I feel like this is a sneaky argument. Players don't stop physically developing until then, this is true. But physical development is generally not the primary determinant of a scoring line player's upside. Physical development will have relatively little to do with the fact that Necas is more skilled than Rasmussen. In fact, because of that, focusing on physical development favors Rasmussen because that's the way he has to play. That's why it's sneaky. Skill development drops off long before that. Rasmussen doesn't have a lot of time to add skill, which means bridging that gap becomes more unlikely every year.
Please, I'm the one arguing for an open ended conversation, and you're saying I'm being evasive? Maybe I should be more evasive if you are going to cherry pick my non arguments (Rasmussen will become Sundin- show me where I said that, and tell me how I'm being more sneaky than you?)
Physical development includes skills anyways, which is what I meant in the first place.
Rasmussens skating is primed to take big leaps over the course of his development for example. Along with that, puck protection, and experiential vision will help him translate his junior success. And there are a multitude of "skills" that are only going to be developed through experience, and some of them, like vision, awareness, positioning, hand eye coordination, reading a goalie, being familiar with teammates and opponents, off-ice preperation, don't really have a time constrained cap on them. I mean there are so many ways for professional athletes to improve their production, abilities, etc.
It's a pretty tricky argument to make, that skills development isn't complete at 17,18,19 making the draft an inexact science, yet by around 20 all that's left to do is add some weight and experience. That fits your argument fine, but it doesn't make sense logically or historically. I don't mean to strawman you here, but I feel like that has been essentially your response to my point about rates of development.
At this point I feel like your argument is hinging on conflating "attributes" with "production/effectiveness". A high numerical attribute for stickhandling, passing and speed, doesn't necessarily translate into an effective hockey player. There are countless examples. Likewise Mats Sundin is a good example of a player who used vision, positioning, strength and hockey sense to overcome his relatively modest speed and stickhandling compared to his pier group.
It's true, you cannot construct an airtight deductive argument for a player's upside; that would be absurd. But there are still a number of facts of the matter that you can point to, a trail of evidence, and you can use that to construct a strong inductive argument. We shouldn't simply say that your belief that Rasmussen will become Mats Sundin and my opinion that Rasmussen will become a pink unicorn are on equal standing. Your belief is justified by, amongst other things, a set of basic facts: Rasmussen plays hockey, was a high draft pick, etc. But that opens the door for arguments with better, more reliable, or more plausible sets of facts. That's how an argument like this can proceed.
Right, and so far the only fact you have offered is 16 pts. The argument hasn't proceeded, because when I asked you to elaborate, you really didn't. Instead of elaborating on your impressions of Rasmussen and Necas, we are here elaborating on strawmen and basic discourse.
Now, it's true that judging who has the more plausible set of facts can be tricky, but as long as you're mostly working from well-defined statistical arguments or things that are accepted as common knowledge, there shouldn't be a real problem there. And, again, such a judgment would never be deductively foolproof and guaranteed. The set of facts could reveal themselves to be unreliable, or your conclusion could end up false for unforseen reasons. But the argument was still justified given the available evidence at the time, so there's nothing to be ashamed of. Lack of certainty doesn't mean we have to treat an argument like nothing more than an anecdote.
You haven't made an argument though. You stated a premise/hypothesis/conclusion, call it what you want, and failed to elaborate on the reasons that you are drawing those conclusions, beyond a couple flimsy numbers and a knee jerk non response. Your statistical arguments are not well defined, because they are barren of context, mitigating factors, and most importantly a valuable sample size.
If you want your argument to be treated like more than an anecdote, phrasing one sentence in a deterministic way, basing it on a flawed logic (Necas beat Rasmussen to 16 NHL pts this year, therefore...) and then refusing to elaborate, doesn't cut it.
I understand that most posts here are either an echo chamber, or very combative. I'm not really interested in either of those dynamics. I'm not looking for you to make an airtight argument, or write up a pro scouting report. I'm not even necessarily disagreeing with the gist of your conclusion. But I don't feel like I know much more about Rasmussen or Necas for engaging in this conversation yet, other than Necas has 16 pts and some nice attributes.
And I do think there is a sneaky convenience to drawing up strongly worded statements and conclusions, that can't be proven false for years and years, especially when you are reluctant to delve into just how variable/volatile things get as they play out over multiple years as proven by history. That was my point and I don't feel it has been refuted. Some of the conviction people have when talking about prospects does not fall in line with how volatile sporting environments are, historically speaking.
