HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Norris trophy shares

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-10-2008, 08:17 PM
  #1
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,315
vCash: 500
Norris trophy shares

Here is my Norris trophy shares analysis. It looks at which defensemen have received the most Norris trophy votes over the course of their careers.

Website: http://www.geocities.com/thehockeyou...ris_shares.pdf
Rapidshare: http://rapidshare.com/files/14426114...hares.pdf.html

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2008, 08:23 PM
  #2
Bring Back Bucky
Registered User
 
Bring Back Bucky's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Delicieux!
Country: Heard and McDonald Islands
Posts: 7,824
vCash: 50
Nice work thanks

Bring Back Bucky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2008, 08:36 PM
  #3
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,571
vCash: 500
Thanks for the hard work as usual.

The gap between Bourque and the rest of the defenseman is unreal, as is the gap between #4 and #5 (especially if you give Harvey credit for his pre-54 years).

This definitely lends credence to Lidstrom belonging in the top-5 all time. Obviously he didn't didn't have the competition that Potvin did but I am surprised that Pronger and Niedermayer do as well as they do in this metric.

I was surprised that even with credit for his pre-'54 years that Harvey comes behind the top-3, but looking at the voting he was splitting votes with Kelly, who would likely make the top-5 if we had Norris voting for his prime which is tougher competition than any of the other three faced.

It doesn't surprise me that Pilote does as well as he did based on this, but MacInnis finishing ahead of him definitely did. Considering that Pilote won a couple of Norrises, MacInnis must have had a pretty huge edge in terms of consistently strong performances.

If it's not too much work, I'd be interested to see how Park does with Orr removed from the voting (so the normalized number of votes would be the total votes minus Orr's votes). Obviously players like Chelios, Gadsby, Pronger, etc. have had to play behind all time greats, but Orr was just at another level.

Nice to see Mark Howe get some much deserved recognition.

One more thing, seeing names like Sandis Ozolinsh and Dion Phaneuf towards the end of the list shows how it gets a little sketchy once you get towards the end. I can't believe that Randy Carlyle, who actually won the Norris, finished behind Phaneuf. It just shows you how close that vote must have been.

pitseleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2008, 08:41 PM
  #4
reckoning
Registered User
 
reckoning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,105
vCash: 500
Nice job. I'm very surprised at how high Chelios finished. Serge Savard's low rating saddens me, though I think it's more due to tough competition and being a primarily defensive -minded player in an offensive era.

For the years prior to the Norris voting, is there any way the All-Star vote totals could be broken up in shares, or would be too inaccurate because the voters are giving top scores to two defencemen instead of just one?

reckoning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2008, 11:06 PM
  #5
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,856
vCash: 72
Excellent work as always Hockey Outsider

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2008, 11:16 PM
  #6
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning View Post
For the years prior to the Norris voting, is there any way the All-Star vote totals could be broken up in shares, or would be too inaccurate because the voters are giving top scores to two defencemen instead of just one?
I wanted to include all-star votes (I have enough data to extend this for another 5 years, so it would fully cover Kelly/Harvey's career, and possibly more if I do some more digging). The issue, as you pointed out, is that there are basically two first-place votes for all-star voting and only one first-place vote for Norris voting. I haven't thought of a way to reconcile the numbers. Can you (or anybody) think of a way to solve this?

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2008, 11:21 PM
  #7
NOTENOUGHBREWER
Registered User
 
NOTENOUGHBREWER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,618
vCash: 500
Excellent work. I'm surprised so many recent players score so highly on this list. Is it a result of the 5-point system put into place in the last 10 years or so?

NOTENOUGHBREWER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2008, 11:21 PM
  #8
Stonefly
Registered User
 
Stonefly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,032
vCash: 500
Wow, fantastic stuff. You should really be making money doing this HO. Your data and stats are always so well thought out and presented. You write a book, I'll buy a copy.

