Campbell was not the driving player
this notion of Campbell carrying or even being better than Ekblad is absolute nonsense. Anyone who watches them play can see that. Ekblad was the reason Campbell looked good not the other way around.
Campbell was not the driving player
this notion of Campbell carrying or even being better than Ekblad is absolute nonsense. Anyone who watches them play can see that. Ekblad was the reason Campbell looked good not the other way around.
tony d
New poll series coming from me on June 3
Ajacied
Stay strong Appie! ❤
Funny how Ekblad is still perceived as the better player in comparison to Klingberg, ever since their rookie seasons.
Only at HF..
Only at HF..
dbhislife
Registered User
- Jun 27, 2007
- 1,409
- 173
No.... your argument is the one that is flawed. By definition, a #1 defensemen is a defensemen who, with perfectly parity, would be the top defensemen on his team. There has to be 30, just like there has to be 30 #1 (i.e. starting) goalies in the league. Its the same with fantasy sports. Its why TMB refers to #11 and #12 as his low-end RB1s.
The metric for what that is might change, i.e. we can say that the #1 Centers today are (on average) weaker han the #1 Centers of 2000 if we want. But there still has to be 30. The quality can just fluctuate.
Ekblad is a top 20ish Dman in the league, so he's a #1.
Last edited:
dbhislife
Registered User
- Jun 27, 2007
- 1,409
- 173
So at exactly what point does another 1 Center, 1 Defenceman, and 2 Wingers get the "promotion" to #1C/W/D with Las Vegas entering the league? Does it happen now, knowing that it's coming? Does it happen the day they're selected in the expansion draft? Does it happen at the end of Las Vegas' first game?
You can take a hardline stance on there being as many #1s of everything as there are teams, but tying the quantity of #1s to the number of teams is latching on to a convenient, but practically irrelevant number. What really doesn't make sense, is offering up that promotion based on something that in no way reflects a talent/ability level in the player.
As in the example...Las Vegas entering the league doesn't magically upgrade the talent of 1 extra C/LW/RW/D/G to "#1" level. Assessing the talent level and ability is a massively more useful and descriptive definition of #1C/D/etc. Which is where there are typically less than 30 (or 31) true #1 Defencemen - it's a completely reasonable and logical premise.
No it doesn't upgrade the talent. It decreases the bar they have to meet by 1 slot (aka 31 top center slots available vs 30).
dbhislife
Registered User
- Jun 27, 2007
- 1,409
- 173
The guy you're quoting literally never said this. 30 #1 centers does not mean everyone has one. It means there are 30 slots available to fulfill that position. Obviously Pitts (and a few others) have 2, and a few have 0. The league isn't perfect parity.
No he was not. Speaking of overrated, that would be Campbell. I'm not saying Ekblad is a #1, but he sure wasn't carried by Campbell.
Ekblad definitely has the potential to be a #1 D, I'm not sure he is one right now though.
usahockey22flyers
2 years away from being 2 years away
HarrisonFord
President of the Drew Doughty Fan Club
He gets some pretty sheltered minutes. Which he should get as a young defenseman. But until he starts getting the most difficult assignments, I can't call him a true #1D. He'll get there eventually though
Aladyyn
they praying for the death of a rockstar
Your definition is flawed. #1 Dman doesn't care about the number of teams, he either is good enough to be one or he's not.
He's not saying that. He's saying if you rank all centers or all D, the top 30 of them are #1's. Not the top C or D per team. Hence Malkin would be much higher on the list than 30-60, hence he's a #1 C. Kadri would not be in the top 30 C's listed in the NHL, hence he's not a #1 C. Essentially he's saying if every team was perfectly even, i.e. every team got a top 30 C, top 30 RW, top 30 LW, 31-60 C, LW, RW, 61-90 C, LW, RW, 91 C, LW, RW, top 30 D, 31-60 D, etc... every team would then have a #1 C, LW, RW, D, G, a #2 C, LW, RW, D, G, etc...
dbhislife
Registered User
- Jun 27, 2007
- 1,409
- 173
No it makes total sense. You're trying to use some random marker we establish based on how good we want our top players to be. I'm saying there is a bar at all times in the league; that bar may just move as the league develops or player caliber changes.
When there were six teams we didn't have a situation where there were eight #1 centers. No one thinks in those terms. Center #7 back then was an elite second line player because, even in perfect parity (i.e. the top 6 centers each on different teams), center #7 would have not had a spot on a top line. So the reciprocal is also not true. 30 spots to be a top line center, that's the definition of a #1 center. Now we could make tons of claims like:
(1) Only the top 15 #1 centers are actually good enough to lead their teams to cups;
(2) The bottom half of the #1 centers today are weaker than they used to be;
(3) Only the top 10 #1 centers are true superstars;
etc.
But there are 30 #1 centers. There have to be, just like there are twelve RB1s in a 12 person fantasy football league. RB11 and RB12 might suck one year, but they're still an RB1 ranking wise so long as they finish ahead of he 13th guy. What team said RBs are on is totally irrelevant. I can own the top 3 RBs, but that doesn't change the fact that they all rank as RB1s, and there are 12 RB1s.
In the same sense, Ekblad is a lower tier (I'd say bottom half or third) #1 D. He's probably not yet good enough to be the superstar D-man that leads his team to a cup. But if we spread the 30 best defensemen out across the 30 teams, he'd be the #1 on one of those teams. So he's a #1.
re: Kadri-- I'd have to think it through. My guess is he's a fringe #1 center or an upper #2. I'm betting I could find 30 centers in the NHL I'd prefer to Kadri. Just because he's he #1 on his team doesn't make him a #1. The guy above me gets it (TY good sir). FWIW; Certainly not the be-all-end-all in analysis, but he was far from top 30 among centers in scoring last season....
Last edited:
Man oh man I can't believe how misunderstood my post was.
I'm not saying every defenseman has a #1D: of course not.
I am saying that across the league in total, the top 30 defenseman are necessarily #1D.
If you took the best 30 defenseman in the league and ensured each team got exactly 1 of those defenseman, how on earth could you make the argument that one of these players is "not a #1D"?
It just doesn't make any sense to me, but if any of you disagree with my definition go nuts: it's just a term, and a meaningless one at that if you reject the objective definition I have provided.
Instead I will say that yes, Ekblad is a top 30 defenseman. Happy?
I'm not saying every defenseman has a #1D: of course not.
I am saying that across the league in total, the top 30 defenseman are necessarily #1D.
If you took the best 30 defenseman in the league and ensured each team got exactly 1 of those defenseman, how on earth could you make the argument that one of these players is "not a #1D"?
It just doesn't make any sense to me, but if any of you disagree with my definition go nuts: it's just a term, and a meaningless one at that if you reject the objective definition I have provided.
Instead I will say that yes, Ekblad is a top 30 defenseman. Happy?
TheOllieC
cajun filet
Aladyyn
they praying for the death of a rockstar
It's a forced arbitrary definition that doesn't actually say anything about the quality of the player (aka the one thing that matters when determining whether he is a #1D or not).
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
BET ON ONLY ONE HORSE WATCH LIVE - FINGER LAKES RACE 1 - Farmington, NYWagers: 4Staked: $815.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-