. When someone makes a claim based on stats, it's actually something that can be proven right or wrong, so that's the crux of this argument. It has not been proven, yet if it was so undeniable, it should be able to be proven because it's a stats-based argument, not an eye-test based argument.

No you are miss understanding. People are saying he put up generational type stats as a 17 yo. Which if you compare his production over peers in the CHL and WJC-20 only a handful are comparable. All that meaning is he put up generational production as a 17 yo in his perspective league and tournaments. Which has been a good predictor to NFL production(not a guarantee).

For me I have him as a generational prospect for 3 reasons. 1. Production (not really debatable). 2 A majority of NHL scouts (not HF posters)label him as such. This is a fact as well if you look into. Now you can debate whether those scouts are right or wrong as they are human as well. 3. My eye test. Which obviously anyone can have various opinions.

I

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Points are a statistical measurement... Nobody's manipulating numbers, they're literally stating how much each player outproduced their competition and accounting for the difficulty of the leagues they played in, you're making comparing production across leagues sound like quantum physics. Use context clues and compare their number to their competition. It's so much simpler than you're making it out to be. You keep saying it's extremely hard to compare dominance but it really isn't.

People have clearly provided you with a measurement, it's called points. That is the best way to evaluate the level of dominance. Believe it or not, if someone scores more points than somebody else, they're probably a better player. No need to bring out a Ti83 calculator. You can also look at their performance in international play since that integrates all draft prospects. Even if you want to argue the tourney was weaker without Russia, you can still look at his game-by-game performances against teams like the USA, Sweden, Finland, etc. You can also compare his play to other highly touted prospects such as Fantili and Carlson. You keep making this more difficult than it actually is. These are literally how teams and scouts evaluate prospects. This is how McDavid was evaluated, how Crosby was evaluated, Lindros, Lemieux, etc.

This is like pulling teeth.

So is it points per game? Total points? Is it only in the draft year? How do you incorporate different leagues into it? How do you incorporate different positions into it?

How about you make the argument, if you believe in it? Because I'm still waiting for the argument to be made.

At a certain point, I think I should just stop entering the thread because it seems clear that the argument doesn't exist, as no one has made it and I've asked for pages and pages for the same thing, if it exists. I get it's an uphill battle though to prove something that doesn't exist.

 

[Toby91ca]

This is like pulling teeth.

So is it points per game? Total points? Is it only in the draft year? How do you incorporate different leagues into it? How do you incorporate different positions into it?

How about you make the argument, if you believe in it? Because I'm still waiting for the argument to be made.

At a certain point, I think I should just stop entering the thread because it seems clear that the argument doesn't exist, as no one has made it and I've asked for pages and pages for the same thing, if it exists. I get it's an uphill battle though to prove something that doesn't exist.

I think I need reminding or perhaps you never gave your thought. Who do you think has come close to the level of prospect hype or deserved the same hype as Bedard since McDavid? Perhaps that’s a good starting point here as I can’t think of any other players

 

[TLEH]

This is like pulling teeth.

So is it points per game? Total points? Is it only in the draft year? How do you incorporate different leagues into it? How do you incorporate different positions into it?

How about you make the argument, if you believe in it? Because I'm still waiting for the argument to be made.

At a certain point, I think I should just stop entering the thread because it seems clear that the argument doesn't exist, as no one has made it and I've asked for pages and pages for the same thing, if it exists. I get it's an uphill battle though to prove something that doesn't exist.

All of the above. PPG. Points. He’s better than his peers than other players were their peers. It’s not rocket science. Pull the numbers.

What argument are you even making at this point? Seems like I’m providing you some form of statistical comparison and you balk at it with random nonsense. What do you have as evidence to refute the scoring prowess above peers????

The only thing we have to compare is performance against players of similar age. It’s not going to be perfect.

You still have yet to answer how michkov is going to dominate the league with his size and skating but Bedard will struggle with his.

