1C vs 1D - Value and Rarity

[Nico the Draft Riser]

It could. But it still depends on the quality.
If the depth at the D position is sufficiently weak that even the best #1 defenseman at a time are not having the same on-ice impact as the top D in other eras or the centers are ahead then the center still has more value even if the D are rarer.
I think the value side is more determined by what's happening on ice than the rarity, though rarity plays a part.

Right now I don't think it's terribly lopsided in favor of centers, but they have the edge. Mostly at the high end.

I do agree with you that Id take a high end 1C over a high end 1D. But my main premise was that a 1D tends to be worth more due to their rarity, so perhaps that increases their trade/market value as compared to the value to their teams.

 

[SniperHF]

I do agree with you that Id take a high end 1C over a high end 1D. But my main premise was that a 1D tends to be worth more due to their rarity, so perhaps that increases their trade/market value as compared to the value to their teams.

I think that could happen. But I don't think they are yet rare enough for it be the case right now.

A somewhat useful example might be LD vs RD. Quality RD are rarer and are paid a little more, especially for mid-pairing types. Bust most of the time if a team lacks for quality RD they'll work it out by committee rather than go out of their way to get higher end RD. The cost would take away from their roster elsewhere so it's not worth it on balance. So even in a case where a position might be more rare at a time, they might not actually get traded for that because teams can find ways around the rarity easier than paying for that rarity.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Probably because, by and large, elite centers show their elite nature almost immediately whereas elite defensemen doing the same thing are extraordinarily rare, and so it's easier to part with them before they become established as elite.

Okay, so let’s filter out the list and look at only defensemen that were established superstar #1Ds and the #1Cs of the same caliber at the time they changed teams.

#1D:

Chris Pronger
Zdeno Chara
Scott Niedermayer
Ryan Suter
Shea Weber
PK Subban
Dougie Hamilton
Dan Boyle

#1C:

Joe Thornton
John Tavares

Still a much longer list of #1 defensemen. Even if you consider Dougie Hamilton not to meet the bill (or Brent Burns, who was an all star at the time he was traded, but not a Norris guy), you’ve still got 7 Norris level defensemen who changed hands via trade. (I’m a Sharks fan and I forgot Boyle as one of the #1D who were traded in that time frame lol)

 

[Mickey Marner]

Okay, so let’s filter out the list and look at only defensemen that were established superstar #1Ds and the #1Cs of the same caliber at the time they changed teams.

#1D:

Chris Pronger
Zdeno Chara
Scott Niedermayer
Ryan Suter
Shea Weber
PK Subban
Dougie Hamilton
Dan Boyle

#1C:

Joe Thornton
John Tavares

Still a much longer list of #1 defensemen. Even if you consider Dougie Hamilton not to meet the bill (or Brent Burns, who was an all star at the time he was traded, but not a Norris guy), you’ve still got 7 Norris level defensemen who changed hands via trade. (I’m a Sharks fan and I forgot Boyle as one of the #1D who were traded in that time frame lol)

Another Shark, Brian Campbell, is debatable as well.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Another Shark, Brian Campbell, is debatable as well.

I was looking at him. 5th in Norris voting the year he got traded to San Jose.

Honestly, I think it’s best to exclude Brian Campbell and Dougie Hamilton level players for the sake of this discussion, because then it opens up people bringing up Duchene, Turris, Johansen caliber centers that got traded, and that totally isn’t the point of this thread.

The initial argument was between Provorov and Barzal and so I would limit the discussion to purely centers who are equal to or superior to Barzal and purely defensemen who are equal to or superior to Provorov.

 

[Silky mitts]

I think most years the 10th best defenseman is about as valuable as the 20th best center. That’s how I’d define a #1C vs 1D, and roughly how many there are.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Probably because, by and large, elite centers show their elite nature almost immediately whereas elite defensemen doing the same thing are extraordinarily rare, and so it's easier to part with them before they become established as elite.

One more thing to add - I don’t exactly disagree with this as a whole. But if this is 100% the case, then doesn’t that still mean that it is more difficult to acquire an elite center? If you can maneuver around the trade market and frequently pick up a defenseman like Seth Jones or Brent Burns before they become Norris caliber, but the same thing has only happened once since the lockout in the case of Tyler Seguin, wouldn’t that still mean that a #1C is more difficult to acquire?

 

[Viqsi]

Okay, so let’s filter out the list and look at only defensemen that were established superstar #1Ds and the #1Cs of the same caliber at the time they changed teams.

