And I would argue you are over simplifying it. Professional sports is a complicated business. Lots of guys with far less natural skills make it over more naturally skilled players all the time. To use another sport comparison. If you score better on every test in a football combine are you a better linebacker then a 7 year vet? Probably not because they will use their experience to optimize every situation as much as they can in their favour. Learning how to play as optimally as possible at the highest level is a steep learning curve best done at a competition level that doesn't overwhelm you. Even those that are naturally skilled need to learn how to play at the highest level against the most skilled and experienced players in the world.
My apologies for the poor choice of wording. By "ability", I didn't mean the guys that have the most "natural skill", as you put it; I meant the guys that make the team better, ALL FACTORS CONSIDERED (skill, smarts, effort, checking, maturity, off-ice, etc). My point is that it's up to the coaches to decide who makes the team better.
To bring this back on topic, it's my opinion that if the Jets coaches determine that the Jets are a better team with Hellebuyck on the roster over Pavs or Hutch, then it's stupid to send him back to the AHL. I know that's not necessarily how it works because age, contact status, and blind loyalty to old players often factor into the equation, but my point is that those things shouldn't factor in. At least not if you want to create a true meritocracy with full accountability and no double-standards.
The flip side is that I would never want a young player rushed just because he's a blue-chipper if he hasn't earned his spot. It goes both ways.
Feel free to disagree, but I don't need a lesson in how it works.