The Caps, as a team, scored more. League wide scoring was a little higher. Mike Green was 21st in league scoring. Karlsson is 10th. The difference between the next defenseman was 7 points. Right now, it's 25 points.
I do not see them being similar at all, but go ahead anyways.
So playing 2:30 on the PK excuses the fact that he played against primarily second/third lines and Washington got scored on significantly more when he was on the ice despite those matchups, while Karlsson faces top lines and Ottawa gets scored on less when he's on the ice despite those matchups?
You must think PK'ing is incredibly important.
Playing 2:30 on the PK adds up to roughly 150 min more min than Karlsson over the course of a season. That's what, 6-8 full games of lost offensive production being "wasted" playing defense?
And spare us your convoluted algorithm for proving Karlsson is matched against top lines most of the time. We can all look at the shift charts. On the one from last night there was one shift, one, where he was thrown out there to match the Bruin's top line. I'll let you guess what happened.
Karlsson is an exciting and electric offensive defenseman but he does not have the complete game needed to take home the Norris. . . yet.
The Caps, as a team, scored more. League wide scoring was a little higher. Mike Green was 21st in league scoring. Karlsson is 10th. The difference between the next defenseman was 7 points. Right now, it's 25 points.
I do not see them being similar at all, but go ahead anyways.
In '09 Green put up 73 points in 68 games.
That is 88 points over 82 games which would have put him tied for 9th in scoring.
He was also on pace for 83 in '10 which would have put him tied for 14th in scoring.
Well, you've got to do it to actually be acknowledged for it. By that rule, Jason Spezza is already an established 100 point scorer in the league.
Right. I never claimed that Green was an "88 point player". Though he certainly finished the season as a "ppg+ player" over a significant sample which Karlsson hasn't at this point. Just showing that his production that season was similar. It's not complicated.
So let's say that hypothetical 150 point defenseman played this year and Karlsson didn't exist. Let us also assume for the sake of the argument that Crosby gets 200 points this year and pretty much has the Hart locked up.
This defenseman has 97 more points than the next closest defenseman, but this 150 point defenseman doesn't PK, plays primarily on the powerplay, faces only 3rd/4th lines, and does an average job defensively for a 3rd pairing defenseman.
Is he not the best defenseman in the NHL? Does he win the Norris? I want a straight forward yes or no answer here if possible.
The answer is NO.
He is not the best DEFENSEman. He is the best player that his coach stuck on the blueline to get more out of his roster.
Although, it really angers me that your changing your hypothetical defenseman to one that does an average job from one that is "completely useless." (Your words in the original hypothetical.)
Also, a hypothetical were you are giving your offensive blueliner a 97 point gap over his competition instead of one that accurately represents the differential that Karlsson currently has makes it pointless.
Feel free to adjust your hypothetical again if you need to. Here is the definition of the James Norris Memorial Trophy to help: "The James Norris Memorial Trophy is presented annually to the defenseman who demonstrates the greatest all-around ability in his position."
He is not the best DEFENSEman. He is the best player that his coach stuck on the blueline to get more out of his roster.
We disagree. Very much so.
Quote:
Although, it really angers me that your changing your hypothetical defenseman to one that does an average job from one that is "completely useless." (Your words in the original hypothetical.)
Sorry, I thought average job for a 3rd pairing defenseman is relatively close enough to "completely clueless" to not lose sleep over. Apparently not, but regardless, you answered this question under my "altered" scenario whereby the defenseman in question is an average 3rd pairing defenseman defensively.
Quote:
Also, a hypothetical were you are giving your offensive blueliner a 97 point gap over his competition instead of one that accurately represents the differential that Karlsson currently has makes it pointless.
My point has nothing to do with Karlsson (for the time being). I'm merely trying to illustrate that you don't need to be even OK at defense (which obviously Karlsson is and more) in order to be the best defenseman in the league.
Apparently we disagree very strongly on that since you would refuse to give the nod to a defenseman who has 97 more points than the next highest scoring defenseman, which I find surprising because to me, the "best" defenseman is also the defenseman who best helps you win games.
If that defenseman is putting up 150 points while being a mediocre 3rd pairing defenseman I'm pretty confident he helps you win games more than Weber, Chara, or Pietrangelo.
