What is the definition of a #1 centre?

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by strombad

And this is why those guys are number one centers, because you can logically argue for and against them without looking like an idiot.

But this makes no sense to me because there are tiers even within the ranks of obvious #1 centers. I mean, let's face it, Jason Spezza is a legit #1 center. There's certainly a reasonable debate you could have as to whether he'd be #1 in Vancouver or San Jose ahead of your Sedins and Thorntons. But it's pretty obvious that he's not in the conversation with Stamkos and Toews.

There is a spectrum of #1 centres. Being bad for a #1 centre doesn't make you a #2 centre. This is perfectly consistent, meanwhile, with the statement that some teams have two legit #1 centres and some don't have any.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

But this makes no sense to me because there are tiers even within the ranks of obvious #1 centers. I mean, let's face it, Jason Spezza is a legit #1 center. There's certainly a reasonable debate you could have as to whether he'd be #1 in Vancouver or San Jose ahead of your Sedins and Thorntons. But it's pretty obvious that he's not in the conversation with Stamkos and Toews.

There is a spectrum of #1 centres. Being bad for a #1 centre doesn't make you a #2 centre. This is perfectly consistent, meanwhile, with the statement that some teams have two legit #1 centres and some don't have any.

Maybe you need to take franchise guys out of for the system to make sense. I mean, nobody is going to compare to Crosby, so I could see some sort of spectrum. Again, that's just how I look at it. I look at Spezza, and yeah, if you compare him to Toews and Stamkos you might lean on taking Toews or Stamkos, but the point is that he is IN that conversation.
Guys like Jordan Staal, they aren't in that conversation, he's a level below all of those kind of guys, so that's why I'd never say he's a #1. He would've played on the top line if he had been traded here, but that doesn't make him a #1 of course.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by strombad

Maybe you need to take franchise guys out of for the system to make sense. I mean, nobody is going to compare to Crosby, so I could see some sort of spectrum. Again, that's just how I look at it. I look at Spezza, and yeah, if you compare him to Toews and Stamkos you might lean on taking Toews or Stamkos, but the point is that he is IN that conversation.

I don't think he's in that conversation. I doubt you could find anyone who would take Spezza over Toews or Stamkos. I mean I doubt you'd even find anyone who would take Kopitar over those guys. Meanwhile I doubt you would find anyone who would take Kreijci over Kopitar. There's clearly multiple tiers of #1 guys - or more accurately as I put it a spectrum, given that some guys might be close to one another but still identifiably better (i.e. Spezza isn't elite but I'd take him over Mikko Koivu).

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Hawks

Not a chance. I like Toews but he is not in the same talent level that Crosby and Malkin are.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

Arguably Tampa.

They would just move Stamkos to the wing or Malkin but that is a more solid argument than Toews.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

I don't think he's in that conversation. I doubt you could find anyone who would take Spezza over Toews or Stamkos. I mean I doubt you'd even find anyone who would take Kopitar over those guys. Meanwhile I doubt you would find anyone who would take Kreijci over Kopitar. There's clearly multiple tiers of #1 guys - or more accurately as I put it a spectrum, given that some guys might be close to one another but still identifiably better (i.e. Spezza isn't elite but I'd take him over Mikko Koivu).

Spezza isn't elite?

Maybe not in the same conversation as Stamkos, Toews, Malkin, Crosby.... but he's very close to it. He has more than a point per game over 600 career NHL games.

[19Yzerman19]

^Yes, he scores a lot. Are you seriously saying that you would hesitate for a second if someone asked you "who would you rather have playing for you tonight, Spezza or Stamkos?" Come on, no one bats an eye before answering that. Same goes for Giroux or Tavares. But the point is that he's not in the conversation but he's still a good #1C. He might be in the top 10 among centres in the league. That's a good #1, just as a top 10 goalie is a good #1.

Just expanding, I think you have certain guys who are clearly #1 C's.
Crosby, Malkin, Stamkos, Toews, Sedin, Getzlaf, EStaal, Datsyuk, Kopitar, Giroux, Spezza, Tavares, Backstrom, Thornton, Bergeron make up 15 who are clearly within the top 30 centers in the league. Those guys are good #1 centers - they're not only among the 30 best, they're in the top half of the 30 best.

Then you have a debate as to who the next 15 are. Matt Duchene, Mikko Koivu, David Kreijci, Logan Couture, David Backes, Ryan Kesler, Derek Stepan, Tomas Plekanec, RNH, Mike Richards, Tyler Seguin, Joe Pavelski, Mike Ribeiro, Jordan Staal, Brad Richards.