#1D:

Chris Pronger
Zdeno Chara
Scott Niedermayer
Ryan Suter
Shea Weber
PK Subban
Dougie Hamilton
Dan Boyle

#1C:

Joe Thornton
John Tavares

Still a much longer list of #1 defensemen. Even if you consider Dougie Hamilton not to meet the bill (or Brent Burns, who was an all star at the time he was traded, but not a Norris guy), you’ve still got 7 Norris level defensemen who changed hands via trade. (I’m a Sharks fan and I forgot Boyle as one of the #1D who were traded in that time frame lol)

PK and Weber were traded for eachother, so that's kind of double-dipping.

And quite a few of those transfers were UFA signings, not trades. (You mentioned both in the post I initially replied to, but said only "changed hands via trade" in this one.)

* * *​

One more thing to add - I don’t exactly disagree with this as a whole. But if this is 100% the case, then doesn’t that still mean that it is more difficult to acquire an elite center? If you can maneuver around the trade market and frequently pick up a defenseman like Seth Jones or Brent Burns before they become Norris caliber, but the same thing has only happened once since the lockout in the case of Tyler Seguin, wouldn’t that still mean that a #1C is more difficult to acquire?

It would. But I'm not convinced that's a valid argument w/r/t which is more valuable to have.

 

[deckercky]

Zdeno Chara, Scott Niedermayer, Ryan Suter and John Tavares all moved as UFAs. The fact that more defencemen have moved as UFAs is just a coincidence. I think Chara was the only one that the team had much of a say in not staying, and it was a cap casualty over another defenceman they thought was better at the time.

It cost an established 1C to acquire Seth Jones. Weber and Subban were traded for each other. Nothing about these types of trades say which is easier to acquire.

 

[Absolut]

Zdeno Chara, Scott Niedermayer, Ryan Suter and John Tavares all moved as UFAs. The fact that more defencemen have moved as UFAs is just a coincidence. I think Chara was the only one that the team had much of a say in not staying, and it was a cap casualty over another defenceman they thought was better at the time.

It cost an established 1C to acquire Seth Jones. Weber and Subban were traded for each other. Nothing about these types of trades say which is easier to acquire.

And Seth Jones wasn't even the Seth Jones of today. Moving Subban was just supreme stupidity on the part of esteemed Montreal leadership.

 

[rynryn]

you talk about these 1D changing hands like it was the teams' decision to get rid of them and therefor they must not be as valuable. I honestly don't know the specifics of all of these guys but Suter wasn't going to stay no matter what, Pronger had to leave because of that affair thing... Who were they traded for? I mean if you have a rebuilding team they're going to trade a #1D for a boatload of assets vs keeping the D. I'd like to see some context if someone is going to rattle off a miles long list.

 

[LeafGrief]

Doesn't really matter if they're rarer or not, elite centres are more valuable and have more impact than elite #1D's. Washington won the cup with a platoon of very good defencemen, but I'd take Provorov over every single capital's defenceman. Pittsburgh won a cup with Ron Hainsey getting top minutes.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

you talk about these 1D changing hands like it was the teams' decision to get rid of them and therefor they must not be as valuable. I honestly don't know the specifics of all of these guys but Suter wasn't going to stay no matter what, Pronger had to leave because of that affair thing... Who were they traded for? I mean if you have a rebuilding team they're going to trade a #1D for a boatload of assets vs keeping the D. I'd like to see some context if someone is going to rattle off a miles long list.

I’m not saying the team let go of them because they aren’t as valuable. I’m saying that they’re easier to acquire because they have become available outside of the draft much more consistently. The number one that I’m saying they aren’t as valuable is that since the lockout, 4 different teams have won a Stanley Cup without a superstar #1D; teams win Stanley Cups with the likes of Sergei Gonchar, Brian Dumolin, John Carlson, and Frantisek Kaberle as their #1D. Meanwhile, literally no team has won a Cup with a center who is comparable as a player to Frantisek Kaberle or Brian Dumolin.

PK and Weber were traded for eachother, so that's kind of double-dipping.

And quite a few of those transfers were UFA signings, not trades. (You mentioned both in the post I initially replied to, but said only "changed hands via trade" in this one.)

* * *​

It would. But I'm not convinced that's a valid argument w/r/t which is more valuable to have.

Yes, PK and Weber were traded for one another. But both were made available to be acquired outside of the draft and that trade right there saw as many elite #1Ds change hands in one day as we’ve seen elite centers change hands since the lockout. Even if you don’t include those guys, you’ve still got 5 established superstar franchise #1D changing hands outside of the draft and only two centers since the lockout.

My bad if I only said trade. I am talking about whether or not these changed hands outside of the draft. With that, I’m including trades, UFAs, and offer sheets.

Zdeno Chara, Scott Niedermayer, Ryan Suter and John Tavares all moved as UFAs. The fact that more defencemen have moved as UFAs is just a coincidence. I think Chara was the only one that the team had much of a say in not staying, and it was a cap casualty over another defenceman they thought was better at the time.

