#1 Center=Superstar?

[613Leafer]

Because there is no point to having good centres if they're not elite. A #1 guy is someone who you don't need to upgrade in order to compete with, and there's only about 10-15 guys on that list. If you had three #1b/2 Centres you really shouldin't think twice about trading them all for an elite #1.

thats pretty much the definition I go with. Can you realistically win the SC with that person as your #1C? Or would you be going into the playoffs looking at that as a weakness on the roster, relative to most top contenders.

Andy MacDonald is probably the worst #1 C to win the SC in the past decade, and at the time, he was still a ~PPG guy and had the benefit of having two HHOF dmen on his team (which the vast majority of teams dont have). So if your teams #1 C is distinctly worse than Anaheim Ducks version of Andy MacDonald, distinctly worse than Bergeron, Toews, Kopitar, Datsyuk, Crosby, etc, then you very likely need an upgrade at that position to win the SC, and thus IMO dont have a true #1 C.

 

[SensontheRush]

#1 Centers:

Anaheim: Getzlaf
Arizona: Nobody
Boston: Bergeron, Krejci (1B)
Buffalo: Eichel, O'Reilly (1B)
Calgary: Monahan (1B)
Carolina: Nobody
Chicago: Toews
Colorado: Duchene (1B)
Columbus: Nobody
Dallas: Seguin, Spezza (1B)
Detroit: Nobody
Edmonton: McDavid
Florida: Barkov
LA: Kopitar, Carter (1B)
Minnesota: Nobody
Montreal: Galchenyuk (1B)
Nashville: Johansen (1B)
New Jersey: Nobody
NYI: Tavares
NYR: Stepan (1B)
Ottawa: Turris (1B), Brassard (1B)
Philadelphia: Giroux
Pittsburgh: Crosby, Malkin
San Jose: Thornton, Couture (1B)
St Louis: Nobody
Tampa Bay: Stamkos, Johnson (1B, or he was at least)
Toronto: Auston Matthews
Vancouver: Henrik Sedin (1B)
Washington: Nicklas Backstrom, Evgeny Kuznetsov (1B)
Winnipeg: Mark Scheifele (1B)

My entirely subjective and probably incorrect view of things.

I think Henrik Sedin is still a bonafide number one centre, especially if we are so quick to proclaim Matthews as a number one. Paul Statsny also has a yuuuuuge case to be at least a 1b given the others who have made the list.

 

[CBJx614]

Dont see why both of Brassard and Stepan are 1b. Then guys like Backes, Statsny, McKinnon, Koivu, Draisatl are definitely in the same range.

I agree, a guy like Wennberg is flying under the radar. 7 pts in 7 games this season and 33 pts in 47 games since the Johansen trade. And 39 points in 57 games from the start of December. All playing great, borderline elite defense. If he continues developing this season he is without a doubt a 1B

 

[Royale With Cheese]

There are 30 number one centres in the league

*escapes out the window during the ensuing chaos*

There are 30 number one centers in the NHL. Dont see the confusion here

Agreed. How can it be disputed otherwise?

IMO, the #1 centre on any team is defined as the guy that played the most minutes at that position in a given time period (a year would make sense), regardless of usage.

 

[Its a Trap]

Because there is no point to having good centres if they're not elite. A #1 guy is someone who you don't need to upgrade in order to compete with, and there's only about 10-15 guys on that list. If you had three #1b/2 Centres you really shouldn't think twice about trading them all for an elite #1.

That's just utter nonsense.

 

[PositiveCashFlow]

can we give RNH a 1B? Or possibly a 1C?

 

[SnowblindNYR]

thats pretty much the definition I go with. Can you realistically win the SC with that person as your #1C? Or would you be going into the playoffs looking at that as a weakness on the roster, relative to most top contenders.

Andy MacDonald is probably the worst #1 C to win the SC in the past decade, and at the time, he was still a ~PPG guy and had the benefit of having two HHOF dmen on his team (which the vast majority of teams dont have). So if your teams #1 C is distinctly worse than Anaheim Ducks version of Andy MacDonald, distinctly worse than Bergeron, Toews, Kopitar, Datsyuk, Crosby, etc, then you very likely need an upgrade at that position to win the SC, and thus IMO dont have a true #1 C.

Wasn't a PPG player in 06-07 not what it is today? Or at least not what it was the last few seasons?

 

[ujju2]

#1 Centers:

Anaheim: Getzlaf
Arizona: Nobody
Boston: Bergeron, Krejci (1B)
Buffalo: Eichel, O'Reilly (1B)
Calgary: Monahan (1B)
Carolina: Nobody
Chicago: Toews
Colorado: Duchene (1B)
Columbus: Nobody
Dallas: Seguin, Spezza (1B)
Detroit: Nobody
Edmonton: McDavid
Florida: Barkov
LA: Kopitar, Carter (1B)
Minnesota: Nobody
Montreal: Galchenyuk (1B)
Nashville: Johansen (1B)
New Jersey: Nobody
NYI: Tavares
NYR: Stepan (1B)
Ottawa: Turris (1B), Brassard (1B)
Philadelphia: Giroux
Pittsburgh: Crosby, Malkin
San Jose: Thornton, Couture (1B)
St Louis: Nobody
Tampa Bay: Stamkos, Johnson (1B, or he was at least)
Toronto: Auston Matthews
Vancouver: Henrik Sedin (1B)
Washington: Nicklas Backstrom, Evgeny Kuznetsov (1B)
Winnipeg: Mark Scheifele (1B)

My entirely subjective and probably incorrect view of things.