 

[Mathieukferland]

Please show how it’s undeniable that Bedard is statistically superior to every player that has been discussed with this generational label pre-draft since McDavid. This is the claim. This includes Michkov, Wright, Lafreniere, Hughes, Dahlin, Svechnikov, Patrick, Matthews, Laine and I guess you can throw in Eichel (same draft as McDavid, but a pick later).

1. I think you’re well aware that Bédard outperformed all these players international which when talk across countries is the best point of reference


2. Of the group of players you’ve mentioned I think the best player is Matthews, so let’s just take him as an example

As you can see, Bédard’s pre draft production is statistically superior to the best player in the group above you mentioned. If you want to talk about eye test and all that go ahead you can have your opinion, but in terms of statistics it’s pretty easy to show that he was statistically superior to everyone on that list

 

[Maplebeasts]

I’d say he’s somewhere between McDavid and Mack/Matthews. McDavid had speed and size that Bedard simply just doesn’t have.

 

[CantHaveTkachev]

Funny how a couple posters keep saying that watered down theory about the WJC-20. Don't think they understand what watered down means. Why didn't players break records the year before? Why didn't everyone but up huge numbers this year like Bedard. Seems like the only guy that somehow a watered down bump in points was Bedard, didn't effect anyone else I guess.

Because Bedard is the best prospect since McDavid
I don’t think too Many are arguing this

 

[blundluntman]

This is like pulling teeth.

So is it points per game? Total points? Is it only in the draft year? How do you incorporate different leagues into it? How do you incorporate different positions into it?

How about you make the argument, if you believe in it? Because I'm still waiting for the argument to be made.

At a certain point, I think I should just stop entering the thread because it seems clear that the argument doesn't exist, as no one has made it and I've asked for pages and pages for the same thing, if it exists. I get it's an uphill battle though to prove something that doesn't exist.

Ok let's do McDavid vs Crosby vs Bedard. We'll do their draft years, we'll look at their points per game, and we'll evaluate the quality of competition and teammates.

McDavid averaged 2.55 ppg in the 2015 OHL season (where the goals for per team was 2.97). He produced 52% of his teams' goals on a per game basis.
- His teammates Dillon Strome and Alex Debrincat finished 2nd and 7th in scoring. McDavid was .65 ppg ahead of the next closes teammate.
- Strome went 3rd overall and Debrincat was drafted in the 2nd round.
- He was .55 ppg higher than the next closest non-teammate
-McDavid competed against 5 other 1st round picks in the league during this season.

Crosby averaged 2.71 ppg in the QMJHL (where the goals for per team was 3.19). He produced 50% of his team's goals.
- His teammates finished 2nd and 3rd in scoring and he was more than 1.03 ppg ahead of the next closest teammate
- 1 of Crosby's teammates went in the 1st round in the NHL Draft
- He was 1 ppg higher than the next closest player in the league
- Crosby competed against 3 other 1st round picks in the league during that season

Bedard averaged 2.51 ppg in the WHL (where the goals for per team was 3.47). He produced 54% of his team's goals.
- One of his teammates finished 11th in scoring and he was 1.21 ppg ahead of him
- None of Bedard's teammates went in the 1st round (the next closest teammate in scoring was drafted in the 3rd round)
- He was 1 ppg higher than the next closest player in the league
- Bedard competed against 5 other 1st round picks in the league during that season

So Crosby had the 2nd highest ppg relative to league scoring and got to play with another 1st round pick his draft year. He dominated his peers to the same degree as Bedard but also had the lowest quality of competition when considering how many players in the QMJHL went high in the NHL draft.

McDavid had the highest ppg relative to league scoring. However, he also had the lowest level of dominance relative to his peers given the very high quality of competition (5 other players from other teams went in the 1st round). He also had the most help as Dylan Strome went 3rd overall and Debrincat was drafted in the 2nd round

Bedard had the highest gap in ppg relative to a teammate and also had the biggest gap in ppg between him and 2nd place. The quality of his competition was better than Crosby's but a bit worse than McDavid's as he competed against 5 other 1st round picks. Bedard had the worst quality of teammates considering the next closest in team scoring only went in the 3rd round. He also dominated his peers higher than McDavid and as much as Crosby did (despite having better competition).