Stonefly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2008, 11:27 PM
  #9
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
This definitely lends credence to Lidstrom belonging in the top-5 all time. Obviously he didn't didn't have the competition that Potvin did but I am surprised that Pronger and Niedermayer do as well as they do in this metric.
Potvin had a better peak, and Kelly may rank higher taking into account his underrated decade as a forward, but, taking into account peak & longevity as blueliner, I feel comfortable ranking Lidstrom #5 all-time.

Someone has to receive the votes each year. Pronger is IMO the 2nd-best defenseman of the decade... but he wouldn't have been the 2nd-best defenseman in the 1970s, 1980s or 1990s. His score is overstated because weaker competition means fewer chances for others to steal the Norris votes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
I was surprised that even with credit for his pre-'54 years that Harvey comes behind the top-3, but looking at the voting he was splitting votes with Kelly, who would likely make the top-5 if we had Norris voting for his prime which is tougher competition than any of the other three faced.
I was only surprised that Harvey was ranked behind Lidstrom. If I gave him credit for '52 and '53, he might have ranked ahead of Lidstrom. An adjustment for the quality of competition would almost certainly push Harvey ahead of Lidstrom.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
It doesn't surprise me that Pilote does as well as he did based on this, but MacInnis finishing ahead of him definitely did. Considering that Pilote won a couple of Norrises, MacInnis must have had a pretty huge edge in terms of consistently strong performances.
MacInnis generally earned larger Norris shares as runner-up, than Pilote did as the winner. MacInnis only won one Norris but was runner-up to Bourque twice and Lidstrom once (averaging 63% those years). (On top of that, MacInnis won the Norris nearly unanimously in 1999). In the three years Pilote won, he averaged a 61% share). Pilote was very good, of course, but he never dominated the voting to the extent that most of the other multiple Norris winners did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
If it's not too much work, I'd be interested to see how Park does with Orr removed from the voting (so the normalized number of votes would be the total votes minus Orr's votes). Obviously players like Chelios, Gadsby, Pronger, etc. have had to play behind all time greats, but Orr was just at another level.
I tried calculating this but I haven't come up with anything reasonable. Subtracting Orr's votes doesn't work, because that doesn't change the maximum number of available votes (ie even if I subtract Orr's 204 votes in 1972, it doesn't change the fact that Park only earned 117 out of a possible 210 votes). Since I base the scores on maximum number of votes (ie number of voters * 5 points for a first-place vote) and not the total number of votes, this method doesn't solve the problem.

I also tried re-distributing the votes proportionately (ie in 1972 Park earned 51.3% of the votes that didn't go to Orr so he'd get 204 * .513 = 105 additional votes. The problem is he already had 117 votes so 117+ 105 = 222 votes, when the maximum is 210. This doesn't make sense because it means Park received more 1st place votes than there are voters! Let me know if you can think of another way of approaching this, it's an interesting problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
One more thing, seeing names like Sandis Ozolinsh and Dion Phaneuf towards the end of the list shows how it gets a little sketchy once you get towards the end. I can't believe that Randy Carlyle, who actually won the Norris, finished behind Phaneuf. It just shows you how close that vote must have been.
Carlyle is in a class of his own. Out of all Norris winners, he has fared by far the worst in terms of voting:

PlayerShares
Carlyle0.40
Johnson0.85
Howell1.02
Wilson1.05
Laperriere1.39

There are two things working against him. First, he was only a serious nominee in one season (1981 when he won). The only other times he was nominated were 1982 (1.3% of max votes, 13th place) and 1985 (1.0% of max votes, 9th place).

