What is the definition of a #1D?

[Machinehead]

A defenseman that can anchor a top pairing without the help of a top pairing partner.

This is also true, but it depends.

If your partner is Girardi, MacDonald, or Sbisa, it doesn't matter how good you are.

McDonagh is a #1D and he has the analytics to prove it this year, but that was never going to happen the last 3-4 years.

 

[Aladyyn]

This is also true, but it depends.

If your partner is Girardi, MacDonald, or Sbisa, it doesn't matter how good you are.

McDonagh is a #1D and he has the analytics to prove it this year, but that was never going to happen the last 3-4 years.

Of course, within reason. And I will obviously add Gorges to your list

 

[eternalbedhead]

It's a subjective thing and you'd be hard-pressed to find two people who agree on the definition.

Personally, I view it as the "elite" category of defenders. It's not a set number of players, but I'd feel comfortable with labeling the top 10-15 defenders as #1s.

 

[Scorcho]

McAvoy, Charlie

 

[bukwas]

Generational eliteness.

 

[Ainec]

through 4 seasons and 4000 minutes

is my boy there yet

 

[BalButtercluck]

That's crazy that Tavares is the only center on that list. Is that correct? Can't be...

 

[KlefDown]

Elite Offence, Elite Defence. PK, PP, EV. simple really.

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

I think it's either a guy who takes hard usage and actually outplays it, or in rarer cases, a guy that does take softer usage but dominates it to a ridiculous extent.

An example of the latter might be Seth Jones on Nashville. His usage was soft but he was literally like a 62% possession player. He ended up being a #1D even when his usage got harder.

Guys who take #1 usage and get killed are not #1's. They're just being used that way.

Pretty much. Bouwmeester, Weber, Ceci, etc. take tough comp but they are absolutely destroyed in it (Especially Ceci, who has dreadful stats everywhere including GA/60 Rel). What I've noticed is a lot of players with bad shot suppression metrics usually have a drain on their team GA/60 metrics (Weber for example in most seasons allowed more goals when he was on the ice than off). So that defeats the "Defenseman's job is to prevent goals" crowd's argument. Besides truly elite players excel in difficult matchups like Keith, Vlasic, Giordano, etc.

 

[Machinehead]

That's crazy that Tavares is the only center on that list. Is that correct? Can't be...

Defenseman play more minutes so they get more of a sample to spread their seed.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Someone who can log 20-30 minutes a game and give you a chance to win

 

[Raistlin]

someone the Oilers are tanking again this year to get their hands on.

 

[CashMash]

Anyway you cut it there's 31 #1 defensemen; there's 31 defensemen in the world who can be at least one team's best defenseman in any roster situation.

That's just in the technical sense, from my perspective.

If your team is to be competitive, that is a whole other story.

 

[93LEAFS]

I tend to view it as a guy who can play in all situations effectively and you can build a contender around. There are probably 15 at most of those in the league. Similar issue with centers but there might be a bit more legit number 1 centers than there are #1 d. I have no problem with people saying its the top 31 defenders, but I fell if you have a guy who is 16-31 you are probably searching for a bonafide #1.

 

[biturbo19]

A defenseman that can anchor a top pairing without the help of a top pairing partner.

I think it's either a guy who takes hard usage and actually outplays it, or in rarer cases, a guy that does take softer usage but dominates it to a ridiculous extent.

An example of the latter might be Seth Jones on Nashville. His usage was soft but he was literally like a 62% possession player. He ended up being a #1D even when his usage got harder.

Guys who take #1 usage and get killed are not #1's. They're just being used that way.

Essentially some mix of these two components.

There are guys who pile up points who aren't even very reliable Top-4D overall. There are guys who take on top matchups and drown in them. Those aren't #1D. You have to take a more holistic view to get an accurate picture.

The ability to take on top matchup duties alone doesn't automatically make a guy a pure #1D either though. They have to be the sort who also contribute something offensively to make them a true "all situations" player 5v5/PP/PK up or down a goal in the last minute, you want them on the ice types. And the true #1D are the types who can carry a partner who apart from them, would get absolutely swamped in those sort of top minutes.