It has been a little more than eight months since the 2016 NHL draft in Buffalo. Since then, we've had one of the most exciting Calder Trophy races in recent memory between first-overall pick Auston Matthews and second-overall pick Patrik Laine.
Although the debate on who is having the superior season is a captivating one, it's more interesting to focus on the long-term potential of both players. Who will have had the better career when all is said and done?
Why discuss this again? From an evaluator's perspective, I find this debate very fascinating because there are many good and different arguments one could put forward in favor of either player. In fact, one NHL scout polled on the matter responded with "I don't know," a second said "That's not fair," and another said "Nope, not going there."
Let's look at the arguments in favor of each, and offer up a conclusion on which has the higher career projection at the moment.
Arguments for Auston Matthews
Skill level: While both players are very skilled, there is no doubt I prefer Matthews to Laine when I want a player to attempt a zone entry, or be the first to touch the puck on a power play. Matthews' puck skills for a player his size are exceptional. He's very creative, and is able to make highly skilled "hands plays" at a quick pace. Skill wins in the NHL, and very few players in the league have the touch Matthews has.
Shot generation: In the modern era, only a few players had a higher shots-per-game rate than Matthews as a teenager: Bobby Orr, Dale Hawerchuk, Steven Stamkos and Wayne Gretzky. One could be in worse company.
It's important to note that while he was expected to be great out of the gate, this can't be construed as anything but the best-case scenario for Matthews' projection. He looked roughly comparable to Buffalo's Jack Eichel for most of his time as a prospect, but has jumped to a new level in these past six months or so. The volume of chances he has been in on while shooting at over a 10 percent clip is nuts for a 19-year-old.
Position: The center position matters. I find its importance is often overstated just because the best talents tend to play the center position. Correlation doesn't always equal causation.
But there is some value to a player who can competently line up in the middle every night, inherently adding more value to his team than a winger. Hockey Canada's Matt Pfeffer has produced the best attempt at trying to quantify it, and it's roughly a 5 percent bump in value for a center compared to a similarly producing winger. I realize this is a contentious point. A majority of scouts I talk to about this issue almost always give deference to the center if the debate is even remotely close. A minority think the issue is overblown.
Usage: Matthews has often played with Zach Hyman, and split time with William Nylander and Connor Brown as his other linemate. Laine's two most common linemates have been Mark Scheifele and Nikolaj Ehlers, per Hockey Analysis. That's a significant difference in talent level, even though Nylander's time with Matthews buffers it out a little.
To be fair, that doesn't nullify what Laine has done; good linemates don't mean everything. But it is a factor, and Matthews has had to carry a little more weight down the ice in order to score.
Skating: Neither Matthews nor Laine are top-tier skaters, and while I think Laine has shown notable progression in this area, Matthews has held an edge in this area enough to warrant it as a significant factor in comparing the two.
Arguments for Patrik Laine
Shot: Laine's finishing ability has been fantastic. While some modern analysis can be too focused on shots-based statistics, shooting ability is a real talent, albeit tougher to accurately evaluate. Careful observers will note that Laine's shooting percentage last season in Finland's pro league was not as good as it has been this season, potentially pointing to signs of regression on the way.
However, shooting is a highly variable skill, with no 50- to 60-game sample truly capturing it. On a pure scouting level, it is reasonable to project Laine maintaining similar shooting levels to a player such as Stamkos. That doesn't mean 20 percent for his career, but it is quite possible Laine can finish at 15 percent on a perennial basis. So if Laine has a true talent shooting percentage of around 15 percent, and Matthews has a true talent shot of around 11-12 percent, that can offset a big chunk of the shot generation differential between the two.
Age: This is the key part of the argument for putting Laine ahead of Matthews. Specifically, Matthews was born Sept. 17, 1997, and Laine was born Apr. 19, 1998, meaning Matthews has played a full extra season of hockey and is a half-year older than Laine. That matters a lot, as I've explored previously. (And it wasn't so long ago Laine made a point about this, too.) This argument basically asserts that Laine isn't as good as Matthews today, but based on their development curves relative to age, he's expected to pass him shortly.