It cost an established 1C to acquire Seth Jones. Weber and Subban were traded for each other. Nothing about these types of trades say which is easier to acquire.

Johansen is not an established #1C. Not Stanley Cup caliber. If you start including centers like Johansen as #1Cs, it kind of defeats the purpose since Johansen isn’t on Mathew Barzal’s level and he isn’t a Stanley Cup Caliber #1C.

 

[Kcb12345]

1C is harder to find imo. Also a more important and valuable position.

 

[Luigi Lemieux]

I'd probably take an average 1D over an average 1C, but i take the high end centers (Crosby, Malkin, Mcdavid) over the high end dmen (Karlsson, Hedman, Doughty) any day.

 

[Nico the Draft Riser]

Doesn't really matter if they're rarer or not, elite centres are more valuable and have more impact than elite #1D's. Washington won the cup with a platoon of very good defencemen, but I'd take Provorov over every single capital's defenceman. Pittsburgh won a cup with Ron Hainsey getting top minutes.

The premise was 1Cs in general, not elite 1Cs

We all have agreed an elite 1C is better than an elite 1D. But some folks think all 1Cs are better than, more valuable, and rarer to find than all 1Ds

 

[Kamiccolo]

Nashville, Carolina, Calgary. All teams with strong D and arguably multiple #1 D at times. Never won anything. Pens and Kings won due to their strength down the middle.

 

[valet]

my intuition says that a 1d is a bit harder to find, but who knows if that's actually true or not

 

[LeafGrief]

The premise was 1Cs in general, not elite 1Cs

We all have agreed an elite 1C is better than an elite 1D. But some folks think all 1Cs are better than, more valuable, and rarer to find than all 1Ds

I have no problem expanding the range and saying that an average #1C is still more impactful than an average #1D, and down into the low end range. I am cautious though, because on HF defenceman have an extremely high threshold for being called a #1D, while centres have a bit more leeway imo.

Again, rarity aside, centres are more important.

 

[Nico the Draft Riser]

I have no problem expanding the range and saying that an average #1C is still more impactful than an average #1D, and down into the low end range. I am cautious though, because on HF defenceman have an extremely high threshold for being called a #1D, while centres have a bit more leeway imo.

Again, rarity aside, centres are more important.

Fair enough, I respectfully disagree about the averages of both but I do agree high end Cs are more valuable than high end Ds

 

[JPeeper]

Depends, I just saw Pitt win a Cup with a no top pairing (IMO) d-men. I also saw Pronger carry Edmonton to the Cup finals. I've also seen guys like Tim Thomas and Jonathan Quick carry their teams to the Cup (yeah I know they were both good teams with #1 centers in Kopitar and Bergeron, but the goalie was more important for both IMO). Hell, Giguere won the Conns Smythe and lost the Cup.

It just depends on the player and how elite they are. If I were to choose though I take the #1 center.

 

[Panthaz89]

an established 1D is more valuable than an established 1C. Naturally there's a range but strictly speaking I think the D is more important. Log more minutes, usually all situations, affect a game more in general.

not really D aren't important as a center at all rarity isn't necessarily the same as valuable...Nashville would of been a bit more dominant in the postseason over the past few years but they lack top centers...Johanson is good but nowhere close to great while they basically have a plethora of top defenseman yet no one is ever going to expect them to win a cup until they get a great center. Pittsburgh straight up went through 2 playoff runs with a mediocre defense and the 1st year they weren't even mediocre without Letang playing.

 

[Deficient Mode]

3 of the top 15 centers in the league for me were picked outside the lottery. Over half were picked 1OA or 2OA.

Roughly half of the top 15 defensemen in the league were picked outside the lottery.

Teams are better at identifying high end center talents pre-draft than at predicting high end defensemen. They then control the rights to these players for their best years. That fact alone makes a high end center more valuable than the equivalent defenseman. Then you can add the fact that forwards simply drive results more and the center is more valuable.

 

[Dustin]

On hockey people's lists of the top 50 players say, how many of them will be D?

When looking through the years and evaluating who the very best players are they are almost always forwards and almost always centers.

I would say the 1D is the hardest thing to acquire as they seem to be more rare. That being said I find Centers more important. The difference between not having a #1C or not having a #1D is much worse for the #1C. I would much rather have 1C over a #1D.

 

[Daz28]

You don't think there are 15 #1D in the league. So you don't seem to be making a distinction between elite #1D and just your average 1D if you think there's 15 or less of them.

Agreed, I think the better question is, "would you rather have an elite #1D or #1C as the cornerstone of your franchise". This would lead us back to the other recent thread about Eichel and Dahlin, where they may have both.