Prospect Info: Jesperi Kotkaniemi (1st round pick, 3OA 2018 - signed ELC) - Post-development camp edition

[Mrb1p]

65 is low for a 1C. If its a 65 points in a low to mid low year, fine. But no, ROR isnt a 1C. 70+ is 1C territory and I dont think theres a lot of debate about playing style or what ever, youd have to be really bad to not be a 1C at 70.

Career years dont count either, Schenn isnt a 1C.

Wed have to consider the case of a guy like Plekanec. Two 70 points seasons.... but scattered around 50 points seasons... im not sure id call him a 1C.

Youd have to hit 70 and 65+ with regularity to be a 1C.

 

[Mrb1p]

There are 31 number 1 centres in the NHL.

The fact that itsi difficult to rank them precisely is a pedantic argument. Yes, the 22nd best on one person's list might be the 34th on another. That just means that werew not sure who the number 1 centers are. It happens .

But then Malkin, Backstrom, Draisaitl and Tavares arent 1Cs, which is kind of ridiculous considering Drouin would be one.

 

[DramaticGloveSave]

There are 31 number 1 centres in the NHL.

The fact that itsi difficult to rank them precisely is a pedantic argument. Yes, the 22nd best on one person's list might be the 34th on another. That just means that werew not sure who the number 1 centers are. It happens .

If you want to define it in an indisputable way, a 1C is the C who plays the most minutes on one of the 31 NHL teams

 

[David Suzuki]

I think putting a point total on the term #1 centre is kind of a silly exercise. If someone puts up 80 points three years in a row then 55 in the fourth year is he no longer a number one centre? I feel like it's just all up to your interpretation. Not everything needs to be determined by numbers on hockey db.

 

[DramaticGloveSave]

But then Malkin, Backstrom, Draisaitl and Tavares arent 1Cs, which is kind of ridiculous considering Drouin would be one.

Then that would be a ranking. If you are ranking the Cs league wide of course there will be multiple teams with multiple guys in the top 31 and other teams with none.

But if you are simply trying to define a 1C technically then there are 31 and they are the Cs who play the most minutes for their respective teams.

In terms of stats, it'll change year to year, but roughly for me 60+ points per 82 games makes you a top 30 C yearly from an offensive production standpoint.

 

[LyricalLyricist]

65 + points to me is a no. 1 center as long as they play a complete game in all situations and against other top lines.

I agree with this. 65+ is at least a #1B center.

 

[NotProkofievian]

There are 31 number 1 centres in the NHL.

The fact that itsi difficult to rank them precisely is a pedantic argument. Yes, the 22nd best on one person's list might be the 34th on another. That just means that werew not sure who the number 1 centers are. It happens .

As @Mrb1p pointed out - rather surprisingly because he's so wrong about Danault, for instance - this is sort of a messy definition. Malkin's not a 1C because he plays less than Crosby, while Tomas Plekanec is a 1C? Doesn't add up. Whether we're talking about a ranking of centers, or a mythical category it sort of amounts to the same thing. There is something meant by the value of the labour of a ''true'' 1C in addition to how much they play.

So, what is it that a center does or does not do that makes them a ''1C''?

 

[DAChampion]

But then Malkin, Backstrom, Draisaitl and Tavares arent 1Cs, which is kind of ridiculous considering Drouin would be one.

No, they're number 1 C's, as some teams have no number 1 C's, such as the Habs.

It's the 31st best centers based on the definition.

 

[DAChampion]

As @Mrb1p pointed out - rather surprisingly because he's so wrong about Danault, for instance - this is sort of a messy definition. Malkin's not a 1C because he plays less than Crosby, while Tomas Plekanec is a 1C? Doesn't add up. Whether we're talking about a ranking of centers, or a mythical category it sort of amounts to the same thing. There is something meant by the value of the labour of a ''true'' 1C in addition to how much they play.

So, what is it that a center does or does not do that makes them a ''1C''?

What is meant is that if teams were even, then it would be the 31 players who were the top centers on their team.

It's the same thing with starting goalies. There are 31 goalies, but that doesn't stop a team from trading for 2 or 3 of them if they want to, or from butchering their chances and ending up two backups.

 

[NotProkofievian]

Let's talk 60 point centers. I don't think anyone would argue that Patrice Bergeron is a 1C, and clearly a superior player to Ryan O'Reilly. But they both produce similar point totals. In the last 4 seasons Ryan and Patrice have both produced about the same number of points in the same number of games, slight advantage going to Patrice.

It strikes me that we need a way to distinguish why Ryan is not a 1C but Patrice is, as point totals really won't do.

 

[NotProkofievian]

What is meant is that if teams were even, then it would be the 31 players who were the top centers on their team.

It's the same thing with starting goalies. There are 31 goalies, but that doesn't stop a team from trading for 2 or 3 of them if they want to, or from butchering their chances and ending up two backups.

Like I said, whether you want it to be a category or a ranking, you still have to do the classification.

 

[DAChampion]

Like I said, whether you want it to be a category or a ranking, you still have to do the classification.

No.

I'm saying that the term "number 1 centre" means a player among the top-31 who regularly plays centre in the league. I acknowledge that this is difficult to rank, that it changes from year to year, and that it might even change based on roster context -- who the wingers are, what style the coach demands, etc. It's very much an idealized category as is "a starter" and "a number 1dman" and "a franchise player", yet we continue to use those categories.

There is no accurate way to rank players. You can pick ranking criteria, and someone will find a counterexample. Hockey is not a solved analytical problem.

