Top 25 under 25 #7

[Dion TheFluff]

With the amount of young talented players entering the league over the past 3 years or so, I thought it be fun/interesting to make a top 25 under 25 list as voted by the people of HFBoards so here we are!

For the consistency of the poll I will be using Sept 15th 2019 as a cutoff date for players to be eligible to be voted for in the poll (if a player is 24 right now but turns 25 before the Sept 15th cutoff then he will be deemed ineligible to be added to the poll)

Will also be doing a vote in add system

1) McDavid
2) MacKinnon
3) Matthews
4) Barkov
5) Pastrnak
6) Eichel​

Click to read more...

 

[major major]

No big deal but I'd have Jones ahead of Eichel and Pastrnak, right there with Mackinnon and Matthews. I expect him to be up near a point per game and with his dominance at both ends, for 25-30 minutes a night, a forward would have to be much better than a point per game to be at Jones' level. And to be honest I wouldn't take a brat like Eichel over him even if Eichel scores 100 pts.

 

[cgf]

I'm a go with the NHL's leading scorer. Mikko figuring out what a beast he is, is scary.

 

[Shayne Corsi]

Mitch Marner is criminally underrated. That is all.

 

[Backcheckmonster3]

Rantanen went quickly up in the votes here, lots of people seeing him for the first time, huh?

 

[A1LeafNation]

Rielly?

 

[RockyMtnRedhawk]

Mitch Marner is criminally underrated. That is all.

 

[Machinehead]

Rantanen, then Jones.

Although, I would take Jones on my team.

 

[Skolman]

Mitch Marner is criminally underrated. That is all.

Uh where do you think he slots in?

 

[Dion TheFluff]

Rielly?

With the amount of young talented players entering

For the consistency of the poll I will be using Sept 15th 2019 as a cutoff date for players to be eligible to be voted for in the poll (if a player is 24 right now but turns 25 before the Sept 15th cutoff then he will be deemed ineligible to be added to the poll)​

 

[Leonhard Euler]

Jones for me, he is an absolute beauty

 

[bert]

Mitch Marner is criminally underrated. That is all.

This is implying that you think he is better than some players that have been picked or Rantanen/Jones. No he is not better than any of these players so no he isnt underated you just dont get hockey.

 

[Dion TheFluff]

If anybody has any request or recommendations of players to add let me know. It's becoming a little bit more challenging to choose the next player.

 

[Brando]

BARZAL

 

[Isaac Nootin]

Jones

 

[Howe Elbows 9]

If anybody has any request or recommendations of players to add let me know. It's becoming a little bit more challenging to choose the next player.

Juuse Saros?

 

[NiL8r87]

Funny how the suggestion of Marner is the only one that got counter replies.

I took Barzal here.

 

[Dion TheFluff]

Juuse Saros?

Yeah! Could use a goalie in there!

 

[Shayne Corsi]

This is implying that you think he is better than some players that have been picked or Rantanen/Jones. No he is not better than any of these players so no he isnt underated you just dont get hockey.

I don't actually want to get into the nuts and bolts of what I intended to convey by my post (which is why I concluded with "that is all"), but I felt compelled to respond to this specious monstrosity nonetheless. For one, a statistical argument could absolutely be leveled in favor of Marner over one or more of the players already selected above him (or Rantanen / Jones). But, for another, the criteria for determining "better" can--in the absence of explicit constraints--be sufficiently generic that simply unpacking "better" in a selective fashion could alone support my claim, i.e. without any further evidence (e.g. some type of predictive criteria based on subjective factors like the eye test). You are of course free to your opinion, but your words ring hollow when you essentially assert what you're presumably trying show, with your only evidence taking the form of some unpleasant admixture of an appeal to authority and an ad hominem attack. So while it's possible that objective arguments on aggregate even favour your view, I couldn't help but respond to this dubious post.

 

[LordNeverLose]

Pastrnak is a fantastic player but he went like 3 or 4 spots too early

 

[avsfan09]

I don't actually want to get into the nuts and bolts of what I intended to convey by my post (which is why I concluded with "that is all"), but I felt compelled to respond to this specious monstrosity nonetheless. For one, a statistical argument could absolutely be leveled in favor of Marner over one or more of the players already selected above him (or Rantanen / Jones). But, for another, the criteria for determining "better" can--in the absence of explicit constraints--be sufficiently generic that simply unpacking "better" in a selective fashion could alone support my claim, i.e. without any further evidence (e.g. some type of predictive criteria based on subjective factors like the eye test). You are of course free to your opinion, but your words ring hollow when you essentially assert what you're presumably trying show, with your only evidence taking the form of some unpleasant admixture of an appeal to authority and an ad hominem attack. So while it's possible that objective arguments on aggregate even favour your view, I couldn't help but respond to this dubious post.

All I get from this post is your trying to sound really smart.

 

[Byron Bitz]

Voted Jones but I’m surprised Laine doesn’t have more votes. I don’t think people realize how rare it is for a player to get as many goals as he has in his first couple of seasons.

 

[bert]

I don't actually want to get into the nuts and bolts of what I intended to convey by my post (which is why I concluded with "that is all"), but I felt compelled to respond to this specious monstrosity nonetheless. For one, a statistical argument could absolutely be leveled in favor of Marner over one or more of the players already selected above him (or Rantanen / Jones). But, for another, the criteria for determining "better" can--in the absence of explicit constraints--be sufficiently generic that simply unpacking "better" in a selective fashion could alone support my claim, i.e. without any further evidence (e.g. some type of predictive criteria based on subjective factors like the eye test). You are of course free to your opinion, but your words ring hollow when you essentially assert what you're presumably trying show, with your only evidence taking the form of some unpleasant admixture of an appeal to authority and an ad hominem attack. So while it's possible that objective arguments on aggregate even favour your view, I couldn't help but respond to this dubious post.

I think its pretty clear that you need to backup what you said with something because even most leaf fans wouldnt agree that Marner is a better player than the players you suggested.

 

[Dion TheFluff]

Extremely close! This ones going down to the wire.

 

[Tralfamadore]

I don't actually want to get into the nuts and bolts of what I intended to convey by my post (which is why I concluded with "that is all"), but I felt compelled to respond to this specious monstrosity nonetheless. For one, a statistical argument could absolutely be leveled in favor of Marner over one or more of the players already selected above him (or Rantanen / Jones). But, for another, the criteria for determining "better" can--in the absence of explicit constraints--be sufficiently generic that simply unpacking "better" in a selective fashion could alone support my claim, i.e. without any further evidence (e.g. some type of predictive criteria based on subjective factors like the eye test). You are of course free to your opinion, but your words ring hollow when you essentially assert what you're presumably trying show, with your only evidence taking the form of some unpleasant admixture of an appeal to authority and an ad hominem attack. So while it's possible that objective arguments on aggregate even favour your view, I couldn't help but respond to this dubious post.

K