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
giveaway/takeaway is a highly suspect stat. It has way too much to do with where the game is played than the actual players.
That being said, this really has turned into the "admit Karlsson should win the Norris or you're wrong" thread that it's comical. Shades of the Mike Green threads a few seasons ago...
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.
How many shorthanded goals has he been on for this year?
giveaway/takeaway is a highly suspect stat. It has way too much to do with where the game is played than the actual players.
That being said, this really has turned into the "admit Karlsson should win the Norris or you're wrong" thread that it's comical. Shades of the Mike Green threads a few seasons ago...
That may be true, but at least it allows us to keep all the Knights of Karlsson confined to one spot....
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...
How does that jibe with Karlsson having the third worst +/- in the NHL?
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.
Really?? I mean, do you really honestly want to take that stance and then try to logically argue ANYTHING?
If you don't think the Norris is suppose to go to the best defenseman in the league for the year then that's on you and I'll leave you in peace.
If you also have a different definition as to what the Norris trophy should really be about, I'm not overly concerned with that either, so if that's all you wanted to get across then I think we can part ways peacefully.
My point is that a 150 point defenseman who is average defensively for a 3rd pairing defenseman, who doesn't PK and plays primarily on the PK, would still be the best defenseman in the NHL assuming Karlsson didn't exist and the next-highest scoring defenseman had 52 points.
It seems we agree on that, and that's all I was trying to get across.
Combine that with my interpretation of the Norris trophy (ie. "all-around ability" means an average in consideration of ALL of the abilities the defenseman demonstrates; not that he actually needs to be good at ALL of the areas) and that it should go to the best defenseman, it's clear to me that - at least under my Norris interpretation - that a 150 point defenseman who was effectively pretty meh defenisvely (third pairings, no PK, lots of PP) could still win the Norris.
Now, obviously this is adjacent to the topic because Karlsson actually is good defensively (though not as good as the other candidates) but is MUCH better offensively.
So essentially if you're using your interpretation of the trophy, obvious Karlsson shouldn't win because he's not "exceptional" at every single aspect of defense. Under my interpretation he is however "very good" at every aspect of defense as well as "several levels above exceptional offensively" which nets out his "very good" areas to "exceptional" on average.
I really believe you are in the minority with this interpretation though as evidenced by 50% of hboards choosing Karlsson as the Norris winner in the poll section with 23% for Weber, and 20% for Chara, as well as Karlsson being the favourite amongst a lot of the analysts. Under your interpretation it makes absolutely no sense to award the Norris to Karlsson since he doesn't PK.
Good thing for us that it's a stupid interpretation and 90% of the world would agree that the Norris goes to the best defenseman of the year - regardless of its description.
How does that jibe with Karlsson having the third worst +/- in the NHL?
Besides all the other factors (Ottawa being terrible, and especially Ottawa having terrible goaltending), getting scored on only 3 times probably required a fair dollop of luck to go with his PK skills.
that has nothing to do with +/-... did you quote the wrong post?
Karlsson had the third worst +/- in the NHL last season. I don't think any discussion that includes his performance last season should omit that piece of information.
Karlsson had the third worst +/- in the NHL last season. I don't think any discussion that includes his performance last season should omit that piece of information.
uhh, if it was relevant then sure... but it isn't. He's talking about PK.
If you don't think the Norris is suppose to go to the best defenseman in the league for the year then that's on you and I'll leave you in peace.
If you also have a different definition as to what the Norris trophy should really be about, I'm not overly concerned with that either, so if that's all you wanted to get across then I think we can part ways peacefully.
My point is that a 150 point defenseman who is average defensively for a 3rd pairing defenseman, who doesn't PK and plays primarily on the PK, would still be the best defenseman in the NHL assuming Karlsson didn't exist and the next-highest scoring defenseman had 52 points.
It seems we agree on that, and that's all I was trying to get across.
Combine that with my interpretation of the Norris trophy (ie. "all-around ability" means an average in consideration of ALL of the abilities the defenseman demonstrates; not that he actually needs to be good at ALL of the areas) and that it should go to the best defenseman, it's clear to me that - at least under my Norris interpretation - that a 150 point defenseman who was effectively pretty meh defenisvely (third pairings, no PK, lots of PP) could still win the Norris.
Now, obviously this is adjacent to the topic because Karlsson actually is good defensively (though not as good as the other candidates) but is MUCH better offensively.
So essentially if you're using your interpretation of the trophy, obvious Karlsson shouldn't win because he's not "exceptional" at every single aspect of defense. Under my interpretation he is however "very good" at every aspect of defense as well as "several levels above exceptional offensively" which nets out his "very good" areas to "exceptional" on average.
