How about you make an argument that he isn't that isn't "he's not playing in the NHL?"
You can't make a wild claim, offer no evidence other than your own opinion, and then force other people to bend over backwards to prove you wrong. Here's the example I gave to your buddy which should hopefully clear up why.
I'm the best poster on HFBoards and you're the worst. My evidence is my observations. Prove me wrong. (see how stupid that is?)
If I made a wild, stupid claim, like... the KHL is the worst professional league in the world. And then you say "that's stupid, it's the second best league in the world" and I say, "prove it, I think it's the worst." Wouldn't you be really annoyed? That's exactly what you're doing.
There is absolutely, positively no possible way you could credibly make an argument that Michkov is already
the best blue paint scorer in the world because he's scoring at a PPG this season over 25 games. In
any league. He hasn't even finished a full season. I wouldn't agree with saying any player, of any position, in any league, for any particular skill, is "already the best X in the world" after 25 games of a rookie season. Not Bedard, not McDavid, not Crosby. Let alone something as nebulous as "blue paint scorer." How do you even measure that? Show me the shot charts, show me that Michkov is scoring more in the blue paint area than anyone else, show me that he's doing it at a higher difficulty / shooting%, show me
anything at all that isn't pure opinion, and I would still say, "that's awesome, let's see if he can keep it up beyond this small sample size of 25 games. He's great at it so far, but let's see more evidence before we call him
the best in the world."
I'm going to leave the thread now, assuming that you originally meant to say, "Michkov is
on his way to becoming the best blue paint scorer in the world," shrug my shoulders with a "maybe, we'll see," and leave you to the circlejerk.