"A Defenseman Scoring 100 Points in a Season is Like a Forward Scoring..."

[ijuka]

Well, we could say that Kralsson's 101 points is 15th all-time for defensemen, and also that it's the first time 100 points was reached by a defenseman in over 30 years.

McDavid's 153 points also was 15th all-time, this time for forwards. Although, there were more times that this count had been reached in the past 30 years by a forward. Two, in fact. So, Karlsson's 101-point season was rarer than McDavid's 153-point season, one could argue.

Even if you account for the fact that there are 50% more forwards than defensemen etc. you still are easily going to land above 131+ and I actually question your scaling structure for this poll, since it'd be far more difficult if you had included answers up to, say, McDavid's 153-point season, or at least 151+. Without particularly detailed analysis, I'd guesstimate that it lands somewhere between 140 and 150 points, in terms of impressiveness.

 

[AvroArrow]

Go take a look at how many 120 point seasons there are from forwards in league history. Then, go see how many 100 points seasons there from defenseman in league history.

The answer is more like 140-150 points.

League is completely different than what it used to be. Even from just ten years ago, it's totally changed.

 

[wintersej]

Of course, the answer is nuanced.

Some guys score points by getting involved on the rush.

Some guys play rover in the o-zone at a defensive price.

But more and more teams are able to play position less hockey in the o-zone with forwards covering for D getting aggressive and the D knowing when it’s safe to get involved and the forwards will have their back. This comes down to the forwards buying in and having defensive awareness and the offensive D to know when the forwards are in position to help and not being reckless.

 

[M2Beezy]

127? Absolutely no way... but 126? Now we're talking.

O thats good, thats real good, thats real real good...bub

 

[Fig]

It's hard to define. A forward will never give up a scoring opportunity to do a defensive play, but even the worst NHL calibre offensive defensemen will still give up scoring opportunities to do defensive play.

These differences are also only indirectly responsible for the point difference because an attempt at a point isn't the same as an attempt at preventing a point.

I think it's a little bit of a case by case basis. If it's raw points a 30-50% difference I could see that as being about right. But if it's all other contributions involved, then I think you easily drop the point difference percentage to account for that too. It honestly sounds like a weird roundabout way to define WAR based on expected contributions.

 

[norrisnick]

It's hard to define. A forward will never give up a scoring opportunity to do a defensive play, but even the worst NHL calibre offensive defensemen will still give up scoring opportunities to do defensive play.

These differences are also only indirectly responsible for the point difference because an attempt at a point isn't the same as an attempt at preventing a point.

I think it's a little bit of a case by case basis. If it's raw points a 30-50% difference I could see that as being about right. But if it's all other contributions involved, then I think you easily drop the point difference percentage to account for that too. It honestly sounds like a weird roundabout way to define WAR based on expected contributions.

The bolded isn't remotely true.

 

[SillyRabbit]

There have been 15 100-point seasons by six defensemen.

There have been 17 150-point seasons by six forwards.

It's 150.

Finally some actual data.

Extrapolating from this, would it be fair to say that we can assume that a high-scoring defenceman should score 66% of what a high-scoring forward would?

So 66 points as a defenceman is similar to 100 points as a forward?

 

[Machinehead]

Finally some actual data.

Extrapolating from this, would it be fair to say that we can assume that a high-scoring defenceman should score 66% of what a high-scoring forward would?

So 66 points as a defenceman is similar to 100 points as a forward?

66 doesn't feel like 100 to me, but maybe I'm wrong. We'd have to look at occurrence rate as I did with the other numbers.

It's a fair observation, but you have to consider that percentage gaps grow as the number gets bigger. Extreme example, 3 points to 6 points is one good game, while 50 points to 100 points is barely a second liner to a superstar. They're both 50%.

 

[ijuka]

I’m surprised 131+ is the popular answer, I would say it’s 130 at the most and if some believe that Karlsson is just as good offensively as McDavid then that means an average Lidstrom season was better offensively than an average Crosby season and it’s pretty obvious Lidstrom was not a better offensive talent, that means there are a ton of defenseman who are also better offensively than Crosby but just happened to play defense

Karlsson's 101 points is 15th best all-time for a defenseman.

Mcdavid's 153 points is 15th best all-time for a forward.

 

[WPGDEVILS]

Hard to say with how the NHL is transitioning to positionless hockey I think we could begin to see more 100 seasons for defencemen but as of right now 130+

 

[Regal]

Karlsson's 101 points is 15th best all-time for a defenseman.

Mcdavid's 153 points is 15th best all-time for a forward.

But equating value to rarity only really works if the pool of players for each are similar and there’s enough data to weed out variance. I’m not sure if 15 times is enough data and I don’t believe the pool of players is the same. Not only are there more forwards in general, but I think offensive talent is more concentrated at the position. I also don’t think the difference between the difficulty of both is a constant. We’re seeing a lot of defensemen given the green light to lead the rush or drop down further in the offensive zone right now.

 

[McFlash97]

Karlsson's 101 points is 15th best all-time for a defenseman.

Mcdavid's 153 points is 15th best all-time for a forward.

McDavids pool of legendary offensive players a much larger number. More than 3 times.

Therefore It is more difficult to get 153 in a season.

 

[Fig]

The bolded isn't remotely true.

How so? So you're saying that a forward has a chance for a SOG and instead will do something else to quickly skate back to the d zone because....? The reason for this is because they have the d corps as the last line of defense, no? I'm not saying that the forward doesn't do defensive plays and may chance where they are positionally to be proactive defensively in certain scenarios (ie: dman pinching). I'm saying they have a quick chance for an offensive play (ie: foot race for a SOG) and they won't hesitate to go all out for that offensive play over a defensive one (subbing off is a different story).

A dman always has to consider the pros and cons of pinching or being out of position for certain offensive plays because they are the last line of defense (pardon the pun). There isn't another set of positions behind them before the opposition has a chance to shoot on net/goalie.

 

[norrisnick]

How so? So you're saying that a forward has a chance for a SOG and instead will do something else to quickly skate back to the d zone because....? The reason for this is because they have the d corps as the last line of defense, no? I'm not saying that the forward doesn't do defensive plays and may chance where they are positionally to be proactive defensively in certain scenarios (ie: dman pinching). I'm saying they have a quick chance for an offensive play (ie: foot race for a SOG) and they won't hesitate to go all out for that offensive play over a defensive one (subbing off is a different story).

A dman always has to consider the pros and cons of pinching or being out of position for certain offensive plays because they are the last line of defense (pardon the pun). There isn't another set of positions behind them before the opposition has a chance to shoot on net/goalie.

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

There are plenty of forwards that would abandon a chance at offense for defensive coverage. And similarly there are plenty of defensemen that would blow their defensive coverage for an offensive chance or pinch.

 

[Fig]

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

There are plenty of forwards that would abandon a chance at offense for defensive coverage. And similarly there are plenty of defensemen that would blow their defensive coverage for an offensive chance or pinch.

I still think that the vast majority of the time this is true, so I disagree with "not remotely true". But I can agree wording wise that the wording was slightly exaggerated.