Some of those guys aren't very good as #1 centres, just like some goalies aren't very good #1 goalies. Some of them are indeed on the borderline of not being #1 Centres and you can argue that another guy should take someone's place on the list - maybe Kadri or Lecavalier or Ganger is better than Richards or Plekanec. Same thing goes with goalies, once you get down to 22-30, you're into guys who are debatable as to whether they're #1s or if someone else should supplant them. A guy like Ribeiro is basically the Ondrej Pavelec of centres - yeah, he's a #1, he's just not very good as a #1 and Phoenix would prefer it had someone else in that role, just as Winnipeg would be better off if it had Jimmy Howard between the pipes instead.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

I don't think he's in that conversation. I doubt you could find anyone who would take Spezza over Toews or Stamkos. I mean I doubt you'd even find anyone who would take Kopitar over those guys. Meanwhile I doubt you would find anyone who would take Kreijci over Kopitar. There's clearly multiple tiers of #1 guys - or more accurately as I put it a spectrum, given that some guys might be close to one another but still identifiably better (i.e. Spezza isn't elite but I'd take him over Mikko Koivu).

You're not understanding the point of what it means to be "in the conversation". These guys are comparables. It doesn't mean someone has to take Spezza over Toews, it means you have to be able to logically compare the two. As soon as you can't, then it's out of the conversation.
Guys like J.Staal, Krecji, Bergeron, Koivu, etc. I don't believe they're true #1 guys. Boston doesn't need it because Krejci and Bergeron are both outstanding #2 guys, but to say either is a #1 because they play big minutes on a contending team is too simple.
Using the definition I use for what makes a #1 center, I also believe you don't really NEED one. However, like Boston, in absence of a #1 you almost always need two exception #2 guys.
Your definition is too broad. If there are so many tiers, where is the cutoff? What separates the low tier #1's from the high tier #2's? If it's not much, why aren't the high tier #2's considered #1's? Your method just doesn't make any sense.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

Just expanding, I think you have certain guys who are clearly #1 C's.
Bergeron.

Then you have a debate as to who the next 15 are. David Kreijci

Out of curiosity, how is Bergeron a clear #1 center in your books, while Krejci, who is above him on the depth chart and actually plays on the first line in Boston, a "debatable"?

That's why your system is broken.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by strombad

You're not understanding the point of what it means to be "in the conversation". These guys are comparables. It doesn't mean someone has to take Spezza over Toews, it means you have to be able to logically compare the two. As soon as you can't, then it's out of the conversation.

Um, wtf? What are you even talking about? This makes no sense. First of all, your meaning of "in the conversation" may be different than mine, but it doesn't mean yours is correct. My meaning would be that you could have a conversation as to the relative merits of each in an attempt to resolve a difference of opinion as to who is better. Second of all, I'm perfectly able to compare Jason Spezza to Matt Stajan, or any other player. What the hell is "logically compare"?

Guys like J.Staal, Krecji, Bergeron, Koivu, etc. I don't believe they're true #1 guys. Boston doesn't need it because Krejci and Bergeron are both outstanding #2 guys, but to say either is a #1 because they play big minutes on a contending team is too simple.

I didn't say they were both #1 because they play big minutes. I said they were #1 because they are among the best centers in the NHL. There are 30 teams, therefore there should be 30 number 1 guys. That's my perspective. It has nothing to do with what team they're on. You can disbelieve it, but I don't think there's any reasonable basis for holding a higher standard for what "#1" means, you're just drawing an arbitrary line that would be no more valid than if someone said "the elite C's in the NHL by my own reckoning are Crosby, Malkin, Toews, Stamkos and Tavares, therefore they're the only #1 C's".

Using the definition I use for what makes a #1 center, I also believe you don't really NEED one. However, like Boston, in absence of a #1 you almost always need two exception #2 guys.

I don't deny that you don't NEED one. You could get by with Columbus's forwards if you have a really good defense and strong goaltending.

Your definition is too broad. If there are so many tiers, where is the cutoff? What separates the low tier #1's from the high tier #2's?

It's pretty simple: there are 30 teams. Therefore there are 30 #1 Cs, 30 #1 Gs, 60 top pairing defensemen.

If it's not much, why aren't the high tier #2's considered #1's? Your method just doesn't make any sense.

Because they're not in the top 30. If they arguably are, then they're arguably #1 C's. It's not hard to understand.

Originally Posted by strombad

Out of curiosity, how is Bergeron a clear #1 center in your books, while Krejci, who is above him on the depth chart and actually plays on the first line in Boston, a "debatable"? That's why your system is broken.

