HFBoards Top 31 NHL Defenders

[BlueMed]

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.

I think we are digressing into some hypothetical scenarios here. The original discussion here was focused on the merits of Karlsson and Burns. Can we really ask ourselves if their high level of offense really helped their teams win meaningful games despite their terrible defense? We can come up with countless examples of how their terrible defense has actually cost their teams quite a bit. That was the original discussion.

 

[LGB]

I think we are digressing into some hypothetical scenarios here. The original discussion here was focused on the merits of Karlsson and Burns. Can we really ask ourselves if their high level of offense really helped their teams win meaningful games? We can come up with countless examples of how their terrible defense has actually cost their teams quite a bit. That was the original discussion.

What is better for your team 100 GF and 80 GA or 120 GF and 100 GA?

Edit: lol after typing this I realized I should have used percentages instead of 20 goal differences because the first option actually is better. Make that 100 GF and 80 GA or 120 GF and 96 GA.

Double edit: and even in the second example I'd now have a slight preference for the second option because the bigger sample leaves less room for randomness. The point is whichever player helps you better outscore your opponent is the better player, regardless of whether he specializes in offense or defense.

 

[JoeThorntonsRooster]

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



What is Burns doing behind the net?



Burns here 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.


Just a few examples. Tons more on youtube.

You can find examples of every defenseman looking bad. Here’s your darling Parayko:

Couture, Meier power Sharks past Blues in Game 1

Here’s Pietrangelo:

Blues win Game 2, even series with Sharks

Just a few examples. Tons more on YouTube.

Now, can you find me some examples of Pietrangelo and Parayko finishing top-10 in scoring?

 

[BlueMed]

You can find examples of every defenseman looking bad. Here’s your darling Parayko:

Couture, Meier power Sharks past Blues in Game 1

Here’s Pietrangelo:

Blues win Game 2, even series with Sharks

Just a few examples. Tons more on YouTube.

Now, can you find me some examples of Pietrangelo and Parayko finishing top-10 in scoring?

Pietrangelo and Parayko are too focused on defense to be top 10 in scoring. Burns and Karlsson don't even go up against other team's top forwards, dude. They literally go up against 2nd, 3rd, and 4th lines and still get lit up in their own end. Both are trash defensively.

 

[JoeThorntonsRooster]

Pietrangelo and Parayko are too focused on defense to be top 10 in scoring. Burns and Karlsson don't even go up against other team's top forwards, dude. They literally go up against 2nd, 3rd, and 4th lines and still get lit up in their own end. Both are trash defensively.

At this point in their careers, I'm not even convinced that Pietrangelo is better defensively than Karlsson. Karlsson's defensive metrics for this season grade higher across the boards.

And obviously, Karlsson is miles superior to Pietrangelo offensively. As a whole, Karlsson is the much better player, and AINEC does apply here.

Parayko and Burns are interesting, since Parayko is clearly the best defensive player of the four and Burns is clearly the worst. I actually think there's a discussion to be had there depending on what you value, and most of the metrics (like those I posted above) have Parayko's overall impact above Burns's. I think those metrics underestimate the gap in their offensive abilities where Burns is clearly on another level from Parayko, but it's still interesting. However, while there is an argument to be made there - it isn't the one that you've made, and you haven't really made a coherent and consistent argument at any point in this thread.

 

[BlueMed]

At this point in their careers, I'm not even convinced that Pietrangelo is better defensively than Karlsson. Karlsson's defensive metrics for this season grade higher across the boards.

View attachment 255823

View attachment 255825

View attachment 255829

And obviously, Karlsson is miles superior to Pietrangelo offensively. As a whole, Karlsson is the much better player, and AINEC does apply here.

Parayko and Burns are interesting, since Parayko is clearly the best defensive player of the four and Burns is clearly the worst. I actually think there's a discussion to be had there depending on what you value, and most of the metrics (like those I posted above) have Parayko's overall impact above Burns's. I think those metrics underestimate the gap in their offensive abilities where Burns is clearly on another level from Parayko, but it's still interesting. However, while there is an argument to be made there - it isn't the one that you've made, and you haven't really made a coherent and consistent argument at any point in this thread.

