I mean some people think the earth is flat. If you calculate all the people in the world who think the earth is flat, you could say "A lot of people think the earth is flat".........

It comes down to what the EXPERTS say. Not random people with no background understanding or real knowledge of the situation.

Virtually 99.9% of experts think he will be good. That's what the consensus is. Not this random group of people you are speaking to. So I'd avoid speaking with those people on these matters from now on as their seems to be nothing to gain from their perspectives on Lafreniere.

Its also important to distinguish what kind of good. Will he be as good as Crosby or McDavid? Based on the experts no he probably will not be. But he has the chops to be as good as others drafted 1st overall before him. He also has the potential to be the next Daigle. But the same could have been said about Hughes or Hischier or Nugent Hopkins. There are more good 1st OV then there are bad ones at the end of the day.

It’s a possibility. Anyone from Boston to Detroit could end up with Laf. There’s a lot of unknowns currently

Yeah I guess you are right man.

Well, Detroit won’t be so happy then cuz they had the highest odds.

Since the amateur draft was established in 1963, there’s been 57 players selected first and more then 20 of them became hall of fame caliber, and from that list there around 5-7 players that didn’t have any success in nhl.
That makes the ratio of success much more higher then the bust ratio. Lafrenière can turn out a bust but he have more chance to become a impact players.

You asked if he was a bust or not. Many people? Who for example?

no is arguing that. But the fact that you are pointing out that a significant portion of them have been busts and not realizing the original point that anyone can become a bust is beyond me.

But how a players that never played a game yet can be viewed as a bust? This post was about that not that players can be bust. And significant portion you mean 7 out of 57 is significant for you ?

Well there was someone who said he’d be the next Yakupov & lots of people were agreeing with him. I think the video got taken down.

WHAT? WHO?

I can’t remember who wrote it but I just found this other guy with the Username Hattrick Kane 88 say:

“Alexis Lafreniere has got to be one of the most overrated players I’ve ever seen. I don’t understand what’s so impressive about the kid. He’s got no speed, no skill, no agility and no creativity. He’s only capable of delivering dirty hits. Nicholas Robertson is way better than him.”

And you took that piece of sarcastic garbage seriously?

Well, not really.

So why not post this as thread called "guys how good is Alexis Lafreniere?"?

Yeah I guess I should’ve worded it differently.

are you saying 12% isn't significant?

I mean anyone who's done any kind of stats would say 12% is significant.

And my comment wasn't about any particular player but the general point was anyone can be a bust. So to think he can't be to is absurd. I'm not commenting on if he is or isn't but that anyone can be.
I also followed it with a who actually says this about player x?

There is no sure thing. Why is that hard for you to accept.

Pasta is a good comparison. He's a guy that can go into corners, play defense, and is a scorer. I think Lafreniere could be a better version than Pasta, he's way more developed at 18 than Pasta was (Pasta didn't play in the SHL, he came over and played in the AHL first, then the NHL. The CHL is a much tougher league than Allsvenskan or SuperElit). Also, Pasta is playing with a premier C in Bergeron, does he get the same results with a lesser C (the numbers suggest he'd be close). Lafreniere is the play driver on his team (not C dependent), he could make a #1C like Larkin, Eichel, significantly better (and take the pressure off them).

I wouldn't use Matthews as a comparison as he's a C.

Considering that after the first pick that number is down to around 40 % for the second pick and around 50% for the third pick yes i would say it not significant. Historically the first round pick have been the one with biggest chance of success. And after the third pick it’s become more of a chance factor.

well considering anyone with a basic math background knows .05 is a significant difference I think I'll stick with things like facts and science.

There also people on those platforms that say the earth is flat, we are being controlled by aliens and Elvis is alive in LA.

Look I have not seen Laffy play, but I trust the scouts and the talking heads to some degree that he is the best player this year.

But drafting players isn’t science or math. It have absolutely nothing to do with that. Theirs no formulas, theorems, charts who predicted hockey futur. You can make statistics but even stats are not 100% proof.

holy F.
that has nothing to do with any of it.
Like 90% of crap statistics are related to don't have anything to do with math!

Go take a stats class or something kid.

If you would have take a stats class you would probably known that the main purpose of statistics are data analysis ( use of data to create a sample and have something concrete to work with and inferential statistics who is use in a more scientific mather. In the case of the draft stats could be use but there a big marging error since the range of data is very wide.

Since you think you’re so smart donyou know that when you take data for a statistics analysis you are supposed to removed from the best and the worst result a % based on the sample you use. I rather be a kid then a pretentious dude who probably have no social life and who feel the need to insult people aince he have absolutely no self esteem.

I agree it will never happen and I don't think any one is this conversation thinks it will. It's turned into a debate of Lafreniere value.