So the debate begins: Matthews vs. Laine

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Joe Thornton - 82 Points this season.

Averaged 74 a season the past three years.

Before this season, the top 30 pivots in the league produced between 55 and 86 points in all situations.

Thornton is in the upper echelon still, even though he might not be what he once was.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

If you like Auston Matthews, and you like Ray Ferraro, you might enjoy listening to Ray gush about Matthews again today, fast forward to about 5:30 in:

http://www.tsn.ca/radio/toronto-1050/ferraro-matthews-performance-at-worlds-has-sealed-him-as-no-1-pick-1.488695

Among his many comments: "I would say the difference between Laine and Matthews is greater than the difference between Laine and Puljujarvi".

 

[rdowdall]

If you like Auston Matthews, and you like Ray Ferraro, you might enjoy listening to Ray gush about Matthews again today, fast forward to about 5:30 in:

http://www.tsn.ca/radio/toronto-1050/ferraro-matthews-performance-at-worlds-has-sealed-him-as-no-1-pick-1.488695

Among his many comments: "I would say the difference between Laine and Matthews is greater than the difference between Laine and Puljujarvi".

What if I like Matthews but don't like Ray Ferraro?  Or I like Ray Ferraro and I like Laine?  Or I love Puljujarvi, hate Ray Ferraro, am indifferent Matthews, and don't know who Laine is?

What if I love Matthews, but I'm not in love with Matthews?

 

[Highlander]

If you like Auston Matthews, and you like Ray Ferraro, you might enjoy listening to Ray gush about Matthews again today, fast forward to about 5:30 in:

http://www.tsn.ca/radio/toronto-1050/ferraro-matthews-performance-at-worlds-has-sealed-him-as-no-1-pick-1.488695

Among his many comments: "I would say the difference between Laine and Matthews is greater than the difference between Laine and Puljujarvi".

What if I like Matthews but don't like Ray Ferraro?  Or I like Ray Ferraro and I like Laine?  Or I love Puljujarvi, hate Ray Ferraro, am indifferent Matthews, and don't know who Laine is?

What if I love Matthews, but I'm not in love with Matthews?

Den U R 1 confused Dude

 

[rdowdall]

If you like Auston Matthews, and you like Ray Ferraro, you might enjoy listening to Ray gush about Matthews again today, fast forward to about 5:30 in:

http://www.tsn.ca/radio/toronto-1050/ferraro-matthews-performance-at-worlds-has-sealed-him-as-no-1-pick-1.488695

Among his many comments: "I would say the difference between Laine and Matthews is greater than the difference between Laine and Puljujarvi".

What if I like Matthews but don't like Ray Ferraro?  Or I like Ray Ferraro and I like Laine?  Or I love Puljujarvi, hate Ray Ferraro, am indifferent Matthews, and don't know who Laine is?

What if I love Matthews, but I'm not in love with Matthews?

Den U R 1 confused Dude

It's not my fault that Heroic Shrimp didn't handle all the conditional branches.

 

[Zee]

If you like Auston Matthews, and you like Ray Ferraro, you might enjoy listening to Ray gush about Matthews again today, fast forward to about 5:30 in:

http://www.tsn.ca/radio/toronto-1050/ferraro-matthews-performance-at-worlds-has-sealed-him-as-no-1-pick-1.488695

Among his many comments: "I would say the difference between Laine and Matthews is greater than the difference between Laine and Puljujarvi".

From everything I've heard, Matthews seems to be the more complete player at the moment.  Complete meaning he can play both ends of the ice, has really good hockey sense, all that good stuff.  While Laine might be the more explosive offensive player in terms of goal scoring, but has defensive deficiencies in his game at the moment (which is to be expected from many 18 year olds).  In any event, I'm looking forward to Matthews in a Leafs uniform come October.


Edit: just listened to Ferraro talking about Matthews.  I have to admit, it moved.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

I'm also not sure that Matthews is a once-in-a-blue-moon centre.  He is probably in the same camp as the Seguin, Toews, Stamkos, Tavares, Eichel which is the really good, bonafide first line center camp, but not the Crosby, McDavid camp. 

