"Mysticism" around J20...Are you saying that because you don't know much about the league?
Around 15-20 guys are drafted from that league every year, only 3 guys from the NAHL last year. Only 14 from the QMJHL last year. J20 is a heavily scouted league and the top guys get a ton of exposure playing in international tournaments. Last year you saw Liljegren and Brännström get drafted high, they only got shifts in the SHL here and there. Erik Karlsson played his full draft season in J20, Anze Kopitar too, I can go on.
It also depends entirely on what organization you play for, Elias Lindholm and Nicklas Bäckström only got a few games in the SHL in their U18 year, they also played in Brynäs and were both drafted top 5.
You guys are pretty comical
I know as much as I need to know about the league. First, let's address your argument. Last year 24 Swedish skaters were drafted out of Sweden. A whopping 4 (Peterson, Lycksell, Walterholm, Andersson) of them were drafted exclusively from the J20, none earlier than the fifth round. 20 of them have some, and mostly significant amounts of, senior experience and exposure. The year before it was 6 out of 21. In 2015, there was only 1 (6'7" 7th rounder Gustav Olhaver), out of 14 picks.
The fact that you can be snarky in an edgy teen way doesn't compensate for bad science. Erik Karlsson did not play his full draft season in the J20. Neither did Anze Kopitar. Good science is isolating variables and determining causes and effects. Bad science, what you're doing, is intentionally ignoring evidence because it doesn't suit your narrative. Kopitar played 15 games at the senior level in his draft season. Karlsson played 13. If a given object has multiple vectors that could be affecting its movement, you cannot simply attribute all the forces to whichever vector you like the most. That is silly, and stupid. There are multiple variables present at multiple levels of analysis, simply ignoring evidence you don't like and then re-screeching a conclusion is silliness.
Furthermore, I could even give your atrocious reasoning, allow you to dismiss all relevant and pertinent but undesirable evidence, and it still would not vindicate you argument. Plenty of athletes come from non-traditional backgrounds. Simply citing that
some individuals come from non-traditional backgrounds, doesn't vindicate the argument that those backgrounds should be considered traditional.
Let's consider another piece of evidence, based not on draft position but outcome. There have been 24 Swedish athletes since the 2009 draft to score 100 points or more. Only one John Klingberg in 2010, was drafted without at least 10 games of senior experience. In the last 5 drafts there have been 4 individuals (Bratt, Eriksson Ek, Kempe, Janmark) not including individuals already incorporated with 20 points or more. All of them had over 10 games, in fact, all of them had over 30 games at the senior level at the point they were drafted. So, even if teams had been drafting athletes exclusively performing in the SuperElit, which they generally aren't, there is no recent evidence that this would be effective to any genuine extent. Athletes who have been successful have had significant amounts of senior experience, and if they had both extensive amounts of senior experience and success at the junior levels, it is (again) irresponsible to attribute such successes merely to the latter variable.
Here's some evidence I previously compiled which I promised.
The last time a Swedish Defenseman was taken out of Sweden in the top 3 rounds without having played senior hockey (thus, having only played in the SuperElit), was Carl Dahlstrom in 2013 at 51st. The last time before that was in 2000, Mattias Nilsson was taken in the 3rd round with the 72nd pick. That's top three rounds, what about the first round? The last time, and only time in the history of the draft, a Swedish Defenseman has been taken in the top round of the Draft without having played senior hockey was Christian Backman in 1998 at 24th.
NHL teams simply don't put stock in an defensemen who have only played in the SuperElit, and not shown some competence at the senior level, just like they don't usually draft NAHL athletes very high. Now, Boqvist has played at the senior level. He's shown some, questionable, level of competence there. That should be no issue, however, structurally.
But you can't make an apples to apples comparison that so and so has dominated in the QMJHL and so and so was just as dominant in the SuperElit. What should be the most telling pieces of evidence on Boqvist, for better or worse, is his performance in the SHL and Allsvenskan.
Now the evidence for the SuperElit/NAHL comparison.
Expats from Sweden's SuperElit to the NAHL. Organized by the season they joined. Increase means they saw in increase in their scoring, because of course who wouldn't just score like crazy in a bush league right? Push is for an increase less than a quarter point per game, which is a very standard increase for a junior. Decrease means they actually scored more in the SuperElit as a younger player than they did in the NAHL one year older. Sorted by year, but some players who played multiple seasons will not be listed twice.
