Is Aaron Ekblad a #1 D-man?

[Sureves]

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).

1. There is absolutely NOTHING at arbitrary. It is purely and wholly objective.

2. It says absolutely everything about the player's abilities in that the ranking as a top 30 defenseman is based upon the player's abilities.

 

[jrmysell]

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).

Arbitrary would be just picking any random number of players and saying they are a #1. Take for example this: We say player A is team A's #1 C, right? So what are we saying? That Player A is the C of the top line for Team A. So, in a 30 team league, there are approximately 30 #1 C spots. Now, not every team will have a true #1. Some teams will have 2 #2's and others could have 2 #1's (a la Pittsburgh). So, there are 30 #1 C and 30 #1 D. Your argument that #30 is not the definition of a #1 is arbitrary. Where is your cutoff? 8 #1 centers? How does that make sense? 45 #1 centers? No, there are 30 #1 centers because as has been said, there are 30 #1 C spots in a perfectly parity league, a la every team has a #1, 2, 3, 4 C, LW, and RW.

 

[WhatWhat]

1. There is absolutely NOTHING at arbitrary. It is purely and wholly objective.

2. It says absolutely everything about the player's abilities in that the ranking as a top 30 defenseman is based upon the player's abilities.

It makes the being of a 1D/1C/1W based on a pre-set number of allocated spot instead of based on skill. That is what most disagree with

 

[vendetta]

It makes the being of a 1D/1C/1W based on a pre-set number of allocated spot instead of based on skill. That is what most disagree with

The skill determines who the top 30d men r.. it has nothing to do with what team they play on or where on the depth chart they fall but rather how good they r compared to their counterparts...

 

[vendetta]

Voted yes.. but not elite and a bit overrated thus far... but I think his ceiling gets underrated... he is likely to take a big step forward this year imo... it seems last year was a sophomore slump but he still produced and was far from bad... don't be surprised if he cements himself in the top 10 this year

 

[WhatWhat]

The skill determines who the top 30d men r.. it has nothing to do with what team they play on or where on the depth chart they fall but rather how good they r compared to their counterparts...

Yeah people consider being a 1D not as playing there but capable of playing there well. So thats where the < 30 1D comes from, because I cannot think of 30 D I would like as my go to, all situations, playing against top competition guy. I simply don't think there are 30 in the league, same with 1C.

Its pointless to argue because many see it one way and many see it the other. Im just trying to offer perspective from the one side that seems to be over looked at times in favor of arguments

 

[KCC]

Not yet, but he's doing well. Currently he's a top 4 and now it's about taking that next step. Tough to do as a defenseman, but I guess we'll see. Playing in the East has probably helped as well.

 

[Regal]

The skill determines who the top 30d men r.. it has nothing to do with what team they play on or where on the depth chart they fall but rather how good they r compared to their counterparts...

Skill determines the top 30 but making 30 the cutoff isn't based on skill. Equal parity in the league is a misnomer because if one team's top center is way better than another's, that's not equal, regardless of how well the talent is distributed throughout the league. If there was 29 centers roughly equivalent to Sidney Crosby in the league and then the next best center was Ryan Kesler, it makes no sense to suggest that the team with Ryan Kesler has a number 1 center. Obviously that's an extreme example, but even as it is, when looking at the 30th best center, you're looking at guys like Turris, Little, RNH, etc. There's a significant difference between them and the Crosby, Giroux, Tavares types, and it means a team with one of the first group as their top center needs to be significantly better at another position to make up for it. If you don't feel confident that your best at a certain position can come reasonably close to matching the best of most other teams, you don't have a number 1.

 

[Regal]

That's the only definition that makes sense...

No it really isn't. I understand why some people think that way, but arguing otherwise is perfectly reasonable.

 

[vendetta]

Skill determines the top 30 but making 30 the cutoff isn't based on skill. Equal parity in the league is a misnomer because if one team's top center is way better than another's, that's not equal, regardless of how well the talent is distributed throughout the league. If there was 29 centers roughly equivalent to Sidney Crosby in the league and then the next best center was Ryan Kesler, it makes no sense to suggest that the team with Ryan Kesler has a number 1 center. Obviously that's an extreme example, but even as it is, when looking at the 30th best center, you're looking at guys like Turris, Little, RNH, etc. There's a significant difference between them and the Crosby, Giroux, Tavares types, and it means a team with one of the first group as their top center needs to be significantly better at another position to make up for it. If you don't feel confident that your best at a certain position can come reasonably close to matching the best of most other teams, you don't have a number 1.