Second, even when he won the Norris, it was an extremely close race. Denis Potvin was a very close 2nd place (35.9%) and Larry Robinson was a close 3rd (31.7%). Carlyle earned only 38.1% of max votes when he won the Norris, the second small total ever for a Norris winner. I think it's safe to say that Carlyle was the worst Norris trophy winner ever.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2008, 11:38 PM
  #10
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOTENOUGHBREWER View Post
Excellent work. I'm surprised so many recent players score so highly on this list. Is it a result of the 5-point system put into place in the last 10 years or so?
Good question. All the scores are adjusted so that the maximum value (ie a unanimous Norris) is worth 1 point in every year. For example:

- Brad Park earned 0.36 shares in 1976 (96 points; max 270)
- Zdeno Chara earned 0.35 shares in 2008 (486 points; 1,340)

My intepretation is there are surprisingly few elite defensemen today, at least compared to the period from around 1973-2000. Players like Chara, Blake and Gonchar would have had little chance of making this list in the past (because the Norris votes would have gone to superior players). Now there are so few elite defensemen that the votes are being concentrated on the same players each year.

For example, as great as MacInnis was, he couldn't finish in the top five every year due to intense competition from Bourque, Chelios, Coffey, Leetch, Stevens, etc. If MacInnis's toughest competition was Pronger, Niedermayer, Blake and Chara, he would had earned more Norris shares than he actually did.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2008, 11:44 PM
  #11
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by willus3 View Post
Wow, fantastic stuff. You should really be making money doing this HO. Your data and stats are always so well thought out and presented. You write a book, I'll buy a copy.
Haha. That would be nice but I'm not counting it. Thanks though.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2008, 11:49 PM
  #12
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,322
vCash: 500
Excellent study.

Just curious - you say you have almost every vote accounted for from 1954 and on. I only see that the hfboards thread has complete norris results for 67, 79, 81, 82, and 84-present. Is this data that you have compiled but not (yet) released, or did I miss in that thread?

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2008, 12:01 AM
  #13
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Excellent study.

Just curious - you say you have almost every vote accounted for from 1954 and on. I only see that the hfboards thread has complete norris results for 67, 79, 81, 82, and 84-present. Is this data that you have compiled but not (yet) released, or did I miss in that thread?
Thanks. You're correct. I found complete results for 1956, 1958, 1959, 1962, 1963, 1965, 1966, 1971, 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1978. I will try to post this tomorrow.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2008, 12:17 AM
  #14
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,571
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
Good question. All the scores are adjusted so that the maximum value (ie a unanimous Norris) is worth 1 point in every year. For example:

- Brad Park earned 0.36 shares in 1976 (96 points; max 270)
- Zdeno Chara earned 0.35 shares in 2008 (486 points; 1,340)

My intepretation is there are surprisingly few elite defensemen today, at least compared to the period from around 1973-2000. Players like Chara, Blake and Gonchar would have had little chance of making this list in the past (because the Norris votes would have gone to superior players). Now there are so few elite defensemen that the votes are being concentrated on the same players each year.
Was the 3 vote system a 5-3-1 system or a 3-2-1 system? Would either affect shares as the second place player would get a smaller share relative to a 5-4-3-2-1 system?

To take an extreme example of what I'm thinking of, a player that was a unanimous second place finisher with 50 ballots would earn a 60% share (3*50/5*50) in the 5-3-1 system, a 67% share (2*50/3*50) in the 3-2-1 system, and an 80% share in the 5-4-3-2-1. Maybe I'm missing something or it's already been accounted for.

pitseleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2008, 12:41 AM
  #15
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
Was the 3 vote system a 5-3-1 system or a 3-2-1 system? Would either affect shares as the second place player would get a smaller share relative to a 5-4-3-2-1 system?

To take an extreme example of what I'm thinking of, a player that was a unanimous second place finisher with 50 ballots would earn a 60% share (3*50/5*50) in the 5-3-1 system, a 67% share (2*50/3*50) in the 3-2-1 system, and an 80% share in the 5-4-3-2-1. Maybe I'm missing something or it's already been accounted for.
Fortunately (in the sense that it makes my job easier), the NHL used a 5-3-1 voting system for every year from 1954-1995, without exception. They switched to the 10-7-5-3-1 voting system in 1996 and have been using that ever since then.