My system isn't broken and even if it were you wouldn't have provided a coherent reason why it is. Just citing something you disagree with does not constitute a counterargument. But you're misstating my point anyway - Kreijci, for me, isn't debatable because he's a top 30 center in the league. How Boston deploys him isn't relevant. Bergeron, for me, is a better centre than Kreijci, but they're both #1's because they're both top 30.

I have actually presented a rational basis for what I think the term means. You have none whatsoever outside of your gut feeling. "High level of talent" and "relied on to carry his team" are just meaningless hockey-flavoured words. There will always be some element of subjectivity in this discussion but yours is no more worthwhile than throwing out a list of guys you think are good at hockey.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

Um, wtf? What are you even talking about? This makes no sense. First of all, your meaning of "in the conversation" may be different than mine, but it doesn't mean yours is correct. My meaning would be that you could have a conversation as to the relative merits of each in an attempt to resolve a difference of opinion as to who is better. Second of all, I'm perfectly able to compare Jason Spezza to Matt Stajan, or any other player. What the hell is "logically compare"?


I didn't say they were both #1 because they play big minutes. I said they were #1 because they are among the best centers in the NHL. There are 30 teams, therefore there should be 30 number 1 guys. That's my perspective. It has nothing to do with what team they're on. You can disbelieve it, but I don't think there's any reasonable basis for holding a higher standard for what "#1" means, you're just drawing an arbitrary line that would be no more valid than if someone said "the elite C's in the NHL by my own reckoning are Crosby, Malkin, Toews, Stamkos and Tavares, therefore they're the only #1 C's".


I don't deny that you don't NEED one. You could get by with Columbus's forwards if you have a really good defense and strong goaltending.

It's pretty simple: there are 30 teams. Therefore there are 30 #1 Cs, 30 #1 Gs, 60 top pairing defensemen.

Because they're not in the top 30. If they arguably are, then they're arguably #1 C's. It's not hard to understand.

My system isn't broken and even if it were you wouldn't have provided a coherent reason why it is. Just citing something you disagree with does not constitute a counterargument. But you're misstating my point anyway - Kreijci, for me, isn't debatable because he's a top 30 center in the league. How Boston deploys him isn't relevant. Bergeron, for me, is a better centre than Kreijci, but they're both #1's because they're both top 30.

I have actually presented a rational basis for what I think the term means. You have none whatsoever outside of your gut feeling. "High level of talent" and "relied on to carry his team" are just meaningless hockey-flavoured words. There will always be some element of subjectivity in this discussion but yours is no more worthwhile than throwing out a list of guys you think are good at hockey.

Allllright, calm down.
My point was that you can compare Toews and Spezza because they aren't far off skill wise, but you can't compare (logically) Stajan and Spezza. You can compare them all you want, but if you're having a conversation of who is better and you're trying to say it's Stajan, then you aren't using logic. Thus, they cannot be logically compared talent wise. It would be like comparing Lundqvist and McElhinney. You CAN, but there's no logic in having that conversation.
You're all over the place man:
- You say "you're drawing an arbitrary line", but you do that very same thing between who is a #1 and who is #2. It's not a bad thing, but that's what we're discussing, where the "line" is.
- You say there are 30 teams so there are 30 #1 centers, but according to you Pittsburgh and Boston both have two, so your statement doesn't make sense. What does 30 teams have to do with it? If one team has 2 centers, does another team have to have zero?
- First you say Bergergon is a clear #1 and Krejci is debatable (since he could, for arguments sake, be replaced by another who could move into your "top 30"). Then you say Krejci ISN'T debatable because he's a top 30 guy. You then, after whining about me stating my opinion without backing it up, say that Bergeron is better than Krejci, even though he is the #1 center in Boston. I suppose you have something to back up why you know better than the Bruins?
Your whole argument is kind of silly. You're getting upset because I'm stating my opinion, and not backing it up with evidence that you find suitable, but it's an OPINION bro, cool your jets. I pretty clearly stated that it was just how I look at #1 centers, and you took it upon yourself to try and argue against my opinion, mighty tough thing to do.
So go ahead, argue away. It was always my opinion and nothing I had ever stated as fact. Enjoy yourself.

[spennywalks]

monohan

[JobHopper]

In short, he would be undoubtedly the best forward on your team. As well as being compared to other top players/centers in the league. Like say Sean Monahan. If we're having debates about who is or isn't a #1 center then they probably aren't a #1 center. As we've seen here the last few years, like Olli Jokinen.

