Cornerstone Defensemen on Remaining 8 Teams

[Magicstew]

Heiskanen
Provorov
Makar/Hughes
Theodore
McAvoy
Pulock
Sergachev

Like EB's list, the more I see of Heiskanen in these playoffs, the more impressive he is. They are all good players and are going to be fantasy studs for the next few years.

[jtloveshack]

I would go:

Miro (been a fan for quite some time and this is his breakout party)
Prov
Makar
Theo
Hughes
Pulock/McAvoy
Sergachev

[Pengwin7]

Heiskanen (nice to see other put him so high)
Provorov
Makar
McAvoy
Hughes
Theodore
Sergachev
Pulock

Being young... it won't surprise me to see a few of these guys grow enough to jump a spot or two.

[metaldude26]

Looking at Dom L's Game Score Value Added here are the 8 in order:

Makar 3.2
Theodore 2.9
McAvoy 2.9
Hughes 2.7
Heiskanen 2.3
Pulock 2.0
Sergachev 1.9
Provorov 1.6

For my money, I'm taking:

Makar
Theodore
Hughes

I favour these guys because I think it's impossible to get that pure offensive talent, and it's not like they can't also develop their defensive games. And I gave a slight tilt to Makar because the righty shot is harder to come by and easier to find a partner for. Then Theodore because his two-way game is farther along.

Next up:

McAvoy
Heiskanen

These two are absolutely stifling defensively, and I give the slight lean to McAvoy for being a righty that is easier to build around.

Final tier:

Pulock
Provorov
Sergachev

Provorov just doesn't have the high-end offense and has been around long enough there's less optimism it'll come around. Same with Pulock, but he is a little more flexible because of the righty shot. Also, could he do more on a less stifling team?

Sergachev has the offense but not the defense, maybe on a team without a Norris winner he'd get used more and have Hughes-like impact, but we haven't seen it, and there's still defensive growth where there's questions.

Let's get real, the point is, EVERY team would like to get any of these guys on the squad, so we are picking nits, but I adore that top 3, hence the tiers.

[roenick27]

You're sleeping on Theodore

Ok EB. That goal against the nucks was Leetch-esqe.

I'd move him up behind hughes

[saucelife90]

Looking at Dom L's Game Score Value Added here are the 8 in order:

Makar 3.2
Theodore 2.9
McAvoy 2.9
Hughes 2.7
Heiskanen 2.3
Pulock 2.0
Sergachev 1.9
Provorov 1.6

For my money, I'm taking:

Makar
Theodore
Hughes

I favour these guys because I think it's impossible to get that pure offensive talent, and it's not like they can't also develop their defensive games. And I gave a slight tilt to Makar because the righty shot is harder to come by and easier to find a partner for. Then Theodore because his two-way game is farther along.

Next up:

McAvoy
Heiskanen

These two are absolutely stifling defensively, and I give the slight lean to McAvoy for being a righty that is easier to build around.

Final tier:

Pulock
Provorov
Sergachev

Provorov just doesn't have the high-end offense and has been around long enough there's less optimism it'll come around. Same with Pulock, but he is a little more flexible because of the righty shot. Also, could he do more on a less stifling team?

Sergachev has the offense but not the defense, maybe on a team without a Norris winner he'd get used more and have Hughes-like impact, but we haven't seen it, and there's still defensive growth where there's questions.

Let's get real, the point is, EVERY team would like to get any of these guys on the squad, so we are picking nits, but I adore that top 3, hence the tiers.

I like this list but would drop McAvoy under Heiskanen.

[Pengwin7]

FWIW - these guys are all really solid - and making lists sometimes suggests that one player is WAY above another.
Provorov is way, way, way better than people know. [McAvoy - people will learn, is also way better than the masses on these forums give him credit for.]
The Flyers, as a team, really made big strides when they began considering/deploying Provorov as their #1 offensive D-man. (benching Ghost)

Numbers are great, I love them as much as anybody.
But some of these guys are also shielded from higher QoC (opponents) - and even a really solid statistician, like Dom, will tell you it's impossible to separate a player's on-ice contribution from his teammates.