2017
Increase: Palmqvist, Garcia, Jigemark
Push: Bjorkman
Decrease: Frisell, Moberg, Karlsson, Sandberg, Johansson
2016
Increase: Eriksson, Stenlund
Push: Loof, Esjbors, Nylander
Decrease: Warman, Maier, Liljekvist
2015
Increase: Gabor, Strisberg, Andren, Sjodahl, Celec
Push: Lundgren, Karlstrom, Sundberg
Decrease: Winborg, Rygaard, Mellberg, Ostling
2014
Increase: Emanuelsson, Pettersson, Ohrvall, Larsson,
Push: Synnelius, Kullberg, Ingman, Erb Ekholm, Ehlers, Santesson
Decrease: Lindell, Odd, Brun, Karlsson, Berglund, Vidmar, Bjorklund, Athley, Sorgardt, Soje, Nilsson
Not to mention SuperElit alumni like Klingberg, Stromberg, Wellen, Hansson, Frolander and others who couldn't be evaluated because they got cut from NAHL teams so fast.
It's hard to consistently document non-swedes, but for example Ondrej Zehnal, Czech, went from the SuperElit to the NAHL. His ppg dropped too. Interesting. And he had played and lived in the US as a child. His brother Richard made the same move, and saw an increase of .03 PPG, despite again being a year older.
If the theory that the SuperElit was disparately superior to the NAHL were true, then athletes would be performing better in the NAHL than the SuperElit, but this is simply not the case. Of course, some individuals do, and people here love extrapolating off of exceptions, but that is hardly an argument for a given case.
Quickly to address what little was in this post.
You do realize he was named best defenseman at the WJC18? He was so good that he won defenseman of the tournament, despite getting injured in the SF's. He was second in points at the Ivan Hlinka. Not points for a defenseman, points for a player at any position. Ridiculous argument you made. Take your time to respond. It won't be a good argument because there isn't a good argument.
People generally get crucified on HFBoards for this type of reasoning, and for good reason.
First, sample size. He played 6 games in the WJC U18. Against second, competition. The competition was dominated by 2019 draft prospects. Of the other 4 defensemen in the top 5 discussion,
none of them were present. Speaking in such terms, there is absolutely no method of comparison between these athletes using merely this tournament. The second best scoring defenseman was, unsurprisingly, a 2019 draft-eligible. Boqvist is in the conversation for the 2018 draft. Only 3 of the athletes even widely considered to be in contention for a top 10 pick were present. If we allow such arguments to pass, then Brady Tkachuk's small sample sizze of 7 games against even more stalwart competition should probably put him in contention for the 2nd overall pick. Good thing most people using fairly common sense look at actual comprehensive bodies of work.
I think even a cursory glance at the best defenseman award's history would show that the award is neither an indicator for great success or for high selection. There have been some successes, Erik Karlsson, but many more disappointments. It should also be noted, Karlsson is the only defenseman from that selection that went on to become the consensus best defenseman in his drafted. Others (Shattenkirk, Fowler, Dumba) have become mainstays of the league, but are still not considered the best defensemen from their class. If, the general consensus is true, and Dahlin is a truly exceptional, never-seen-before, prospect then the battle for second would be the traditional battle for first. Finally, there are the others who have become little or nothing of note. They actually represent the super-majority of previous award winners. So, while it is certainly a nice piece of hardware to have for sentimental purposes, I don't think a strong case can be made that this award is some sort of kingmaker.
I love the Hlinka argument because, even if only on an anecdotal level, it's completely self-defeating. The top scorer, ahead of Boqvist, in that tournament was Dmitri Zavgorodny. He played, ironically, in the QMJHL this year. He was fine, he was unexceptional. That certainly doesn't bode as support for your ideological possession. Otherwise, this tournament is as suspect if not more suspect to all the previously mentioned concerns. It is a 5 game tournament. Dobson participated, but otherwise, no prospects currently considered top prospects participated, not limited to Dahlin, Tkachuk, Hughes, Wahlstrom, Zadina, Lundestrom, Kaut, or Svechnikov. Many of these had participated in prior iterations, due to birth dates, but this does not bode well for the argument using the Hlinka tournament as an elite measuring stick comparing peers. Furthermore, Canada won Gold at that tournament. Thus, even if Canadian prospects did each contribute less individually, it is likely that this was only so because they each only asked to contribute enough collectively to be successful.
I mean, simply read the cards. No one else on HFBoards right now is still talking about the results of the Hlinka Tournament. There's a reason for that.
So here's what the evidence comes down to. A nice campaign in a league with suspect competition level. A few nice international performances in short tournaments against young competition. Clearly, the argument is not as strong as you think.