HFBoards Top 31 NHL Defenders

[LT]

No. I’m saying that a number 1 defenseman is basically a 30 minute 2 way defenseman. Bourque was that. And not all number 1 d win Stanley cups. It obviously depends on the rest of the team too, but having a number 1 d contributes significantly towards winning a Stanley cup.

You are aware that only 3 defenders in NHL history have ever averaged 30 minutes per game or more in a single season, right?

Ice time is also a poor metric for this. If you look at the highest season TOI averages in NHL history, you'll find Adrian Aucoin at #14, averaging 29 minutes per game for the Islanders. Was he a #1 defender? Most likely not.

TOI is more a measure of the disparity in team defense. If you have 2 "#3" defenders and 4 "#6" defenders, the #3s are obviously going to get a disproportionate amount of ice time, likely higher than most other "#3" defenders. Age is also a big factor, e.g. Dahlin and Heiskanen.

I don't think you're using 30 minutes literally (unless we're talking about a single game which would be an odd argument), but it's still a poor example. 25 minutes is easily a better cutoff.

 

[Dustin]

Nice to see Rielly getting some recognition. I find the bottom 10 can be exchanged with several guys that either got HM's or got forgotten.

 

[BlueMed]

You are aware that only 3 defenders in NHL history have ever averaged 30 minutes per game or more in a single season, right?

Ice time is also a poor metric for this. If you look at the highest season TOI averages in NHL history, you'll find Adrian Aucoin at #14, averaging 29 minutes per game for the Islanders. Was he a #1 defender? Most likely not.

TOI is more a measure of the disparity in team defense. If you have 2 "#3" defenders and 4 "#6" defenders, the #3s are obviously going to get a disproportionate amount of ice time, likely higher than most other "#3" defenders. Age is also a big factor, e.g. Dahlin and Heiskanen.

I don't think you're using 30 minutes literally (unless we're talking about a single game which would be an odd argument), but it's still a poor example. 25 minutes is easily a better cutoff.

I wasnt using 30 minutes as a hard metric. Just referring to defensemen who log significant minutes, but still besides the point of the entire discussion which was actually based on the importance of 2 way skills possessed by #1 d men rather than the one dimensional skills of d men like karlsson or burns.

 

[Machinehead]

You are aware that only 3 defenders in NHL history have ever averaged 30 minutes per game or more in a single season, right?

Ice time is also a poor metric for this. If you look at the highest season TOI averages in NHL history, you'll find Adrian Aucoin at #14, averaging 29 minutes per game for the Islanders. Was he a #1 defender? Most likely not.

TOI is more a measure of the disparity in team defense. If you have 2 "#3" defenders and 4 "#6" defenders, the #3s are obviously going to get a disproportionate amount of ice time, likely higher than most other "#3" defenders. Age is also a big factor, e.g. Dahlin and Heiskanen.

I don't think you're using 30 minutes literally (unless we're talking about a single game which would be an odd argument), but it's still a poor example. 25 minutes is easily a better cutoff.

I don't remember what year, but I'm almost positive that Adrian Aucoin has one first place Norris vote.

You're absolutely right, I just thought it was an interesting fact.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

You didn't present an argument other than appealing to sports journalists.

My argument is he consistently produces, he consistently matches up well against the other team's top players, he logs 25-ish minutes per night, and that play gets recognized by his multiple top 10 Norris trophy votes.

Your argument is "watch him and ignore the Norris trophy voters".

 

[bradrich99]

Hard to believe if you watch with your eyes and not just crunch numbers that Parayko would be listed that low.

 

[BlueMed]

That is a hall of fame defenseman a defenseman doesn't have to be hall of fame level players to be a true #1D

No, a #1 defensemen should be able to log significant minutes with the ability to shut down opposing team's top forwards and quarterback and offense. That is an expectation, which is why Karlsson and Burns are not real #1 defensemen regardless of how many points they put up. Truth is, they get beat multiple times every night in their own end and leave their goaltenders out to dry. That is not what #1 defensemen do.

 

[BlueMed]

Hard to believe if you watch with your eyes and not just crunch numbers that Parayko would be listed that low.

Yes.

If "fans" would actually watch the game, they would realize that Parayko is almost impossible to beat 1 on 1. His 6'6 height, incredible reach, positioning, and his speed are insane not to mention he shoots 100+ mph. I would take him over Karlsson or Burns any day.

 

[The Note]

Hard to believe if you watch with your eyes and not just crunch numbers that Parayko would be listed that low.

Meh. I’m a Blues fan and I don’t think I’d take Parayko over anyone listed ahead of him, save for maybe OEL who I’ve found overrated for years now.

 

[LT]

Yes.

If "fans" would actually watch the game, they would realize that Parayko is almost impossible to beat 1 on 1. His 6'6 height, incredible reach, positioning, and his speed are insane not to mention he shoots 100+ mph. I would take him over Karlsson or Burns any day.

So, using your logic, if you have a defender who's putting up 200+ points a year but they're terrible defensively, they aren't a #1 defender?

 

[Machinehead]

Meh. I’m a Blues fan and I don’t think I’d take Parayko over anyone listed ahead of him, save for maybe OEL who I’ve found overrated for years now.

He's better than Weber and Slavin.

 

[BlueOil]

it's an okay list

just reinforces how many people only count points to rate their best defensemen. nhl views it the same way tho.

