Elite NHL Defencemen vs Forwards

[Canadiens1958]

This is a long overdue discussion brought to the top given comments in other threads combined with the growing accessibility to NHL data - historic and from the present season.

Given the respective time on ice, is an elite NHL defenceman worth more to a team than an elite forward.

Examples.Ray Bourque vs Mark Messier, Doug Harvey vs Jean Beliveau, etc.

Click to read more...

 

[quoipourquoi]

I think any advantage to time-on-ice would be off-set by the more direct influence someone in a primary offensive role has on the scoreboard. Having said that, I don't know that top-line defensemen are necessarily better conditioned than top-line forwards to play extra time, so much as it is the nature of the position itself that results in the allocation of extra minutes. For instance, if a star forward was given 30 minutes, he may not necessarily complain, but he may exert himself similarly to how a star defenseman exerts himself in order to run more of a marathon than a sprint.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

a lot for me depends on how much does the defenseman contribute offensively.

for example, I take Bourque over Messier because the gap in offense between the 2 is far less than the benefit of Bourque's defense and additional TOI.

but, I would take a prime Crosby over a prime Lidstrom because the gap on offense too big to overcome.

Bourque/Messier is 1.12 ppg vs 0.98 ppg
Lidstrom/Crosby is 1.29 ppg vs 0.73 ppg

 

[K Fleur]

Depends on the forward position.

I think it’s much more probable for an elite center to be more “valuable” than an elite defenseman, as opposed to an elite winger being more valuable than an elite defenseman.

Of course there are exceptions.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Interesting points so far.

Initially - one unit with subs there was no perceivable TOI difference unless injuries were a factor.

Contributing ofensively and the distribution of scoring points is not the same. Drew Doughty, Anze Kopitar or the new coach John Stevens. Who is responsible for the over 15% increase in Kings scoring? Only one or a combination of the three?

Elite forward is very hard to rotate thru four lines. Elite defenceman is easy to rotate thru four lines. Elite defenceman makes more skaters better.

 

[ESH]

I think any advantage to time-on-ice would be off-set by the more direct influence someone in a primary offensive role has on the scoreboard. Having said that, I don't know that top-line defensemen are necessarily better conditioned than top-line forwards to play extra time, so much as it is the nature of the position itself that results in the allocation of extra minutes. For instance, if a star forward was given 30 minutes, he may not necessarily complain, but he may exert himself similarly to how a star defenseman exerts himself in order to run more of a marathon than a sprint.

This is a great way to put it. I think its easier to play more minutes at defense than it is at forward, if you’re skating hard every shift as a forward. Forwards are often leading the rush more than defensemen, who can stay behind and and glide up. Forwards also have to backcheck hard, whereas defensemen should be back already in position to defend a rush coming back. As someone who plays defense I find that I simply have to keep up with the pace, while forwards have to skate in faster bursts more often.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

This is a great way to put it. I think its easier to play more minutes at defense than it is at forward, if you’re skating hard every shift as a forward. Forwards are often leading the rush more than defensemen, who can stay behind and and glide up. Forwards also have to backcheck hard, whereas defensemen should be back already in position to defend a rush coming back. As someone who plays defense I find that I simply have to keep up with the pace, while forwards have to skate in faster bursts more often.

on average, makes perfect sense.

question then becomes how do you account for the 2 way defensemen like a Bourque, Orr, Coffey, Karlsson that probably do as much skating as a forward does while having the higher TOI? Those guys are as involved and active in the offensive zone as the forwards are, and have the defensive workload, vs the more traditional defender that stays out near the points.

 

[overg]

This is a long overdue discussion brought to the top given comments in other threads combined with the growing accessibility to NHL data - historic and from the present season.

Given the respective time on ice, is an elite NHL defenceman worth more to a team than an elite forward.

Examples.Ray Bourque vs Mark Messier, Doug Harvey vs Jean Beliveau, etc.

It's certainly an interesting subject that merits some careful thought and debate. One issue that I think has to be carefully defined, is

1. are we talking about a direct comparison as to which player has the most objective value in a game, or

2. are we talking about an "above replacement value", as to which player is more valuable at his position.


By way of an example,it's often said that goalie is the most important position in hockey. Even if we accept that as true (and it's certainly something that could be debated), that doesn't mean every 1st overall pick should be a goalie.

 

[Canadiens1958]

It's certainly an interesting subject that merits some careful thought and debate. One issue that I think has to be carefully defined, is

1. are we talking about a direct comparison as to which player has the most objective value in a game, or

2. are we talking about an "above replacement value", as to which player is more valuable at his position.


By way of an example,it's often said that goalie is the most important position in hockey. Even if we accept that as true (and it's certainly something that could be debated), that doesn't mean every 1st overall pick should be a goalie.

Goalies since the introduction of the two goalie system do not play every game. 65 + seems to be optimum.

Not talking value but impact during a game, the ability to make the rest of the team better.

 

[Thenameless]

Yes, I like the very specific answers so far. Let's put team needs aside, and try to put this in a vacuum as best we can.

A team needs to both score goals and prevent goals in order to win a hockey game. So, now we have to make a philosophical assumption and answer the following question. Is it more valuable to score a goal, or to prevent a goal? I think, in simplest terms, it is slightly more valuable to score a goal, and one of the reasons is that you cannot win a game with a score of zero-zero. The winner has to score.