That's because you're not even watching the game. Just looking at these "advanced stats." All you need to know who is better defensively between Petro and Karlsson is by sitting down, turning your tv on, and watching the game. Pietrangelo can shut down other team's top forwards and quarterback an offense. He can also play in all game situations including even strength, power play, and penalty kill.

Karlsson doesn't even go up against other team's best forwards. He plays against 2nd, 3rd, and 4th lines and yet he still gets beat multiple times a game not to mention that he doesn't even play on his team's top penalty kill unit. He is a one dimensional player and that's not even up for debate. He's essentially a really good 4th forward on the ice.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

I think we are digressing into some hypothetical scenarios here. The original discussion here was focused on the merits of Karlsson and Burns. Can we really ask ourselves if their high level of offense really helped their teams win meaningful games despite their terrible defense? We can come up with countless examples of how their terrible defense has actually cost their teams quite a bit. That was the original discussion.

dude Karlsson literally carried a lottery team to 1 goal of a cup final. You think Parayko would have done the same?

And the Sharks have been a top team for a long time in large part due to Burns being their MVP. You think Parayko would be able to drive his team like Burns does?

So yes both players have played a big part in their teams winning big games. How are you even arguing the opposite? Both their teams would have unquestionably suffered if you subbed either out for Parayko.

And Burns recently shutdown Mackinnion and Karlsson has shown he can play defence as good as anyone in big moments so saying they are terrible defensively isn't even an honest argument.

 

[JoeThorntonsRooster]

That's because you're not even watching the game. Just looking at these "advanced stats." All you need to know who is better defensively between Petro and Karlsson is by sitting down, turning your tv on, and watching the game.

Pietrangelo>>Karlsson

I actually am watching the games, but the stats will always be superior because they provide insight without any of the many biases that come with forming an opinion based entirely on the eye test. By comparison, you're basing your opinions off a couple of YouTube clips and ignoring the other YouTube clips that show you what you don't want to see.

I've seen a healthy Karlsson shut down some of the game's best players like Kucherov and McDavid. I've also seen how St. Louis became more successful once they moved Pietrangelo down to the 2nd competition role in favor of Parayko, even though Parayko was paired with Jay Bouwmeester. I've seen that Burns actually had a higher TOI% QoC than Pietrangelo in the first three rounds of the playoffs. And I've seen Pietrangelo and Parayko both get embarrassed defensively pretty badly.

Obviously, we have our biases through we which we filter all of this information, which is why it's best to use evidence. What the metrics show is that just defensively, Parayko>>Karlsson=Pietrangelo>>Burns. And offensively, Burns>Karlsson>>>Pietrangelo>Parayko.

 

[BlueMed]

I actually am watching the games, but the stats will always be superior because they provide insight without any of the many biases that come with forming an opinion based entirely on the eye test. By comparison, you're basing your opinions off a couple of YouTube clips and ignoring the other YouTube clips that show you what you don't want to see.

I've seen a healthy Karlsson shut down some of the game's best players like Kucherov and McDavid. I've also seen how St. Louis became more successful once they moved Pietrangelo down to the 2nd competition role in favor of Parayko, even though Parayko was paired with Jay Bouwmeester. I've seen that Burns actually had a higher TOI% QoC than Pietrangelo in the first three rounds of the playoffs. And I've seen Pietrangelo and Parayko both get embarrassed defensively pretty badly.

Obviously, we have our biases through we which we filter all of this information, which is why it's best to use evidence. What the metrics show is that just defensively, Parayko>>Karlsson=Pietrangelo>>Burns. And offensively, Burns>Karlsson>>>Pietrangelo>Parayko.

Im watching every game, and the Youtube clips are just to show you specific examples of how terrible Karlsson and Burns are defensively in their own end. Also, the eye test tells you a lot more than the metrics. I love math, but these advanced statistics are also prone to personal bias depending on how they are constructed and interpreted and more importantly reflect how poorly our mathematical models align with true reality, which is grasped most effectively by watching the game itself despite subjective biases. At the end of the day, I really doubt the Sharks are going to win a stanley cup with either of those 2 on the backend and would rather have Pietrangelo and Parayko over those 2 "defensemen."