The age gap might not matter a ton for a 25-year-old vs. a 26-year-old, but it matters a whole lot at those young ages. For recent examples, think of Taylor Hall (late birth date) vs. Tyler Seguin, or Nail Yakupov (late birth date) vs. Alex Galchenyuk. Hall was very good out of the gate, whereas Seguin had to fight for ice time in his first NHL season. But by Seguin's second season, he was a 29-goal scorer and eventually passed Hall. Yakupov was solid as a rookie, and Galchenyuk was at the bottom of Montreal's lineup, but eventually caught and passed Yakupov.
There are counter-examples to these high-profile, top-of-the-draft cases, but in my years of watching prospects, I've observed it to be a critical factor in player evaluations and projections.
Hockey sense: This one is a more difficult argument to make than others, because hockey sense is often a tough area to describe sufficiently. Overall, hockey sense is the most important attribute in any player, but both of these players have great hockey sense. One can quantify hockey sense, but it's a little complex. To start, it's quite abnormal for a player at Laine's age to adjust as quickly as he has to the highest levels of competition.
Hockey sense does not guarantee ice time. Players are played based on a balance of their abilities in the context of their team's lineup and coach's discretion. Players with elite skills across the board would typically get Laine's ice time with average IQ. However, he doesn't have elite skills across the board. He's a mediocre skater with very good but not Patrick Kane-level puck skills. He has great attributes, like his shot and frame, but upon a balancing of all the facts, it would be near impossible for him to be accomplishing what he's doing with his skill set without the highest grade intelligence. It's no surprise that Jets coach Paul Maurice has pointed this out.
Since ice time was first recorded, 16 players have more than 1,000 minutes of ice time in the NHL as an 18-year-old, one of whom is Laine. Without his concussion that knocked him out for a few games, Laine could have ended up the second-most leaned-on 18-year-old ever -- behind Sidney Crosby. Even with the injury, he's poised to finish in the top 10.
We also saw this at the IIHF World Championships last spring. Laine's performance for a player in his age-17 season was matched just once in the modern era, by Jaromir Jagr. Matthews' performance at the event was outstanding too, but there were a few more reasonable data points to compare to for a player in their age-18 season, such as Jack Eichel the season prior.
The decision
If you're in the "too long, didn't read" crowd, here is the crux of the argument: Matthews has been generating insane shot metrics while playing center competently and dragging Zach Hyman around all season. However, Laine has superior finishing ability, and while he has played at a slightly lower level for the season, the age and experience difference between the two players balanced against his raw performance gives reason to suggest Laine could pass Matthews in the near future.
Though I ranked Laine No. 1 overall heading into the draft, I would have taken Matthews in a game on July 1, 2016. A Matthews proponent might counter: When do you stop assuming a Laine jump due to the age factor? It's a fair point, and that time will come soon, but it hasn't yet. Teenagers have a history of being very volatile in their development curve, even the most elite ones, and there is still reason to believe a large jump in performance could be imminent.
The ultimate question is: Who is more unique? Uniqueness in talent profile and performance is what stands out to me in these close calls. The uniqueness factor is what has historically been an indicator of who can separate from the worst-case scenario and trend into the upper echelon of the NHL for a long period of time. In that respect, it's almost a coin flip now, as opposed to a moderate lean to Laine at the time of the draft. Matthews' dominant offensive performance for a 19-year-old center has been quite unique. However, I still lean toward Laine, since a player hasn't followed his development path since perhaps Jagr in the late '80s and early '90s, but arguably longer than that.
There are no guarantees in this business. Matthews or Laine could end up being the best player of this generation. Matthews might also follow a Nathan MacKinnon type of path, where his high rookie shooting percentage craters and he simply looks like a pretty good but not elite center. Laine might never generate enough chances on his own, and see his finishing rate dip down from deity level so that he looks more like Jeff Skinner's projection than Steven Stamkos' or Ilya Kovalchuk's.
But as of today, I stick by my previous position of a mild preference toward Laine in what I'm sure will be fierce disagreement. Let's check back in another year.