Top 6 centers- how many are in the league?

[Sidney the Kidney]

Yes.

One guy (the slightly better one) is in the "1C" of class of the top 32. The next guy isn't. You can still consider him really close. That's fine.

But that makes no sense.

Lets say players like Bennett and Kadri are ranked in the 32/33 slot, but you're having a difficult time slotting which one is 32 and which one is 33. Essentially, you see them as the exact same tier of player with zero separation.

But because you decide to list Bennett at 32 and Kadri at 33 for purely alphabetical reasons, then suddenly one guy is a 1C and the other guy is a 2C even though you literally think of them as the exact same tier of player?

That seems way more arbitrary than simply not worrying about how many teams there are and rating/ranking players based on what tier of player you believe they are. For instance, in the above example I'd consider Kadri and Bennett as both 2C quality players, regardless of whether one of them had to be ranked as 32nd and the other 33rd.

 

[westc2]

It's a poorly phrased question yes...but everyone knows what OP meant. No need to fill the thread with people arguing semantics.

That being said, this is very difficult to determine since some players play on bad teams, some players are on a team with other superstar centers and they don't get as much ice time, and so their point totals might be lower than their actual potential.

For example, I would say the Blues currently only have 1 "top 6 center"(Thomas).

And no, there aren't 32 1st line centers, 32, 2nd line centers. If the entire league was full of Mcdavid's and Draisaitl's, then there would be 384+ top 6 centers in the league.

 

[bossram]

But that makes no sense.

Lets say players like Bennett and Kadri are ranked in the 32/33 slot, but you're having a difficult time slotting which one is 32 and which one is 33. Essentially, you see them as the exact same tier of player with zero separation.

But because you decide to list Bennett at 32 and Kadri at 33 for purely alphabetical reasons, then suddenly one guy is a 1C and the other guy is a 2C even though you literally think of them as the exact same tier of player?

That seems way more arbitrary than simply not worrying about how many teams there are and rating/ranking players based on what tier of player you believe they are. For instance, in the above example I'd consider Kadri and Bennett as both 2C quality players, regardless of whether one of them had to be ranked as 32nd and the other 33rd.

You asked a question, I answered.

It makes perfect sense. The dividing lines here aren't really about player quality. People are going to argue that no matter what arbitrary cut-offs we use. You're basically saying it should only be about player quality. If that's case we could have essentially infinite tiers and just always be arguing about who is in which tier.

I'm looking at the question of, "What is a 1C?" Definitionally, it is one of the top 32 centers in the league. If the 33rd guy is close, so be it. People can argue that they'd rather have the 33rd guy on their team than the 32nd guy. People are going to argue about players regardless.

I'm just saying, the definition of a "1C" has to logically be one of the 32 best centers in the league.

 

[Hockey2Hockey]

It's a poorly phrased question yes...but everyone knows what OP meant. No need to fill the thread with people arguing semantics.

That being said, this is very difficult to determine since some players play on bad teams, some players are on a team with other superstar centers and they don't get as much ice time, and so their point totals might be lower than their actual potential.

For example, I would say the Blues currently only have 1 "top 6 center"(Thomas).

And no, there aren't 32 1st line centers, 32, 2nd line centers. If the entire league was full of Mcdavid's and Draisaitl's, then there would be 384+ top 6 centers in the league.

Exactly. We are just arguing semantics.

There is being slotted as a #1C (Kadri), & performing as a # 1C (McDrai, MacKinnon, Crosby etc).

 

[Golden_Jet]

It's a poorly phrased question yes...but everyone knows what OP meant. No need to fill the thread with people arguing semantics.

Here is the criteria

What's your definition of a 1C or 2C?

Can play 1C or 2C on a contender with no talks of upgrades

I suggested OP, add that to the criteria , but never did it.

 

[miscs75]

So I went to NHL.com and sorted by centers and points. Tried to eliminate the guys who were obvious wingers:

1. Mackinnon
2. Draisaitl
3. McDavid
4. Eichel
5. Crosby
6. Suzuki
7. Scheifele
8. Duchene
9. Point
10. Strome
11. Thomas
12. Stutzle
13. Matthews
14. Tavares
15. Aho
16. Barkov
17. Thompson
18. Johnston
19. Miller
20. Larkin
21. Hughes
22. Hischier
23. Kopitar
24. Kadri
25. Hintz
26. Beard
27. Granlund
28. Cooley
29. Schmaltz
30. Celebrini
31. Zibanejad
32. Hertl
33. Rossi
34. Trochek
35. Cirelli
36. Monahan
37. Horvat
38. Nelson
39. Fantilli
40. ROR
41. McLeod
42. McTavish
43. Stephenson
44. Bennett
45. Malkin
46. Schenn
47. RNH
48. Lindholm
49. Zacha
50. Cozens
51. Suter
52. Hayton
53. Couturier
54. Pettersson
55. Lundell
56. Carlsson
57. Danault
58. Beniers
59. Pageau
60. Strome
61. Mittlestatd
62. Roslovic
63. Namestnikov

Guys who i wasnt sure if they're primarily C or W:
Protas?
Geekie?
McMichael?
Johnson?
Stamkos?
Perfetti?
Smith?
Wright?
Howden?

