GDT: Hawks @ Oilers 9pm ChSn 10/13/24

[CallMeShaft]

There are 32 teams in the league, so there are 32 1Ds every season.

It's debatable whether you want to include Jones and Vlasic into that group. Think if Vlasic has a good season, he'd be there. Jones too, but he's always been super inconsistent, so I'm not counting on it.

Don't think either guy is among the best 20 or so defenders even with a good year. But that's why we drafted Levshunov and Korchinski so high. If Vlasic is a low end 1D, he'd still have a Hammer/Seabs level impact for this team; which is a huge asset if that's not even the best defeseman on your roster.

 

[statswatcher]

There are 32 teams in the league, so there are 32 1Ds every season.

i still don't agree with this supposition. the amount of teams in the league does not tell you how many players could be accurately described as a 1D. there's no reason to suppose that every team has one, and there's no reason to suppose that any given team can only have one, being as how it doesn't mean the same thing as "best defenseman on his team". the term falls into arbitrary meaninglessness if tomorrow the league expands and now there are suddenly 34 1D's in the league.

it's akin to saying "there are 64 first line wingers in the nhl". it might be correct in the most superficial sense, i.e. something like 64 players occupy a first line wing depth chart position in the nhl at any given time, but if you watched last year's blackhawks you should know that a depth chart position being filled doesn't mean it was filled by a first line caliber winger.

 

[belfour30]

i still don't agree with this supposition. the amount of teams in the league does not tell you how many players could be accurately described as a 1D. there's no reason to suppose that every team has one, and there's no reason to suppose that any given team can only have one, being as how it doesn't mean the same thing as "best defenseman on his team". the term falls into arbitrary meaninglessness if tomorrow the league expands and now there are suddenly 34 1D's in the league.

it's akin to saying "there are 64 first line wingers in the nhl". it might be correct in the most superficial sense, i.e. something like 64 players occupy a first line wing depth chart position in the nhl at any given time, but if you watched last year's blackhawks you should know that a depth chart position being filled doesn't mean it was filled by a first line caliber winger.

I believe Jones is a top 20 D in the league.

He has been horribly underrated because he has played half the game on horrid teams for a half decade. Look at what he did before that.

A lot of people complain about his offense but his first year with the Hawks he put up 50+ pts.

The last two years were affected by the fact that nobody could score outside of Kane/Bedard.

 

[statswatcher]

I believe Jones is a top 20 D in the league.

He has been horribly underrated because he has played half the game on horrid teams for a half decade. Look at what he did before that.

believe as you will, he has to show me. if he keeps up what he showed in this game he will have proven me wrong to doubt.

 

[belfour30]

believe as you will, he has to show me. if he keeps up what he showed in this game he will have proven me wrong to doubt.

The year before he got traded to the Hawks he had a terrible analytical season, where he lost his reputation as a top D. He had a bad year on a bad team. He bounced back immediately with the Hawks, and has been what they traded for. Is he overpaid by 1.5M? Yeah. You'd take the extra money too.

Read my moniker, I am not arguing that Jones is a top 10 D or anything like that, but I do think he's a top 20 D.

He eats minutes and plays well at both ends of the ice, and can play the PP and PK.

 

[statswatcher]

The year before he got traded to the Hawks he had a terrible analytical season, where he lost his reputation as a top D. He had a bad year on a bad team. He bounced back immediately with the Hawks, and has been what they traded for. Is he overpaid by 1.5M? Yeah. You'd take the extra money too.

he's had one good year in chicago. since then he hasn't done anything which would indicate he's anything more than a good second pair guy who tops out as a passaenger to a legitimate 1D but got all the minutes on chicago teams with no other options. nevermind 8 mil, he's barely been worth 7, much less 9.5.

 

[CallMeShaft]

i still don't agree with this supposition. the amount of teams in the league does not tell you how many players could be accurately described as a 1D. there's no reason to suppose that every team has one, and there's no reason to suppose that any given team can only have one, being as how it doesn't mean the same thing as "best defenseman on his team". the term falls into arbitrary meaninglessness if tomorrow the league expands and now there are suddenly 34 1D's in the league.

it's akin to saying "there are 64 first line wingers in the nhl". it might be correct in the most superficial sense, i.e. something like 64 players occupy a first line wing depth chart position in the nhl at any given time, but if you watched last year's blackhawks you should know that a depth chart position being filled doesn't mean it was filled by a first line caliber winger.