 

[JoeThorntonsRooster]

Im watching every game, and the Youtube clips are just to show you specific examples of how terrible Karlsson and Burns are defensively in their own end. Also, the eye test tells you a lot more than the metrics. I love math, but these advanced statistics are also prone to personal bias depending on how they are constructed and interpreted and more importantly reflect how poorly our mathematical models align with true reality, which is grasped most effectively by watching the game itself despite subjective biases. At the end of the day, I really doubt the Sharks are going to win a stanley cup with either of those 2 on the backend and would rather have Pietrangelo and Parayko over those 2 "defensemen."

Yeah? You watched every single Sharks game this season? I highly doubt that, but even if you did, the value of your eye test would pale in comparison to the value of the metrics because your eye test is skewed by so many different biases. The statistics on the other hand can be interpreted with bias, but they are not constructed with any bias in particular.

Also, the statistics align with true reality far more than you seem to accept. The Blues would have almost certainly won the Stanley Cup this year if a healthy Burns and Karlsson replaced Parayko and Pietrangelo, and the Sharks almost certainly wouldn't have won if the opposite happened. Hell, you can argue that the Blues wouldn't even have won that series against the Sharks if Karlsson was healthy.

If your only argument is eye test and Stanley Cups then it isn't a good argument. One is practically worthless because it's skewed by too many biases, while the other is influenced far more by random variance, teammates, opponents, and coaching than it is by the individual players; even when it comes to excellent players like the 4 that we're talking about here.

 

[OurlordAndSaviorKuch]

I am just amazed no one tried to shit on heddy being in the number one spot.

 

[JoeThorntonsRooster]

What is better for your team 100 GF and 80 GA or 120 GF and 100 GA?

Edit: lol after typing this I realized I should have used percentages instead of 20 goal differences because the first option actually is better. Make that 100 GF and 80 GA or 120 GF and 96 GA.

Double edit: and even in the second example I'd now have a slight preference for the second option because the bigger sample leaves less room for randomness. The point is whichever player helps you better outscore your opponent is the better player, regardless of whether he specializes in offense or defense.

Appreciate your perspective on this, I'd be curious to know what you think of Burns and Parayko in particular. I've seen your posts and notice the metrics that you like to use, such as GAR, RAPM, isolated impact, etc. where Karlsson pretty consistently grades out as the best defenseman in the NHL, but these metrics aren't especially high on Burns. Corsica's GAR has him 5th among D over 3 seasons, but Evolving Hockey's GAR has him 30th, RAPM gives him a slight negative in expected goal impact, and Micah McCurdy's isolated impact grades him well below average. Meanwhile, Parayko grades out higher than Burns by most of these. But by more traditional metrics like scoring rates and raw corsi/expected goal metrics, Burns grades out much higher, and his micro stats are a lot better as well.

I feel like the advanced metrics are pretty on the button for Parayko (average offensive impact, elite defensive impact), but they seem to underrate Burns' offense. He generally is given a good offensive impact and bad defensive impact, when IMO reality is closer to super elite offensive impact and bad defensive impact, but maybe I'm just being a homer there.

 

[LGB]

Appreciate your perspective on this, I'd be curious to know what you think of Burns and Parayko in particular. I've seen your posts and notice the metrics that you like to use, such as GAR, RAPM, isolated impact, etc. where Karlsson pretty consistently grades out as the best defenseman in the NHL, but these metrics aren't especially high on Burns. Corsica's GAR has him 5th among D over 3 seasons, but Evolving Hockey's GAR has him 30th, RAPM gives him a slight negative in expected goal impact, and Micah McCurdy's isolated impact grades him well below average. Meanwhile, Parayko grades out higher than Burns by most of these. But by more traditional metrics like scoring rates and raw corsi/expected goal metrics, Burns grades out much higher, and his micro stats are a lot better as well.

I feel like the advanced metrics are pretty on the button for Parayko (average offensive impact, elite defensive impact), but they seem to underrate Burns' offense. He generally is given a good offensive impact and bad defensive impact, when IMO reality is closer to super elite offensive impact and bad defensive impact, but maybe I'm just being a homer there.

