Is Aaron Ekblad a #1 D-man?

[CHGoalie27]

No, he's one of the most overrated players in the league on here. He's a very good defenseman who has the potential to be a franchise guy, but so far his minutes and competition have been somewhat limited compared to true number 1s, and Campbell was the driving player on his pairing

Someone that hasn't missed a Panthers game in years coming to call BS!

Actually, when they played the Islanders before the playoffs, Gallant stuck him on JT and JT couldn't do anything. Seems the same didn't go for the playoffs, as JT clearly wasn't Ek's assignment as it should've been, and we saw what happened.

Without looking at stats, as they are not all telling and that should go without saying, he is most definitely a franchise defenseman already.

Forget the Panthers fan aspect, but looking at it from the crease out I don't feel he is overrated at all, but a very rare display of high defensive awareness.

 

[Aladyyn]

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).

If the 9 better Cs were on the 5 other teams? Of course they'd pay him.

Also nobody has ever said there are always 15, it obviously fluctuates based on player quality. If you're a #2 Dman you don't become a #1 because Nick Lidstrom retired. You don't magically become better.

 

[WhatWhat]

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.

What? I don't really understand what you wrote here. Your idea is far from coherent. I will simply re iterate that to me and many others being a 1C/1D is being capable of playing that we'll and not just playing there.

So yes I think there are < 30 right now.

 

[6 Karlsson 5]

Imo a 1C and 1D to me is a player that a team can win Stanley cup with while he is my best player
Do you guys think ( within the salary cap ) you could build a team where Aaron ekblad is the best ( or second beind the #1C ) and still win the cup ... My answer is no so I don't think he is a #1

30 #1's make no sense , there is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge skill gap between the top 1-3 guys and the bottom 28-30 guys so why the hell woud they be labelled the same, according to This logic the 31st best dman is about to become magically better because a new team was added, he must be pretty happy

 

[jrmysell]

What? I don't really understand what you wrote here. Your idea is far from coherent. I will simply re iterate that to me and many others being a 1C/1D is being capable of playing that we'll and not just playing there.

So yes I think there are < 30 right now.

Imo a 1C and 1D to me is a player that a team can win Stanley cup with while he is my best player
Do you guys think ( within the salary cap ) you could build a team where Aaron ekblad is the best ( or second beind the #1C ) and still win the cup ... My answer is no so I don't think he is a #1

30 #1's make no sense , there is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge skill gap between the top 1-3 guys and the bottom 28-30 guys so why the hell woud they be labelled the same, according to This logic the 31st best dman is about to become magically better because a new team was added, he must be pretty happy

The argument that they should be able to lead a team to the cup means they are a franchise player. Or a top tier player. You are arbitrarily changing what is a #1 player (as in top line player). There are 30 top line center. We usually refer to each lin as a first line, second line, first pairing, second pairing, hence #1 or #2 Center or D.

 

[6 Karlsson 5]

The argument that they should be able to lead a team to the cup means they are a franchise player. Or a top tier player. You are arbitrarily changing what is a #1 player (as in top line player). There are 30 top line center. We usually refer to each lin as a first line, second line, first pairing, second pairing, hence #1 or #2 Center or D.

#1D Implies you are a top tier player , if you can't lead a d crop ( ie the #1D ) to a Stanley cup win then you a are not a true #1D, that's how I've alwsays seen it and assumed that's what it meant.
Look at Tampa, stralman and Hedman are both top 30 dmen , there is a clear difference in ability between the two , that's is why most people would label Hedman and 1D and stralman a #2

You guys using teams as the number of dmen aren't basing it on skill , everyone else is,

The numbers of teams in the league is arbitrary, the league has no systematic way of deciding when to drop and add teams to my knowledge

 

[Makar Goes Fast]

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.

ok who is a 1d

subban or josi?

and why is klefbom a 1d over the one you didnt choose?

 

[dbhislife]

ok who is a 1d

subban or josi?

and why is klefbom a 1d over the one you didnt choose?