But, like anything else, there is no black-and-white but instead a massive area with different shades of grey. No player is a 100 at scoring goals and a zero at stopping goals, and likewise no player is a zero at scoring goals and a 100 at stopping goals - not even a goalie. You still have to assess each pair on their own: Langway or Gartner? Messier or Bourque? Jimmy Watson or Jimmy Carson?

In the end, after going in circles chasing my tail, I don't think a value can be arbitrarily assigned. For me, it would still come down to some kind of an inwardly biased preference where sometimes I'd take the more defensive guy, and sometimes I'd take the more offensive guy.

 

[Killion]

Given the respective time on ice, is an elite NHL defenceman worth more to a team than an elite forward.

Most assuredly. When you look back, go back through time, the most consistently successful teams in the history of the game are those who play responsibly defensively, are disciplined, having elite talent on the blue line with complimentary 2 way forwards & centers up-front concerned with 2 way play. Either an Elite Defenceman or a combination of two excellent & complimentary Defenceman, the two parts (like Horton & Stanley for eg) creating a greater sum whole.... Orr of course...if really blessed, Montreal's Big 4 of the 70's.... Savard & Robinson etc.... Harvey in the 50's....

The only exception to this rule or anomaly being the Oilers of the mid 80's, a team that arrived at just the right juncture in time, the game in white hot flux, breakdown of former dogma & precepts that they were able to opportunistically take advantage of.... the Gretzky factor. Even at that however, one would be remiss, disrespectful to the Oilers to suggest "it was all Gretzky". They had some serious depth, excellent 2 way forwards, outstanding & solid stay at home Defencemen as well.

But still, a once every 100 years player (if even that), total phenomena.... right place right time.... that is the only time in the history of the game that an elite forward was worth more than an elite defenceman in terms of team success. The Flyers of 74&75 another interesting case study however even there, you had a team fully committed to defensive play without any really outstanding elite Defenceman on the blue-line, but none the less, the sum whole better than the individual parts; of one mind. To shut down the oppositions top lines. Its top forward. An argument could also be made for Mario Lemieux & the Penguins though again there, depth after that first, top line; some solid reliable guys, some offensive juggernauts on the back end.

 

[Killion]

Yes, I like the very specific answers so far. Let's put team needs aside, and try to put this in a vacuum as best we can.

A team needs to both score goals and prevent goals in order to win a hockey game. So, now we have to make a philosophical assumption and answer the following question. Is it more valuable to score a goal, or to prevent a goal? I think, in simplest terms, it is slightly more valuable to score a goal, and one of the reasons is that you cannot win a game with a score of zero-zero. The winner has to score.

I'm sure yov heard the expression or saying, "hockey is a game of mistakes, individually & collectively, whichever team makes the fewest mistakes wins" yes?... Goals are only scored when mistakes are made. A series of sometimes tactical, but most often mental & defensive errors, the last goat on the list being the goalie. Key word is defensive. You dont want to make any mistakes as a Winger, a Center, a Defenceman nor a Goalie, the game all about Defence & Puck Possession, forcing turnovers, forcing your opponent into a position in which he'll be forced to make a mistake & cough up the puck.

On offence, through wit, guile & so on, try & fake, get the Defender to make a mistake, get him to commit early then do the unexpected. Serious offensive skill is innate. Born with it. Seriously elite Defensive skills same but a constant learning process. But first & foremost; Defence First. Just how many Wayne Gretzkys do you think are out there... waiting to hatch? These freak shows of 99, of Esposito, total anomalies. Perfect storm situations for these guys, the game itself being buffeted by the winds of change externally as well as internally. Hockey is & always has been a game of Defence, of Defence First. Thats why an elite Defenceman trumps an elite forward any day, in any era with the exclusion, brief window of Grtetzkys reign in Edmonton.

 

[Big Phil]

It all depends, but if you take two pretty equal players in Beliveau vs. Harvey then that is quite the argument. It is one that many of us have had when discussing who had the better impact on the 1950s dynasty. I don't know if there is a wrong answer with that one.

In general, it is believed that Potvin was the glue and the most important Isle during their dynasty.

But there is no way Coffey is the most important Oiler. Robinson isn't the most important Hab. Kelly isn't the most important Red Wing. That is Gretzky, Lafleur and Howe respectively because their offense accounts for more than what their star defensemen gave overall.

With Bourque and Messier it is pretty close actually and we can look to 1990 as a good example. We still debate that Hart Trophy. It was Messier at his best and it was Bourque with possibly his best year too (although he had 3-4 of them just like it).

I think with these things it is more of a case by case basis. But if I were to start my team and had to choose between Bourque or Messier............it's Bourque.

 

[Boxscore]

Build from the nets out.

 

[Killion]

Build from the nets out.

... what Ive always done, kids these days.... hard time about it, old school. Dont care.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Goalies since the introduction of the two goalie system do not play every game. 65 + seems to be optimum.

Not talking value but impact during a game, the ability to make the rest of the team better.

I've always felt that an elite #1 defenseman can mask a lot of other weaknesses that a team may have. For this reason, I would go with that option.

Even when the substitutions/use of two forward lines became common, we still had 60-minute defensemen. Most notably Eddie Shore. The elite forward (Morenz) was remembered as the more spectacular of the two players, but the value of the extra ice time a defender could handle was exemplified by Shore's Hart Trophies.

An elite forward can be strategically countered more conventionally. Either by his counterpart on the opposing line, or by an opposing defenseman. Countering an elite defenseman requires a more innovative approach.