Which speaks to his efficiency as a junior player, which isn't congruent to his status as an NHL prospect. As I have repeated. Over and over. Do you think all the scouts that keep having Sanheim ahead (and I'd estimate those are still the majority) are all just missing the junior all star selections?
There's no magic required.
That's a great fun fact. No value to the discussion, but a great fun fact.
You're a bit out to lunch. Unlike the CHL, the SHL isn't some developmental league. There are professional teams there, on multi-million dollar budgets, playing for championships. A guy like Larsson doesn't just "get to" do that. They have excellent developmental leagues in Sweden, on their own, for the guys that belong there. So, yeah, if the Leafs have the chance to draft kids that are capable of doing what Larsson has proven capable of doing, they absolutely should start doing that (and according to the rumors, they would have liked to in Larsson's case, so your advice seems to be falling on fertile soil). Drafting effective junior players is nice, too, but given the objective of finding effective future NHLers, you bet it's a bonus to prove your value at a far, far higher level. Are you equally outraged about what Andrew Mangiapane has to do in order to be seen as an equal to Joel Eriksson Ek?
I'm sorry I use facts and accomplishments and the opinion of scouts and compare them with other similar level prospects in order to help formulate my opinion. Helps to eliminate bias and I'll admit I don't scout every team's obscure prospects and follow their European games. So, you'll have to excuse my ignorance. I'm sure you've seen all the Leafs prospects games.
It seems to me that you're trying to pass off your opinion as a fact. And then you're passing off the dated opinions of others as fact.
Oh, the rankings themselves aren't biased, but the way you're using them definitely is. You're leaning on dated opinions. Do you really think if McKenzie polled the scouts again that their rankings wouldn't be different? Of course they would. The very fact that this is the case should tell you that the pre-draft rankings aren't that meaningful anymore. What is meaningful is how they have developed and progressed since.
Yes, you did, and others have pointed out that being a young defenseman playing against grown men is more impressive. This isn't a fact, by the way. It's opinion. So how does that fit into your "I'm sorry I use facts and accomplishments and the opinion of scouts and compare them with other similar level prospects in order to help formulate my opinion." statement?
They were allowed to play in the NHL, weren't they? It's not like they had the toughest roster to crack, either. I'm being provocative here, obviously. I know the level is higher, and I know being on a bit of a trainwreck of a team wouldn't necessarily serve them more. But you just can't take an actual accomplishment away. Making the step to professional hockey is one of the biggest hurdles prospects have to overcome. A guy that has taken that hurdle masterfully will always have a big bonus over a guy that has yet to show that. With some guys, the overall talent is so big that it's a bonus that scouts feel they can ignore, like in Provorov's case. That doesn't make it the rule.
Not sure how much he established in that season, but (yet again), establishing yourself as a great junior player doesn't equal establishing yourself as a great NHL prospect. And proving yourself at a far higher level of play goes a much longer way to doing that.
