Ranking NHL Teams By Defencemen

[Rants Mulliniks]

I wouldn't be so high on Barrie, all you are considering is points , he is terrible defensively and doesn't skate all that well , carry the puck up the ice all that well or even pass above average. Coming from an Avs fan thankfully he is gone. The more he is on the ice the better chance your team will lose. He put up 59 points playing with the big dogs but was still a team low -3 on a playoff team with a positive goal differential. The Leafs will be in tough to make the playoffs with that D core

If +/- is your stat, clearly the guys you want to get rid of are MacKinnon, Landeskog, Rantanen, etc. All minus players with the chips on the line while Barrie was a +.

 

[DANOZ28]

if my wild's top 4 were on any other team with better offense or even a better goalie we'd be top 10.

 

[NoName]

Am I wrong in thinking Toronto is a bit top heavy, and PK Subban is a wildcard?

I could see both could be placed if all things go right for both clubs but those are maybe optimistic projections. IMHO they're both likely to fall a few spots.

Oh yeah, 7th is too high. Rielly, Barrie and Muzzin is an elite top-3 and they have solid (if unproven) youthful depth in Dermott, Liljegren and Sandin but having Ceci in their top-4 is doubtless a substantial hole. Dubas deserves huge credit for turning a middling defence (probably like 16-18 last season) into something closer to the 10th best blue-line (at least on paper) and doing it on a shoe-string budget, but 7th is overrating it. I would have Boston, Columbus and Dallas ahead of it.

IMHO, other bluelines that are overrated here are: Carolina (inside the top-10 definitely and up to 5 might be arguable, but I wouldn’t have them as 3rd best in the whole NHL and not ahead of St. Louis or Nashville), Buffalo (there is individual talent there, no doubt but this is an inexperienced blueline that has been one of the weakest in the NHL for years and calling it suddenly a top-9 outfit is a huge stretch), and Vancouver.

Underrated is Winnipeg who definitely took a blow this offseason but at 26th is disgustingly underestimated (Big Buff and Morrissey as a top pairing can go head-to head with almost any other pair), Anaheim (their offence may be god-awful but that blueline is in the top half of the NHL, no doubt), Minnesota, where yeah, Suter is a year older and there are some serious questions up front and in net, but it is impossible that a top-4 that has Suter, Dumba and Spurgeon is in the lower half of the league and Boston (as much as I loathe the Bruins that blueline is intimidating with a potent mix of skill and physicality).

 

[Viqsi]

I was going to point out how the Penguins were 15th in goalies and 22nd in defense despite consistently having top-10 results defensively, but I think the Wild being 19th in goalies and 16th in defense despite being 1st in xGA, HDCA and SCA last year is worse. It's amazing that these teams with mediocre or worse defenses and goaltending somehow end up giving good defensive results.

He seems to rank defenses based more on offensive talent than actual defending.

Well, unless your team loses a forward and a goaltender. Then your defense suddenly becomes less talented, because something something reasons.

 

[Kamiccolo]

I don't get the Tampa vs Toronto thing. Tampa has this amazing defense apparently, while Toronto is laughable in the top 10. Keep in mind their goalie JUST won the Vezina, meaning he is the best goalie in the league last year...

- Leafs gave up 30 more goals over 82 games

- Tampa had 31.1 shots / game. Toronto had 33.1

So 30 more goals, and about 2 more shots a game. Now, include that Sparks played games for the Leafs last year, and yeesh. The only thing separating these defenses is goaltending. It just goes to show how hard it is to shed a reputation to other fans.

 

[joe dirte]

He seems to rank defenses based more on offensive talent than actual defending.

Well, unless your team loses a forward and a goaltender. Then your defense suddenly becomes less talented, because something something reasons.

No offense, but you seem to be getting worked up about this. Don't stress it, it's one person's opinion, no big deal.

 

[joe dirte]

I don't get the Tampa vs Toronto thing. Tampa has this amazing defense apparently, while Toronto is laughable in the top 10. Keep in mind their goalie JUST won the Vezina, meaning he is the best goalie in the league last year...

- Leafs gave up 30 more goals over 82 games

- Tampa had 31.1 shots / game. Toronto had 33.1

So 30 more goals, and about 2 more shots a game. Now, include that Sparks played games for the Leafs last year, and yeesh. The only thing separating these defenses is goaltending. It just goes to show how hard it is to shed a reputation to other fans.

Not that I disagree with the overall idea of what you're saying, but 30 goals over 82 games, and an average of 2 shots per game, is more than you're making it out to be.

