Lidström vs Bourque

[Hockey Outsider]

Here's the best hockey related analogy I can come up with:

Up until 1999, every NHL game was worth 2 points in the standings. After, with the advent of the "losing in OT" point, the average game is worth about 2.2 points. As a result, it's probably misleading to compare the number of points a team has earned in the standings between those two eras. (As an example - there were 12 teams with 100+ points last year, compared to just 3 in 1999).

The same is true with the Hart trophy, the Norris trophy, and a few other awards. The ballot expanded starting in 1996, and as a result, there are more points to go around. Therefore it's probably misleading to compare vote shares pre and post 1996 (which is what I had been doing before).

In this post, which is too technical to copy into this discussion, I make a case for why the new weighting system gives us results that make more sense.

I like the idea of "re-casting" the Norris trophy from 1996 onwards, excluding the 4th and 5th place votes. That's the closest we'll get to an apples-to-apples comparison. But I haven't put together that data (it exists, but it needs to be compiled).

 

[saintunspecified]

There were years when three or even four Boston players received Hart votes.

The truth of what I'm saying is apparent to anyone who watched the games at the time. Rick Middleton was a really good player. Cam Neely was, too. Nobody on those teams reached the level of being complete players like Yzerman or Federov, who were both imo on par in that respect with the likes of Messier. The Bruins best besides Bourque from year to year were more like Shanahan, Detroit's 3rd best forward. Not to mention that the Bruins teams were not nearly as well constructed. down the lineup Actually it's pretty shocking that the Bruins made the finals twice, but the east was considerably weaker than the west in those days.

 

[Albatros]

The truth of what I'm saying is apparent to anyone who watched the games at the time. Rick Middleton was a really good player. Cam Neely was, too. Nobody on those teams reached the level of being complete players like Yzerman or Federov, who were both imo on par in that respect with the likes of Messier. The Bruins best besides Bourque from year to year were more like Shanahan, Detroit's 3rd best forward. Not to mention that the Bruins teams were not nearly as well constructed. down the lineup Actually it's pretty shocking that the Bruins made the finals twice, but the east was considerably weaker than the west in those days.

Lidström also won without both though, but they never won without Lidström.

Middleton by the way peaked 4th in the Hart vote, Yzerman 3rd. Both could score while remaining elite defensively. At their best not a whole lot separated them in terms of the completeness of their game, but that's a different discussion.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Using "share of Norris voting" to evaluate defensemen has to be one of the silliest metrics I've seen here. Which is saying a lot.

Reducing things to numbers doesn't automatically make them inarguable facts. Particularly when they're an aggregate of opinions and ignore countless variables.


As I've said repeatedly, I think it's close and there's an arguments to be made for one over the other, but "share of Norris voting" ain't it.