Because you don't see it that way, it's no surprise to me that our opinions differ so greatly in any Norris-candidate discussion.
I treat defenseman as players, just as I treat forwards as players, and goalies as players. The best one is the one who best helps me win games. I could care less how well-balanced they are, or how able they are to handle themselves in all situations, as long as they are helping me win games.
Winning games is what it's all about - at least to me.
Right. I never claimed that Green was an "88 point player". Though he certainly finished the season as a "ppg+ player" over a significant sample which Karlsson hasn't at this point. Just showing that his production that season was similar. It's not complicated.
Of course, but his teammates were better and league-wide scoring was higher. Karlsson's team was suppose to be a lottery team, and Karlsson is forcing them to score goals (along with Spezza).
Anyways, the point isn't that Green's offensive season wasn't comparable (or even superior perhaps) to Karlsson's. The point is that his defensive season wasn't even close to being in the same league - despite his Heavens-be-praised PK time.
Sorry, I thought average job for a 3rd pairing defenseman is relatively close enough to "completely clueless" to not lose sleep over. Apparently not, but regardless, you answered this question under my "altered" scenario whereby the defenseman in question is an average 3rd pairing defenseman defensively.
My point has nothing to do with Karlsson (for the time being). I'm merely trying to illustrate that you don't need to be even OK at defense (which obviously Karlsson is and more) in order to be the best defenseman in the league.
Apparently we disagree very strongly on that since you would refuse to give the nod to a defenseman who has 97 more points than the next highest scoring defenseman, which I find surprising because to me, the "best" defenseman is also the defenseman who best helps you win games.
If that defenseman is putting up 150 points while being a mediocre 3rd pairing defenseman I'm pretty confident he helps you win games more than Weber, Chara, or Pietrangelo.
Because you don't see it that way, it's no surprise to me that our opinions differ so greatly in any Norris-candidate discussion.
I treat defenseman as players, just as I treat forwards as players, and goalies as players. The best one is the one who best helps me win games. I could care less how well-balanced they are, or how able they are to handle themselves in all situations, as long as they are helping me win games.
Winning games is what it's all about - at least to me.
If you didn't bring up a hypothetical offensive blueliner who doesn't kill penalties in order to help your pro-Karlsson argument, why did you bring it up?
Roman Polak plays on the third pairing with Kris Russel in St. Louis. Maybe your team's third pairing is useless, but a lot of them aren't. So, no I don't really see how average third pairing = completely useless. If you can't see how an average third pairing NHL defenseman is not "completely useless", then I certainly can't value your opinion on defensive play. (Plus, you did once AGAIN change your hypothetical. We were discussing a player that was "completely useless" not a player that was "completely clueless." And no, they are not the same thing.)
I will again post the definition of the Norris: The James Norris Memorial Trophy is presented annually to the defenseman who demonstrates the greatest all-around ability in his position.
It is not awarded to the defenseman who best helps his team wins games. It is awarded to the "greatest all-around" defenseman. So a defenseman who doesn't kill penalties, or a defenseman who can't play quality defense shouldn't win it.
"Greatest all-around" and "best" are not the same thing. You seem to refuse to acknowledge that fact, and that is what annoys a lot of people about you and other Karlsson supporters.
The Norris isn't about the "best." Nowhere does it mention "best." It is about "all-around" and Karlsson CLEARLY doesn't demonstrate an ability to kill penalties.
Karlsson is lacking an aspect of the game. I simply don't understand how you can think that he is the greatest all-around defensemen in the league this year when he isn't even an all-around defenseman this year.
If you didn't bring up a hypothetical offensive blueliner who doesn't kill penalties in order to help your pro-Karlsson argument, why did you bring it up?
Roman Polak plays on the third pairing with Kris Russel in St. Louis. Maybe your team's third pairing is useless, but a lot of them aren't. So, no I don't really see how average third pairing = completely useless. If you can't see how an average third pairing NHL defenseman is not "completely useless", then I certainly can't value your opinion on defensive play. (Plus, you did once AGAIN change your hypothetical. We were discussing a player that was "completely useless" not a player that was "completely clueless." And no, they are not the same thing.)