These were all in their draft years, they all play the same position, and you can see the level of dominance they displayed and the quality of competition across leagues. When you factor in all these variables, you can see that they're all in the same Stratosphere. Crosby and Bedard dominated at a similar level, but Crosby's quality of competition was lower and his quality of teammates was higher. McDavid had the highest quality of competition which explains why his dominance relative to his peers was the lowest of the 3. They also all had very similar levels of dominance in the post-season as well.

As you can see, they are all in the same stratosphere as prospects go. I don't know how much more exhaustive things need to be for you.

 

[Cup or Bust]

I wouldn't want to pressure any player to be a McDavid level talent before he plays a game in the NHL.. McDaivd is probably one of the most overall skilled and talented players in hockey history and already one of the greatest players of all time by the age of 26.

Bedard very well may hit that level but it will depend on how his game translates to the NHL. He certainly appears to be a very high level talent with great potential though.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

In between the two levels imo. I doubt we see another McDavid level any time soon.

 

[the_fan]

He’s no Tage Thompson though

 

[FriendlyGhost92]

I mean, he's the best prospect since McDavid.

But the crazy thing is, for all the hype McDavid got as a prospect, he's probably better than advertised.

 

[McVespa99]

I think Bedard has McDavid level talent but lacks the physical gifts to be as good as him. Drai and Mack may be slightly less talented than Bedard but they have obvious physical advantages over him. My guess is Bedard will be in the Drai or Mack level in the Nhl.

 

[MessierII]

I think his goal scoring ability is through the roof. How the rest of his game unfolds will depend on how he can adjust to the pace of the game at the nhl level. One thing I’m positive about is that he’ll be an elite goal scorer. It’s a shame he’s on a team with no one to play with and I think that hurts his numbers early.

 

[Happyhary9]

This is like pulling teeth.

So is it points per game? Total points? Is it only in the draft year? How do you incorporate different leagues into it? How do you incorporate different positions into it?

How about you make the argument, if you believe in it? Because I'm still waiting for the argument to be made.

At a certain point, I think I should just stop entering the thread because it seems clear that the argument doesn't exist, as no one has made it and I've asked for pages and pages for the same thing, if it exists. I get it's an uphill battle though to prove something that doesn't exist.

It is not like pulling teeth. You are just being abtuse. I layed it out.The most accurate is production over peers. Sports historians have been doing it for years. The more similar leagues the higher degree of accuracy. Like I said if you are looking at domince. You look at production over peers and the compare that historically in those leagues.

So let's look at CHL over this century. So that is 3 leagues over 22 years which is 66 total data points.

First I will pull all the 17yo/draft year players to lead their respective league in scoring (used ppg per game, with a respectable amout of games). I believe there is 6 total (went of memory a lot here so correct me if wrong). So the odds of leading at 17 is only (6/66) 9.1%.

Out of those 6 players you look at ppg over peers. So their average vs the top 3 scores after them lines up like this.
Bedard +.79 ppg
McDaniel +.71 ppg
Crosby +.55 ppg
Kane +.45 ppg
Laf +.26 ppg
Tavares +.20 ppg

Some other fun statistical facts. Only 2 of those player lead their league in raw goals+assists+points (Bedard/Crosby). Only 3 lead their leagues in per game stat in goals+assists+points (Bedard/Crosby/McDavid).

If you want to add some context. Bedard had by far the largest difference between him and his teammates. Kane had by far the most loaded linemates as that line was 1st, 3rd, and 5th in points scored. Bedard had a 56 point difference between him and the 2nd highest scorer on his team. I will let you do the math and research on the difference between McDaniel/Crosby and the 2nd scorer on their teams.

That is about as clear as it gets from a statistic/math poit of view.