 

[Mrb1p]

As @Mrb1p pointed out - rather surprisingly because he's so wrong about Danault, for instance - this is sort of a messy definition. Malkin's not a 1C because he plays less than Crosby, while Tomas Plekanec is a 1C? Doesn't add up. Whether we're talking about a ranking of centers, or a mythical category it sort of amounts to the same thing. There is something meant by the value of the labour of a ''true'' 1C in addition to how much they play.

So, what is it that a center does or does not do that makes them a ''1C''?

You jabroni

 

[Sterling Archer]

I agree with this. 65+ is at least a #1B center.

Exceedingly few no. 1 centers do better than that. There are only a handful of PPG centers in the nhl so you can’t use that as the metric. I think that 65+ point, 200 ft. Center is a more realistic metric. That’s not to say they can’t have a few years of 70+ point production too. But I don’t think people realize the quality of players who are in that category because most focus on the superstars and not the average top line center average production.

NHL.com - Stats

 

[NotProkofievian]

No.

I'm saying that the term "number 1 centre" means a player among the top-31 who regularly plays centre in the league. I acknowledge that this is difficult to rank, that it changes from year to year, and that it might even change based on roster context -- who the wingers are, what style the coach demands, etc. It's very much an idealized category as is "a starter" and "a number 1dman" and "a franchise player", yet we continue to use those categories.

There is no accurate way to rank players. You can pick ranking criteria, and someone will find a counterexample. Hockey is not a solved analytical problem.

That seems like a rather strong, or lazy claim.

 

[DAChampion]

That seems like a rather strong, or lazy claim.

OK -- so show me the accurate way to rank players lol.

 

[NotProkofievian]

OK -- so show me the accurate way to rank players lol.

I made an argument, you can feel free to provide a counter argument. Or not. This discussion is for people who are actually interested in advancing a criterion or debating one.

 

[DAChampion]

I made an argument, you can feel free to provide a counter argument. Or not. This discussion is for people who are actually interested in advancing a criterion or debating one.

I made an argument as well and you dismissed it as "lazy", the onus is thus on you to do better.

Just FYI, if you want to use scientific language and tools, you should understand that uncertainty is a very real part of the world.

 

[NotProkofievian]

I made an argument as well and you dismissed it as "lazy", the onus is thus on you to do better.

Just FYI, if you want to use scientific language and tools, you should understand that uncertainty is a very real part of the world.

I did more than that. I showed you that your criterion would lead you to rank inferior players ahead of superior players and thus it was incomplete. To which you responded that there was no right way of doing it. Well, maybe, maybe not, but there are certainly wrong ways of doing things, and saying that the 31 1Cs in the league are the centers on each team who play the most is certainly the wrong way.

What problem do you have with my criteria?

 

[Mrb1p]

Let's talk 60 point centers. I don't think anyone would argue that Patrice Bergeron is a 1C, and clearly a superior player to Ryan O'Reilly. But they both produce similar point totals. In the last 4 seasons Ryan and Patrice have both produced about the same number of points in the same number of games, slight advantage going to Patrice.

It strikes me that we need a way to distinguish why Ryan is not a 1C but Patrice is, as point totals really won't do.

Bergeron has low seasons of 50 and highs of 70+, just like Toews used to have. As long as ROR doesnt put up more point hes not gonna be a 1C. He was PPG this year, has 70 points seasons, high 60s and 50s. Plus phenomenal defense, on another level than ROR Id say.

Other guys like Johansen, Turris, Zibanejad, Monahan, etc. Wouldnt be ranked as 1Cs either. Theyre 2Cs, kind of like Plekanec used to be.

I value offensive production and being able to generate offense higher than most though, which is why I wouldnt rank these guys as 1C, even though their offensive produxtion is just a tad under 70. I also consider the head to head, if any given C can beat the best Cs in the lead in a series of game, then its likely hes a 1C.

Another way of putting it could be; the ability to be "the guy" on a first line. But then youd have to define what qualifies as a first line and what The guy means.

 

[DAChampion]

I showed you that your criterion would lead you to rank inferior players ahead of superior players

No, you did not. What you showed was that your misinterpretation of my criteria would lead one to rank inferior players ahead of superior players. You argued against a straw man, at no point did I ever suggest that Plekanec was a #1 and Malkin was not.

For me, number 1 centre means among the top-31 centers in the league. I'm not assuming that all 31 teams are equal as you implied. I know that they're not equal. Some teams might have 3 players at center better than any one on another team.

It's an abstract label, same as all of the similar labels in hockey. If the league had true parity then you might have a case where the top 31 centers were split among the 31 teams, and even then you probably wouldn't.

 

[Gaylord Q Tinkledink]

Let's talk 60 point centers. I don't think anyone would argue that Patrice Bergeron is a 1C, and clearly a superior player to Ryan O'Reilly. But they both produce similar point totals. In the last 4 seasons Ryan and Patrice have both produced about the same number of points in the same number of games, slight advantage going to Patrice.

It strikes me that we need a way to distinguish why Ryan is not a 1C but Patrice is, as point totals really won't do.

Hf has a mandate to ignore that because the collective of hf came to that conclusion.

RoR obviously isn't a Crosby, McDavid, or in that category, but he puts up points on a bad Buffalo team and has a strong two-way game.

Assuming he's healthy RoR should increase his total.by 10, or so points this year.

 

[DramaticGloveSave]

I think a decent gauge for a 1C would be if a C is a top 20 C more years than not. If a player pulls that off they were a 1C. If not they weren't. Though obviously rankings are personal. In terms of some universally recognized and accepted grading system, I don't think that yet exists.

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

A true 1c is a 1c on half of the teams. A player who cannot be a 1c on more than half of the teams is only there by default and is not a true 1c......end of discussion

 

[DAChampion]

A true 1c is a 1c on half of the teams. A player who cannot be a 1c on more than half of the teams is only there by default and is not a true 1c......end of discussion

Welcome back.