 

[Kamiccolo]

Not that I disagree with the overall idea of what you're saying, but 30 goals over 82 games, and an average of 2 shots per game, is more than you're making it out to be.

Well when you consider that Sparks played 16 full games last year (not counting if he was pulled or came in for relief) and had 55 goals scored against him.. Yeah lol.

Then factor in Vasi was better than Andersen last year as well. The goal difference against is easily explained. 2 shots against a game is nothing IMO. Certainly not worth enough to rank one as the top 2 defense and claim the other is outside the top 10.

 

[joe dirte]

Well when you consider that Sparks played 16 full games last year (not counting if he was pulled or came in for relief) and had 55 goals scored against him.. Yeah lol.

And that's a fair point. All I'm saying is, a .40 GAA difference is substantial. 30 goals may not sound like much, but it is. If you wanted to point out that nearly the entire difference is due to Sparks' horrendous play, you'd have a point.

Then factor in Vasi was better than Andersen last year as well. The goal difference against is easily explained. 2 shots against a game is nothing IMO. Certainly not worth enough to rank one as the top 2 defense and claim the other is outside the top 10.

2 shots a game, on average, is also more significant than you make it sound. It's the difference for roughly about 10 spots in the standings, if you were to order teams from best to worst in shots against. it's not an insignificant difference like you're suggesting. When you say "not enough to rank someone outside the top 10, and another in 2nd, well, it's the difference from the Leafs 19th in Shots against, to 2 less shots a game would make them 8th best. So yeah, it actually IS enough of a difference to jump someone 10 spots.

 

[The Podium]

The Leafs, with Cody Ceci in the top pair, is a top ten defense? Hell no.

That third pair is ghastly.

I think it ends up

Rielly - Barrie
Muzzin - Ceci
Dermott - Schmaltz/Liljegren

 

[DANOZ28]

im predicting the wild's D score 50G this season. provided we re-sign spurgeon. suter 8G; spurgeon 14G; brodin 5G; dumba 20G! plus a few from #5;#6;& #7. i also think our GA will drop now that fenton is gone and not rumored to trade everybody! i believe we do lack a crease clearing beast.

 

[Viqsi]

No offense, but you seem to be getting worked up about this. Don't stress it, it's one person's opinion, no big deal.

I get slightly annoyed with folks who like to play the "the only good Blue Jackets players are transplants from other teams" game. I get a bit more annoyed when it's done by someone purporting to be an analyst of note.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

He seems to rank defenses based more on offensive talent than actual defending.

Well, unless your team loses a forward and a goaltender. Then your defense suddenly becomes less talented, because something something reasons.

Depending on how it is employed, offensive D can be a form of defensive strategy.

 

[CycloneSweep]

I'd actually flip Edmonton and Vegas. Edmonton "on paper" might look better but Vegas guys have been proven better

 

[Viqsi]

Depending on how it is employed, offensive D can be a form of defensive strategy.

It can indeed. I don't think it's a bad way to evaluate bluelines; I'd just prefer the OP be consistent about it.

 

[Breakers]

Chicago at 14

LOL

 

[joe dirte]

I get slightly annoyed with folks who like to play the "the only good Blue Jackets players are transplants from other teams" game. I get a bit more annoyed when it's done by someone purporting to be an analyst of note.

i don't get what you mean. transplants?

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Rielly is the Leafs’ best defensive guy. I would consider him a stud defensively. He’s a terrific 200-foot player capable of carrying his partner, if need be.

Even most diehard Leaf fans would likely not agree with this assessment of Rielly.

 

[Breakers]

Even most diehard Leaf fans would likely not agree with this assessment of Rielly.

I have no idea how somebody could make that assessment of him being a stud defensively.

 

[joe dirte]

Depending on how it is employed, offensive D can be a form of defensive strategy.

It's never going to be an excuse for inability to defend.

the idea that "if you always have possession the other team can't score!!!!!" is so damn misguided in these parts it's unbelievable. The coaches like Tippet who so many have interpreted to mean that defending is not required if you can move the puck, increase possession, and score, would be embarrassed by some of the takes on this board. The top possession dmen in the NHL right now are under 60%. Every single one of them needs to know how to defend, and I mean TRULY defend, or it's a problem.

It's true that the ability to defend against the other team's attack won't be overly successful if you can't subsequently clear/advance the puck, it's also true that you won't get the ability to clear/advance the puck without the ability to defend. One isn't a reason to ignore the other, rather, the ability to do one without the other (either one) isn't good enough in today's game.

 

[Viqsi]

i don't get what you mean. transplants?