I will again post the definition of the Norris: The James Norris Memorial Trophy is presented annually to the defenseman who demonstrates the greatest all-around ability in his position.
It is not awarded to the defenseman who best helps his team wins games. It is awarded to the "greatest all-around" defenseman. So a defenseman who doesn't kill penalties, or a defenseman who can't play quality defense shouldn't win it.
"Greatest all-around" and "best" are not the same thing. You seem to refuse to acknowledge that fact, and that is what annoys a lot of people about you and other Karlsson supporters.
The Norris isn't about the "best." Nowhere does it mention "best." It is about "all-around" and Karlsson CLEARLY doesn't demonstrate an ability to kill penalties.
Karlsson is lacking an aspect of the game. I simply don't understand how you can think that he is the greatest all-around defensemen in the league this year when he isn't even an all-around defenseman this year.
Oh ok fair enough, so can we agree that Karlsson is the best defenseman in the league this year then? I don't really care if you guys think he should win the Norris or not, or about your interpretation of the trophy (I'm quite certain it is in fact designed to go to the best defenseman of the year - regardless of what it says per the official description) so long as we can all get behind the fact that overall, he is the best defenseman this year.
For fun too, here's the definition of the Selke Trophy:
The Frank J. Selke Trophy is awarded annually to the National Hockey League forward who demonstrates the most skill in the defensive component of the game
Is that really what the award is awarded on in practice? Here's a hint (since lockout):
2005–06 Rod Brind'Amour Carolina Hurricanes C 1
2006–07 Rod Brind'Amour Carolina Hurricanes C 2
2007–08 Pavel Datsyuk Detroit Red Wings C 1
2008–09 Pavel Datsyuk Detroit Red Wings C 2
2009–10 Pavel Datsyuk Detroit Red Wings C 3
2010–11 Ryan Kesler Vancouver Canucks C 1
Somewhat similarly, here is what Icing is:
81.1 Icing – For the purpose of this rule, the center red line will divide the ice into halves. Should any player of a team, equal or superior in numerical strength (power-play) to the opposing team, shoot, bat or deflect the puck from his own half of the ice beyond the goal line of the opposing team, play shall be stopped.
Right. I never claimed that Green was an "88 point player". Though he certainly finished the season as a "ppg+ player" over a significant sample which Karlsson hasn't at this point. Just showing that his production that season was similar. It's not complicated.
Absolute production? Sure. Relative? Hell no. (and that's the best way, IMO, to gauge someone's play... by comparing what they did against their peers.. because a lot of things change year-to-year)
Karlsson leads all NHL Dmen in takeaways (by a significant amount) for a reason.... he is very smart, quick and crafty. Not as sexy as being physical, but the kid is great.
Why the hell would Ottawa play him on the PK? They have big, offensively challenged plugs on the back-end to do that. Karlsson already logs a ton of minutes, should you take away from his PP or ES time just to feed him PK minutes? That would be stupid coaching.
I'm a Bruins fan and I think it is silly that I should have to defend Karlsson from other Bruins fans. Get a grip, guys. For a guy that has the puck as much as he does, he should have 3x as many turnovers. He is a much better and smarter version of Green who put up a higher % of his points on that deadly Caps PP and then would go fishing on D.
Last year, Karlsson was 3rd on the team in total TOI on the PK, and he only allowed 3 goals against the whole year. THREE. Way less than anybody else on the team. And this was last year. This year he's much better.
Last year, Karlsson was 3rd on the team in total TOI on the PK, and he only allowed 3 goals against the whole year. THREE. Way less than anybody else on the team. And this was last year. This year he's much better.
Exactly. He has shown the ability to penalty kill... and do an amazing job. Our assistant coach thought he was a "tremendous" penalty killer, but the experts on HF clearly know better. (Also, I don't think I dislike an announcer more than Edward... Bruins' fans were indoctrinated by him last night through mass propaganda)
I feel like you should bold that for everyone viewing this thread... and Jack Edwards too.
Anyone see Pietrangelo on the Coyotes 2nd and 3rd goals tonight? If Karlsson made those two plays within 2 minutes he'd be getting crap from all angles.