I imagine, when people refer to scarcity regarding Matthews, it's less about him being in the absolute upper echelon, but, rather, in the scarcity in opportunities teams have to acquire bonafide first line Cs. There are only so many out there at any give time, and that number is usually smaller than the number of teams in the league.

Agreed.  I find that the hype around Matthews may be getting peoples expectations out of proportion to the player that he is likely to become.  He's probably not a player that is going to win multiple Art Ross trophies or the Maurice Richard trophy.  He's a player though that you can point to and say "there is the Leafs 1C for the next 10 years." 

In general though, deciding that a player is a 1C is a hard thing to quantify.  For example, is Niklas Backstrom a first line center?  Is Bergeron or Kreici?  Is Toews for that matter.  Each one of those centers brings something different to the table.  Some teams, it's just the best center of the group.

Backstrom - Yes.  He's Top 15 in the League bar-none, even if alot of his offense comes on the PP instead of at 5v5.  He's pretty good defensively too.
Bergeron - Yes.  One of the TOP 3 Centers defensively and still puts up respectable offense.
Krejci - No.  He's a good 2nd line center IMO. 
Toews - Do I even have to answer that?  He's Top 5 in the NHL, bar none.


Here's my list of the Top 20 Center's in the NHL and you can decide at what point you'd stop labeling them True Bonafide #1 Centers:

Crosby
Toews
McDavid
Tavares
Malkin
Stamkos
Getzlaf (falling quickly)
Kopitar
Seguin
Backstrom

Bergeron
Pavelski
Giroux
Johansen
Johnson (Tyler)
Thornton
Couture
Backes
Nugent-Hopkins
Sedin

Btw, my list probably stops at Tyler Johnson and I'm on the fence with him.  Duchene, MacKinnon, Barkov, Eichel, and Schieffle are all knocking on the door.  Door has closed on Datsyuk and Zetterberg and is coming up quick on Sedin and Thornton from my Top 20 list. 

Goes to show there aren't many in the league and when you have a chance to draft one, you probably shouldn't turn it down.  Unless, you know, we have been tampering and have Stamkos already committed to us.

What strikes me most about that list is how few of the top centres in the league have played for more than one team.

If you want an elite centre, you almost certainly have to draft him.  Or, it appears, to persuade Boston to give him to you.

 

[Kin]

 
What strikes me most about that list is how few of the top centres in the league have played for more than one team.

If you want an elite centre, you almost certainly have to draft him.  Or, it appears, to persuade Boston to give him to you.

The thing about that list for me though is that it doesn't really seem like there's that strong of a connection between doing really well and how a team does on that list. Pittsburgh, which has two guys in the top 10 of just about anyone's list, hasn't been a freight train of success. San Jose, which has three guys on that list, hasn't been particularly more successful than St. Louis who might have the weakest entry on the list in Backes.

Conversely, the Blackhawks and Kings have won the last 12 Stanley Cups or whatever it is with one guy each there(although Jeff Carter probably deserves to be mentioned) and personally I think Kopitar and Toews are both probably more top 10 than they are top 5.

Which I think speaks to something I've thought for a while. Successful teams these days aren't really built more around Centers than they are around any other position. The successful teams are teams that have a bunch of good players at different positions, full stop. You don't want to be weak at center obviously but good teams aren't really weak anywhere and for all the talk about how Toronto has been "desperate" for a #1 center I really don't think any of the teams the Leafs have put together over the last 10 years have been really great teams that were only held back by the lack of a great center. They sucked for various reasons.

So I don't know if I'm on board the "Matthews over Laine because Centers are inherently more valuable" train but I do think a good case can be made that the Leafs need a Center more and that should win the day.

 

[rdowdall]

 
What strikes me most about that list is how few of the top centres in the league have played for more than one team.

If you want an elite centre, you almost certainly have to draft him.  Or, it appears, to persuade Boston to give him to you.

The thing about that list for me though is that it doesn't really seem like there's that strong of a connection between doing really well and how a team does on that list. Pittsburgh, which has two guys in the top 10 of just about anyone's list, hasn't been a freight train of success. San Jose, which has three guys on that list, hasn't been particularly more successful than St. Louis who might have the weakest entry on the list in Backes.