There are 32 #1Ds just like there are 64 top line wingers. Some teams won't have any 1Ds, others will have a couple. It's basically if you were to equally spread the best defenders amongst all 32 teams, each of those players would be considered a #1 defenseman. Same would go for top line wingers; spread the 64 best wingers equally, those would be the guys you'd consider to be top line wingers in the NHL.

 

[statswatcher]

There are 32 #1Ds just like there are 64 top line wingers. Some teams won't have any 1Ds, others will have a couple. It's basically if you were to equally spread the best defenders amongst all 32 teams, each of those players would be considered a #1 defenseman. Same would go for top line wingers; spread the 64 best wingers equally, those would be the guys you'd consider to be top line wingers in the NHL.

why would you just assume that it would even out if they were evenly spread? just because it makes the numbers nice and round bouncing around in the old noggin?

 

[CallMeShaft]

why would you just assume that it would even out if they were evenly spread? just because it makes the numbers nice and round bouncing around in the old noggin?

What counter do you have to my point?

I think most fans of hockey would agree that there are 32 1Ds currently in the NHL. I think most would also agree that some teams are unfortunate enough not to have any, while others are fortunate enough to have multiple.

 

[RememberTheRoar]

What's a 1D?

Curious to see this defined by those having this debate

 

[Toews2Bickell]

He can still play the center position, just not take faceoffs until he gets better at the dot.


Exactly and came within a minute or so from stealing an extra point from Jets.

Luke has taken a lot of flak around here but he has the team (for the most part) playing properly.

I like the idea of stapling Nazar and Bedard together for a long time and I think moving Bedard to wing allows him to focus more on maximizing offensive production and lets Nazar focus on the 200 ft game, and the added benefit that it probably adds some longevity to Bedard's game in the long run, unpopular opinion probably but seems reasonable, doubt they do it...

 

[statswatcher]

What counter do you have to my point?

I think most fans of hockey would agree that there are 32 1Ds currently in the NHL. I think most would also agree that some teams are unfortunate enough not to have any, while others are fortunate enough to have multiple.

we both described the same set of circumstances. i said it's likely to mean that the number of 1Ds by your definition is currently at the very least different from the number of teams. i didn't even give an indication as to whether i thought it was higher or lower, just that i think it would be pretty coincidental for it to be exactly 32.

Curious to see this defined by those having this debate

that's a part of the problem is we are arguing over the definition of an ill-defined and highly subjective term. in my mind, a true 1D is at the very least capable of being the best defenseman on a playoff team. if a guy would only be the best defenseman on a tweener or a bottom feeder, he doesn't make the cut for me. taking the naive approach and assuming there are exactly as many 1Ds as 1D depth chart positions on playoff teams, that would put the number at 16. i would guess without putting much effort into this than i already have typing it that the number would be somewhat higher than that, maybe in the low twenties on the high end.

 

[ChiHawks10]

we both described the same set of cicumstances. i said it's likely to mean that the number of 1Ds by your definition is currently at the very least different from the number of teams. i didn't even give an indication as to whether i thought it was higher or lower, just that i think it would be pretty coincidental for it to be exactly 32.

that's a part of the problem is we are arguing over the definition of an ill-defined and highly subjective term. in my mind, a true 1D is at the very least capable of being the best defenseman on a playoff team. if a guy would only be the best defenseman on a tweener or a bottom feeder, he doesn't make the cut for me. taking the naive approach and assuming there are exactly as many 1Ds as 1D depth chart positions on playoff teams, that would put the number at 16. i would guess without putting much effort into this than i already have typing it that the number would be somewhat higher than that, maybe in the low twenties on the high end.

This is absolutely illogical. Cale Makar is on the Hawks. He's not a 1D because his team is a bottom-feeder or tweener?

Best defensemen are best defensemen, no matter the team they play on. Just because they're the best D on a bottom feeder team doesn't mean they aren't one of the best in the league.

 

[statswatcher]

This is absolutely illogical. Cale Makar is on the Hawks. He's not a 1D because his team is a bottom-feeder or tweener?

i said would be. the hawks miss the playoffs, cale makar still would be the best defenseman on every team that made the playoffs had he been on any of those teams. hence why i allowed for the number being greater than the number of actual playoff teams.

 

[LavalPhantom]

Some people confuse “1D” with “elite D”.

There aren’t 32 elite D in the NHL. But there are 32 1D.

 

[statswatcher]

Some people confuse “1D” with “elite D”.

There aren’t 32 elite D in the NHL. But there are 32 1D.

what one means when they say "elite" is an even more arbitrary case.

