Why do people complain about the Norris?

[bigbuffalo313]

A lot of people complain that the Norris has lost credibility because it only goes to a high scoring defenseman these days. But if you look back at the Norris Trophy's history, you see that it has almost always gone to a top scoring defenseman.

Here are the rankings in points among defenseman since the Norris was created
1954-1 (6 in league)
1955-1 (13 in league)
1956-3
1957-1 (11 in league)
1958-2
1959-2
1960-7
1961-1
1962-6
1963-5
1964-1
1965-1 (8 in league)
1966-5
1967-4
1968-10
1969-1
1970-1 (Art Ross winner)
1971-1 (2 in league)
1972-1 (2 in league)
1973-1 (3 in league)
1974-1 (2 in league)
1975-1 (Art Ross winner)
1976-1
1977-1
1978-1 (5 in league)
1979-1 (7 in league)
1980-2
1981-1
1982-2
1983-46
1984-43
1985-1 (5 in league)
1986-1 (3 in league)
1987-1 (9 in league)
1988-3
1989-4
1990-3
1991-2
1992-1
1993-9
1994-1
1995-1 (6 in league)
1996-4
1997-1
1998-8
1999-1
2000-2
2001-2
2002-2
2003-3
2004-2
2006-1
2007-5
2008-1
2009-12
2010-2
2011-2
2012-1 (11 in league)
2013-1
2014-2
2015-1

1st in scoring: 31 winners
2nd and 3rd in scoring: 16 winners
4th and 5th in scoring: 6 winners
6th-10th in scoring: 5 winners
Outside of top ten in scoring: 3 winners

31 out of the 61 defenseman to win the Norris trophy lead all defenseman in scoring. That is 50.8%. 47 winners placed in the top three in scoring among defenseman, or 77%. 53 were top five, 86.9%.

There were only two years were a defenseman who wasn't top 15 in scoring won, and that was done by Rod Langway both times. The only other player not in the top ten was 12th and the was Chara, which was recent.

So why do people complain that the Norris goes to top scoring defenseman? It goes to the top scoring defenseman about 50% of the time, so why is it such a big problem?

Click to read more...

 

[triggrman]

People have always complained about it, they did when Stevens played too.

Also, comparing Karlsson and Pk to players like Lidstrom and Bourque is a bit of stretch.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

People don't understand that "best all-around" includes offense.

 

[Epsilon]

People don't understand that "best all-around" includes offense.

This, basically.

A lot of posters here seem to hate the idea that many awards involve at least some degree of nuance to determine. They want everything to fit into nice tidy boxes.

 

[Soundgarden]

Because it's voted by the media, eastern bias, yada yada.

 

[WhiteLight*]

Because people can't fathom that Erik Karlsson is actually good defensively. That player would be other-wordly good. Instead of accepting it, they just deny, deny, deny. They can't accept that one player like Karlsson (who wasn't highly touted in junior like Crosby or McDavid and wasn't declared the next phenom) is a clear step above the rest.

Therefore, they make up twisted fantasies in their minds where Karlsson is bad defensively and write them out on HF as if they were fact. Then, they used their made-up twisted fantasies as justification as to why Karlsson is not deserving of the Norris. Then, when Karlsson does win the Norris, they cry about and go mental.

Rince and repeat.

 

[Wrath]

People keep forgetting that historically it's been a very offense dependent trophy, with basically the exception of only Rod Langway.

I mean look at Bourque and Lidstrom, two of the best defensemen the league has ever seen, both were known as top defensive defensemen, but they also both were top offensive defensemen. Lidstrom's led the league in defensemen points multiple times, and while I don't recall Bourque doing the same, he's regularly been top 5 behind some of the great offensive defensemen of all time (namely Coffey, Macinnis, Leetch) and regularly led the entire Bruins team in points.