Conversely, the Blackhawks and Kings have won the last 12 Stanley Cups or whatever it is with one guy each there(although Jeff Carter probably deserves to be mentioned) and personally I think Kopitar and Toews are both probably more top 10 than they are top 5.

Which I think speaks to something I've thought for a while. Successful teams these days aren't really built more around Centers than they are around any other position. The successful teams are teams that have a bunch of good players at different positions, full stop. You don't want to be weak at center obviously but good teams aren't really weak anywhere and for all the talk about how Toronto has been "desperate" for a #1 center I really don't think any of the teams the Leafs have put together over the last 10 years have been really great teams that were only held back by the lack of a great center. They sucked for various reasons.

So I don't know if I'm on board the "Matthews over Laine because Centers are inherently more valuable" train but I do think a good case can be made that the Leafs need a Center more and that should win the day.

I think that's the real goal.  Structure a team so that you have multiple go to players.  L.A. has players like Kopitar, Doughty, Quick, each one of which can take over a game.  Chicago has Keith, Kane, Toews.  You need multiple players that have the ability to win a game for a team.  In general those players are marked as #1C or #1D or first line wingers, because, well they are supremely talented.

Which goes back to your original point of taking Laine over Matthews.  If you think that Laine is the better player, then I think you have to take him, because at the end of the day, better players usually come out on top. 

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

America up 3-0 on Hungary today, it's the third period right now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0O5-_C14L8

If you have a VPN you can watch the IIHF youtube stream above.

 

[Coco-puffs]

 
What strikes me most about that list is how few of the top centres in the league have played for more than one team.

If you want an elite centre, you almost certainly have to draft him.  Or, it appears, to persuade Boston to give him to you.

The thing about that list for me though is that it doesn't really seem like there's that strong of a connection between doing really well and how a team does on that list. Pittsburgh, which has two guys in the top 10 of just about anyone's list, hasn't been a freight train of success. San Jose, which has three guys on that list, hasn't been particularly more successful than St. Louis who might have the weakest entry on the list in Backes.

Conversely, the Blackhawks and Kings have won the last 12 Stanley Cups or whatever it is with one guy each there(although Jeff Carter probably deserves to be mentioned) and personally I think Kopitar and Toews are both probably more top 10 than they are top 5.

Which I think speaks to something I've thought for a while. Successful teams these days aren't really built more around Centers than they are around any other position. The successful teams are teams that have a bunch of good players at different positions, full stop. You don't want to be weak at center obviously but good teams aren't really weak anywhere and for all the talk about how Toronto has been "desperate" for a #1 center I really don't think any of the teams the Leafs have put together over the last 10 years have been really great teams that were only held back by the lack of a great center. They sucked for various reasons.

So I don't know if I'm on board the "Matthews over Laine because Centers are inherently more valuable" train but I do think a good case can be made that the Leafs need a Center more and that should win the day.

Jeff Carter came very close to being near the bottom of that list.  Still not a true bonafide #1 center, but close.

And you are exactly right about successful teams having great players in all positions, not just down the middle.  You pointed to San Jose and Pittsburgh as teams with multiple top centers, but not a whole lot of success.  Goaltending and a strong top 4 D is what those teams have been missing.  Sure, those teams have Burns/Vlasic and Letang/Maata, but their defensive depth falls off pretty quick or hasn't been consistent.

We are a ways away from having that strength, specifically on Defense and in Goal.  I like the look of our forwards- we will have three very good lines in the very near future (ie, in 2-3 years):

JvR - Matthews - Marner
Hyman - Nylander - Brown
Komarov - Kadri - Soshnikov

(Other options on the wing:  Kapanen, Lindberg, Timashov, Johnson)

 

[hockeyfan1]

Corey Pronman  ‎@coreypronman
Most points (5) by a U18 in Laine at a single World Championship in 25 years (Jagr). All-time is 6 points.

...Laine...tied the record set by Jaroslav Drobny in 1939, and he did so in four fewer games. In the modern era, the record is (was) held by Jaromir Jagr, who
had five points in 10 games. Laine took just two games to better those totals.