A unanimous second-place finisher would have earned 33% of the votes in the old system (5/9) and 27% of the votes in the new system (7/26). I haven't made any adjustments for this (mostly because a 0.06 is fairly small in the context of this project, and, in practice, a second place nominee would still have a mix of 1st, 2nd, 3rd-place votes).

A unanimous 4th place player would get 0% under the old system and 12% under the new system, and this would cause a bit of distortion. (In practice, though, a 4th place player would likely have a mix of 2nd, 3rd and not ranked in the old system and 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and not ranked in the new system). I didn't think that the differences between the two systems were important enough to make adjustments for -- but I'm open to doing that if there's an adjustment that's practical and material.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2008, 06:34 AM
  #16
JaymzB
Registered User
 
JaymzB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Toronto
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 2,473
vCash: 500
A few comments:

-Amazing work as always. I really appreciate not only the statistical work involved, but the great and informed comments that go with each player. Seriously, try to get working on a book, I know I'd buy it.

-Ray Bourque is simply an unreal player. To be a top 5 defensemen in 19 of 22 seasons is just an amazing testament to a player who could play at the highest level for so long. I guess he really is Gordie's only competitor for the "most domination for the longest time" award.

-Interesting that Chelios gets more Norris points for his Wing days than his Habs days. Another example of the quality of competition being better in the 80's early 90's perhaps?

-Nice to see Pierre Pilote up so high. Like you said, one of the most underrated players in history.

JaymzB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2008, 07:15 AM
  #17
norrisnick
Registered User
 
norrisnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
Potvin had a better peak, and Kelly may rank higher taking into account his underrated decade as a forward, but, taking into account peak & longevity as blueliner, I feel comfortable ranking Lidstrom #5 all-time.

Someone has to receive the votes each year. Pronger is IMO the 2nd-best defenseman of the decade... but he wouldn't have been the 2nd-best defenseman in the 1970s, 1980s or 1990s. His score is overstated because weaker competition means fewer chances for others to steal the Norris votes.



I was only surprised that Harvey was ranked behind Lidstrom. If I gave him credit for '52 and '53, he might have ranked ahead of Lidstrom. An adjustment for the quality of competition would almost certainly push Harvey ahead of Lidstrom.



MacInnis generally earned larger Norris shares as runner-up, than Pilote did as the winner. MacInnis only won one Norris but was runner-up to Bourque twice and Lidstrom once (averaging 63% those years). (On top of that, MacInnis won the Norris nearly unanimously in 1999). In the three years Pilote won, he averaged a 61% share). Pilote was very good, of course, but he never dominated the voting to the extent that most of the other multiple Norris winners did.



I tried calculating this but I haven't come up with anything reasonable. Subtracting Orr's votes doesn't work, because that doesn't change the maximum number of available votes (ie even if I subtract Orr's 204 votes in 1972, it doesn't change the fact that Park only earned 117 out of a possible 210 votes). Since I base the scores on maximum number of votes (ie number of voters * 5 points for a first-place vote) and not the total number of votes, this method doesn't solve the problem.

I also tried re-distributing the votes proportionately (ie in 1972 Park earned 51.3% of the votes that didn't go to Orr so he'd get 204 * .513 = 105 additional votes. The problem is he already had 117 votes so 117+ 105 = 222 votes, when the maximum is 210. This doesn't make sense because it means Park received more 1st place votes than there are voters! Let me know if you can think of another way of approaching this, it's an interesting problem.



Carlyle is in a class of his own. Out of all Norris winners, he has fared by far the worst in terms of voting:

PlayerShares
Carlyle0.40
Johnson0.85
Howell1.02
Wilson1.05
Laperriere1.39

There are two things working against him. First, he was only a serious nominee in one season (1981 when he won). The only other times he was nominated were 1982 (1.3% of max votes, 13th place) and 1985 (1.0% of max votes, 9th place).

