First you say "so what" if Laine was injured and even dragged out examples to prove a point of that having no effect on development and now you are proclaiming that it might be a factor after all. Seems to me you have some trouble deciding or you just go along and come up with stuff whether or not it has any actual value in regards to context. Furthermore, what on earth do Galchenyuk, Rielly, Nolan etc have to do with this? They got injured and most likely the injuries had effect on their progress, while likely the actual impact depending how far they were into their respective careers. Look at Nolan for example, if he actually was able to stay healthy and develop normally, I think he would have been the sure thing #1 pick of the draft as he was touted for long ago. Instead he's been on an injury-spree that has dropped his stocks big time. He only enforces the point so good work bringing it up. That said, I wasn't referring to single injuries but consistent missed out back-to-back off-seasons while being at ages of 15-18. You know, the years that are arguably the most crucial what comes to player development? I'd might have expected a reply like "sure but the difference isn't that much" but at the very first post you basically proclaimed these as a non-factor, which to me defies the common logic to it's very foundations and it makes me wonder whether the replies was more bound to bias or just lack on understanding how teenagers become hockey players.
I have no frigging idea what this even means:
"He doesn't just have to get better than he was last year, he has to catch up and improve on other peoples improvments."
I think you are missing the point here. Yes, Matthews will always remain 7 months older and Laine could still remain behind come next season. What I/we are arguing, is that he has a higher ceiling, which means he should bypass Matthews as a hockey player. That doesn't mean it has to happen within a year, but rather eventually, anywhere from one year to five years (by then the age has become a non-factor). The meaning of the 7 months age cap will diminish the further on we go. I have not proclaimed that Laine will with 100% certainty reach that ceiling, yet if he does, he'll be the better of the two.
Matthews being better at board game is the result of being physically more polished and having more overall strength to wrestle. Marner on the other hand plays a different game and while he may be good at getting puck out of the walls, he's not the type that actually engages on the physical game as much. Also I think Laine had trouble using his long stick in tight spots. I noticed as much as well. He'll figure it out. Both of the other two were already more accustomed to NA rinks while Laine had practically zero experience so he had to adjust. That played a part no doubt and cannot be factored out either. It seems to come so natural from you to compare Leafs prospects to others while ignoring the age factor/benefit (Marner being over a year older and Matthews 7 months).
I asked you plain out "would Matthews have scored 40 goals in the rookie season if he was at the same age as Laine while entering the NHL" and I even pointed out the fact that he was playing in the Switzerland at the time just to clarify and get the "honest" and accurate answer. You said it made no difference and that he would have done it just the same. Now your talking about pro-league experience and what not, while also changing the stance/answer at the same time. You didn't only correspond to the injury related argument (of whether it does or doesn't have effect on development) but also the "would Matthews have been the same player while scoring the same amount of goals at Laine's age". It seems like your just typing whatever replies without putting any thought into it (basically writing what you'd like to hear/believe), then later on when confronted, altering the storyline to match up the reality.
Seriously, when getting multitude of different answers given the same questions, I'm wondering if the questions themselves are too complicated or what's the root source of the variations? Please, feel free to elaborate.
Oh lord.. Ok here is what I am saying. The question is who has a higher ceiling? Sure, well considering they are the same draft year, the best place to start at is "who is currently the better player".
The question when asked to all other than a 10 person fan club and 1 "neutral observer" who hates everything Leafs is Matthews. Auston Matthews was a consensus better player in 2016, and 2017. The most logical starting point here is that he will continue to be the better player, with the potential for change due to mitigating circumstances. That's where you come in. Because all Laine/jets fans (because they are different) have is "what if", when leaf fans and the hockey world have "what is". Auston Matthews is currently and has been a better player than Laine in the past.
Laineatics used to argue that he would be better than Matthews last year. Didn't happen, so then we shift the goal post to higher ceiling in the future. Again there is no objective reasoning as to why this would be, or evidence to back up what is a higher ceiling, just that you really want it to be true. So now we use "improvement rate" arguing that although Matthews is the better player now, and has been considered to be so for years, Laine is improving faster, and therefore will overtake him.
The problem with this is that you have no idea whether he is actually improving faster than Matthews, or other players in general. That is the point. You didn't watch Matthews at 15-16, you don't know how much he improved. You didn't watch other people with horrific injuries (rielly in junior) to see how well they improved or bounced back. You can't compare the improvement rates coming back from an injury and assume that they are linear (they aren't or else he would have gotten better as the year went on) or if they are faster than other players. You are assuming that since he had injuries (which many players have in pre-draft years) and he bounced back quickly, this is unique to him, and he has a higher improvement rate than other players. You have NO evidence of this.
Put Simply. Car #34 is currently ahead in a race. Car 29 is behind but accelerating. You are assuming that car 29 will pass 34, because it is gaining speed. BUT you don't know how fast car 34 is also increasing, so thats just foolish.
As for the ridiculous example about the NLA and whatever you are talking about. My thoughts are
1.) professional experience matters. Playing in the WCH and WHC and a pro men's league matters. Those experiences helped Matthews, so if he did not have those experiences, I don't think that he would have done as well. BUT if he had those experiences 7 months earlier, that would not change anything.
2.) Professional experience matters for laine too. Playing in the WCH and WHC and a pro mens league helped him too. If he did not have those experiences I don't think he would have done as well, even if he entered the league 7 months later.
I tried to answer your questions, but I don't know what is going on in your fantasy land. Heck if we give laine rocket boots and let him shoot the puck out of a cannon, he might be better. But in the real world, where both players are in the same draft year and have had similar experiences in their D and D1 years, Matthews has clearly been better.
