I mean it depends on how you interpret all this data.
Lius Andersson has been pretty bad, so Raymond having a Points/60 less than him makes you think he would be a crap top 5 choice. It wasn't.
How come Kakko isn't better than Rantanen when he had a way better points/60. That shouldn't be true, right?
This is why NHL teams spend millions of dollars to deploy scouts all over the world to watch players and don't just draft the highest producing players possible.
If Slafkovsky hadn't played in several international tournaments and looked super impressive, I would have more time for the argument you guys are trying to make. His production in Liiga could come down to his linemates, or his deployment, or a number of things.
I mean I couldn't tell you why the hell Raymond didn't play more in the SHL his +1 year when we just saw what he did in his +2 year in the NHL. Makes his coach look pretty dumb to me.
Historically, just blindly looking at stats has done very well in comparison to these NHL scouts that get paid millions of dollars. Actually, many years drafting for pure stats with zero concern for everything else has even outperformed said NHL scouts.
What's the most recent draft we can reasonably go back to, 2017? Here, too, scouts spent all year scouting and rationalizing, while being paid millions.
Take the OHL picks for example(forwards, no overagers).
Draft order:
Tippett
Vilardi
Suzuki
Thomas
Frost
Ratcliffe
Robertson
Formenton
Studnicka
Gadjovich
That's where we got by paying millions. Now, blindly statwatching:
Suzuki
Robertson
Tippett
Gadjovich
Thomas
Strome
Frost
Vilardi
Lodnia
Ratcliffe
The big hits are Robertson, Suzuki, Thomas. All top 5 when just statwatching - Robertson is 7th by scouts. Statwatching top 2 was Suzuki and Robertston, scouts got them 3rd and 4th. Now, perhaps there are more absolute busts when just statwatching, but considering the top end it's still safe to say that statwatching outperformed these NHL scouts being paid millions(once again). And we've seen this over and over again, DeBrincat first comes to mind from 2016.
With that said, you also have several other issues with your post. You use Rantanen to make a point, but Rantanen still had much better production than Slafkovsky. You use the argument "Well Kakko produced well so this argument is worthless", but surely you remember that Kakko also scored well internationally, which is a point you're using to push Slafkovsky?
Furthermore, a player producing well and failing to perform in NHL, is not exactly comparable to a player producing poorly and then performing great in NHL. There are very few examples of the latter happening, while there are tons of examples of players performing well in NHL after producing well in Liiga. So using Kakko to devalue the entire thing doesn't make a whole lot of sense - there are exceptions.
Now, on Rantanen specifically, Rantanen's skating improved at a remarkable rate soon after getting drafted - far more than I've seen the skating of any Finn his size improve. We could bank on that or something similar happening for Slafkovsky, but by default I would bet against it.
Furthermore, you make the point about TPS and opportunity, but did you actually watch any of the games as you so have to speculate? If so, you'd realize that TPS gave Slafkovsky opportunities - very strong opportunities right after the Olympics, even. But he could not deliver, and hence got put back down in the lineup. Because TPS was a contender(finished second) and they can't have Slafkovsky in a bigger role if their goal is to win.
All this is to say: 1. Your logic is not sound and 2. Stats are important for NHL projections, often outperforming NHL scouts.