I really believe you are in the minority with this interpretation though as evidenced by 50% of hboards choosing Karlsson as the Norris winner in the poll section with 23% for Weber, and 20% for Chara, as well as Karlsson being the favourite amongst a lot of the analysts. Under your interpretation it makes absolutely no sense to award the Norris to Karlsson since he doesn't PK.
Good thing for us that it's a stupid interpretation and 90% of the world would agree that the Norris goes to the best defenseman of the year - regardless of its description.
Yup, keep deluding yourself that the Norris is for the best defenseman, not the "greatest all-around" defenseman like the trophy lists. I mean heck, you even admit that Karlsson isn't the best at defense. But he is a DEFENSEman. So how can you say that Karlsson is the best defenseman but he isn't the best at defense. You should probably take a critical thinking class while you are at school, it would really help you out a lot.
It will be a shame if Karlsson wins it, and I will lose respect for the voters. Karlsson only excels at one aspect of the game. You know it. I know it. His coaches know it. That is why they shelter him from top lines at home, give offensive zone starts, and only play him on the PK as it is about to end.
Karlsson is a more talented Shattenkirk. Both players have coaches that put them in the best position to succeed, and to a casual observer it looks like they are as good as players whose minutes aren't hand-picked.
I'm not saying he won't win it. Just that he shouldn't. But most of the voters are a lot lazier than the people on hfboards.com when it comes to statistical analysis. They will see the large number of takeaways, and the large number of points, and give it to him. It won't be the first time someone got an award due to lazy voters.
Lidstrom didn't deserve to win it last year. Datsyuk didn't deserve all of his Selkes. Karlsson doesn't deserve to win because he hasn't demonstrated an ability excel at all areas this season.
Let's go back to your hypothetical defenseman who outscores everyone by 100 points. Let's say that there is a defenseman who gets that 52 points, averages over 3 minutes on the PK, 2 on the PP, 35 mins a night, leads the league in blocked shots by 50, shorthanded goals by 7, hits by 75, and leads the league in +/- by a margin of 15 despite playing for a bottom feeder who is a - as a team. THAT guy should win the Norris over the 100 point defenseman because my hypothetical guy excels at ALL aspects, not just offense. He has just as much of an advantage in every other category as your player does in offense.
Just please, for the love of hockey, stop passing opinion as fact and belittling others with a different opinion than yours. Just because I'm basing my interpretation on the actual words of the trophy doesn't mean it is a stupid opinion. I'm sure you have convinced yourself that any opinion other than yours is invalid. That is why you think you know what the Norris should be about better than the people who CAME UP WITH THE TROPHY!
Last edited by bluemandan: 04-07-2012 at 11:12 AM.
The numbers say that Chara should have won the Norris last season.
Quote:
Zdeno Chara – In my opinion, Chara is most deserving of winning the Norris Trophy this past season. His opponents had the 9th highest goals for per 20 minutes and the 11th highest goals for percentage so he lined up against some pretty stiff competition. He ended the season with the lowest goals against while on the ice and the sixth highest goals for while on the ice resulting in by far the best goals for percentage by any defenseman. When Chara was on the ice in 5v5 even strength situations the Bruins scored a whopping 64.3% of the goals scored. The result is Chara had a HARO+ rating of 1.232, good for 9th among defensemen, and a HARD+ rating of 1.248, good for second among defensemen which gave him the best HART+ rating at 1.240...
The PHWA voters behaved a bit like the Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Sciences last season by giving Lindstrom the Norris as an award for lifetime achievement. So, I think it's only fair that that injustice factor into their decision to award Chara with the Norris this season.
Yup, keep deluding yourself that the Norris is for the best defenseman
Stopped reading here. Karlsson is the best defenseman in the NHL this year as he best helps a team win games. I could care less about a trophy that is awarded based on seemingly trivial criteria that emphasizes well-roundedness.
If you insist that the Norris is awarded based on your interpretation of the trophy, good for you,I'm cool with that. Award the Norris to whoever you like, Weber, Chara, Pietrangelo, Girardi, Beauchemin, whomever you think fits the arbitrary criteria.
As long as we know that the best overall defenseman in the league this year is Karlsson, I couldn't be happier.
EDIT: Just read the rest of your post, sorry I'd love to take a critical thinking class but I can't fit into my busy schedule since I'm double majoring in Finance and Accounting! I'll leave those critical thinking classes for the arts majors.
The PHWA voters behaved a bit like the Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Sciences last season by giving Lindstrom the Norris as an award for lifetime achievement. So, I think it's only fair that that injustice factor into their decision to award Chara with the Norris this season.
One of the problems with that analysis is that it attributes 100% of goaltending performance to the defencemen ahead of them. Thomas was phenomenal (and Rask was good, too), whereas Howard was below-average.
Yup, keep deluding yourself that the Norris is for the best defenseman, not the "greatest all-around" defenseman like the trophy lists. I mean heck, you even admit that Karlsson isn't the best at defense. But he is a DEFENSEman. So how can you say that Karlsson is the best defenseman but he isn't the best at defense. You should probably take a critical thinking class while you are at school, it would really help you out a lot.