I mostly agree. I think RNH is a 1B though. Similar level to Johansen and ROR and others. Maybe Pavelski counts as centre for SJS? If so, He's a 1A as well. Maybe Zibanejad is a 1B, not sure. Also I think Krejci is a 1A. Couture as well. And maybe Kuzya.

 

[ujju2]

That's not how I use my hfb lingo/jargon.

Superstar is far higher praise than #1C for me.

#1C is somebody who is a player you'd be at least decently happy with having as your first line center. So maybe the top 20-25 centers in the league.

There are like, 5-7 superstars in the league at most probably, maybe like Crosby, Kane, McDavid, Karlsson, Price.

I'd add Ovechkin, Benn, Tavares, Malkin, Doughty, and maybe Holtby, maybe Stamkos, maybe Tarasenko. Just my opinion.

 

[KrisLetAngry]

can we give RNH a 1B? Or possibly a 1C?

Yes.

He's on the low end of the top 30 cs

 

[Unspecified]

I think Henrik Sedin is still a bonafide number one centre, especially if we are so quick to proclaim Matthews as a number one. Paul Statsny also has a yuuuuuge case to be at least a 1b given the others who have made the list.

You mean like HF does with McDavid?

 

[Poppy Whoa Sonnet]

I always understood "#1 C" to mean "#1 C on a cup contending team".

Travis Zajac was not a no. 1 C last year just because he got the most minutes. There's fewer than 30 no. 1 C and some teams have two of them (Crosby and Malkin)

 

[NotYou]

That's not how I use my hfb lingo/jargon.

Superstar is far higher praise than #1C for me.

#1C is somebody who is a player you'd be at least decently happy with having as your first line center. So maybe the top 20-25 centers in the league.

There are like, 5-7 superstars in the league at most probably, maybe like Crosby, Kane, McDavid, Karlsson, Price.

Completely agree. The 30 #1 centers may be technically true but it isn't nearly as useful as this definition

 

[Blues88]

Because there is no point to having good centres if they're not elite. A #1 guy is someone who you don't need to upgrade in order to compete with, and there's only about 10-15 guys on that list. If you had three #1b/2 Centres you really shouldn't think twice about trading them all for an elite #1.

Is this real life?

 

[Nucker101]

I've always hated the "there's 30 #1centers in the league" statement.

Would a team be good:

If they had the 30th best center, left wing, right wing as their 1st line.

The 60th best C/LW/RW as their 2nd line.

The 30th, 60th, 90th, and 120th best down as their top 4 along with the 30th best goalie as their starter?

I mean, technically that team has all the pieces to contend!

 

[McBaevid]

The way I see a true #1 Center is if yiu were to take that player and put him on another team is he still a #1 Center.

This is the ONLY way to evaluate a #1C, D, etc, theres always someone that brings up the stupid argument of there being 30 of them though

 

[deckercky]

I've always hated the "there's 30 #1centers in the league" statement.

Would a team be good:

If they had the 30th best center, left wing, right wing as their 1st line.

The 60th best C/LW/RW as their 2nd line.

The 30th, 60th, 90th, and 120th best down as their top 4 along with the 30th best goalie as their starter?

I mean, technically that team has all the pieces to contend!

There was a leap in logic on your part, where you assume that a team with players all in the appropriate position is a contender. Looking at your team, that team would have everyone playing in the appropriate spot, and the team should be one of the worst in the league.

 

[deckercky]

This is the ONLY way to evaluate a #1C, D, etc, theres always someone that brings up the stupid argument of there being 30 of them though

So you rely on a definition where there is only a single 1C in the game? Take X center, put him on the Penguins, and X center is not the top center on the team. Ergo, X center is not a 1C.

 

[haseoke39]

I'm gonna blow your mind here: The average #1 center .....

....would NOT be the #1 center.....

....on ~half the teams in the league.

 

[haseoke39]

I've always hated the "there's 30 #1centers in the league" statement.

Would a team be good:

If they had the 30th best center, left wing, right wing as their 1st line.

The 60th best C/LW/RW as their 2nd line.

The 30th, 60th, 90th, and 120th best down as their top 4 along with the 30th best goalie as their starter?

I mean, technically that team has all the pieces to contend!

I'm just going to highlight the part where your premise answers its own question.

 

[Super Hans]

Is this the quarterly "Derek Stepan Doesn't Get Enough Respect (Formerly Known as Derek Stepan and Derick Brassard Don't Get Enough Respect)" thread?