Idk, this is just an evaluation of a dmans defensive efficiency, and unfortunately among dman who play 20+ minutes Karlsson is absolutely brutal at defense.
Half way Norris vote
- Thread starter Signupnow
- Start date
KevinRedkey
12/18/23 and beyond!
- Jan 22, 2010
- 10,528
- 5,818
Offense has been the main component of winning the Norris since they started giving out the award, with very few exceptions. Your view on what the trophy should be and what it actually is, is very different. Like it or not, the Norris is closer to the Art Ross for defenceman. What you want is a Selke for defenceman.
KirkAlbuquerque
#WeNeverGetAGoodCoach
Sabresruletheschool
Registered User
- Jul 16, 2012
- 4,669
- 885
Norris favourite who is exceptionally bad at defence wonder who that is?
Gave me a really good laughView attachment 641236View attachment 641237
I dont get it. Power has two goals, only 18 points and is 5th best on his team at a +12 and plays over 23 minutes a night. He only has four PP points so that's not the reason. So Power doesn't have a ton of points, is on a team that gives up a ton of goals, plays a lot of minutes, but is a +12. How are you bad at defence but have such a good +/- compared to the team.
The Sabres have scored a ton of goals with Power on the ice, he just doesn’t have a lot of points from them. He’s been on for 53 5v5 goals for, which is the 4th most among all defensemen. On the other end, he’s been on for 39 goals against, which is 24th highest. So his goals against are high as well, but his goals for has been so high he still has a good plus minus.
Offense plays a big role in determining the finalists, but the actual winner tends to be the one among the top 5 or so scorers with the best defensive reputation. Mike Green never won, though was a finalist. Karlsson lost in his best offensive year, though again was a finalist. Makar won over Josi last year despite Josi hitting nearly 100. Karlsson will almost certainly be a finalist, but I don’t think it’s a given that he’d win
Sabresruletheschool
Registered User
- Jul 16, 2012
- 4,669
- 885
Ben White
Registered User
- Dec 28, 2015
- 4,625
- 1,638
Looks more like a stat punishing the #1 D on bad teams. No way Morrisey, Faulk, Chabot, Montour, Hedman, Morrisey are some of the very worst defensive players in the entire league. If this was meant as a case against Karlsson.Norris favourite who is exceptionally bad at defence wonder who that is
Gave me a really good laugh
Aladyyn
they praying for the death of a rockstar
Because he drives offense better than almost anyone in the league. He doesn't get the points but the models do give him credit.
It's a cumulative stat, so if you play a lot and are bad defensively, it's gonna show up worse than a player who's terrible but only plays 3rd pairing minutes.
Clearly you havent been watching any of the guys you listed. Hedman has been putride defensively this season. The eye test always confirmed Karlsson was never good at defending and this analytics model supports that.
Ben White
Registered User
- Dec 28, 2015
- 4,625
- 1,638
This is unbelievable, the on ice awareness, vision and puck control. Also, I didn’t notice his deke on Veleno was between his own legs then between Veleno’s legs.
Nathaniel Skywalker
DIG IN!!! RiGHT NOW!!!
- Oct 18, 2013
- 14,245
- 5,903
Sun God Nika
Palestine 🇵🇸
The goal of defending in hockey is to minimize the amount of goals that are scored when you are on the ice. Karlsson keeps the puck in the opposition end and he further minimizes goals against by negating them by bringing in his own offence.
The best defenseman is the one who provides the most overall value to the team.
It doesn't matter whether that value comes offensive abilities or defensive abilities.
Nathaniel Skywalker
DIG IN!!! RiGHT NOW!!!
- Oct 18, 2013
- 14,245
- 5,903
Agree and also I'm not sure what the poster is trying to argue as EK has been on the ice for the most goals against in the NHL and Dahlin the most for among Dmen and was leading the NHL until last game..
The Crypto Guy
Registered User
- Jun 26, 2017
- 28,311
- 36,936
He's still on the ice for a shit ton of goals against, MUCH more than anyone else listed. lmao.
tiburon12
Registered User
- Jul 18, 2009
- 5,102
- 5,204
The Norris Trophy is given "to the defense player who demonstrates throughout the season the greatest all-round ability in the position."
tiburon12
Registered User
- Jul 18, 2009
- 5,102
- 5,204
Karlsson 5v5 stats vs Sharks 5v5 stats:
Karlsson: 43 points (10g, 23 first assists, 10 second assists), 69 on-ice GF and 54 GA
Sharks: 115 GF, 131 GA
Karlsson is on the ice for 60% of the Sharks goals for, but only 41% of the Sharks goals against. He also plays about 41% of the Sharks 5v5 minutes.
To me, that means the Sharks just aren;t a good team and give up a lot of goals, and he is on the ice for the same amount of GA as the rest of the team relative to his ice time. On the other side, he is carrying the offense at 5v5 as evidenced by his goal share and EVP (which tops the league across all positions).