I'd probably rank them Karlsson >> Parayko > Burns > Pietrangelo. I think Parayko, Burns and Petro are all in the same tier though and rankings can be a bit subjective within tiers since there is some degree of uncertainty. It's a weird comparison since Burns and Parayko are such drastically different players. Burns 17/18 season was rough and if you feel it as a total outlier I think it's reasonable to say he is uber-elite offensively. I wish I had access to Micah's data (maybe I'll cave in and pay for it at some point), and I don't pay a lot of attention to micro-stats so don't really have anything to say about that. I do see a large gap in are point rates and corsi, but neither of those stats sway my opinion all that much tbh. I guess an advantage could be that you can play Burns with forwards who are better at driving play but worse scorers and trust that he can drive scoring with goals and shot assists. With Parayko I agree that the metrics pretty much accurate, though I think he can provide an above-average offensive impact when you don't ask him to carry the offensive load if that makes sense. When he is with Bouwmeester and asked to be the defenseman that is more active in the offense he isn't great because that doesn't fit his skillset, but if you give him a guy like Dunn and let him run the show while Parayko supports and uses his great shot I think he adds some value. I also think you underrate Petro a bit when looking at just his single season statistics. Over the last 3 years his RAPM and GAR are very impressive (on EvolvingHockey's site at least I hadn't really used corsica's GAR up to this point so I'll have to look into that).

 

[JAS 39 Gripen]

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"

Wow, you found clips where they did something wrong, good for you big guy, good for you

 

[BlueMed]

Wow, you found clips where they did something wrong, good for you big guy, good for you

Yup, it's called using specific examples to back up an argument. You should try it sometime.

 

[JAS 39 Gripen]

Yup, it's called using specific examples to back up an argument. You should try it sometime.

Ok big guy, its just that Ive seen your reasoning before and that others already tried to get through to you or making sense of what you write but cant , so i wont bother.

 

[JoeThorntonsRooster]

I'd probably rank them Karlsson >> Parayko > Burns > Pietrangelo. I think Parayko, Burns and Petro are all in the same tier though and rankings can be a bit subjective within tiers since there is some degree of uncertainty. It's a weird comparison since Burns and Parayko are such drastically different players. Burns 17/18 season was rough and if you feel it as a total outlier I think it's reasonable to say he is uber-elite offensively. I wish I had access to Micah's data (maybe I'll cave in and pay for it at some point), and I don't pay a lot of attention to micro-stats so don't really have anything to say about that. I do see a large gap in are point rates and corsi, but neither of those stats sway my opinion all that much tbh. I guess an advantage could be that you can play Burns with forwards who are better at driving play but worse scorers and trust that he can drive scoring with goals and shot assists. With Parayko I agree that the metrics pretty much accurate, though I think he can provide an above-average offensive impact when you don't ask him to carry the offensive load if that makes sense. When he is with Bouwmeester and asked to be the defenseman that is more active in the offense he isn't great because that doesn't fit his skillset, but if you give him a guy like Dunn and let him run the show while Parayko supports and uses his great shot I think he adds some value. I also think you underrate Petro a bit when looking at just his single season statistics. Over the last 3 years his RAPM and GAR are very impressive (on EvolvingHockey's site at least I hadn't really used corsica's GAR up to this point so I'll have to look into that).

I would strongly suggest caving and paying for access to Micah's stuff. I personally think that EvolvingHockey's RAPM is superior to his model, and especially so when judging defensemen, but it helps to have another opinion and it's also very good for dispelling narratives and explaining things to people who aren't too into stats. For example, look at this:

(Bonus: Sometimes heat maps look like the mask from Scream.)

This is a pretty strong retort to the "Binnington carried the Blues" narrative, which I'm sure you are just as sick of hearing as I am. And I think it helps get the point across better than just posting xGF/xGA or Corsi or whatever, since people tend to be more receptive to images than numbers. Even me being a super stats nerd, seeing WOWY heat maps for shot against and Connor McDavid helped challenge a pre-conceived notion I had that McDavid hadn't done significant damage to his team on the defensive side of things.