To refresh:

Chris Nichols ‎@NicholsOnHockey
McKenzie: A number of teams have told me their European scouts - all season long, not just playoffs - have had Laine ahead of Matthews.

The contest between Finland and the United States on May 9, which featured both young players, did not feature them at their best. Matthews didn?t generate much offense, though he did put up an assist, and while we did get to see Laine?s impressive shot on the power play, he saw very little ice time in the third period.

According to the most current stats, re: 2016 IIHF Mwn's World Hockey Championship:  Laine (Finland)    4G  3A  7Pts.
                      Matthews (USA)  2G  2A  4Pts.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Well there's more that goes into being successful than simply having a top C - you obviously need a good supporting cast but you also need to have some luck.  Playoff results can be pretty random but I would still consider teams like Pittsburgh to have been pretty consistently a Cup contender.  They've had their top players injured a lot too, and sometimes their goaltending decides to jump off a cliff.  Some things you can control, some you can't, but all of the recent successful teams have a top C. 

I would put Kopitar and Toews in the top 8 or so.  But it depends on what you think makes a top C - some of those top C will out produce others but they won't be as good at both ends of the ice.  Someone like Kopitar (or Bergeron) is a possession beast and I would argue a significant portion of that is due to being elite defensively.  I think if your choice is between a C who is elite offensively but not defensively, or vice versa, you go with the more defensively responsible one (presumably they would still be above average offensively).

 

[Kin]

Well there's more that goes into being successful than simply having a top C - you obviously need a good supporting cast but you also need to have some luck.  Playoff results can be pretty random but I would still consider teams like Pittsburgh to have been pretty consistently a Cup contender.  They've had their top players injured a lot too, and sometimes their goaltending decides to jump off a cliff.  Some things you can control, some you can't, but all of the recent successful teams have a top C. 

Welll, sort of. Like I said, successful teams have good players. So yeah, all recent successful teams have good C's but they also have good wingers and good defensemen and usually good goaltending.

Are there exceptions to all of those though? Yup. But that includes Centers. It's pretty generous to list Backes as a "top" Center but the Blues have been pretty successful over the last few years. Over the last 6 years the Rangers have made 3 conference finals and one Cup finals and their top C was....Derek Stepan? Brassard? A past-his-prime Brad Richards?

 

[Frank E]

Button says Leafs take Matthews:

http://www.tsn.ca/leafs-still-take-matthews-in-latest-mock-draft-1.489187

Button says so, so lock the thread.  Debate over. 

 

[cabber24]

Button says Leafs take Matthews:

http://www.tsn.ca/leafs-still-take-matthews-in-latest-mock-draft-1.489187

Button says so, so lock the thread.  Debate over.

Agreed.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Button says Leafs take Matthews:

http://www.tsn.ca/leafs-still-take-matthews-in-latest-mock-draft-1.489187

Button says so, so lock the thread.  Debate over. 

I don't know about that man. I mean, yeah, on the one hand Button is terrible, but his opinion on this alone isn't enough to make me think we should definitely pick Laine.

 

[bustaheims]

Button says Leafs take Matthews:

http://www.tsn.ca/leafs-still-take-matthews-in-latest-mock-draft-1.489187

Button says so, so lock the thread.  Debate over. 

I don't know about that man. I mean, yeah, on the one hand Button is terrible, but his opinion on this alone isn't enough to make me think we should definitely pick Laine.

I gonna file this one under "Broken Clock." Button's awful, but even he's not always wrong.

 

[Heroic Shrimp]

So I don't know if I'm on board the "Matthews over Laine because Centers are inherently more valuable" train but I do think a good case can be made that the Leafs need a Center more and that should win the day.

I'm at the very least on board the "Matthews over Laine because top centers are almost impossible to acquire outside of the draft" train, besides the fact that the Leafs unquestionably need a center more.

 

[Kin]

I'm at the very least on board the "Matthews over Laine because top centers are almost impossible to acquire outside of the draft" train, besides the fact that the Leafs unquestionably need a center more.

Again, I don't know that if you put together a similar list of wingers there'd be a huge difference in how their teams acquired them but provided we're pretty sure Nylander and Marner are wing-bound then, yeah, the Leafs need a Center more.