Context matters
Oh, the problem of the word Defensman/defender.
Defensman is strange from the get go, I rather use defender since it works for women too. I guess it made sense back in the day when there where no women athletes, but if feels very strange now. How are female defenswomen labeled, are they also called Defensmen? Defender is a better term but it describes a task, not a position on the ice as it should. In Sweden, defensman is "back" which is a position on the ice. You are really only using the word "försvarare" aka Defender when talking about whats happening on the ice. Like if one team is attacking with two "anfallare" (aka attackers) and then you would label who is on the right side of the puck is in that context a defender. So, its all f***ed up. Forward is a position, center is a position, LW/RW is a position. Defender is not a position. Maybe Thortons position should be "Passer" and goalkeepers should should be named savers, Ovechkin is a shooter and Karlsson is a Playmaker, Barkov "Allrounder" etc
This has led to an enormous amount of confusion for some ppl, who thinks that since the position is named after a task, that task is the only thing you should evaluate, or care about. Karlsson could be alone on the ice and score 500 goals, but have 400 GA and ppl would call him an aweful defensman for having the most goals against in the league.
It might even be linked to the overwhelming amount of offensively gifted Swedish defensmen during the last few decades compared to north america. Maybe if you are not labeling players as a certain task on the ice they start to think outside of the box a little. Who knows. Maybe if you as a youth coach ask "Who wants to control the play on the PP and be a playmaker on the blue line, and shoot the puck from a distance" instead of asking "who wants to be a defender" more offensively gifted players would starts out as defensemen. just my line of thought. I mean, when a hockey team is in the offensive zone. The whole team is actually attacking, and when they are in the defensive zone, everyone is defending. Right?
Defensman is strange from the get go, I rather use defender since it works for women too. I guess it made sense back in the day when there where no women athletes, but if feels very strange now. How are female defenswomen labeled, are they also called Defensmen? Defender is a better term but it describes a task, not a position on the ice as it should. In Sweden, defensman is "back" which is a position on the ice. You are really only using the word "försvarare" aka Defender when talking about whats happening on the ice. Like if one team is attacking with two "anfallare" (aka attackers) and then you would label who is on the right side of the puck is in that context a defender. So, its all f***ed up. Forward is a position, center is a position, LW/RW is a position. Defender is not a position. Maybe Thortons position should be "Passer" and goalkeepers should should be named savers, Ovechkin is a shooter and Karlsson is a Playmaker, Barkov "Allrounder" etc
This has led to an enormous amount of confusion for some ppl, who thinks that since the position is named after a task, that task is the only thing you should evaluate, or care about. Karlsson could be alone on the ice and score 500 goals, but have 400 GA and ppl would call him an aweful defensman for having the most goals against in the league.
It might even be linked to the overwhelming amount of offensively gifted Swedish defensmen during the last few decades compared to north america. Maybe if you are not labeling players as a certain task on the ice they start to think outside of the box a little. Who knows. Maybe if you as a youth coach ask "Who wants to control the play on the PP and be a playmaker on the blue line, and shoot the puck from a distance" instead of asking "who wants to be a defender" more offensively gifted players would starts out as defensemen. just my line of thought. I mean, when a hockey team is in the offensive zone. The whole team is actually attacking, and when they are in the defensive zone, everyone is defending. Right?
Last edited:
Nathaniel Skywalker
DIG IN!!! RiGHT NOW!!!
- Oct 18, 2013
- 14,245
- 5,903
So looking at the top scorers is the way to decipher who has the greatest all around ability? Gotcha
Stewie Griffin
What the deuce
Yes because this season his offense has been so good at a terrible team that is goes against some of his defensive errors. He is a net-positive player on the team with the least wins in the NHL, and is leading the league in even strength points while passing to guys who have gone through waivers this year.
Yes, actually true. Since the best overall d-man has some kind of combination offence vs defense. So you would pick the top scorer, and evaluate his defense and try to assess how his defense stack up to the second highest scoring d-man. You keep the defender you think has the higher overall impact and move to the next. Then you do this for the top 15 defensmen or so in scoring. There is usually no reason to ever go further down on the list as the top d-man scorer usually scores close to double the amount of points at that point, and pretty much no defensive ability can make up for those point differentials.
There is not a realistic scenario where a defensman is so much above everyone else in defensive ability and somehow not get the ice-time needed to scrape together at least half the amount of points as the top scorers. Langway maybe, but I doubt he was as good as his reputation suggests.
What are the alternative. What defensive stat should you start looking at, if you wanted to go the other way, starting with the best defensive player. +/- ? Or Corsi? Or GA? All of those are flawed for multiple reasons.
Who even is the best defensive defensman right now? Like you would get 20 different answers to that question.
Ad
Latest posts
-
Speculation: Roster Building Thread - Part XIII (Nanaki edition)- Latest: Oscar Lindberg
-
-
-
1982 NHL Draft : The Boston Bruins draft Gord Kluzak 1st overall
- Latest: Gorskyontario
