The Down Side of the #1 Defenceman Argument

[Alflives*]

6 guys in the entire league would be considered "#1 Dmen" with the way things are worded around here. That's how that term has been used. One would think those 6 would be more akin to "franchise" level Dmen, leaving the next 24, of the top 30 in the league, to be recognized as legit #1s. When you put it like this, it's clear to see that Edler is a #1. Perhaps even Hamhuis too.


Correct about the cost. It would be astronomical. There is a point to be made about Myers and Weber. Both follow a methodology in drafting that better allows to forecast a high-end defender - great toolboxes. These were project picks that matured into what you now see. Targeted for their physical gifts more than anything. That's what MG needs to do with his later picks.


Carlson was a late 1st. Weber was a 2nd rounder. Myers went 12th overall. Karlsson at 15. Suter went 7th overall. The only elite Dmen to go in the top5, in recent memory, are Doughty and Pietrangelo. Meaning, the "hits" are not localized to the very top of the draft. You can make a shrewd pick later, develop it right, and still have it turn out extremely well. But you have to draft upside, and you have to have at least a standard allotment of picks. This gives you a chance.

Your analysis is good. It's a development process. But if Gillis could get one who is up and coming and really close (Carlson) in the goalie trade, then that player would help the current core in its efforts for a Cup and be part of the future too.

 

[Alflives*]

I think the whole idea we need a #1 defenceman is a bit silly too. I usually use the numbers to represent the type of players they are (ie what they bring to the table and how many minutes they can log)

Edler #2
Hamhuis #2
Bieksa #3
Garrison #4
Ballard #4
Tanev #4
Alberts #7
Barker #9

Close, but Edler and Hamhuis are 2nd pair D-men. Edler could be a #1 pair, if his partner was a franchise D. We are seeing that with Suter now that he is away from Weber. Suter is not fairing very well at all. He is a second pairing D, who is trying to play top pair minutes, and is struggling.

Coach V. manages his D's minutes depending on which ones are playing best on a night-by-night basis. Tanev and Ballard (3rd pair D, at best) play top minutes some nights. This is the best indicator of where the other Canucks' D truly fit.

 

[Nuckles]

Close, but Edler and Hamhuis are 2nd pair D-men. Edler could be a #1 pair, if his partner was a franchise D. We are seeing that with Suter now that he is away from Weber. Suter is not fairing very well at all. He is a second pairing D, who is trying to play top pair minutes, and is struggling.

You think WAY too highly of #1 d-men/1st pairing d-men.

And I still don't understand how you think Phaneuf is a #1 defenseman while "Edler and Hamhuis are 2nd pair d-men."

 

[Proto]

The Canucks have four defensemen that could play on the top pairing in at least half the teams in the league, in my opinion. Once you get past franchise defensemen, you're talking about really good players with certain flaws (less offensive production, inconsistency, not as good defensively) to varying degrees. The key is to have guys that compensate for one another, and having Hamhuis and Garrison essentially assures the Canucks have one of the best Top 4s in hockey, even without a franchise defenseman. It's the next best thing to having "that guy".

I think you'd see a lot of borderline elite defensemen with an Edler/Phaneuf skillset in the NHL would make the leap with the right dude riding shotgun, but finding that guy (Hamhuis, Garrison, Mitchell) is just as hard as finding the Edler/Phaneuf guy. Thankfully for us fans, Mike Gillis seems to understand that.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Your analysis is good. It's a development process. But if Gillis could get one who is up and coming and really close (Carlson) in the goalie trade, then that player would help the current core in its efforts for a Cup and be part of the future too.

Carlson doesn't add anything unique to this team. I think this may be a case where a player is being severely overvalued. When I'm speaking about the top6 franchise level dmen around the league, Carlson isn't near that group.

 

[Alflives*]

I think you'd see a lot of borderline elite defensemen with an Edler/Phaneuf skillset in the NHL would make the leap with the right dude riding shotgun, but finding that guy (Hamhuis, Garrison, Mitchell) is just as hard as finding the Edler/Phaneuf guy. Thankfully for us fans, Mike Gillis seems to understand that.

This is a good post, but Edler is not Phaneuf. Phaneuf eats up far more minutes, and has an edge to his game that Edler doesn't. Give Phaneuf a Luongo or Schneider, and he would have more freedom to add offense too. The Canucks' D are complimented by fantastic (and consitant) goaltending, making them appear to be better than they are.

 

[Proto]

This is a good post, but Edler is not Phaneuf. Phaneuf eats up far more minutes, and has an edge to his game that Edler doesn't. Give Phaneuf a Luongo or Schneider, and he would have more freedom to add offense too. The Canucks' D are complimented by fantastic (and consitant) goaltending, making them appear to be better than they are.

Reimer has been good this year. Phaneuf's biggest issue is that he's a pretty dumb hockey player without a guy like Hamhuis/Garrison to cover up his flaws.

I think Edler is better than Phaneuf by a mile, but I do like Phaneuf more than a lot seem to.

 

[Alflives*]

Reimer has been good this year. Phaneuf's biggest issue is that he's a pretty dumb hockey player without a guy like Hamhuis/Garrison to cover up his flaws.

I think Edler is better than Phaneuf by a mile, but I do like Phaneuf more than a lot seem to.

And I like Edler, when he is keeping gap control by stepping up to make heavy contact. He just does not do this often enough to intimidate. Phaneuf does.

 

[Proto]

And I like Edler, when he is keeping gap control by stepping up to make heavy contact. He just does not do this often enough to intimidate. Phaneuf does.

So? Edler plays a better positional game, scores more points, is smarter in transition, and has a more accurate shot. I think it would be nice if he was a bit more physical, too, but given his injury history I want him to manage his game accordingly.