You're literally just not reading what we're writing are you? Show me where any of the 3-4 of us making this argument have said each team only has one? We've simply said there are 30 league wide. Obv PK and Josi both make the top 30...

 

[dbhislife]

What? I don't really understand what you wrote here. Your idea is far from coherent. I will simply re iterate that to me and many others being a 1C/1D is being capable of playing that we'll and not just playing there.

So yes I think there are < 30 right now.

Not sure what you're not getting but I'll try again; If we have an arbitrary (based on personal opinions) number of #1 centers today, than we did then. That implies there could be MORE #1s than teams back then, i.e. a 7th #1 center with only 6 teams. The idea collapses on itself. In a world with 6 teams, the relative requirements increase because the talent is more concentrated, i.e. the 7th, 8th, 9th best player at his position is a great #2, but not a #1.

But if we just have a random number at any point in time, it becomes possible to have more than you do space, so the bar (i.e. the standard to be a #1) moves too.

 

[dbhislife]

The argument that they should be able to lead a team to the cup means they are a franchise player. Or a top tier player. You are arbitrarily changing what is a #1 player (as in top line player). There are 30 top line center. We usually refer to each lin as a first line, second line, first pairing, second pairing, hence #1 or #2 Center or D.

This guy is literally my hero in this thread....

 

[Makar Goes Fast]

You're literally just not reading what we're writing are you? Show me where any of the 3-4 of us making this argument have said each team only has one? We've simply said there are 30 league wide. Obv PK and Josi both make the top 30...

except being a 1D and being top 30 are 2 different things then. because klef is playing as a top d, but one of subban or josi isn't.

 

[Knave]

Top 30 may not be arbitrary but it's bad. And how exactly are you ranking the top 30 in the league anyways?

Even if you come up with criteria and start ranking - I doubt it's "this is the clear cut 30 best defensemen in the league" which just makes it even worse. Picking defensemen to match up with the number of teams in the league is completely meaningless. It breaks down when you try to create your 30 "#1 defensemen" and it gets even worse when you start doing #2s, #3s, etc... because things become even less clear and there's lots of volatility year to year.

 

[Sureves]

Imo a 1C and 1D to me is a player that a team can win Stanley cup with while he is my best player
Do you guys think ( within the salary cap ) you could build a team where Aaron ekblad is the best ( or second beind the #1C ) and still win the cup ... My answer is no so I don't think he is a #1

30 #1's make no sense , there is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge skill gap between the top 1-3 guys and the bottom 28-30 guys so why the hell woud they be labelled the same, according to This logic the 31st best dman is about to become magically better because a new team was added, he must be pretty happy

That is legitimately not at all what anyone has said. He's not getting "magically better". He is now meeting the definition of what being a #1D is. His skill level is unchanged.

 

[Aladyyn]

That is legitimately not at all what anyone has said. He's not getting "magically better". He is now meeting the definition of what being a #1D is. His skill level is unchanged.

And that is exactly the flaw

 

[Regal]

That is legitimately not at all what anyone has said. He's not getting "magically better". He is now meeting the definition of what being a #1D is. His skill level is unchanged.

Then the definition is completely meaningless

 

[6 Karlsson 5]

That is legitimately not at all what anyone has said. He's not getting "magically better". He is now meeting the definition of what being a #1D is. His skill level is unchanged.

The difference in thinking is that the people who are disagreeing with you are not taking the word to the literal meaning, they are taking it as term of skill , that when a player is labelled a #1D he is alread an elite/franchise/superstar whatever term you want to use, it doesn't have to be added, and from my perspective that is how the media/scouts/hockey people use the word so that's how I have grown up understanding it
It's just a difference in thinking so the odds at the debate will go no where

 

[Sureves]

The difference in thinking is that the people who are disagreeing with you are not taking the word to the literal meaning, they are taking it as term of skill , that when a player is labelled a #1D he is alread an elite/franchise/superstar whatever term you want to use, it doesn't have to be added, and from my perspective that is how the media/scouts/hockey people use the word so that's how I have grown up understanding it
It's just a difference in thinking so the odds at the debate will go no where

The difference is I have objective evidence to say that your threshold for what constitutes a #1D is inappropriately high.