Second, even when he won the Norris, it was an extremely close race. Denis Potvin was a very close 2nd place (35.9%) and Larry Robinson was a close 3rd (31.7%). Carlyle earned only 38.1% of max votes when he won the Norris, the second small total ever for a Norris winner. I think it's safe to say that Carlyle was the worst Norris trophy winner ever.
One of these days I'd really love to get a detailed metric of just how exactly quality of opposition gets determined. More often than not it reeks of back in the good ol' days... And other times it seems entirely circular.

- Player A is better than Player B because he dominated a more challenging era.
- Why was Player A's era more challenging?
- Because he had to face Players C, D, E, F, G, etc...
- Why is that noteworthy?
- Because Players C, D, E, F, G, etc... are clearly better than guys like Players H, I, J, K, L, M, etc... that Player B faced.
- Why are they clearly better?
- Because they were standouts in a more challenging era. Players H, I, J, K, L, M, etc... wouldn't have gotten a sniff of Award X had they played then.

Well ok, then!

norrisnick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2008, 09:32 AM
  #18
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,856
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by norrisnick View Post
One of these days I'd really love to get a detailed metric of just how exactly quality of opposition gets determined. More often than not it reeks of back in the good ol' days... And other times it seems entirely circular.

- Player A is better than Player B because he dominated a more challenging era.
- Why was Player A's era more challenging?
- Because he had to face Players C, D, E, F, G, etc...
- Why is that noteworthy?
- Because Players C, D, E, F, G, etc... are clearly better than guys like Players H, I, J, K, L, M, etc... that Player B faced.
- Why are they clearly better?
- Because they were standouts in a more challenging era. Players H, I, J, K, L, M, etc... wouldn't have gotten a sniff of Award X had they played then.

Well ok, then!
There is little metric for it. I use my eyes. I saw them play.

My opinion is that Niedermayer and Pronger would not get much of a sniff at the Norris in the 80's and early 90's. I have made that clear enough. In Pronger's Hart year maybe, but it would depend on the year he achieved it. Bourque's best 5-6 years beat Pronger's Hart year.

When Macinnis, Bourque and Chelios were in their mid 20's early 30's, they were far better players than they were at age 40, yet at age 40, they were the only ones giving Lidstrom a run for his money for his first 3 Norris trophies.

Macinnis had a good year in 98-99 when he won the norris, but he had several better years than that earlier in his career when he was going runner up and 3rd for the Norris. They were runner up and 3rd place then because the competition was so strong.

Niedermayer was not even in his prime, or a factor in Norris voting until 2003-04 forward and Pronger had made a disappearing act after his Hart season due in part to injuries for a few years. The 3 trophies Between 2001-2003 were almost giveaways.

In this case, Red Kelly played directly against Harvey, taking many of his Norris share votes in the process. Kelly is a top 10 all time Dman. Lidstrom faced nobody of that Caliber in their prime when he was winning his Norris trophies.

The fact that Macinnis gets more Norris shares as a blue is also indicative that competition had dropped. Macinnis was a better player as a Flame than he was as a blue, but competition was too stiff back then.

Same with Chelios, who gets more Norris shares as a Wing than he did as a Hab. He was irrefutably much better as a hab, but competition back then was so great that he was not getting norris shares.


Last edited by Dark Shadows: 09-11-2008 at 10:23 AM.
Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2008, 09:37 AM
  #19
lextune
I'm too old for this
 
lextune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 9,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaymzB View Post
Amazing work as always. I really appreciate not only the statistical work involved, but the great and informed comments that go with each player. Seriously, try to get working on a book, I know I'd buy it.
+1

Quote:
Originally Posted by JaymzB View Post
Ray Bourque is simply an unreal player. To be a top 5 defensemen in 19 of 22 seasons is just an amazing testament to a player who could play at the highest level for so long. I guess he really is Gordie's only competitor for the "most domination for the longest time" award.
Exactly....Just one of the reasons that Ray is a top ten all-time player to me.