 

[Happyhary9]

Ok let's do McDavid vs Crosby vs Bedard. We'll do their draft years, we'll look at their points per game, and we'll evaluate the quality of competition and teammates.

McDavid averaged 2.55 ppg in the 2015 OHL season (where the goals for per team was 2.97). He produced 52% of his teams' goals on a per game basis.
- His teammates Dillon Strome and Alex Debrincat finished 2nd and 7th in scoring. McDavid was .65 ppg ahead of the next closes teammate.
- Strome went 3rd overall and Debrincat was drafted in the 2nd round.
- He was .55 ppg higher than the next closest non-teammate
-McDavid competed against 5 other 1st round picks in the league during this season.

Crosby averaged 2.71 ppg in the QMJHL (where the goals for per team was 3.19). He produced 50% of his team's goals.
- His teammates finished 2nd and 3rd in scoring and he was more than 1.03 ppg ahead of the next closest teammate
- 1 of Crosby's teammates went in the 1st round in the NHL Draft
- He was 1 ppg higher than the next closest player in the league
- Crosby competed against 3 other 1st round picks in the league during that season

Bedard averaged 2.51 ppg in the WHL (where the goals for per team was 3.47). He produced 54% of his team's goals.
- One of his teammates finished 11th in scoring and he was 1.21 ppg ahead of him
- None of Bedard's teammates went in the 1st round (the next closest teammate in scoring was drafted in the 3rd round)
- He was 1 ppg higher than the next closest player in the league
- Bedard competed against 5 other 1st round picks in the league during that season

So Crosby had the 2nd highest ppg relative to league scoring and got to play with another 1st round pick his draft year. He dominated his peers to the same degree as Bedard but also had the lowest quality of competition when considering how many players in the QMJHL went high in the NHL draft.

McDavid had the highest ppg relative to league scoring. However, he also had the lowest level of dominance relative to his peers given the very high quality of competition (5 other players from other teams went in the 1st round). He also had the most help as Dylan Strome went 3rd overall and Debrincat was drafted in the 2nd round

Bedard had the highest gap in ppg relative to a teammate and also had the biggest gap in ppg between him and 2nd place. The quality of his competition was better than Crosby's but a bit worse than McDavid's as he competed against 5 other 1st round picks. Bedard had the worst quality of teammates considering the next closest in team scoring only went in the 3rd round. He also dominated his peers higher than McDavid and as much as Crosby did (despite having better competition).

These were all in their draft years, they all play the same position, and you can see the level of dominance they displayed and the quality of competition across leagues. When you factor in all these variables, you can see that they're all in the same Stratosphere. Crosby and Bedard dominated at a similar level, but Crosby's quality of competition was lower and his quality of teammates was higher. McDavid had the highest quality of competition which explains why his dominance relative to his peers was the lowest of the 3. They also all had very similar levels of dominance in the post-season as well.

As you can see, they are all in the same stratosphere as prospects go. I don't know how much more exhaustive things need to be for you.

Way to much math in there. You went way past the +/- button. Is that like × in there? Do we get treasure if we figure out what that means?

 

[blundluntman]

Way to much math in there. You went way past the +/- button. Is that like × in there? Do we get treasure if we figure out what that means?

Basically, I listed each player's ppg, the gap between them and the next closest player, the gap between them and their teammates, the quality of competition in each league and the quality of teammates. Then I compared those things across all 3 players. He wanted something exhaustive so I decided to do that.

 

[AKL]

Where is the option for somewhere in between?

 

[Happyhary9]

Basically, I listed each player's ppg, the gap between them and the next closest player, the gap between them and their teammates, the quality of competition in each league and the quality of teammates. Then I compared those things across all 3 players. He wanted something exhaustive so I decided to do that.

Sorry I was being sarcastic after responding to Pavel to much. I know exactly what you did. For me as far as a just statistical point Bedard probably had the most dominant season this century in the CHL/WJC-20. I guess we will see how it translates to the NHL, but the numbers are crazy, especially if you start breaking down goals scored.