[memphusk]

Originally Posted by Cali Flames Fan

Uh....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilt_Chamberlain

Exactly. Just as I mentioned, he never played a sport.

[StrykerSteve]

80-90 points at least two years in a row.

Minimum of 25-30 goals on an annual basis.

Above 50% on face offs.

Plays on the first unit of a top ten PP unit.

Averages 20 minutes per night.

That would be my definition. I'm not at my computer, I wonder how many Centers in the game meet those criteria?

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Some people use that term to define skill / ability / production.
Others use it simply to denote which center is playing on the 1st line. By which definition Stajan and Jokinen have both been 1st line centers on this team.

1st line C is very hard to define. Is Crosby a 1st line C? Then what does that make Malkin?
I can tell you 99% of the centers in the NHL wouldnt be a 1st line center in Pittsburgh. Does that mean none of them are by definition a first line C?

I dont think the term # 1 C should be used to denote talent or points. It is too vague.
1st line C should simply just mean the C in your lineup who plays the most minutes and is typically going to be in between your top wingers.

By one definition you can have more than 2 first line Cs on one team.
By the other definition its impossible to have 2 1st line Cs. Makes things a bit confusing and vague. Especially considering some teams dont have a distinct first line and roll out a 1A/1B kind of line up and put the more in form guy on the top line.

In summary... please stop using 1st line center to denote a players skill or output.
Matt Stajan is our 1st line C

PS..by the above definition Tavares and Duchene + a lot of other first line calibre players are not a '#1 center'

I think we should just stick to calling 80-90+ point annual 30 goal scorers 'superstar center' not #1 center. The term #1 center implies a center who is #1 on his team of which there are about 30 in this league. We shouldnt stretch this to some statistical threshold that only superstars like Stamkos and Crosby can meet.

Anyhow just my 2 cents.. I've only been watching hockey since 02' so I could be wrong. Just get the idea this term isnt the best one to use in the way it is currently being used. We could call those types of players superstar centers. Not #1 C

[moon]

Originally Posted by StrykerSteve

80-90 points at least two years in a row.

Minimum of 25-30 goals on an annual basis.

Above 50% on face offs.

Plays on the first unit of a top ten PP unit.

Averages 20 minutes per night.

That would be my definition. I'm not at my computer, I wonder how many Centers in the game meet those criteria?

If you allow for his injury time Sidney Crosby.

Don't think any other guy would reach all those targets.

[DOOM]

Originally Posted by moon

If you allow for his injury time Sidney Crosby.

Don't think any other guy would reach all those targets.

Stamkos and Malkin.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by DOOM

Stamkos and Malkin.

never been 50% on FOs

edit: neither has Stamkos but he was 49.6% last year so maybe we can give him a pass

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

^Yes, he scores a lot. Are you seriously saying that you would hesitate for a second if someone asked you "who would you rather have playing for you tonight, Spezza or Stamkos?" Come on, no one bats an eye before answering that. Same goes for Giroux or Tavares. But the point is that he's not in the conversation but he's still a good #1C. He might be in the top 10 among centres in the league. That's a good #1, just as a top 10 goalie is a good #1.

Just expanding, I think you have certain guys who are clearly #1 C's.
Crosby, Malkin, Stamkos, Toews, Sedin, Getzlaf, EStaal, Datsyuk, Kopitar, Giroux, Spezza, Tavares, Backstrom, Thornton, Bergeron make up 15 who are clearly within the top 30 centers in the league. Those guys are good #1 centers - they're not only among the 30 best, they're in the top half of the 30 best.

Then you have a debate as to who the next 15 are. Matt Duchene, Mikko Koivu, David Kreijci, Logan Couture, David Backes, Ryan Kesler, Derek Stepan, Tomas Plekanec, RNH, Mike Richards, Tyler Seguin, Joe Pavelski, Mike Ribeiro, Jordan Staal, Brad Richards.

Some of those guys aren't very good as #1 centres, just like some goalies aren't very good #1 goalies. Some of them are indeed on the borderline of not being #1 Centres and you can argue that another guy should take someone's place on the list - maybe Kadri or Lecavalier or Ganger is better than Richards or Plekanec. Same thing goes with goalies, once you get down to 22-30, you're into guys who are debatable as to whether they're #1s or if someone else should supplant them. A guy like Ribeiro is basically the Ondrej Pavelec of centres - yeah, he's a #1, he's just not very good as a #1 and Phoenix would prefer it had someone else in that role, just as Winnipeg would be better off if it had Jimmy Howard between the pipes instead.

I'm going to nitpick here and say i would have no qualms about picking Jason Spezza of Claude Giroux.