I feel like at around 49 the line starts to blur between 2nd and 3rd liners, besides some obvious exceptions. And obviously missing a few guys like Norris who didnt play a whole season.

Who’s #26? Brent Burns?

 

[JKG33]

Who’s #26? Brent Burns?

I just looked at the points again, it was Bedard lol

 

[miscs75]

I just looked at the points again, it was Bedard lol

Beard sounds cooler though. I’d also put Barzal in the conversation based on his puck possession and ability to control the ice.

 

[LokiDog]

Always thought that was meaningless.

Players should be ranked on tiers. There's not 32 1c, 1d, or 1g caliber player's in the league.

This. The people saying 64 and arguing semantics just enjoying being contrarian. It’s abundantly clear the question is how many top six caliber centers there are and my guess is about 50, which is why it’s a premium position. The same is true of 1D and top pairing worthy D. Ryan Lindgren playing beside Fox didn’t make him a top pairing caliber D. It made him a guy who played on the top pair. It isn’t the same thing, and the whole “if you meant caliber than say that in your OP” crowd are just being difficult; it’s not confusing what the OP is asking.

 

[FiveTacos]

I'm just saying, the definition of a "1C" has to logically be one of the 32 best centers in the league.

But that's kind of meaningless, no? After all, if you only have one decent scoring line C and he's the 32nd best C in the league, and you also have the 64th, you're not gonna be posting in trade threads about how you're set at C.

I suppose the real question being asked here is, how many teams are satisfied with both Cs, how many are looking for an upgrade at either 1C or 2C, and who's looking for both? Because that'll pretty much tell you how many true scoring line C's there actually are.

Although what muddies the waters is the number of teams with young guys who are being looked at as the 1C/2C of the future, based on potential rather than current ability/production. So subtract a few of those out, but as they break out they pretty much replace some old guy who falls off.

 

[DJJones]

This. The people saying 64 and arguing semantics just enjoying being contrarian. It’s abundantly clear the question is how many top six caliber centers there are and my guess is about 50, which is why it’s a premium position. The same is true of 1D and top pairing worthy D. Ryan Lindgren playing beside Fox didn’t make him a top pairing caliber D. It made him a guy who played on the top pair. It isn’t the same thing, and the whole “if you meant caliber than say that in your OP” crowd are just being difficult; it’s not confusing what the OP is asking.

Ya like I think Kadri is a top 32 center. I do not think he is a 1C.

Simple as that really.

 

[LiseL]

So I went to NHL.com and sorted by centers and points. Tried to eliminate the guys who were obvious wingers:

1. Mackinnon
2. Draisaitl
3. McDavid
4. Eichel
5. Crosby
6. Suzuki
7. Scheifele
8. Duchene
9. Point
10. Strome
11. Thomas
12. Stutzle
13. Matthews
14. Tavares
15. Aho
16. Barkov
17. Thompson
18. Johnston
19. Miller
20. Larkin
21. Hughes
22. Hischier
23. Kopitar
24. Kadri
25. Hintz
26. Beard (edit: Bedard) LOL
27. Granlund
28. Cooley
29. Schmaltz
30. Celebrini
31. Zibanejad
32. Hertl
33. Rossi
34. Trochek
35. Cirelli
36. Monahan
37. Horvat
38. Nelson
39. Fantilli
40. ROR
41. McLeod
42. McTavish
43. Stephenson
44. Bennett
45. Malkin
46. Schenn
47. RNH
48. Lindholm
49. Zacha
50. Cozens
51. Suter
52. Hayton
53. Couturier
54. Pettersson
55. Lundell
56. Carlsson
57. Danault
58. Beniers
59. Pageau
60. Strome
61. Mittlestatd
62. Roslovic
63. Namestnikov

Guys who i wasnt sure if they're primarily C or W:
Protas?
Geekie?
McMichael?
Johnson?
Stamkos?
Perfetti?
Smith?
Wright?
Howden?

I feel like at around 49 the line starts to blur between 2nd and 3rd liners, besides some obvious exceptions. And obviously missing a few guys like Norris who didnt play a whole season.

That's my issue with further expansion. The talent pool keeps dwindling and only the prime destinations in the NHL have a chance to acquire top-end talent UFAs. There's already a shortage of goalies. Expanding further will just dilute the quality of the product more unless more youngsters take up hockey and more Russian players are drafted IMO.