Quinn Hughes is having a Hart caliber season

[CaviarAndRinkFries]

 

[Toby91ca]

I still think this is a case of correlation doesn’t equal causation. The fact is it’s rare for any defenseman to not play much PK time. This year, out of 187 defensemen who have played at least 30 games, only 33 have averaged fewer than 30 seconds of PK time.

I’m not pointing out a rarity though, I’m pointing out a never happened before.

If Hughes also did a regular pk shift he'd be playing 27:30 a game in Vancouver, and he already has the 5th highest ice time in the league. On PK big slow guys like Derek Forbot can be effective because you only need to play a simple game: hold position, block the shots, clear the crease, dump it out. As a smaller elite skating dman Hughes is much better utilized getting additional 5 on 5 time, it's not a matter of being "kept off the ice for PK" .

You are explaining reasons not to play him on PK though, I’m simply pointing out how voters have voted

 

[GRob83]

Maybe the Canucks should figure out a way to put Hughes on LTIR so they can get a decent draft pick since he is so much more valuable than anyone else on the team. Winning 4/10 games isn't gonna put them in the playoffs anyways which would take him out of MVP consideration entirely.

 

[Regal]

Maybe the Canucks should figure out a way to put Hughes on LTIR so they can get a decent draft pick since he is so much more valuable than anyone else on the team. Winning 4/10 games isn't gonna put them in the playoffs anyways which would take him out of MVP consideration entirely.

Last 10 games:

Calgary: 5-5-0
Vancouver: 4-5-1
St.Louis: 4-6-0
Utah: 3-5-2
Anaheim: 5-4-1
Seattle: 5-5-0

The fight for the final playoff spot in the West is more about sucking the least at the moment. They still have a good chance.

I’m not pointing out a rarity though, I’m pointing out a never happened before.

That doesn’t change my point. The rarity of any top 4 defensemen PKing as little as he does means that it’s not surprising that it hasn’t happened that a Norris winner has PKed that little, simply due to sample size. But the fact that it hasn’t happened doesn’t mean the voters have shown that they won’t vote for a defensemen with so little PK time if he’s good enough. We would need examples of similar defensemen who have received fewer votes in the past than you would otherwise expect where the only obvious reason would be their lack of PK time.

This would be like arguing that voters would never vote for a non-Canadian to win the Conn Smythe in 1993. Only Canadians had won up until that time, but Canadians were also the large bulk of the players until the early 90s. And then Leetch won in 1994, Lidstrom won in 2002, and 8 of the last 17 winner have been non-Canadians.

Granted I don’t expect it to become a trend going forward like the Conn Smythe example, but I haven’t seen any Norris discussion from the media bring up his PK time, and I highly doubt they’ll view it any less than they did last year. The difference between 30 seconds and 10 seconds of time is negligible

 

[NyQuil]

This goes back to the Karlsson era.

He could kill penalties, he just didn't. When he did, he did very well.

There are a few compelling reasons why, and I think they apply in the Hughes case.

1. PK is a much more static form of defence where mobility isn't as great an asset while crease-clearing is. Far lesser overall defencemen who have the requisite skillsets for PK can provide value. Hal Gill being a famous example.

2. This idea that PK minutes are more valuable than ES minutes is an odd one. If I have a player who gives me 50% value on the PK and 80% value at ES, I'm going to save him for ES and put out a 40% PK 20% ES value guy.

The goal is to win hockey games, not win Norris trophies, and depending on the complement of defencemen I have, it's advantageous to put your best horse out where he can make the most difference.

It's hard to break down modern team defences, that's where your defenceman play driver is most important. Having him out there so he can lob pucks out may not be the best use of his prodigious resources.

He's impressed me for some time now, and he certainly torched the Sens this year.

Being creative is difficult in the league with how much pace they play with and the expected standard for team defence, so defencemen who can break down offensive zone systems by themselves are both rare and extremely valuable. With all the vitriol hurled Hutson's way, he has that quality too. And it's also very exciting to watch.

 

[Toby91ca]

This goes back to the Karlsson era.

He could kill penalties, he just didn't. When he did, he did very well.

There are a few compelling reasons why, and I think they apply in the Hughes case.

1. PK is a much more static form of defence where mobility isn't as great an asset while crease-clearing is. Far lesser overall defencemen who have the requisite skillsets for PK can provide value. Hal Gill being a famous example.

2. This idea that PK minutes are more valuable than ES minutes is an odd one. If I have a player who gives me 50% value on the PK and 80% value at ES, I'm going to save him for ES and put out a 40% PK 20% ES value guy.

The goal is to win hockey games, not win Norris trophies, and depending on the complement of defencemen I have, it's advantageous to put your best horse out where he can make the most difference.

It's hard to break down modern team defences, that's where your defenceman play driver is most important. Having him out there so he can lob pucks out may not be the best use of his prodigious resources.

He's impressed me for some time now, and he certainly torched the Sens this year.

Being creative is difficult in the league with how much pace they play with and the expected standard for team defence, so defencemen who can break down offensive zone systems by themselves are both rare and extremely valuable. With all the vitriol hurled Hutson's way, he has that quality too. And it's also very exciting to watch.

The Hughes backers will argue you Karlsson may not be the best comparison though, Hughes is better defensively, etc. That said, Karlsson also finished much higher than the competition offensively the years he won. Voting results would show, even though he was so much higher offensively, some were hesitant on voting for him....

 

[benfranklin]

Reminder that Quinn Hughes is a defenseman who plays as little defense as possible.

 

[NyQuil]

The Hughes backers will argue you Karlsson may not be the best comparison though, Hughes is better defensively, etc. That said, Karlsson also finished much higher than the competition offensively the years he won. Voting results would show, even though he was so much higher offensively, some were hesitant on voting for him....

People think Karlsson is radioactive when he's a future HoF defenceman.

Quinn Hughes is probably better defensively, but I think the example applies to any superior puck-moving defenceman where their most important skillset is better employed.

I subscribe to the "best all-around" for the Norris criterion meaning the best when considering all aspects of a defenceman's hockey. Not that they have to tick off boxes.

I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of arguing the finer points of defence, but there are certain types of plays (e.g. controlled zone exits, controlled zone entries) that actually factor a lot more into good defence than traditionalists look at in terms of blocking shots or playing the PK.

The best kind of defence keeps the puck 150 feet away from your own net.