That's y there's terms such as elite, or tiers.... every team has to have a number 1 center to fill out their roster and depth chart.. that's y 30 is the cutoff... otherwise u can just say top15 c in league... but if your saying a number 1 d or c it has to be 30.. . Like saying is so and so a starting qb in nfl. There isn't just 10 of those it has to be 32

 

[Finnish your Czech]

Was sheltered quite a bit last season. Played almost half as much PK time as Erik Karlsson, as an example. We'll see how he plays now that Gudbranson, Kulikov and Mitchell are gone.

 

[Regal]

That's y there's terms such as elite, or tiers.... every team has to have a number 1 center to fill out their roster and depth chart.. that's y 30 is the cutoff... otherwise u can just say top15 c in league... but if your saying a number 1 d or c it has to be 30.. . Like saying is so and so a starting qb in nfl. There isn't just 10 of those it has to be 32

Every team has a player filling that position, yes. That's not the same thing.

 

[vendetta]

Was sheltered quite a bit last season. Played almost half as much PK time as Erik Karlsson, as an example. We'll see how he plays now that Gudbranson, Kulikov and Mitchell are gone.

People keep bringing up mitchell but he was gone most of last year anyway and was a liability when he did play...that's addition by subtraction and has no impact at all on how ekblad or the panthers d in general will play..but your point stands... that's alot of tough minutes going out and we'll see how he gets deployed and if he can take a step forward in his 3rd year.. it's probably the most important question mark going into next season to determine the panthers success

 

[Sempiternal]

He'll win a Norris and likely more than one.

 

[Get North]

No, but he'll prove it this year. He's the #1 RHD far and away, and he has 2 years under his belt. If his play keeps up, he'll be a top 20 defenceman.

 

[ottawa]

Not yet imo.

 

[PAZ]

He's top pairing, but IMO he's a #2 right now so I voted no.

Still plenty of room to grow and could happen as early as next season, but I agree with the others that he's not quite there yet.

 

[Sureves]

No it really isn't. I understand why some people think that way, but arguing otherwise is perfectly reasonable.

Why are there not 30 #1D in the league then? On what basis have you determined what qualifies as a #1D?

To put that threshold higher than simply being one of the best 30 defenseman on the league, you are very clearly setting that threshold too high, as the reality is that if the 30 top defenseman wee redistributed 1 to each team, the person playing the #1D role would not - in your mind - be a #1D.

That's silly.

 

[Aladyyn]

Why are there not 30 #1D in the league then? On what basis have you determined what qualifies as a #1D?

To put that threshold higher than simply being one of the best 30 defenseman on the league, you are very clearly setting that threshold too high, as the reality is that if the 30 top defenseman wee redistributed 1 to each team, the person playing the #1D role would not - in your mind - be a #1D.

That's silly.

What if there is only a marginal difference between the #30 and #31?

 

[Sansbacon]

No to the poll, yes to OPs question.

 

[vippe]

A bit baffled with the consensus when reading this thread and reading the similar Klingberg thread.

He's gonna be #1 for sure everything points towards it, if he is one right now he's probably in the lower tier among them.

 

[dbhislife]

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).

forced and arbitrary? You kidding? What that guy (and I) are proposing is an actual definition; i.e. if a player is skilled enough to be a top 30 d-man in a 30 team league, he's a #1. You guys all just eyeballing it and making some arbitrary cut-off is "forced" and "arbitrary"

It makes the being of a 1D/1C/1W based on a pre-set number of allocated spot instead of based on skill. That is what most disagree with

So right now we have 10-15 #1 centers in the league you guys are claiming. You're implying that was possible even when there were 6 teams? That's a crazy argument, but he 15th guy, while maybe able to lead his team to a cup today, wouldn't have been good enough if every night he was competing against a top 5 guy on the other 5 teams. Team quantity matters here.

 

[dbhislife]

Every team has a player filling that position, yes. That's not the same thing.

Not what I (or most people here) are arguing. There are 30 #1 centers; that doesn't mean every team gets one in actuality. I'm honestly not sure what vendetta is saying, so I just wanted to clarify that his argument and the other 4-5 of us are not one in the same.

 

[Aladyyn]

Team quantity does not matter, player quality does.

 

[dbhislife]

Team quantity does not matter, player quality does.

So there were 15 #1 centers back when there were 6 teams? Because then I'm willing to bet a team wanted a top 6 center (or maybe even a top 3 guy since you want to be relatively strong at the position), not just a top 15 guy.

There used to be 6 #1 centers, but you wanted a top 2 or 3 guy to really be in a good place. Now there are 30, but you aim for a top 10-15 guy. Defensemen are no different.

Maybe this is a better way of thinking about it for you. Would an original 6 team have been willing to pay the 10th best center in the league #1 center money? The answer is certainly no, because in that league said player was a #2 center, and not even a particularly great one at that (the 4th best).