And he plays less minutes by design.

 

[pitseleh]

This isn't necessarily true. At a certain point, wins for a baseball team become more important (somewhere around 88-94 wins), because they're harder to get and they're more likely to get a team into the playoffs. In light of that, acquiring a player who adds a 2 wins -- say, 6 WAR vs 4 WAR -- is worth more money when you have an 87 win club. It all gets a bit complicated, but at a certain point the extra talent is worth the additional dollars. This is part of the reason people believe the asset cost was worth it for the Jays when they acquired RA Dickey: it may have pushed them from a team around 86 wins to about 89-90 wins.

It's difficult to adapt that reasoning from baseball to hockey for a number of reasons:

1) Obviously baseball doesn't have a cap. Teams can value wins at a higher amount because they aren't constrained by limitations on their spending other than money. The change in the win curve happens because teams can generate a ROI on their investment above and beyond what most teams can. With revenue sharing, I don't think NHL teams make nearly as much from a single playoff series.

2) Baseball has a lot more variability in the playoffs - pretty much any team that makes the playoffs can win it all with almost equal likelihood as a seven game sample in baseball tells you a lot less about true talent than it does in hockey - but half the number of teams actually make it there, so getting to the playoffs is significantly more valuable than it is in hockey. This is what creates the additional value depending on where you are on the win curve. In hockey, you don't have that same impetus. Teams are not constrained by playoff spots, as it's incredibly unlikley that a team facing the prospect of pushing themselves over the win threshold for the playoffs is going to be competitive for the Stanley Cup. Just as in baseball, a 95-100 win team doesn't gain a lot of value from adding additional wins, teams like the Canucks, Kings, Blackhawks, Blues, etc. don't either. The win curve idea would apply to teams like the Flames and Stars that are always on the cusp of the playoffs.

3) Baseball essentially has one game state while hockey has three. You can maximize value in hockey by getting players that specialize in different areas (EV, PP, PK) to maximize your competency in all three without having an elite player in any one area. In baseball, a player is going to be either doing one thing (pitching, DHing) or has to do both (play defence and hit). In hockey this would be like making you play defencemen in equal amounts (proportionately) on the PP, PK, and EV. Or another way to equalize things would be to allow a significantly expanded roster in baseball so that teams could constantly change players to take advantage of platoons and defensive/pinch hit substitutions.

As for committee scoring, I guess I'd say that if you could upgrade a 5g/40pt defenseman to a 15g/60pt defenseman, you're adding a lot of surplus value into a single roster spot. That's worth something.

This is the big value in elite players, IMO. Consolidation in value is much more important for good teams than bad, and, with the NHL cap structure, elite players tend to get undervalued in the market moreso than average to above average players. Unlike in baseball, you don't see an (essentially) linear progression in salary depending on the number of wins you add. Instead, top end players are constrained by the percentage of the cap they can take up and I think this acts as ceiling that no one wants to hit.

This means that there is relative value in the $7-8 million true superstars compared to the $6-7 million very good players and the $4-5 million above average players.

 

[Alflives*]

So? Edler plays a better positional game, scores more points, is smarter in transition, and has a more accurate shot. I think it would be nice if he was a bit more physical, too, but given his injury history I want him to manage his game accordingly.

And he plays less minutes by design.

Oh, Edler plays a 'soft' game to keep from being injured. That's only another reason why he is not a top pair D. Although he does have the tools to be one, he does not use them as you described above. Phaneuf is Bieksa, only bigger, and more able to log heavy minutes every game. If Bieksa was combined with Edler, then that would be a Phaneuf.

 

[Alflives*]

This means that there is relative value in the $7-8 million true superstars compared to the $6-7 million very good players and the $4-5 million above average players.

Very well thought out. By your analysis the Canucks have, on D, no #1 pair players. Edler is close, but does not play up to the role every game. Therefore, is he over payed?

 

[vanuck]

Suter is a 2nd pairing D? Did I really just read that?

 

[604]

It worked for Carolina. It can work for anyone.

Who else did it work for?

I think Tampa is debatable but given what Boyle turned out to be, he probably counts as a #1.

Its a pretty short lost of teams that won a Cup without a first or second team all-star on D.

 

[thepuckmonster]

Oh, Edler plays a 'soft' game to keep from being injured. That's only another reason why he is not a top pair D. Although he does have the tools to be one, he does not use them as you described above. Phaneuf is Bieksa, only bigger, and more able to log heavy minutes every game. If Bieksa was combined with Edler, then that would be a Phaneuf.

Phaneuf is larger than Bieksa.

And Edler is hardly soft.

 

[Alflives*]

Phaneuf is larger than Bieksa.

And Edler is hardly soft.

I agree. Phaneuf is a big person, who uses his size. I like Bieksa, and think he's Vancouver's most important D-man. He is just too small to play the style of game he needs to play to be effective every game, and big minutes. Edler could be a #1 pair player, but he does play soft too often. He needs to be hard to play against every shift. He's not a Lidstrom, Neidermyer or Karlsson type player, who play(d) a different, but effective game.

 

[King Crimson]

I think you're putting a bit too much stock in Phaneuf's "edge."He does like to use his physicality, but as mentioned his hockey IQ was never been stellar. He often gets burned for trying to make the big hit at the inopportune time. At least, that's what I remember from his time in Calgary. Maybe that's changed in Toronto for the most part, but it feels like it hasn't when he plays the Canucks. When has he ever intimidated the Canucks? His time spent playing them is characterized by getting danced left, right and centre by our left wings, right wings and centres.

That said, he's still a damn good defenceman; I'd just never take him over Hamhuis or Edler.