 

[BlueMed]

So, using your logic, if you have a defender who's putting up 200+ points a year but they're terrible defensively, they aren't a #1 defender?

Yes, hence DEFENSEman.

Parayko>Karlsson or Burns

 

[LT]

Yes, hence DEFENSEman.

Parayko>Karlsson or Burns

So do you think the Selke is a useless award then too? Since forwards should only play offense, too, by your logic.

 

[Halla]

Pietrangelo at 7 and Parayko at 18 show the recency bias of these boards. Had the blues missed the playoffs, Pietrangelo woulda been 15 and Parayko wouldnt have made the list.

Carlson with 29 more pts than Pietrangelo yet ranked 3 spots lower is a crime

 

[JAS 39 Gripen]

Which is what exactly? How many cups do they have combined? I am not suggesting that one player can win a cup by himself, but a real #1 defensemen is exactly what the poster was describing; a 30 minute 2-way workhorse who can shut down other team's top forwards and quarterback an offense effectively. Neither Karlsson or Burns fit that description because defensively, they are trash and cannot stabilize their own end whatsoever. And who does fit that description? Keith at least use to. Doughty can. Pietrangelo can. Those 3 guys collectively have won 6 cups...

How can people still use this argument? What, are you saying that Erik Karlsson jag the same chances to win a cup in friggin Ottawa Senators, as Dougthy did in LA, Keith in Chicago - or Pietro in St Louis? How can someone even write down those words? What are you on?
Edit: Ah, just saw your other post (”Parayko >> Karlsson, Burns”) Yep, youre definetly using something

 

[Oak]

Hard to believe if you watch with your eyes and not just crunch numbers that Parayko would be listed that low.

These idiots are only looking at points. Parayko is a LEGIT defenseman. I'd swap him with Klingberg easily. Too many players who are weak in their own zone on this list.

 

[BlueMed]

So do you think the Selke is a useless award then too? Since forwards should only play offense, too, by your logic.

I’m not saying that the only responsibility of a defensemen is defense. I am saying that it’s a defenseman’s PRIMARY responsibility (hence DEFENSEMan). Offense is a secondary responsibility but you need both to be a true number 1 defenseman.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

I’m not saying that the only responsibility of a defensemen is defense. I am saying that it’s a defenseman’s PRIMARY responsibility (hence DEFENSEMan). Offense is a secondary responsibility but you need both to be a true number 1 defenseman.

A defencemans responsibility is to help his team win games. It doesn't matter how they do it. It's that they do it. Same with forwards and goalies.

On the best teams forwards need to be able to defend and defenceman need to be able to attack.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

Yes, hence DEFENSEman.

Parayko>Karlsson or Burns

Oh dear so basically you'd pass over a 200 point defenceman who would be Gretzky level offensively for a freaking Parayko?

Ahahhahaha ahhaha haha aha

 

[BlueMed]

A defencemans responsibility is to help his team win games. It doesn't matter how they do it. It's that they do it. Same with forwards and goalies.

On the best teams forwards need to be able to defend and defenceman need to be able to attack.

I get what youre saying but are you going to evaluate how effective a goaltender is by looking at how many assists he has rather than GAA and save percentage?

A defensemen that is terrible defensively isn't helping his team win games. He's basically a 4th forward on the ice.

 

[BlueMed]

Oh dear so basically you'd pass over a 200 point defenceman who would be Gretzky level offensively for a freaking Parayko?

Ahahhahaha ahhaha haha aha

A 200 point defensemen who is terrible defensively, yes. Not a 200 point defensemen who is average at defense though.

 

[57special]

It's almost like there are many different types of Dmen, and a good team needs to have a combination of types in order to be successful.

For the team I follow closely, Spurgeon was a better Dman than the hobbled Suter last year, though Suter had been the best Dman on the team prior to that. The buzz on Dumba has been premature...he only played 32 games last year, and in the years prior was still inconsistent. This year should give a better picture of what level of player he is.

Having said all that, put me down for the 200 point Dman.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

I get what youre saying but are you going to evaluate how effective a goaltender is by looking at how many assists he has rather than GAA and save percentage?

A defensemen that is terrible defensively isn't helping his team win games. He's basically a 4th forward on the ice.

If a goaltender is able to put up 200 point seasons somehow while having a sub par save percentage he'd still be the best player at his position and in the league because the aim of the game is to win hockey games.

A 200 point goaltender with a .880 sv would help his team win more games than a .920 save goaltender.

The Gretzky goalie would drive play so much that most of the time the game will be played in the other end and his team more often than not will score more goals than his team concedes. Which is how you win hockey games.

 

[BlueMed]

How can people still use this argument? What, are you saying that Erik Karlsson jag the same chances to win a cup in friggin Ottawa Senators, as Dougthy did in LA, Keith in Chicago - or Pietro in St Louis? How can someone even write down those words? What are you on?
Edit: Ah, just saw your other post (”Parayko >> Karlsson, Burns”) Yep, youre definetly using something

Damn, dude look how good Karlsson and Burns are at defense.



What is Burns doing behind the net?



Burns is so out of position here its not even funny.




Karlsson literally turns the puck over in his own end and screens his own goaltender.


"BuRns aNd KaRlsSoN ArE tHe BeSt DeFenSemEn iN tHe GaMe"