Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald
Do they? I would like to know what constitutes a top tier center? Is it points scored? Is it being a clutch scorer? Is it winning? Is it making players around you better? Is it being a good player at both ends of the ice? What exactly is it that defines a top line center? I think if we define this we might be able to come to a better understanding of people's expectations?
|
This is a very good question.
Without deep-diving into statistics, both traditional and advanced, let's look at some of the top centers in the game today:
McDavid. Outstanding point producer and the definition of making other players better. He gets a ton of flak for being bad defensively and that may be warranted, but he would still easily be the current gold standard for an elite center.
MacKinnon. Complete player without much drop off in production. The knock would be that he hasn't been able to elevate his game enough to be a difference maker in the playoffs.
Crosby. The undisputed recent gold standard. Has done it all. End of story. A unique and truly generational player.
Barkov. Great player with no obvious holes in his game. No playoff success whatsoever.
Bergeron. Unimpeachable career, but only one cup despite playing on a perennial contender.
O'Reilly. Great 2-way player with a Conn Smythe to show for it. Despite having him the Blues have looked awful since they won it all.
Point. Not much to complain about. He does everything you want a 1C to do and does it well.
Matthews. One of the best goal scorers in the game. No real flaws in his game, but yet to taste any real team success.
There are other players as well, but I think that is enough to get an idea of a few things:
1) Injury aside because it is an unknown, is there any reason Eichel couldn't be part of this group? I don't see why not. He obviously has all the tools, and as others have mentioned he has lots of time to continue to develop his game.
2)Hockey is truly a team game. If watching McDavid's career isn't enough take a look at some of the other names above and add in Couturier, Thornton and more who despite being everything you would want in a 1C couldn't lead their teams to the promised land. We are always saying that you can't win without a 1C, but we forget that having a 1C doesn't win you anything either. The list of great centers that fell short is longer than the list of ones with a cup.
3) The more we try to parse the data and isolate the "winning qualities" that we must have in our 1C the further we get from understanding how to build a winning team.