So your determination of what constitutes a #4 versus a #1 guy isn't determined by what they do on the ice?
Your perception of what constitutes a #4 or a #2 guy also seems very attached to the Wings defensive pairings of the past. And also seems based on a #1 defenseman that comes around well, really only a few times in the history of hockey. Very few teams have a #1 guy of the caliber of Lidstrom. Holland is very set in this model, replacing Scheider with Rafalski, then trying to replace Rafalski with White, but that's not the only way it has to be.
Willie Mitchell, for example, was the #2 guy in LA and he's not exactly a Brian Rafalski. And that was a championship team. Plus Scuderi, who by your system would probably be called a #4/5 guy was actually #3 on LA. The "type" of player a defenseman is doesn't determine if they're a #2 versus a 4, 5, or 6 guy.
"So your determination of what constitutes a #4 versus a #1 guy isn't determined by what they do on the ice?"
Give me a break man. I can't figure out how anyone could get that out of what i said. I have been passionately playing and watching this game for essentially my entire life. I have studied the game and the older I get the more I look at it from a more analytical scrutiny, less of a fan perspective and more of a game philosophy perspective. It's all about what they do on the ice. Actually Ericsson has been judged by others for his whole career by other factors such as potential or size. People wouldnt just come out and say that even though he's young, big, and been playing in the NHL for years that he was actually not performing up to argueably even having a starting 6 job in the NHL. He was given a contract based on potential, because he certainly didnt deserve it.
My main point is that just because Kronwall is our best offensive defenseman and Ericsson is our best defensive defenseman (for 30 whole games of his career mind you) that doesnt make either of them more than they are in the scope of the entire NHL. You are correct, I would say that Scuderi is a #5 and Mitchell is not a #2. Also, there are not 30, #1 defenseman in this league which may be part of the confusion. My definition of a #1 defenseman is more what you'd call a franchise defenseman or an "elite" player, the type of guy you build a team around. Keith, Weber, Chara, Karlsson (if he continues at this rate), Suter are these guys. Pietriangelo, Letang, Burns, and maybe a couple others could be considered #1 guys. Kronwall is on the bubble. If he steps up defensively and continues hitting he will be a legit #1. Byugflien, Cambell, Yandle, Seabrook, and Del Zotto are #2's and so on. If Ericsson continues being this good (which would prove to be one of the most remarkable turn arounds in recent memory) he could be a legit #3.
I guess i can see where this might not make sense to someone looking at guys and saying that there are 30 #1, 30 #2 and so on. I would be interested in looking at it that way, see what those lists look like. I dont like lumping the elite guys with secondary guys though, probably why i do it that way. To me a #1 guy is the Lidstrom, Pronger, Niedermayer...the guy you put out there and have complete confidance in when the game is on the line. Kronwall is not that guy. My nightmares are made of Ericsson being our most relied upon shutdown defender unless he really has become an altogether different player.
Edited by achildr1, 21 March 2013 - 11:36 AM.