I don't have too much issue with any of the past few winners. Subban in the shortened season was a reasonable pick over Suter (could have gone either way in my opinion), I would have taken Weber over Karlsson 3 years ago but also just by a hair. Keith over Weber last year wasn't a great choice but Weber didn't make the playoffs so I guess it's to be expected.

Karlsson winning this year was absolutely justified and I would have been surprised if he didn't win it. In fact I was surprised that Doughty was as close as he was in voting (and had more 1st place votes).

 

[Ducks DVM]

Because with Chelios, Lidstrom, Bourque, Pronger, and Niedermayer you inarguably had a defenseman you wanted on the ice (league wide) at the end of the game whether you were winning OR losing by one goal.

That's not always been the case recently.

 

[bigbuffalo313]

People have always complained about it, they did when Stevens played too.

Also, comparing Karlsson and Pk to players like Lidstrom and Bourque is a bit of stretch.

I am in no way saying the EK and PK are close to Bourque and Lidstrom. I was just comparing where the Norris winners placed offensively among other defenseman

 

[oXo Cube]

This, basically.

A lot of posters here seem to hate the idea that many awards involve at least some degree of nuance to determine. They want everything to fit into nice tidy boxes.

I think it's even more simple than this, really.

People are just homers with an agenda.

 

[WhiteLight*]

People have always complained about it, they did when Stevens played too.

Also, comparing Karlsson and Pk to players like Lidstrom and Bourque is a bit of stretch.

Old players > new players.

Best defenceman before > best defenceman today.

Right?



People just remember the good things about Bourque and Lidstrom and older players. They don't remember their flaws, their limitations or their inferior skill. It's hard to compare them with current players because it's not fresh in your mind and they don't share the ice together. Understandable, but it doesn't mean it's right.

 

[Mayor Bee]

Between the Norris and Selke, there is zero consistency from year to year about who actually gets it.

I'm old enough to remember when the Selke was only awarded to a guy who would play suffocating defense and whose offensive output was usually minimal. Then it transitioned to two-way forwards whose defensive game wasn't a total embarrassment, and then went further to scoring forwards who were at least willing to drift into their own zone. Guy Carbonneau won it in 1991-92 with 39 points in a fairly high-scoring era.

The Norris is the same way. For years it usually went to the guy atop the scoring chart, then Mike Green scores 31 goals (the highest mark for a defenseman in nearly two decades) and he doesn't get it.

 

[Wrath]

Because with Chelios, Lidstrom, Bourque, Pronger, and Niedermayer you inarguably had a defenseman you wanted on the ice (league wide) at the end of the game whether you were winning OR losing by one goal.

That's not always been the case recently.

But I mean, was Coffey a guy you wanted on the ice down by a goal? He won it 3 times.

Leetch as well, but to a lesser extent.

 

[KingsHockey24]

I find it hard to believe that Weber and Doughty both have none while Erik Karlsson has two. lol. Does he even play on the PK?

 

[kingsholygrail]

Old players > new players.

Best defenceman before > best defenceman today.

Right?



People just remember the good things about Bourque and Lidstrom and older players. They don't remember their flaws, their limitations or their inferior skill. It's hard to compare them with current players because it's not fresh in your mind and they don't share the ice together. Understandable, but it doesn't mean it's right.

Where's that "Lidstrom is a minus 6" video?

 

[Epsilon]

I find it hard to believe that Weber and Doughty both have none while Erik Karlsson has two. lol. Does he even play on the PK?

Playing on the penalty kill is really not that important now that modern penalty-killing systems have been employed which greatly simplify penalty-killing assignments. In many cases it's just as effective to use 2nd and even 3rd pairing defensemen for that role and save their top pairing guys for the powerplay and even strength.

 

[Wrath]

Between the Norris and Selke, there is zero consistency from year to year about who actually gets it.

I'm old enough to remember when the Selke was only awarded to a guy who would play suffocating defense and whose offensive output was usually minimal. Then it transitioned to two-way forwards whose defensive game wasn't a total embarrassment, and then went further to scoring forwards who were at least willing to drift into their own zone. Guy Carbonneau won it in 1991-92 with 39 points in a fairly high-scoring era.

