Is Aaron Ekblad a #1 D-man?

[Aladyyn]

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.

A weak #1 is a #2. Still top pairing calibre.

 

[FlaPanthers11]

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

He is right by the definition of the phrase. About as objective as you can get.

 

[Makar Goes Fast]

He is right by the definition of the phrase. About as objective as you can get.

no because when it is applied it is seriously flawed.

by his definition and by results of this very recent poll http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2113977

colorado has 2 1D. say that with a straight face.

now i dare you to find me the biggest colorado homer and they wouldnt even say that colorado has 2 1D because that is just not true and completely illogical.

 

[WhatWhat]

no because when it is applied it is seriously flawed.

by his definition and by results of this very recent poll http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2113977

colorado has 2 1D. say that with a straight face.

now i dare you to find me the biggest colorado homer and they wouldnt even say that colorado has 2 1D because that is just not true and completely illogical.

Yeah and according to that Chicago has 3 #1 D. Absolutely no slight on Hammer and Seabrook but I don't consider then #1 D

 

[Aladyyn]

Teams lacking a #1D:

Edmonton
Vancouver
Dallas
Boston
Buffalo
Detroit
Florida
Toronto
Columbus
New Jersey
NY Islanders
Philadelphia

Are there 11 teams that have 2 #1 Dmen? Not to mention a bunch of teams with borderline ones like Anaheim, Carolina, Colorado which throw the math off even more.

 

[Aladyyn]

no because when it is applied it is seriously flawed.

by his definition and by results of this very recent poll http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2113977

colorado has 2 1D. say that with a straight face.

now i dare you to find me the biggest colorado homer and they wouldnt even say that colorado has 2 1D because that is just not true and completely illogical.

At least 10 players in that top 30 are not #1s, but somehow made the top 30, interesting huh

 

[Regal]

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.

I'm perfectly aware what the argument is. That post seemed to be slightly different.

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).

You seem to be misunderstanding. The number of teams is a poor way to make a cutoff for the skill level of players, but it still impacts the the level of a quality needed to fill the role. Assuming a six team league at the current talent level, each team would be far better than current teams due to the concentration of talent. As such our definitions would have to change. The quality required to be a successful #1 D or #1 C becomes greater. Still, it's possible that a team would pay the 10th best center top line money, because there's likely not much difference between him and the 4th or 5th best guy. Say we make a list of the top 10 centers today:

Crosby
Malkin
Tavares
McDavid
Seguin
Giroux
Getzlaf
Kopitar
Toews
Thornton

That's 10 very good centers and obviously you can argue the order or add a guy like Backstrom or Stamkos. But that just speaks to the amount of talent in the league. How much difference is there really between Thornton and Getzlaf? Or Kopitar and Giroux? All these guys would be perfectly capable of playing and excelling on the top line in a six team league.

Now consider this: A new competing league of 6 teams similar to the former WHA breaks out with a fair number of NHLers leaving for it. All of the top forwards leave, but only a limited number of defensemen. Karlsson, Keith, Doughty, Hedman and Subban all bolt, along with a second group of Leddy, Klefbom, Tanev, Fowler, Larsson, Niskanen, and Hamonic. The rest of the defensemen are made up of minor leaguers. How many #1 defensemen are in the league? In a league where all the best forwards are condensed on 6 teams, would you trust Niskanen or Fowler or Leddy to succeed in that role when there's other teams putting out Keith or Doughty? I wouldn't. And I'd say in this league, based on the talent distribution, and number of teams, there's 5 guys you'd be comfortable with as your #1, and 7 guys you'd be comfortable with as your #2. If you don't have one playing in that role, you're SOL, and more than likely not winning anything.

Obviously that's an extreme example, but it shows just how ridiculous it is to try to put talent levels into a predetermined box based solely on the number of teams. League size isn't irrelevant to the situation, but because it's not based specifically on the talent at hand, an even distribution of players still doesn't mean every team has a player capable of adequately playing in the role their assigned.

 

[Regal]

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.

Is that supposed to be a thing? Do terms need to have these levels to exist?

Regardless, there's obviously still levels of players. Karlsson obviously performs better in his role than say, Faulk, but both are capable of being a number 1.

 

[6 Karlsson 5]

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 ? # of teams is completely arbitrary , the NHL has no formula for when and where to add and drop teams

 

[jrmysell]

So I have a question. If there are only 10-15 #1's, I'm assuming there'd be about the same #2's and so on, so where do you end up, 100 #17 Dmen?

 

[Aladyyn]

So I have a question. If there are only 10-15 #1's, I'm assuming there'd be about the same #2's and so on, so where do you end up, 100 #17 Dmen?

You're assuming wrong

 

[jrmysell]

Yes there are tiers, and some players fluctuate especially around the borders of the number of teams, ie 20-40 D, 50-70 D and so on. But that is why you argue a #1 D or not. Is he more in that 30-40 range or does he fully belong in the 20-30 range. If we're saying it's 15 #1 D, or 10 or however many you arbitrarily pick, Ekblad is not a #1 and this thread should not have even been made, much less made it to 6 pages. So, is Ekblad one of the top 30 D men, or a #1 D (30 of those), in the NHL?

 

[jrmysell]

You're assuming wrong

So ther's 75 #2?

 

[Aladyyn]

So ther's 75 #2?