Anyhow, back on topic, I think your assessment is pretty fair. I might be underrating Pietrangelo a bit as he had one unspectacular regular season but followed it up with an excellent playoffs, and he has a track record of being excellent. I would still take Burns over Parayko just because I've seen how Burns can carry my team into the playoffs as the offensive leader, and that's extremely valuable. I do think that the 2017-2018 season was an aberration for Burns where poor shooting luck early in the season kind of tanked his confidence and all-around game, and if you look at his last 4 seasons, you've got 3 elite ones and then just one where he wasn't good. We'll see what happens next year.

And yeah it feels weird to say Parayko is just average offensively because he has that wicked slapshot, and he is a little above average offensively in a 3-year sample so maybe I'm selling him short. I do think he probably deserved to go higher on this list.

Also Corsica's GAR is pretty bleh. Joe Pavelski was a top-5 skater this year and Logan Couture was in 2017-2018, but I can promise you neither were even remotely close to that good in those seasons. It puts too much emphasis on shooting performance IMO. But it's just another piece of evidence that I try to take into account when looking at players just because it does exist and is objective.

 

[Man Bear Pig]

Did posters just look at points and vote based on that? How is somebody going to take Torey Krug over Ekblad, Keith, and Schmidt.

How are #3-4 defencemen getting on this ranking? Does being a steady 20+ minute, all-around (PP + PK) defencemen mean nothing anymore? That's exactly what a #1 is.

If all people looked at were points, the where is Barrie?

 

[Muikea Bulju]

I agree completely but that’s a ridiculous amount of polls to do. I’d suggest doing that method yourself if you ever want to see it done.

That is why I suggested to just make a ranking of of the candidates

= Every voter just ranks the candidates. One single time, one single poll. A lot less polls than these "complete polls" need currently.

The only problem with these is if the UI / code of HfBoards website doesn't allow anyone to do these kinds of polls in any way.

 

[Mick Riddleton]

Title is misleading I thought it meant best at actually defending, not up the ice as the 4th winger living off power play pts.
There were 87 defensemen last season that logged at least 1,200 5v5 minutes.

In terms of Goals Against Per 60 min:

Colton Parayko ranked 3rd.

John Klingberg? 4th.

Ryan Ellis? 23rd.

Mark Giordano? 31st.

1st place?

That went to Brandon Carlo

 

[Sensin5]

At this point in their careers, I'm not even convinced that Pietrangelo is better defensively than Karlsson. Karlsson's defensive metrics for this season grade higher across the boards.

View attachment 255823

View attachment 255825

View attachment 255829

And obviously, Karlsson is miles superior to Pietrangelo offensively. As a whole, Karlsson is the much better player, and AINEC does apply here.

Parayko and Burns are interesting, since Parayko is clearly the best defensive player of the four and Burns is clearly the worst. I actually think there's a discussion to be had there depending on what you value, and most of the metrics (like those I posted above) have Parayko's overall impact above Burns's. I think those metrics underestimate the gap in their offensive abilities where Burns is clearly on another level from Parayko, but it's still interesting. However, while there is an argument to be made there - it isn't the one that you've made, and you haven't really made a coherent and consistent argument at any point in this thread.

Don't even bother with those who come into it with angry baseless bias. All the stats in the world will be derided as "fancy" and that their own "eye test" is superior. Also, apparently, their opinion is superior to those who actually know hockey, like coaches, GMs, players etc.

 

[AK87]

I was very surprised how high Klingberg was/is

 

[JoeThorntonsRooster]

Title is misleading I thought it meant best at actually defending, not up the ice as the 4th winger living off power play pts.
There were 87 defensemen last season that logged at least 1,200 5v5 minutes.

In terms of Goals Against Per 60 min:

Colton Parayko ranked 3rd.

John Klingberg? 4th.

Ryan Ellis? 23rd.

Mark Giordano? 31st.

1st place?

That went to Brandon Carlo

Post is misleading as I thought you were talking about guys who are best at defending, then you posted one stat that is more heavily influenced by a combination of teammates/competition/goaltending/usage than a player’s actual play quality.

 

[AK87]

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

If we are using this as an argument then there should be 2 awards for defenders. One for point totals and one for being the best "defender".

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

If we are using this as an argument then there should be 2 awards for defenders. One for point totals and one for being the best "defender".

Is the best "defender" award about the best player defensively or the best all around player?