Defensemen get no love

[DangerDave]

So BR posted an article http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2424647-br-experts-nhl-awards-for-the-2014-15-season

I agree with a lot of what it says but noticed something that bothered me a bit. Why are defensemen never mentioned in the Hart trophy race? Not even 1 nominee this year.

I find it odd that defensmen rarely show up in the Hart Trophy discussion. There's no doubt that a good defense is more crucial than having a good offense. Look at Edmonton. Their offense looks great on paper but defensively they are awful and it results in low scoring because the puck is always in their end. And yet defensemen, the guys who contribute to scoring goals as well as keeping the puck out of the net, rarely get a mention.

I did research and found that the last defenseman to win this trophy was Pronger in 2000 and before that was Bobby Orr in 1972. I think this is crazy when you look at all the fantastic defensemen over the years that carried their teams to victory. Guys like Lidstrom who was the biggest reason the wings were so dominant never even got a mention at least as far as I can tell.

I realize its just a meaningless trophy (Only one that matters is the Stanley Cup) but I was wondering what peoples thoughts were on the matter and if their is a reason for this.

Click to read more...

 

[S Bah]

Guys like the Habs Rick Green that hardly ever scored, was a terrific defenceman! Always shutting down the top offensive players from the opposition teams, the Habs have always had these types of Dmen Rod Langway was another and Craig Ludwig to mention just a few. They are equally as important to having a Championship team as the All Star forwards and high scoring Dmen, as are top notch PK players that nullify the best offensive players on opposing PP's. Teams are made from having a great balance of all types of players that augment each others talents, making it frustrating for the opposition and disheartening in long playoff series.

I have watched the Habs win many championships, without these so called pluggers or journeymen players, they wouldn't have won any championships ever! All Star teams rarely have the all to necessary grit & two way playing that is symbolic of Stanley Cup Championship teams, believe Dat!!!...

 

[dutchy29]

Its biased for sure towards the top point getter in the league, I feel like the criteria can change from year to year as well. But looking at the winners list they do quite often get it right. I mean the year Theodore won he was deserving, without him that season we would have finished near last. But two defenseman in last 43 years is pretty pathetic.

 

[Monsieur]

Yeah, its the same in soccer and football. Great defensive player might not be the most popular with fans and media, great defensive plays are not really flashy and highlight of the night worthy, but I can assure you that their teammates (and coaching staff) and their opponents notice what they bring to the table.

 

[DangerDave]

Its biased for sure towards the top point getter in the league, I feel like the criteria can change from year to year as well. But looking at the winners list they do quite often get it right. I mean the year Theodore won he was deserving, without him that season we would have finished near last. But two defenseman in last 43 years is pretty pathetic.

Yeah it certainly seems like they only look at the goal assist columns when they choose the winner.

The thing is that the Hart goes to the most valuable player to his team and I have a hard time believing that only 1 defenseman since Bobby Orr has been the team's most valuable guy.

I suppose it is because not everything a Dman does will show up on the stat sheet.

 

[JayKing]

Its biased for sure towards the top point getter in the league, I feel like the criteria can change from year to year as well. But looking at the winners list they do quite often get it right. I mean the year Theodore won he was deserving, without him that season we would have finished near last. But two defenseman in last 43 years is pretty pathetic.

Yet this is year had the lowest Art Ross winner since the late 50s, yet there's still no d-man getting consideration for the Hart. Everyone knows the value of a #1 d-man (especially when you talk about building a team and what not. It's possibly the most discussed postion other than the #1 Center), yet they never get their due when compared to other positions for some reason.

 

[Brainiac]

I suppose it is because not everything a Dman does will show up on the stat sheet.

That, basically.

You always hear about a forward when he scores or a goalie when he makes a great save or gets a shutout. But you rarely hear about a defenseman when he brilliantly breaks up a play that could have been a scoring chance.

 

[Baruch]

Yet this is year had the lowest Art Ross winner since the late 50s, yet there's still no d-man getting consideration for the Hart. Everyone knows the value of a #1 d-man (especially when you talk about building a team and what not. It's possibly the most discussed postion other than the #1 Center), yet they never get their due when compared to other positions for some reason.

There isn't a clear cut Norris winner though.

There is a clear cut Vezina (Price), and in this year of stars scoring less, the Vezina winner is making a case for the Hart.

Frankly, if Giordano wasn't out, he'd be IMO the 3rd Hart nominee (and Norris winner).
What he did for the Flames was so important that even after he got injured, his presence in the vicinity of the team still helped them tremendously.

 

[DangerDave]

There isn't a clear cut Norris winner though.

There is a clear cut Vezina (Price), and in this year of stars scoring less, the Vezina winner is making a case for the Hart.

Frankly, if Giordano wasn't out, he'd be IMO the 3rd Hart nominee (and Norris winner).
What he did for the Flames was so important that even after he got injured, his presence in the vicinity of the team still helped them tremendously.

