Is Aaron Ekblad a #1 D-man?

[FlaPanthers11]

LOL, comparing football to hockey. And before I get tears of "you're a hockey elitist" - no, I watch football too.

Nothing in that post comes anywhere close to fundamentally comparing football to hockey. It compares a definition in a FANTASY sport to a definition in a real sport. *Sigh* Now I see the struggle.

 

[Regal]

No we have explained. If there are 6 teams, we can't have 8 #1 centers. No one seems to dispute that. And similarly, if we suddenly have 40 teams, we can't just suddenly have 60 more #6 defensemen... unless you're saying each team would suddenly, on average, be running around with 2-3 #6 D playing full-time. You guys just keep ignoring the logical fallacy.

I'm honestly trying really hard to not drop the whole, "I have a degree in Mathematics and anyone worth their salt in population distribution knows that its done on a sliding scale" line here.

So you still clearly don't understand the concept that I've explained numerous times that league size DOES affect the the numbers we are discussing. The ability has to change when league size changes because the quality of teams change. But using it solely as a specific cutoff is pointless and serves no purpose to the discussion about how good a defenseman is and the role he can play. Should probably stick to math because your reading comprehension is the *****

And yes, you can have 8 number 1 quality centers in a 6 team league

 

[FlaPanthers11]

So you still clearly don't understand the concept that I've explained numerous times that league size DOES affect the the numbers we are discussing. The ability has to change when league size changes because the quality of teams change. But using it solely as a specific cutoff is pointless and serves no purpose to the discussion about how good a defenseman is and the role he can play. Should probably stick to math because your reading comprehension is the *****

So you're against ever using the term "#1D" to describe the talent level of a player? That's what seems to make the most sense per your argument.

 

[Regal]

So you're against ever using the term "#1D" to describe the talent level of a player? That's what seems to make the most sense per your argument.

No, that's essentially your argument. In your world, we could have 35 Sidney Crosby clones, and somehow 30 are #1Cs and 5 of the exact same player are #2 Cs. Seriously, are you people blind that I've been pushing the idea of a sliding scale the whole time? But making the sliding scale tied completely to the number of teams rather than tiers of talent influenced by the number of teams, you end up with arbitrary cutoffs that don't mean anything. If you seriously believe that a system that potentially rates one player higher than another who could be essentially equal in quality makes any sense to use, then have at it.

 

[Hutz]

Title says it all. Do you believe Aaron Ekblad is a #1 D-man right now? And if you vote no, do you believe he has the potential to be one?

No and Yes.

 

[FlaPanthers11]

No, that's essentially your argument. In your world, we could have 35 Sidney Crosby clones, and somehow 30 are #1Cs and 5 of the exact same player are #2 Cs. Seriously, are you people blind that I've been pushing the idea of a sliding scale the whole time? But making the sliding scale tied completely to the number of teams rather than tiers of talent influenced by the number of teams, you end up with arbitrary cutoffs that don't mean anything. If you seriously believe that a system that potentially rates one player higher than another who could be essentially equal in quality makes any sense to use, then have at it.

Two players are never equal in quality. Just a heads up.

 

[Regal]

Two players are never equal in quality. Just a heads up.

No, but often their value is essentially the same. We hear fans talk about replacing one guy with another all the time in off season threads with the idea that they'll essentially replace the other. Once you get past a certain quality of player, we start to get to a bunch of guys who can either replace each other adequately or bring similar value in a different way. It actually becomes difficult to start to list players in any legitimate order rather than just pick them depending on the team around them. Regardless, it's easy to see that the differences between two players at the cutoff might easily be completely arbitrary, and the 25-30 best defensemen might have more in common with the majority of the #2s. If anything, the number of teams should only give rough outlines for the quality of player, rather than making a specific list.

