TOI is a bad standalone metric. It's how you draw conclusions like Myers is a #3. We've had too many years of players playing roles they drowned in, like Gudbranson has played top pairing minutes at times but he doesn't even belong in the league, to believe in TOI as a good enough metric for ranking dmen.
I never advocated using time on ice to determine the best 32 defensemen.
#1 dman to me is someone who carry the 1st pairing on a cup calibre team. There aren't 32 of them in the league who can do this. I don't think other definitions are useful, you're pretty much just ranking players by TOI at that point.
Your definition is bizarre and counter intuitive to the basic description of “number 1” Defenseman” that implies there are 32 of them in the nhl since “number 1 Defenseman” references the number 1 Defenseman in a team. Now there is some nuance since obviously some teams are way better than others, and trades are made, so clearly the 32 number one defensemen need not be evenly distributed.
But to abandon the notion that there are 32 number 1 defensemen, but still reference that term, makes no sense. You should just use a new term since your description doesn’t accord with the obvious interpretation of the term. What you actually mean is an elite number one Defenseman.
this is a pointless and silly argument
if your question is 'how many dmen play the most minutes on their team?' the answer is quite obviously 32. that's just axiomatic though; it doesn't inform any kind of debate
That isn’t the question though. No one is simply using time on ice as the metric.
if your question is 'how many dmen in the league are good enough to be the top minute dman on a good team' then the answer might be 5, might be 60, might be anywhere in between. it depends what you consider 'good enough' and 'good team'
For sure, but if you are describing the top five nhl defensemen in the league you shouldn’t shoe horn in the definition of number one defensemen.
regardless, when people talk about #1 dmen they definitely aren't answering that first question
Right, although no one here, I think, is proposing to simply use time on ice as the metric.
To me, this is the absurd way of looking at things. It assumes a steady and even distribution of talent that simply does not exist. But moreover, at its core, it defines a threshold for that label by a largely arbitrary, peripheral quantity that isn't based on the actual quality of play on the ice.
I never said that the 32 defensemen needed to be equally distributed.
The “largely arbitrary, peripheral quantity” isn’t arbitrary at all since it comes from the name of the term that is being used. It’s like arguing that the term “top 32 centre” has an arbitrary quantity.
I always put it this way...
Today, there are 32 Teams in the league and thus you are assuming 32 #1 Caliber Defencemen.
Tomorrow, a butterfly flaps it's wings, that car dealership guy in Atlanta plunks down his billion dollars and suddenly the Atlanta Thrashers are back baby! The league is now 33 teams! Does the guy who is 33rd on that list and was previously not a #1D yesterday by this definition, suddenly become a #1D overnight? Without a single thing whatsoever changing about their actual quality of play? At which exact moment does this grand metamorphoses ascending to #1D Status occur? When the 33rd Team is announced? When the the expansion draft is held? When they play their first game? Whichever moment you select...it is completely detached and unrelated to the actual caliber of play you're getting from that player, who is the exact same quality of player throughout. The constant factor.
Yes, the quantity of number 1 defensemen in the nhl changes with the addition of teams. It’s really not that complicated and results from using a term that obviously is tied to the number of teams in the nhl.
That to me, is the truly absurd notion. But it's the very direct implication of following through rigidly on this threshold or cutoff that is tied to the number of billionaires who are allowed to own NHL Franchises...rather than categorizing constructively by the observable quality of play and traits of the actual hockey players themselves.
It’s not absurd. It’s just the obvious outcome of using a definition tied to the number of teams in the nhl. You can just use a different term if you don’t want it tied to the number of nhl teams line “elite number one defenceman”.
It makes far more sense to me to define a defenceman by their capability and particularly, by what sort of role, partner, and pairing they can carry or "anchor". That way, your threshold is fixed and directly prescribed by quality of play. Not a floating point defined by financial decisions in a boardroom somewhere.
That’s fine, but then don’t use a term that obviously is tied to the number of teams in the nhl.
At the end of the day, it’s all semantics. But when we interpret terms we should try to give them their plain meaning. When you start to interpret terms in a manner that does not accord with their plain meaning you are just reducing the effectiveness of using that term.