Perhaps no defenseman stands out too much this year. You are right about that. But all the years Lidstrom was playing and no mention. None for Stevens either.

The truth is that defense is getting better and better these days and you can see that this year with the lack of scoring. Yet still no mention. It is true that goaltending does play a huge part in that but it is so easy to look past the defense.

I suppose the defense should take pride in what they've done this year with Price winning it. As good a Price has been, Subban and Markov have also been outstanding.

 

[the]

Just look at Markov, this guy doesn't get any appreciation around here. He had one heck of a season but it seems we take him for granted.

I don't know what we are going to do without him the day he slows down.

 

[shawdowmaker]

So BR posted an article http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2424647-br-experts-nhl-awards-for-the-2014-15-season

I agree with a lot of what it says but noticed something that bothered me a bit. Why are defensemen never mentioned in the Hart trophy race? Not even 1 nominee this year.

I find it odd that defensmen rarely show up in the Hart Trophy discussion. There's no doubt that a good defense is more crucial than having a good offense. Look at Edmonton. Their offense looks great on paper but defensively they are awful and it results in low scoring because the puck is always in their end. And yet defensemen, the guys who contribute to scoring goals as well as keeping the puck out of the net, rarely get a mention.

I did research and found that the last defenseman to win this trophy was Pronger in 2000 and before that was Bobby Orr in 1972. I think this is crazy when you look at all the fantastic defensemen over the years that carried their teams to victory. Guys like Lidstrom who was the biggest reason the wings were so dominant never even got a mention at least as far as I can tell.

I realize its just a meaningless trophy (Only one that matters is the Stanley Cup) but I was wondering what peoples thoughts were on the matter and if their is a reason for this.

Edmonton has offensive players that play one way!! Too many young players that haven't spent enough time in the AHL, bad example IMO. In regards to Lidstrom I can t deny that he was great but he was one out of many!!! More often then none forwards are going to win this award and its fine by me! A defencemen s number one purpose is to prevent goals.

 

[DangerDave]

Edmonton has offensive players that play one way!! Too many young players that haven't spent enough time in the AHL, bad example IMO. In regards to Lidstrom I can t deny that he was great but he was one out of many!!! More often then none forwards are going to win this award and its fine by me! A defencemen s number one purpose is to prevent goals.

So scoring a goal is more valuable than keeping one out? Also, Lidstrom had a PPG season so he was not only preventing goals but putting them in. Is that not more valuable than just scoring. It's the hart and not the rocket richard.

Edmonton is a great example. The forwards they have with the habs or rangers defense and they are probably the one of best teams in the league. They just do not have the defensemen to move the puck out of their zone. They spend like 70% of the time in their own zone.

We could also look at the leafs who have the same problem. Their top paid guy is a pylon who's unable to move the puck to his forwards. Look at the Stars even. And don't tell me Benn and Seguin are ad defensively.

You look at the best teams in the league and you see one consistency. They all have great defensmen. Look at the bottom teams and some have good offense or good goalies or even both. None have good defense.

And no, Lidstrom was not one of many. Regarded as the best defensman of all time by many people. How can he not win a Hart trophy? He was PPG and +21 in his 2005-2006 campaign. Or his 61 pts +40 year in 02 where the Wings won the cup. Playoff beast too!

Other guys who never won it:
Robinson
Coffey
Stevens
Bourque
Potvin
Niedermayer
Leetch
Salming
Blake

 

[Camio]

And no, Lidstrom was not one of many. Regarded as the best defensman of all time by many people. How can he not win a Hart trophy. He was PPG and +21 in his 2005-2006 campaign. Or his 61 pts +40 year in 02 where the Wings won the cup.

Lidstrom not winning the Hart makes no sense. He's one of the 4 most dominant players of the last 30 years or so.

Makes no sense at all and there's no other way to put it. The guy wasnt very good or elite. He was more than that. Really.

 

[shawdowmaker]

So scoring a goal is more valuable than keeping one out? Also, Lidstrom had a PPG season so he was not only preventing goals but putting them in. Is that not more valuable than just scoring. It's the hart and not the rocket richard.

Edmonton is a great example. The forwards they have with the habs or rangers defense and they are probably the one of best teams in the league. They just do not have the defensemen to move the puck out of their zone. They spend like 70% of the time in their own zone.

We could also look at the leafs who have the same problem. Their top paid guy is a pylon who's unable to move the puck to his forwards. Look at the Stars even. And don't tell me Benn and Seguin are ad defensively.

You look at the best teams in the league and you see one consistency. They all have great defensmen. Look at the bottom teams and some have good offense or good goalies or even both. None have good defense.

And no, Lidstrom was not one of many. Regarded as the best defensman of all time by many people. How can he not win a Hart trophy? He was PPG and +21 in his 2005-2006 campaign. Or his 61 pts +40 year in 02 where the Wings won the cup. Playoff beast too!