Regardless, let's just agree that Ekblad is a top 30 defenseman and leave it at that.

 

[Sureves]

Then the definition is completely meaningless

How is it meaningless? It means he is a top 30 defenseman. It very clearly is not meaningless: it is meaningful.

 

[Makar Goes Fast]

The difference is I have objective evidence to say that your threshold for what constitutes a #1D is inappropriately high.

Regardless, let's just agree that Ekblad is a top 30 defenseman and leave it at that.

where?

 

[Regal]

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.

And why would we redistribute the players? Why are there 30 teams? How do we determine a top 30 when there's so many defensemen at that level who are of roughly equal quality? Why could potentially the 30th best defensemen be considerably worse than the 29th defenseman yet still be given the same label? Why is someone deemed a certain level today suddenly held in higher esteem next year with 31 teams?

I get why people want to use this definition, as it's the only truly objective way of determining it, but because the number is not based specifically on how much talent is in the league, it becomes meaningless. We've all seen players on our teams who are playing in over their heads in a role and others who exceed expectations and would probably do better in a bigger one. If a player can perform their role on a team well and succeed in it than that's what they should be called. That has meaning.

 

[Sureves]

And that is exactly the flaw

OK let's say the NHL expanded from 30 to 100 teams, okay?

Let's assume all of these replacement players come from the AHL, just for arguments sake, meaning there are now an additional 420 defenseman in the league. Let's assume just for the sake of argument, a total redraft by every team happens so that the players are roughly evenly distributed in terms of talent.

In your opinion, has the number of #1D increased or stayed the same? How about #2D? #3D? #4D? #5D?

Are you really of the opinion that pretty much every 2nd pairing in the NHL is composed of #6D or #7D?

 

[Sureves]

where?

Read the thread.

 

[Makar Goes Fast]

Read the thread.

i have you've objectively proven nothing. but you've done a good job convincing yourself you are right

 

[Aladyyn]

OK let's say the NHL expanded from 30 to 100 teams, okay?

Let's assume all of these replacement players come from the AHL, just for arguments sake, meaning there are now an additional 420 defenseman in the league. Let's assume just for the sake of argument, a total redraft by every team happens so that the players are roughly evenly distributed in terms of talent.

In your opinion, has the number of #1D increased or stayed the same? How about #2D? #3D? #4D? #5D?

Are you really of the opinion that pretty much every 2nd pairing in the NHL is composed of #6D or #7D?

No? Because there are a lot of #2-#4 Dmen in the league. There are probably at least twice as many #2s as #1s right now. And having a top pairing of 2 #2 Dmen is still a pretty good top pairing, nothing wrong with that.

True #1 defensemen are a rare breed, about half the league lacks one.

 

[Sureves]

And why would we redistribute the players? Why are there 30 teams? How do we determine a top 30 when there's so many defensemen at that level who are of roughly equal quality? Why could potentially the 30th best defensemen be considerably worse than the 29th defenseman yet still be given the same label? Why is someone deemed a certain level today suddenly held in higher esteem next year with 31 teams?

I get why people want to use this definition, as it's the only truly objective way of determining it, but because the number is not based specifically on how much talent is in the league, it becomes meaningless. We've all seen players on our teams who are playing in over their heads in a role and others who exceed expectations and would probably do better in a bigger one. If a player can perform their role on a team well and succeed in it than that's what they should be called. That has meaning.

So I take it then that you do not believe there is such a thing as:

- Strong #1D
- OK #1D
- Weak #1D

In your mind, you need to succeed in the role to qualify as a #1D to begin with, so naturally it is not possible to be a weak #1D.