 

[CallMeShaft]

we both described the same set of cicumstances. i said it's likely to mean that the number of 1Ds by your definition is currently at the very least different from the number of teams. i didn't even give an indication as to whether i thought it was higher or lower, just that i think it would be pretty coincidental for it to be exactly 32.

that's a part of the problem is we are arguing over the definition of an ill-defined and highly subjective term. in my mind, a true 1D is at the very least capable of being the best defenseman on a playoff team. if a guy would only be the best defenseman on a tweener or a bottom feeder, he doesn't make the cut for me. taking the naive approach and assuming there are exactly as many 1Ds as 1D depth chart positions on playoff teams, that would put the number at 16. i would guess without putting much effort into this than i already have typing it that the number would be somewhat higher than that, maybe in the low twenties on the high end.

Do you think Connor Bedard is not gonna be an elite 1C this season because they aren't making the playoffs?

Edit: Just saw your response to ChiHawks, which sort of delves into this. Not that I agree with your overall stance, though.

 

[ChiHawks10]

Some people confuse “1D” with “elite D”.

There aren’t 32 elite D in the NHL. But there are 32 1D.

This is my issue. People on here tend think that in order to be a 1D you have to be like... one of the best 10 D in the NHL. That's just not the case. There are different degrees of 1D. You have the elite in the top 5-8, your very good in the 9-15, middling at 16-24 or so, and then your lower-end 1D at 25-32 or whatever. People always equate 1D with Norris-caliber D for some dumb reason. If you're a D in the NHL, and have the ability to be the best D on an NHL team, then I'd argue in more cases than not, you're a 1D. Now, if we're talking Brodie is the best D on the Hawks, then yeah, he's not a 1D. In most cases, very few teams don't have a very, very good D on their top pair. A guy who would be considered a 1D on just about any team.

 

[statswatcher]

Do you think Connor Bedard is not gonna be an elite 1C this season because they aren't making the playoffs?

would connor bedard only be an elite 1C if he played in that position on a non-playoff team with no better replacement?

People on here tend think that in order to be a 1D you have to be like... one of the best 10 D in the NHL.

which is explicitly not what i said above when i gave a range of somewhere in the mid teens to low twenties, but as long as we are arguing with "people on here" i guess i shouldn't split hairs.

 

[ChiHawks10]

would connor bedard only be an elite 1C if he played in that position on a non-playoff team with no better replacement?


which is explicitly not what i said above when i gave a range of somewhere in the mid teens to low twenties, but as long as we are arguing with "people on here" i guess i shouldn't split hairs.

I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about a generality, because it's pretty accurate. Lots of people on here think that way, and equate a 1D with being elite. I've had this silly 1D argument so many times on here, with so many different people.

 

[statswatcher]

I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about a generality, because it's pretty accurate. Lots of people on here think that way, and equate a 1D with being elite. I've had this silly 1D argument so many times on here, with so many different people.

well maybe you just hurt my feelings.

 

[ChiHawks10]

well maybe you just hurt my feelings.

Suck it up buttercup.

 

[statswatcher]

Suck it up buttercup.

i will never recover from this.

 

[SimpleJack]

I think it would be very interesting right now....to go and count the exact # of 1D's. I'm gonna give it a try:

McAvoy
Dahlin
Weegar
Slavin
Vlasic
Jones
Makar
Toews
Werenski
Heiskanen
Seider
Bouchard
Ekholm
Forsling
Doughty
Faber
Matheson
Josi
Hamilton
L. Hughes
Dobson
Fox
Sanderson
Letang
Karlsson
Dunn
Montour
Hedman
Reilly
Sergachev
Q. Hughes
Theodore
Hanafin
Carlson
Morrissey

HM: Power, Andersson, Faulk, Fowler, Sanheim

That's 35. 3 more than there are teams. So there we have it. Its official. Theory debunked.

 

[statswatcher]

I think it would be very interesting right now....to go and count the exact # of 1D's. I'm gonna give it a try:

McAvoy
Dahlin
Weegar
Slavin
Vlasic
Jones
Makar
Toews
Werenski
Heiskanen
Seider
Bouchard
Ekholm
Forsling
Doughty
Faber
Matheson
Josi
Hamilton
L. Hughes
Dobson
Fox
Sanderson
Letang
Karlsson
Dunn
Montour
Hedman
Reilly
Sergachev
Q. Hughes
Theodore
Hanafin
Carlson
Morrissey

HM: Power, Andersson, Faulk, Fowler, Sanheim

That's 35. 3 more than there are teams. So there we have it. Its official. Theory debunked.

i could quibble, but that looks broadly respectable, and i have no problem with just making a list and saying "these are the guys". it's just a different way of defining it than mine, and the number isn't the same as the number of teams, exactly as i predicted.