There is a great debate between favoring Auston Matthews and favoring Patrik Laine as the top overall prospect in the 2016 draft class, and in crafting my top 100 rankings for the class, I landed on Laine.
This decision is not some knee-jerk recency bias. I wrote back in January that the first overall pick was a coin flip, which is something I maintain.
Even though I did not make the argument for Laine at first overall in the class a year ago, one could have made a reasonable argument dating back to the 2015 IIHF under-18 championship, and that idea has continued to gain momentum throughout this season, as Laine has maintained that high level of excellence. I didn't have Laine in the top five last summer, but that was due to overly conservative hedging and wanting to wait for a larger sample, after Laine looked like an elite guy in the under-18 tournament.
Some might argue that if nearly the entire hockey community has said Matthews is the top guy, why not just be safe? Are you just trying to be different or controversial? My job is not to worry about perception but to give my opinion based on my evaluation process. I have gone through this process rigorously and thought about this call for about six months. I've gone back and forth and do consider this call a near coin flip.
However, I'm going with Laine at No. 1, and here's why.
Tools
To illustrate this section, I will use the 20-80 scale commonly seen in baseball. Some NHL teams have adopted various versions of this scale (I've seen different teams use 30-90 or 10-70, for example). Using this scale, a 50 means the player projects as NHL average, 60 is among the top third of the league, 70 is among the very best, and 80 is generational; at the other end, 40 is at the fringe of the league, and anything below that is not NHL-caliber.
The following table includes the top two prospects from this draft and some top forward prospects from previous drafts:
On a tools basis, here is how I see things: Matthews is a much better skater than Laine, he has better puck skills, and he is better defensively. Laine is smarter, has a much better shot and is much better physically. That doesn't mean either of these players is poor in any of these areas; it is about relative differences.
Centers are more valuable than wingers, so that creates a tilt to Matthews. The common argument is that if it's close, take the center, and I don't disagree with that.
Some might look at how the tools line up and say it's a push, but I disagree. I see a slight to moderate lean to Laine just because of how elite his hockey sense is. I think great players are built on IQ. Laine is always around the puck and winning the puck, and he always seems to find himself in position for a scoring chance. When you add an elite shot and a 6-foot-4 frame, it gives the edge to Laine, even if he doesn't have the speed and touch of Matthews. Given that slight to moderate gap and adjusting for the position, especially given that Matthews is better defensively, it's almost a coin flip for me, but I go with Laine for this next reason.
Age difference
The difference in age and playing experience matters. Some might roll their eyes at the assertion that seven months can be significant, but it is when players are this young. When you research the standard of excellence for an under-18 player versus that of an under-19 player, it's a significant difference. When we looked at similar CHL players, production-wise, the difference between late September birthday players, such as Matthews, and April birthday players, such as Laine, was a nearly 100 percent difference in production in the NHL.
As a player who is nearly a full year older and who has a full extra season of hockey experience, Matthews can't just be going tit-for-tat with Laine. He has to be substantially better. I think he has been better this season. From league play to the IIHF World Junior Championship to the World Championships, I believe Matthews has been slightly better -- but that's not enough. The aforementioned gap between under-18 and under-19 players, and the historic trends they follow, have taught me the gap needs to be bigger. When you try to find players who have looked like Laine at his age, there are nearly none. Maybe Jaromir Jagr? Maybe Alex Ovechkin?
Those are obviously very best-case scenarios for Laine's projection, but the main point is that Laine has looked unique: unique in how he plays, unique in how he generates so many shots versus pros, unique in how he can be a quality player on a good World Championship team right around the time he loses his status as a minor. These unique traits are what pull me in the direction of Laine as the top prospect.
High floor vs. high ceiling
There are legitimate counterpoints, and I would not fault any team for preferring Matthews. There are risks with Laine. Laine's lack of complete game and Matthews' extra season of proving himself -- and doing so at an extremely high level -- lower the risk on his projection. He could be one of the game's best players and a centerpiece center for a decade.
But I think Laine at the very least has a chance to be something special, and I'd almost always take a chance on special.
Put another way, this will come down to a team's appetite for risk and whether the team would prefer the player with a higher floor (Matthews) or the one with a higher ceiling (Laine).