Other guys who never won it:
Robinson
Coffey
Stevens
Bourque
Potvin
Niedermayer
Leetch
Salming
Blake

Are you for real?

Given for "Player who leads the League in scoring points at the end of the regular season. (My mistake)

 

[shawdowmaker]

Lidstrom not winning the Hart makes no sense. He's one of the 4 most dominant players of the last 30 years or so.

Makes no sense at all and there's no other way to put it. The guy wasnt very good or elite. He was more than that. Really.

could have won it in 05 but that's about the only time.

 

[Camio]

The Art Ross is Given for The player who leads the League in scoring points at the end of the regular season.

Which is why we're talking about the Hart. One of the trophies Price will win this year.

Google is your friend!

 

[shawdowmaker]

Which is why we're talking about the Hart. One of the trophies Price will win this year.

Google is your friend!

Not really it's logical. All of these guys had better players on their teams or in the league at the time.

Robinson
Coffey
Stevens
Bourque
Potvin
Niedermayer
Leetch
Salming
Blake

 

[Burke the Legend]

I think Karlsson could get some votes, would help if he broke 70 points. You need a low scoring playoff team where the D-man was close to top point getter. Perhaps the Habs, Subban might get consideration if it was a year where he put up 75 points, and if Price weren't so good.

 

[Analyzer*]

Considering if you're good defensively, but can't produce you'll never get a look at the Norris, it's obvious that defenseman play isn't really look at.

 

[DangerDave]

Not really it's logical. All of these guys had better players on their teams or in the league at the time.

Robinson
Coffey
Stevens
Bourque
Potvin
Niedermayer
Leetch
Salming
Blake

Is it logical though? Because Lidstrom was easily the most dominant player on the wings and probably the whole league. Robinson was a +120 with 85 points in 1976. A career +730 which is good enough to be the GOAT. Basically if he was on the ice, you lose.

Why do these guys never get a mention? It is team MVP not most points and yet defensemen never get the recognition they deserve.

 

[Camio]

Not really it's logical. All of these guys had better players on their teams or in the league at the time.

Robinson
Coffey
Stevens
Bourque
Potvin
Niedermayer
Leetch
Salming
Blake

Lidstrom was, for a few years (not saying a decade) the best player in the league. Lidstrom was also better than any of the Dmen you just mentioned but thats irrelevant considering they all didnt play at the same time in the league.

It was Gretzky/Lemieux, then Hasek, then Lidstrom. Thats baiscally the best 4 players of the last 35 years. The fact Lidstrom didnt won 1 Hart trophy makes no sense.

As good as Yzerman or Fedorov were (and it was before Lidstrom was at his best), Lidstrom became even better, so the argument you brought up about playing with better players his team is irrelevant.

And btw, Gretzky and Lemieux played with some pretty decent players and still won Hart trophies left and right.

A good player shouldnt be penalized by not being given the Hart because there are other good players on his team. The general criterias for being in consideration for the Hart (or mvp in any sports) is having your team in the playoffs and being the key cog on your team.

 

[shawdowmaker]

Lidstrom was, for a few years (not saying a decade) the best player in the league. Lidstrom was also better than any of the Dmen you just mentioned but thats irrelevant considering they all didnt play at the same time in the league.

It was Gretzky/Lemieux, then Hasek, then Lidstrom. Thats baiscally the best 4 players of the last 35 years. The fact Lidstrom didnt won 1 Hart trophy makes no sense.

As good as Yzerman or Fedorov were (and it was before Lidstrom was at his best), Lidstrom became even better, so the argument you brought up about playing with better players his team is irrelevant.

And btw, Gretzky and Lemieux played with some pretty decent players and still won Hart trophies left and right.

A good player shouldnt be penalized by not being given the Hart because there are other good players on his team. The general criterias for being in consideration for the Hart (or mvp in any sports) is having your team in the playoffs and being the key cog on your team.

IMO Bourque was better then Lidstrom.

 

[Camio]

IMO Bourque was better then Lidstrom.

Bourque wasnt bad. He's likely the 3rd best of all-time as it stands. He's no Lidstrom but he was great.

 

[shawdowmaker]

Bourque wasnt bad. He's likely the 3rd best of all-time as it stands. He's no Lidstrom but he was great.

Its debatable but I ll take Bourque for having watched him dismantle the habs time after time in the playoffs.. He had no flaws such a solid two way player! If not for Neely always being injured imo he would have won the cup with the Bruins.

 

[Camio]

Its debatable but I ll take Bourque for having watched him dismantle the habs time after time in the playoffs.. He had no flaws such a solid two way player! If not for Neely always being injured imo he would have won the cup with the Bruins.

Lidstrom dismantled much better teams in the West Anyway, kind of a pointless argument.

Btw, Habs and Bs were 5-5 during Bourque's career so its not what I would call a dismantling.