Anyone see Pietrangelo on the Coyotes 2nd and 3rd goals tonight? If Karlsson made those two plays within 2 minutes he'd be getting crap from all angles.
This was already answered...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sureves
No you've got it all wrong. Defenseman with over 65 points can't make the occasional mistake because it is a clear indication that they are solely offensive defenseman.
As long as you're in the 50-60 point sweet zone, mess up all you want and no one will say boo.
It actually says demonstrates throughout the season the best all round ability.
Meaning not in the playoffs or previous seasons. I've said it before, but the only reason limited PK time should hurt his chances is because it gives him less opportunity to showcase his abilities.
Why people are so hung up on PK is beyond me; the average team spends 5 mins and 25 secs/game on the PK, that's 11 % of a game and people are acting like its 90%. Not only that but there is very little correlation between PK% and position in the standings, great teams can be horrid on the PK and brutal teams can be great.
Everyone, do not hate Karlsson just because he is simply the best of the best and that he probably looks better than you as well. He is the heir to the Norris trophy and will rightfully claim it this year unlike those bulking brutes such as Chara and Weber. Karlsson is a legend that is all.
LOL Im not being serious but he is heavily in contention whether you like it or not
Oh ok fair enough, so can we agree that Karlsson is the best defenseman in the league this year then? I don't really care if you guys think he should win the Norris or not, or about your interpretation of the trophy (I'm quite certain it is in fact designed to go to the best defenseman of the year - regardless of what it says per the official description) so long as we can all get behind the fact that overall, he is the best defenseman this year.
...
I'm only going to focus on this part of your post because bringing up icing and the Selke are red herrings that have nothing to do with the current conversation.
I will say that Karlsson is the most "valuable" defenseman to his team. I wouldn't go so far as to say "best." And he isn't the "greatest all-around".
But I just LOVE how you think you have a better understanding of the James Norris Memorial Trophy than the people who came up with the description. You are the one with a very liberal interpretation of it.
Quote:
"I'm quite certain it is in fact designed to go to the best defenseman of the year - regardless of what it says per the official description"
Really?? I mean, do you really honestly want to take that stance and then try to logically argue ANYTHING?
Karlsson leads all NHL Dmen in takeaways (by a significant amount) for a reason.... he is very smart, quick and crafty. Not as sexy as being physical, but the kid is great.
Why the hell would Ottawa play him on the PK? They have big, offensively challenged plugs on the back-end to do that. Karlsson already logs a ton of minutes, should you take away from his PP or ES time just to feed him PK minutes? That would be stupid coaching.
I'm a Bruins fan and I think it is silly that I should have to defend Karlsson from other Bruins fans. Get a grip, guys. For a guy that has the puck as much as he does, he should have 3x as many turnovers. He is a much better and smarter version of Green who put up a higher % of his points on that deadly Caps PP and then would go fishing on D.
So a guy with the puck as much as Karlsson should average 3 turnovers a game instead of the one that Karlsson does average?
Karlsson leads all NHL Dmen in takeaways (by a significant amount) for a reason.... he is very smart, quick and crafty. Not as sexy as being physical, but the kid is great.
Why the hell would Ottawa play him on the PK? They have big, offensively challenged plugs on the back-end to do that. Karlsson already logs a ton of minutes, should you take away from his PP or ES time just to feed him PK minutes? That would be stupid coaching.
I'm a Bruins fan and I think it is silly that I should have to defend Karlsson from other Bruins fans. Get a grip, guys. For a guy that has the puck as much as he does, he should have 3x as many turnovers. He is a much better and smarter version of Green who put up a higher % of his points on that deadly Caps PP and then would go fishing on D.
I'm having a hard time putting a lot of weight into the giveaway/takeaway stat considering how subjective it is to rink/scorer, much like the scoring for hits. Is a Karlsson pickup of a dumped in puck more of a takeaway than Chara poke checking an on-coming forward right to a teammate who then counter-attacks? I get the feeling Karlsson's play gets scored a takeaway more so than Chara, but how do I find that out. The Chara play I mentioned happens 5? 10? times a game?
I can't be the only one that takes that stat with a HUGE grain of salt. Just looking around to see how that stat is scored brings numerous articles, such as