Probably not that many but 40+ definitely

 

[Regal]

You're assuming wrong

Exactly. There are quite a number of guys capable of filling a #2 role, and even more capable of filling out a top 4 role. The difference in talent becomes much less pronounced the further you go down the list of defensemen, and naturally it makes sense that more players would be capable of attaining a lower standard.

 

[Sureves]

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.

You did not at all respond to my post, did you accidentally quote me?

 

[Sureves]

Guys I don't know how many times ways I need to frame the argument, but I'll give it one last shot:

Let's first assume you believe there are 20 #1D currently in the NHL. Say the NHL expanded to 1,000 teams. As part of this expansion, all these new players come from the AHL, and a full redraft of every player (I.e. Both current NHL players and the new players from the AHL) is performed.

Assuming these new players from the AHL do not meet your definition of a "#1D", would you still be saying there are only 20 #1D in the entire 1,000 team league?

 

[Aladyyn]

If those are the mental gymnastics you need to use to justify your viewpoint...

 

[Regal]

Guys I don't know how many times ways I need to frame the argument, but I'll give it one last shot:

Let's first assume you believe there are 20 #1D currently in the NHL. Say the NHL expanded to 1,000 teams. As part of this expansion, all these new players come from the AHL, and a full redraft of every player (I.e. Both current NHL players and the new players from the AHL) is performed.

Assuming these new players from the AHL do not meet your definition of a "#1D", would you still be saying there are only 20 #1D in the entire 1,000 team league?

See my response to dbhislife above for a response to this

 

[Makar Goes Fast]

Guys I don't know how many times ways I need to frame the argument, but I'll give it one last shot:

Let's first assume you believe there are 20 #1D currently in the NHL. Say the NHL expanded to 1,000 teams. As part of this expansion, all these new players come from the AHL, and a full redraft of every player (I.e. Both current NHL players and the new players from the AHL) is performed.

Assuming these new players from the AHL do not meet your definition of a "#1D", would you still be saying there are only 20 #1D in the entire 1,000 team league?

so colorado has 2 1D's right now?

and chicago has 3 1D's?

 

[6 Karlsson 5]

Delete , this thread ain't worth it

 

[Sureves]

so colorado has 2 1D's right now?

and chicago has 3 1D's?

Yes.

 

[Sureves]

See my response to dbhislife above for a response to this

With all due respect, I don't understand your post.

If you think there is only 15 #1D in the NHL today, and you would not modify that definition if there were 1,000,000 (as according to you league size is irrelevant to this determination) when substantially all of the defenseman in the league would not be NHL defenseman, then we simply don't agree.

A guy like Ceci would DEFINITELY be a #1D in this scenario: one of the better ones in the league in fact.

 

[Aladyyn]

With all due respect, I don't understand your post.

If you think there is only 15 #1D in the NHL today, and you would not modify that definition if there were 1,000,000 (as according to you league size is irrelevant to this determination) when substantially all of the defenseman in the league would not be NHL defenseman, then we simply don't agree.

A guy like Ceci would DEFINITELY be a #1D in this scenario: one of the better ones in the league in fact.

At least read the posts before you argue.

I'm perfectly aware what the argument is. That post seemed to be slightly different.



You seem to be misunderstanding. The number of teams is a poor way to make a cutoff for the skill level of players, but it still impacts the the level of a quality needed to fill the role. Assuming a six team league at the current talent level, each team would be far better than current teams due to the concentration of talent. As such our definitions would have to change. The quality required to be a successful #1 D or #1 C becomes greater. Still, it's possible that a team would pay the 10th best center top line money, because there's likely not much difference between him and the 4th or 5th best guy. Say we make a list of the top 10 centers today:

Crosby
Malkin
Tavares
McDavid
Seguin
Giroux
Getzlaf
Kopitar
Toews
Thornton

That's 10 very good centers and obviously you can argue the order or add a guy like Backstrom or Stamkos. But that just speaks to the amount of talent in the league. How much difference is there really between Thornton and Getzlaf? Or Kopitar and Giroux? All these guys would be perfectly capable of playing and excelling on the top line in a six team league.

Now consider this: A new competing league of 6 teams similar to the former WHA breaks out with a fair number of NHLers leaving for it. All of the top forwards leave, but only a limited number of defensemen. Karlsson, Keith, Doughty, Hedman and Subban all bolt, along with a second group of Leddy, Klefbom, Tanev, Fowler, Larsson, Niskanen, and Hamonic. The rest of the defensemen are made up of minor leaguers. How many #1 defensemen are in the league? In a league where all the best forwards are condensed on 6 teams, would you trust Niskanen or Fowler or Leddy to succeed in that role when there's other teams putting out Keith or Doughty? I wouldn't. And I'd say in this league, based on the talent distribution, and number of teams, there's 5 guys you'd be comfortable with as your #1, and 7 guys you'd be comfortable with as your #2. If you don't have one playing in that role, you're SOL, and more than likely not winning anything.

Obviously that's an extreme example, but it shows just how ridiculous it is to try to put talent levels into a predetermined box based solely on the number of teams. League size isn't irrelevant to the situation, but because it's not based specifically on the talent at hand, an even distribution of players still doesn't mean every team has a player capable of adequately playing in the role their assigned.

 

[WarriorOfGandhi]

it seems that every thread about #1 dmen (or #1 centers, etc) always comes down to the semantics of "there's 30 #1 dmen in the league" against "i only consider X amount of players #1 dmen"