Here is another "rank" from Corsica hockey on D-men (and I'll add their offensive zone start%, which helps, in brackets):
https://www.corsicahockey.com/nhl/pl...tings-rankings
http://www.nhl.com/stats/skaters?rep...0&pageSize=100

78.31 McAvoy (51.5%)
78.31 Makar (52.3%)
78.21 Theodore (59.1%)
...
...
...
76.25 Provorov (51.7%)
76.22 Heiskanen (50.2%)
...
75.21 Hughes (62.8%)
75.06 Pulock (44.1%)
74.92 Sergachev (53.8%)


^Point on the OZ%... it's hard to gauge two players like Hughes vs. Pulock.
OZ starts is at discretion of the coach... should we penalize either guy for how their coach wants to deploy them?
There a little yes, a little no to that question.

There IS some hint at what OZ% numbers tell us though... which is that Theodore & Hughes are both greatly shielded from key D-shutdown roles.
If we are talking "cornerstone", I think that should be a player that the coach is ready to deploy in key defensive situations.

Hughes & Theodore are not there yet, which is why they are lower on my list.
But I agree with others, they have plenty of time and room for the NHL-level of defending to improve.

This IS a thread about "cornerstone" D... though... and how we would draft them (so it's a rank that is subjective to our own thoughts on their progression... but also, we have to apples-to-apples that this is our top-pairing ALL situations defenseman... and that we all get JoeAverageD as their partner. One can't just assume that Theodore or Hughes will be complimented by a shut-down/stay-at-home D man... or that we have the option to shelter a Theodore/Hughes on a 2nd-pairing. My point.)

[metaldude26]

The offensive zone starts thing was always a big critique on Erik Karlsson, which fair enough. But there are more ways to impact the game defensively than simply what you do in your own zone, which is something that most smaller defensemen are going to struggle with. If you're deploying your fleet, offensive dynamo defensemen in the offensive zone, you are:

1. Maximizing your offensive potential. For a stars and scrubs team like Vancouver this of utmost importance. They have to maximize their offensive opportunities by loading up their elite talent together because they aren't going to create much when the scrubs are out there. The Sens had to do this with Karlsson as well.

2. You are putting your defensemen into defending situations to which they may be better suited, to wit, defending against counter-attacks and zone entries. A guy like Hughes IS going to get beat up once the puck is in his own zone. But he's a great skater and defends much better against the rush and zone entries. So he doesn't have to do as much in-zone defending if deployed in such a way that the puck isn't getting there in the first place.

Ideally, you'd have yourself a Victor Hedman, who does it all well, but he's a unicorn. For me, it's not "what you can't do", it's "what you can do" and building from there.

[Pengwin7]

For me, it's not "what you can't do", it's "what you can do" and building from there.

The thing about "corner stones"... is that they have to do sort of an "everything" for a building's base.
Axial, lateral, impact. Everything. It's this non-glamourous critical function.

This structural engineer shall not hear of these misinterpretations of the "cornerstone"!!!




Literal definition FTW.

[metaldude26]

The thing about "corner stones"... is that they have to do sort of an "everything" for a building's base.
Axial, lateral, impact. Everything. It's this non-glamourous critical function.

This structural engineer shall not hear of these misinterpretations of the "cornerstone"!!!




Literal definition FTW.

If we're going that far with it then this thread is doomed from the start because you can argue none of them fit that rigid definition.

However, if the point of the analogy being "this is the thing that is so strong we are building around it" while understanding that players are humans, and humans have strengths and weaknesses, then you embrace a looser definition and flexibly build around the strengths of these players because what makes them "cornerstones" is not being the unicorn perfect player, but rather so sublimely talented in a certain area that you can build a winner around those strengths.

Like I said, there's one Hedman, and if we're all faced with that standard then there's no point.

*

I'd also add that a house is a fixed structure, and a team playing a game is anything but fixed, so getting hung up on that literal definition is, to me, missing the point.

[Eskimo Brother]

Steve as a structural engineer I'll counter Peng's structural engineer bit with another analogy.

Peng, if you're building a bridge or a skyscraper your cornerstone still needs mortar or reinforcing steel to help it with the forces it can't manage as well (not even going to get into water/weatherproofing, etc). So I think that Steve is right it does need to be the strongest piece, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have any weakness or that it doesn't need a supporting cast.