The one thing about our list here that drives me crazy is to see him at number 11, lol.

Maybe the great work 'Hockey Outsider' has done will cause a future reexamining of that top ten

lextune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2008, 09:39 AM
  #20
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,856
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by lextune View Post
+1



Exactly....Just one of the reasons that Ray is a top ten all-time player to me.

The one thing about our list here that drives me crazy is to see him at number 11, lol.

Maybe the great work 'Hockey Outsider' has done will cause a future reexamining of that top ten
The thing that bothered me when I helped make the top 10 is that not many put a goaltender in the top 10.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2008, 09:44 AM
  #21
lextune
I'm too old for this
 
lextune's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Country: United States
Posts: 9,391
vCash: 500
I can see that too.

It is obviously an extremely complicated, and significantly subjective, task.

I suppose we might be better served with a 'top 10 forwards', 'top 10 defensemen ', and 'top 10 goaltenders' list.....

lextune is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2008, 11:33 AM
  #22
Reds4Life
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Reds4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Czech Republic
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thornton_19 View Post
There is little metric for it. I use my eyes. I saw them play.

...
I see your point. But you did see them play in their era, under their rules. There is no way you can say (insert name) would win Norris trophy in 2008.
Lidstrom's Norris trophies are as valuable as anyone's. He earned them just like any Norris trophy winner before him - by being the best all-around defenseman.
For example Eddie Shore would not be nearly as effective with his dirty play because he would most probably spend good chunk of the season either suspended or in penalty box.
One can as well point out that game is faster today than it was X years ago. Players are bigger, stronger and faster. Not to mention much better coaching systems, video coach etc etc
And average goalies are more effective today, especially thanks to their big new equipment. Not very long ago forwards could not even shoot high. Goalies did not wear masks. Players were not pro-athletes etc etc
Season is longer which requires better conditioning etc
Now, some players from earlier eras would thrive in today's game, some would not. And vice versa. Some today's players would not even 'survive' a season in the rough days.
I mean for example imagine Ovechkin in 1944. Could he beat Maurice Richard? Would he had the same shot he has now? Impossible to say.



Thanks for very interesting material HO


Last edited by Reds4Life: 09-11-2008 at 11:40 AM.
Reds4Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2008, 12:19 PM
  #23
norrisnick
Registered User
 
norrisnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thornton_19 View Post
There is little metric for it. I use my eyes. I saw them play.

My opinion is that Niedermayer and Pronger would not get much of a sniff at the Norris in the 80's and early 90's. I have made that clear enough. In Pronger's Hart year maybe, but it would depend on the year he achieved it. Bourque's best 5-6 years beat Pronger's Hart year.

When Macinnis, Bourque and Chelios were in their mid 20's early 30's, they were far better players than they were at age 40, yet at age 40, they were the only ones giving Lidstrom a run for his money for his first 3 Norris trophies.

Macinnis had a good year in 98-99 when he won the norris, but he had several better years than that earlier in his career when he was going runner up and 3rd for the Norris. They were runner up and 3rd place then because the competition was so strong.

Niedermayer was not even in his prime, or a factor in Norris voting until 2003-04 forward and Pronger had made a disappearing act after his Hart season due in part to injuries for a few years. The 3 trophies Between 2001-2003 were almost giveaways.

In this case, Red Kelly played directly against Harvey, taking many of his Norris share votes in the process. Kelly is a top 10 all time Dman. Lidstrom faced nobody of that Caliber in their prime when he was winning his Norris trophies.

The fact that Macinnis gets more Norris shares as a blue is also indicative that competition had dropped. Macinnis was a better player as a Flame than he was as a blue, but competition was too stiff back then.