It will be a shame if Karlsson wins it, and I will lose respect for the voters. Karlsson only excels at one aspect of the game. You know it. I know it. His coaches know it. That is why they shelter him from top lines at home, give offensive zone starts, and only play him on the PK as it is about to end.
Karlsson is a more talented Shattenkirk. Both players have coaches that put them in the best position to succeed, and to a casual observer it looks like they are as good as players whose minutes aren't hand-picked.
I'm not saying he won't win it. Just that he shouldn't. But most of the voters are a lot lazier than the people on hfboards.com when it comes to statistical analysis. They will see the large number of takeaways, and the large number of points, and give it to him. It won't be the first time someone got an award due to lazy voters.
Lidstrom didn't deserve to win it last year. Datsyuk didn't deserve all of his Selkes. Karlsson doesn't deserve to win because he hasn't demonstrated an ability excel at all areas this season.
Let's go back to your hypothetical defenseman who outscores everyone by 100 points. Let's say that there is a defenseman who gets that 52 points, averages over 3 minutes on the PK, 2 on the PP, 35 mins a night, leads the league in blocked shots by 50, shorthanded goals by 7, hits by 75, and leads the league in +/- by a margin of 15 despite playing for a bottom feeder who is a - as a team. THAT guy should win the Norris over the 100 point defenseman because my hypothetical guy excels at ALL aspects, not just offense. He has just as much of an advantage in every other category as your player does in offense.
Just please, for the love of hockey, stop passing opinion as fact and belittling others with a different opinion than yours. Just because I'm basing my interpretation on the actual words of the trophy doesn't mean it is a stupid opinion. I'm sure you have convinced yourself that any opinion other than yours is invalid. That is why you think you know what the Norris should be about better than the people who CAME UP WITH THE TROPHY!
So how did paul coffey win again ?
Not to mention you are deluding yourself into thinking karlsson is bad defensivly .
Imo the norris goes to tge defencmen who does the most to help his team win the game.
Be it through offence or defence . That said to win it you must be atleast elite in one category and atleast decent in the other.
Karlsson wins . Theres no way he cant , unless we have the reputation thing going
I almost hope Karlsson doesn't win it. He's on the verge of landing what could be a massive contract and finally getting attention around the league. He deserves the recognition, but the last thing I want is for him to think he's Bobby Orr.
Winning the Norris at 21 would place him in that category along with Potvin and Coffey. He can't afford to take his foot off the gas. I would rather see him continue to develop and win the award in a year or two in landslide fashion.
He's been poor in these last few games, by his standards. Call it resting for the playoffs, but I would've liked to see him hit 80+.
I almost hope Karlsson doesn't win it. He's on the verge of landing what could be a massive contract and finally getting attention around the league. He deserves the recognition, but the last thing I want is for him to think he's Bobby Orr.
Winning the Norris at 21 would place him in that category along with Potvin and Coffey. He can't afford to take his foot off the gas. I would rather see him continue to develop and win the award in a year or two in landslide fashion.
He's been poor in these last few games, by his standards. Call it resting for the playoffs, but I would've liked to see him hit 80+.
Yup, keep deluding yourself that the Norris is for the best defenseman, not the "greatest all-around" defenseman like the trophy lists. I mean heck, you even admit that Karlsson isn't the best at defense. But he is a DEFENSEman. So how can you say that Karlsson is the best defenseman but he isn't the best at defense. You should probably take a critical thinking class while you are at school, it would really help you out a lot.
Calling them DEFENSEmen only really holds water if you're gonna begin to call forwards offensemen. The game of hockey is free flowing and offensive players get valued the most because they are the hardest to find. This is the case whether they play forward or defense.
At the end of the day the best defensemen is the defensemen that helps his team win the most. There is a D beside Karlsson's name and he lines up at defense...so he is a defensemen. This isn't football...if a defensemen can score a PPG, mostly from the outside, he's damn well allowed to do it and boy does it ever propel a team farther than anyone thought it would.
The "DEFENSEman" criticism of Karlsson is perhaps the worst one.
Not to mention you are deluding yourself into thinking karlsson is bad defensivly .
Imo the norris goes to tge defencmen who does the most to help his team win the game.
Be it through offence or defence . That said to win it you must be atleast elite in one category and atleast decent in the other.
Karlsson wins . Theres no way he cant , unless we have the reputation thing going
Can you please show me where I said Karlsson is bad at defense? He simply doesn't excel at it. There is a HUGE difference.
You Knights of Karlsson are funny. THERE IS NO WAY HE CAN'T WIN!! UNLESS!! if you have to qualify your absolute statements, you probably shouldn't make absolute statements.
