Because prospect lists aren't based on how good a player is now, but on how good they can be if they reach their potential. How good they are now, how close they are to the NHL, how likely they are to reach their potential, etc.... should only be used if 2 prospects have similar potential. IMO.
Ok, quick question.
Other than "how good a player is now", what else do you use do make a "realistic" or "accurate" determination on
WHAT their "potential" really
IS?
I think (some) people focus too much on a players
style of play. Or they incorrectly equate style of play (or
type of player) and "potential". This is where your "overrating" of Milano (for a while) and the "underrating" of Gavrikov (or Ryan Murray
) comes in. Kris Versteeg might be a WAY MORE exciting player than M-E Vlasic, and Versteeg clearly has WAY MORE scoring "potential", but he's nowhere near as valuable or impactful to an NHL team.
Another IMPORTANT thing people seem to overlook A LOT, is the actual difference in
play between JR's, NCAA, "Euro" pro, AHL, and NHL hockey. While the levels/difference vary from league to league, size/strength is the 1 thing that "always" increases from JR's to pro hockey. The same can be said for the NCAA, but its not as profound mainly due to the age difference between major Jr. and NCAA or the lack of difference between NCAA and pro. But, the main HUGE change is the increased speed and intelligence that exists ALL OVER the ice, offensive or defensive zone, with OR without the puck. Or maybe it would be better to say, "speed
OF intelligence". Not to mention OVERALL SKILL difference. You could look at an individual players skill as "depth", the same way you look at entire teams' "depth". There's a reason many TEAMS or an individual PLAYER "fail" when they don't have much "depth" to their game, EVEN IF they have 1 or 2 skills they absolutely/legitimately excel at.