View Single Post
04-21-2011, 04:17 PM
Ozymandias's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hockey Mecca
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,438
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
True. And if defensemen were evaluated primarily on their goal-scoring ability, that might have meant more to those who determine the candidates.
He finished 1st rookie D in most categories, finished the season with a 2,38 GAA with 22+ minutes of gameplay on average. In comparison, Norris candidate Visnovsky has a 2,32 GAA, Chara 2,36, Weber 2,31 who all play in front of very good goalies, and guys like Doughty 2,56 and Lidstrom 3,05 who've had worst defensive numbers than Subban. Point is, Subban is among the 20 best Ds defensively. What kills his +/- is the lack of offensive support he got, which makes his GF collumn much lower than the guys I just named who all had 100+ GF while Subban got 77, but if you consider the lineups, it's not surprising Subban didn't get as many GF when he was on the ice than these other dmen.

Also, I needn't remind you that 29 forwards with 30+ goals comes from a pool of players twice as large as those 22 defensemen with 10+ goals (given there are twice as many forward positions on each team to fill than there are defensemen positions).
And Subban finished 6th among 200+ defensemen. Bowman said himself that the primary factor for winning in the new NHL is shots from the point. Not only did he finish 6th for goals, he also finished 8th for shots by a dmen.

Sure, he's lacking some overall stats to be a Norris candidate, but damn, he's got high defensive numbers that only two dozen dmen have in the league (for those who play more than 20 minutes), and finished among the best goal scorers for Dmen. For a rookie season, it is tremendous.

But that's really not what kept Subban off the ballot, so let's not dwell on it.
What kept Subban off the ballot is the same thing that kept Ryder from winning it in 2004 over Raycroft.

Ozymandias is offline   Reply With Quote