 

[dbhislife]

No, but often their value is essentially the same. We hear fans talk about replacing one guy with another all the time in off season threads with the idea that they'll essentially replace the other. Once you get past a certain quality of player, we start to get to a bunch of guys who can either replace each other adequately or bring similar value in a different way. It actually becomes difficult to start to list players in any legitimate order rather than just pick them depending on the team around them. Regardless, it's easy to see that the differences between two players at the cutoff might easily be completely arbitrary, and the 25-30 best defensemen might have more in common with the majority of the #2s. If anything, the number of teams should only give rough outlines for the quality of player, rather than making a specific list.

Sure and this is why its hard to make the list of the top 30 D or C in the league. After the 10 or 15 obvious #1s, the list becomes very disputed. But it doesn't change the fact that there are 30.

So you still clearly don't understand the concept that I've explained numerous times that league size DOES affect the the numbers we are discussing. The ability has to change when league size changes because the quality of teams change. But using it solely as a specific cutoff is pointless and serves no purpose to the discussion about how good a defenseman is and the role he can play. Should probably stick to math because your reading comprehension is the *****

And yes, you can have 8 number 1 quality centers in a 6 team league

wait wait wait... so you admit that it is a sliding scale but then claim that its some subset of the pool of players who would get top D duties in perfect parity? Man I wish math was this subjective and open to parameter shifts. My job would be WAYYYY easier. And for the record I just went back through every comment in your thread, just to make sure I didn't mischaracterize something since you want to question my reading comprehension. You admitted to some shift in benchmarks back on pages 3 and 4, but your argument has really devolved since then.

Yeah I'm out here (weren't you blocking me like two pages ago anyways). If you don't get why centers 7 and 8 in a six team league would never be called #1 centers by anyone affiliated with the league, I'm out. You yourself admitted back on page 3 that the league would be more concentrated and the requirements to obtain said label would be higher. Specifically, I'm telling you they'd be so high that only 6 players meet them. But you're going to continue to tell me that, instead of using an objective metric based on positional need and league size, we the fans should just eyeball it and wing it.

Its been fun guys!

 

[WhatWhat]

Sure and this is why its hard to make the list of the top 30 D or C in the league. After the 10 or 15 obvious #1s, the list becomes very disputed. But it doesn't change the fact that there are 30.




wait wait wait... so you admit that it is a sliding scale but then claim that its some subset of the pool of players who would get top D duties in perfect parity? Man I wish math was this subjective and open to parameter shifts. My job would be WAYYYY easier. And for the record I just went back through every comment in your thread, just to make sure I didn't mischaracterize something since you want to question my reading comprehension. You admitted to some shift in benchmarks back on pages 3 and 4, but your argument has really devolved since then.

Yeah I'm out here (weren't you blocking me like two pages ago anyways). If you don't get why centers 7 and 8 in a six team league would never be called #1 centers by anyone affiliated with the league, I'm out. You yourself admitted back on page 3 that the league would be more concentrated and the requirements to obtain said label would be higher. Specifically, I'm telling you they'd be so high that only 6 players meet them. But you're going to continue to tell me that, instead of using an objective metric based on positional need and league size, we the fans should just eyeball it and wing it.

Its been fun guys!

I'm pretty sure he said the requirement would likely change if you drastically changed the league size.

That doesn't change the fact that you could have more fully capable 1C than there are slots available. I also love how you talk as if you are right simply because you do math as a job... you realize there are probably just as many that disagree with you on this topic that also work in some math field

 

[Atomos2]

Oh this guy is so overrated. Faces third line competition. Meh ice time. Decent offensive numbers. Hardly #1 Dman calibre.

 

[Beezeral]

Oh this guy is so overrated. Faces third line competition. Meh ice time. Decent offensive numbers. Hardly #1 Dman calibre.

I hope you have never tried to argue that Morgan Rielly is a #1 D-Man

 

[Flames Fanatic]

Eyeball test says yes. Advanced stats seem to point towards yes.

Even if you say he's not now, I'm not sure many logical people can argue he won't be someday soon.

