This is something I've been wondering about for a while now: the commensurability of the HF prospect rankings and the HF prospect ratings ... seeing as how there's a small window right now (with the new top 50 apparently "in the works," and most of the beat writers working on the 2000 draft retrospects as opposed to new ratings), it seems like as good a time as any to reflect on this (in)commensurability. Basically, there's 8 tiers of prospects that have a reasonable shot at making the top 50, based on the ratings assigned to them by various HF writers (9A, 9B, 8.5A, 8.5B, 8.5C, 8A, 8B, 8C). And while I'm sure I've missed some (and others will be updated before this discussion even gets going), the cutoff for the top-50 would appear to fall right between the 8B's and 8C's -- assuming that the ratings have anything whatsoever to do with the rankings. That said, here's the first installment: the 9A's. There's 3 of them: Ovechkin Lehtonen Phaneuf One forward, one defensman, and one goalie ... each of them arguably the best prospect at their respective position. The question is: Does anyone else deserve a 9A? Or do any of these 3 deserve something else? Discuss.