Players who were originally on other teams. It's basically the genetic fallacy in action w/r/t players drafted and developed by the organization versus players traded for, in which the former are "bad" because that organization is "historically bad" (without regard to whether or not things have changed in the last decade), but the latter are "good" because the organization didn't have the chance to "ruin" them.

Most folks have grown out of that nonsense with Columbus, and are able to recognize guys like PLD, Werenski, Atkinson, and others as legitimately good players in their own right. The OP appears to be lacking this - instead assuming that PLD and Atkinson were exclusively the product of Panarin, Werenski is the product of Jones, and any team success as a whole was the product of Bobrovsky.

So if I seem a little more incensed by this than usual, that's why - his "analysis" amounts to the old saw of "Columbus sucks and can't do anything with their own players, because Columbus".

 

[joe dirte]

Even most diehard Leaf fans would likely not agree with this assessment of Rielly.

he's very solid defensively. he spent a few years being deployed as their top defensive guy. When Phaneuf was on the team, they slowly gave Phaneuf ALL the offensive deployment, and used Rielly primarily in a defensive role. He's developed a very solid defensive game over the years. Last year, believe it or not, Jake Gardiner took on quite a bit of the defensive heavy lifting, and Rielly got deployed a little more offensively. But he's got plenty of experience being used as a defensive dman.

Take a look at things like zone deployment, PK, whatever, over the years. You'll see a trend of his towards taking on a more defensive role.

 

[joe dirte]

Players who were originally on other teams. It's basically the genetic fallacy in action w/r/t players drafted and developed by the organization versus players traded for, in which the former are "bad" because that organization is "historically bad" (without regard to whether or not things have changed in the last decade), but the latter are "good" because the organization didn't have the chance to "ruin" them.

Most folks have grown out of that nonsense with Columbus, and are able to recognize guys like PLD, Werenski, Atkinson, and others as legitimately good players in their own right. The OP appears to be lacking this - instead assuming that PLD and Atkinson were exclusively the product of Panarin, Werenski is the product of Jones, and any team success as a whole was the product of Bobrovsky.

So if I seem a little more incensed by this than usual, that's why - his "analysis" amounts to the old saw of "Columbus sucks and can't do anything with their own players, because Columbus".

I do'nt really see why you care where they came from. Atkinson and PLD are decent players on their own, but on their own, a lot more is needed for a "good" offense. Werenski is good, on his own, but Jones is better, quite clearly. Werenski isn't a guy you build a defense around (yet anyway), but Jones is. I'm not sure why it matters that he was traded for.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

he's very solid defensively. he spent a few years being deployed as their top defensive guy. When Phaneuf was on the team, they slowly gave Phaneuf ALL the offensive deployment, and used Rielly primarily in a defensive role. He's developed a very solid defensive game over the years. Last year, believe it or not, Jake Gardiner took on quite a bit of the defensive heavy lifting, and Rielly got deployed a little more offensively. But he's got plenty of experience being used as a defensive dman.

Take a look at things like zone deployment, PK, whatever, over the years. You'll see a trend of his towards taking on a more defensive role.

There's a massive difference between "very solid defensively" and "a stud defensively". When you start describing a defenseman like the latter, IMO, you're essentially labeling him as one of the top shutdown D in hockey. Otherwise, every defenseman who is simply solid or dependable would be a "stud defensively".

For instance, Kris Letang for the Pens is someone I'd describe as very solid defensively, capable of matching up against the other team's best night after night and doing a capable job of it. But I wouldn't call him a stud defensively. And IMO, Rielly's a notch below Letang defensively (presently).

 

[joe dirte]

There's a massive difference between "very solid defensively" and "a stud defensively". When you start describing a defenseman like the latter, IMO, you're essentially labeling him as one of the top shutdown D in hockey. Otherwise, every defenseman who is simply solid or dependable would be a "stud defensively".

Okay, well he's not one of the top shutdown dmen in the league.

For instance, Kris Letang for the Pens is someone I'd describe as very solid defensively, capable of matching up against the other team's best night after night and doing a capable job of it. But I wouldn't call him a stud defensively. And IMO, Rielly's a notch below Letang defensively (presently).

I agree, Letang is very solid defensively. It's a shame many don't realize. At his absolute best, which has been unfortunately rare given his injury issues over the years, he's been one of the best 2 way dmen in the league in years past.

As far as Rielly goes, maybe pay a little more attention to him this year, because Letang is pretty much exactly what Rielly has developed into. Not a notch below, he is what Letang was. And pretty damn tough, to boot.