 

[Atomos2]

I hope you have never tried to argue that Morgan Rielly is a #1 D-Man

At least Rielly faces top opposition and doesn't have to worry about getting into fights with other teams' third liners like Peter Holland

 

[Dubi Doo]

Nah, he hasn't proven it over the course of a full season. He seems to be well on his way to becoming one, though.

 

[Regal]

Sure and this is why its hard to make the list of the top 30 D or C in the league. After the 10 or 15 obvious #1s, the list becomes very disputed. But it doesn't change the fact that there are 30.




wait wait wait... so you admit that it is a sliding scale but then claim that its some subset of the pool of players who would get top D duties in perfect parity? Man I wish math was this subjective and open to parameter shifts. My job would be WAYYYY easier. And for the record I just went back through every comment in your thread, just to make sure I didn't mischaracterize something since you want to question my reading comprehension. You admitted to some shift in benchmarks back on pages 3 and 4, but your argument has really devolved since then.

Yeah I'm out here (weren't you blocking me like two pages ago anyways). If you don't get why centers 7 and 8 in a six team league would never be called #1 centers by anyone affiliated with the league, I'm out. You yourself admitted back on page 3 that the league would be more concentrated and the requirements to obtain said label would be higher. Specifically, I'm telling you they'd be so high that only 6 players meet them. But you're going to continue to tell me that, instead of using an objective metric based on positional need and league size, we the fans should just eyeball it and wing it.

Its been fun guys!

You're honestly not nearly as smart as you think you are. You seem to think that players can be put in neat little boxes the same way as numbers, but they can't. And the fact that you think that centers 7 and 8 would never be called #1 centers by anyone affiliated with the league when clearly there's disagreement on any subjective list of this sort is delusional. Psst, if the top 30 players at a position are still decided based on subjective criteria, your list isn't objective either.

 

[CherryToke]

yes obviously. He's a complete stud.

 

[dbhislife]

You're honestly not nearly as smart as you think you are. You seem to think that players can be put in neat little boxes the same way as numbers, but they can't. And the fact that you think that centers 7 and 8 would never be called #1 centers by anyone affiliated with the league when clearly there's disagreement on any subjective list of this sort is delusional. Psst, if the top 30 players at a position are still decided based on subjective criteria, your list isn't objective either.

Haha... I've never once claimed my intellect. Anything you drew from my comments (aside from having a background in this sort of thing) is on you man. But for the record since you questioned my reading comprehension, my encouragement on the labeling isn't subjective. Its an objective definition that is simply "number of teams in the league." Its fixed at any single point in time. That is the actual definition of the term lol. From dictionary: "not dependent on the mind for existence"

What I (and others) are saying here is objective. What you (and others) are saying is subjective. That's the whole problem. One depends on the human mind to make judgments about cut-offs. The other does not. Sure the list itself is subjective (i.e. who makes it and who doesn't), but the size of the list is an objective idea.

I'm out though. Its been fun everyone!

 

[WhatWhat]

Haha... I've never once claimed my intellect. Anything you drew from my comments (aside from having a background in this sort of thing) is on you man.

You said this a page back...

I'm honestly trying really hard to not drop the whole, "I have a degree in Mathematics and anyone worth their salt in population distribution knows that its done on a sliding scale" line here

But you right you have never claimed you point is correct because of you working in math...

 

[kmad]

Absolutely, by any metric

 

[Elitersson]

One year later, wonder how different the poll results would look now.

 

[Machinehead]

In terms of possession, production, and plus/minus, he does literally nothing at the rate a #1D should.

 

[Aladyyn]

I still think my definition of a #1D is the only correct one.

 

[NarcoPolo]

Baffled at the poll results. I guess this is what playing a couple seasons with the most underrated dman over the past 20 years does for your reputation.

 

[FinlandPanther]

At least Rielly faces top opposition and doesn't have to worry about getting into fights with other teams' third liners like Peter Holland

Yeah and sucks at it.

 

[Depch]

Delete