That's what the award morphed into. The Selke was specifically created to recognize players who focused on the defensive side of the game. Winners in the 70s and 80s were "poor" offensively. They did contribute offensively while focusing on the other teams' best. They just excelled at an equally important aspect of the game and had been previously unrecognized for it.
There was a time when the league considered defenders who excelled at shutting down opposition for the Norris. Pilotte and Laperierre would be prime examples.
The award morphed in part due to how the game morphed. There used to be more defensive specialists who excelled in those roles going back to the LW defensive specialists of the 06 era, but for awhile now the best defensive players have tended to be top 6 quality guys because a lot of the things that make someone good offensively can be used defensively (IQ, anticipation, positioning, stick work, skating). The Selke shouldn’t take production into account, but I don’t think many bad offensive players deserve consideration.
I think the Norris is similar. There should probably be more consideration for defensive players, but a lot of winners like Giordano, Hedman, Keith, Doughty, Chara, Lidstrom, Pronger, etc are top shutdown guys, they just also provide offense. And in today’s game you can’t be elite defensively if you can’t move the puck out of your zone efficiently. That doesn’t always mean you’re good offensively (Tanev is a good puck mover out of the zone but offers no offensive creativity) but it does tend to go hand in hand with someone who can provide decent offense. Some defensive guys do end up finishing high in Norris voting (Lindholm was 4th a couple years ago and Slavin was 5th a couple before that), but they’re always guys who can also move the puck and it tends to be in high production years for them.
www.hockey-reference.com