Same with Chelios, who gets more Norris shares as a Wing than he did as a Hab. He was irrefutably much better as a hab, but competition back then was so great that he was not getting norris shares.
What's your argument against bilros? Domination of peers? Is that just a sham to get him to shut up?

norrisnick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2008, 02:14 PM
  #24
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,315
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by norrisnick View Post
One of these days I'd really love to get a detailed metric of just how exactly quality of opposition gets determined.
Admittedly this is a qualitative factor based on judgement. However, it's important to take all information into account, even if it's not statistical. I'd be glad to explain why I rank Red Kelly and Bill Gadsby above Chris Pronger and Scott Niedermayer if you're curious.

I don't understand the "back in the day" comment. Some eras are better for different positions. Nobody accused me of having a bias for modern players when I said that three of the best eight goalies of all-time played in the 1990s.

Martin St. Louis won a Hart and Art Ross trophy, but Steve Yzerman never did. Was St. Louis a better player and a better scorer? Or was their quality of competition different (Gretzky, Lemiex, Messier vs Kovalchuk, Sakic, Naslund)? Obviously this is an extreme example (Harvey/Lidstrom are much closer than Yzerman/St. Louis) but one needs to consider both the quality of competition and extent to which a player stands out. It's shouldn't be an either/or situation.


Last edited by Hockey Outsider: 09-11-2008 at 02:25 PM.
Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2008, 04:39 PM
  #25
norrisnick
Registered User
 
norrisnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,235
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
Admittedly this is a qualitative factor based on judgement. However, it's important to take all information into account, even if it's not statistical. I'd be glad to explain why I rank Red Kelly and Bill Gadsby above Chris Pronger and Scott Niedermayer if you're curious.
I'm not necessarily asking for specifics dealing with particular players. I'm just questioning the ease with which some can shrug off accomplishments or comparisons based on some loose generalizations and fuzzy logic. But go right ahead as I am interested in the reasoning involved.

Quote:
I don't understand the "back in the day" comment. Some eras are better for different positions. Nobody accused me of having a bias for modern players when I said that three of the best eight goalies of all-time played in the 1990s.
My post isn't directed only at you. Or even mostly. But all too often I see some debate or comparison pop up and all of a sudden there's a listing of the HOFers or top-however players this player competed with and the other competed with. And agree or not but some HOF inductions are created less equal than others. Espcially wnen you encounter some of these guys with middling numbers/stories that get inducted 20-30-40+ years after their playing days are over. How do we know that 30 years from now Foote, Gonchar, St. Louis, Naslund, etc... don't become HOFers? I'm sure if forums like these existed in the 40s/50s they'd have sworn up and down that Fern Flaman wouldn't get a sniff of the HOF unless he bought a ticket then come 1990 he gets that jacket and ring.

Quote:
Martin St. Louis won a Hart and Art Ross trophy, but Steve Yzerman never did. Was St. Louis a better player and a better scorer? Or was their quality of competition different (Gretzky, Lemiex, Messier vs Kovalchuk, Sakic, Naslund)? Obviously this is an extreme example (Harvey/Lidstrom are much closer than Yzerman/St. Louis) but one needs to consider both the quality of competition and extent to which a player stands out. It's shouldn't be an either/or situation.
That year he was. And if you've got two guys that are unbelievably close in a comparison the guy that managed to beat the odds and be the best one year probably ought to get the nod. And in the case of say Yzerman and Sakic some are doing just that. As closely matched as two semi-contemporaries can get. Cups, Gold, captaincy, etc... Sakic has '01 to hang his hat on. Yzerman doesn't. But if you've got a relative flash in the pan (2 top 10 scoring finishes vs 6), yeah that shouldn't be the lone deciding factor.


In the end I guess I would just like to see something consistent. I realize that's impossible when comparing players in a league that's spanned 90+ years now, but yeah it's just something that bugs the way my brain works. And believe me I realize that I'm likely being less than coherent and at times I get a big argumentative because it irritates me, but yeah. The sweeping generalizations of one group of players vs another could stand to be fleshed out at times rather than simply being taken for granted to the point that it couldn't possibly anything but the truth.

norrisnick is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:45 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.