The Norris is the same way. For years it usually went to the guy atop the scoring chart, then Mike Green scores 31 goals (the highest mark for a defenseman in nearly two decades) and he doesn't get it.

I don't know if I would call Bergeron a two-way forward whose defensive game isn't a total embarassment, or a scoring forward who is just willing to drift into his own zone....

Selke voting trends aren't as they used to be (switched over in the late 90s around when the likes of Fedorov and Yzerman started winning it while putting up great points finishes), but since Datsyuk I wouldn't say any of the Selke (so... Bergeron, Toews) winners are top scoring forwards.

 

[Trap Jesus]

It's not because it goes to a high-scoring D-man, it's because those D-men are lacking defensively relative to other candidates. Very few probably had an issue when Lidstrom led D in scoring and won the Norris in 2002, 2006 or 2008 because he was also great defensively.

 

[WhiteLight*]

Playing on the penalty kill is really not that important now that modern penalty-killing systems have been employed which greatly simplify penalty-killing assignments. In many cases it's just as effective to use 2nd and even 3rd pairing defensemen for that role and save their top pairing guys for the powerplay and even strength.

Exactly. Ottawa has Eric Gryba. Eric Gryba is useful on the PK. At anything else, not so much. Ottawa uses Gryba where he excels. It's really not a big deal.

 

[NilssonTheWall]

Because people can't fathom that Erik Karlsson is actually good defensively. That player would be other-wordly good. Instead of accepting it, they just deny, deny, deny. They can't accept that one player like Karlsson (who wasn't highly touted in junior like Crosby or McDavid and wasn't declared the next phenom) is a clear step above the rest.

Therefore, they make up twisted fantasies in their minds where Karlsson is bad defensively and write them out on HF as if they were fact. Then, they used their made-up twisted fantasies as justification as to why Karlsson is not deserving of the Norris. Then, when Karlsson does win the Norris, they cry about and go mental.

Rince and repeat.

This explains everything to a T. Everything else is just babble.

 

[Erik Alfredsson]

I find it hard to believe that Weber and Doughty both have none while Erik Karlsson has two. lol. Does he even play on the PK?

So I guess Gryba should win the Norris cause he was the Sens top PK guy. Why would the Sens waste Karlsson on the PK when their 3rd pairing scrubs do it just fine? And doesn't say cause Karlsson can't PK because he's done it successfully before, they just don't want to waste him.

 

[torlev*]

People don't understand that "best all-around" includes offense.

No, that's not it. It's quite the opposite. It's that it seems that offense is given far more weight, and quite frankly, most people see defense as the dimension of a defenseman's game that should be given more weight.

 

[alexmanu]

Playing on the penalty kill is really not that important now that modern penalty-killing systems have been employed which greatly simplify penalty-killing assignments. In many cases it's just as effective to use 2nd and even 3rd pairing defensemen for that role and save their top pairing guys for the powerplay and even strength.

Nonsense, PKing is one of the most difficult things to do as a defenseman and if you are elite in that area alongside even strength and PP then clearly you are a more valuable player.

While I think Karlsson was deserving of at least one Norris I find it hard to believe that Weber has yet to win one.

 

[Erik Alfredsson]

No, that's not it. It's quite the opposite. It's that it seems that offense is given far more weight, and quite frankly, most people see defense as the dimension of a defenseman's game that should be given more weight.

Actually a defenseman to be successful in today's NHL, they need to be great at both ends of the ice. "defenseman who demonstrates throughout the season the greatest all-round ability in the position."
No where does it say defense should hold more weight. It's all aspects of the game.

 

[Leafs87]

People don't understand that "best all-around" includes offense.

Yes and also defence too.

Keith, daughty and weber are the best all around d men. I have no idea how Karlsson won this year, and its not because I'm a leafs fan