Why is the Norris focused more on offense than defense?

[Kairi Zaide]

How many times have you seen a player score a goal? Or set up a goal?

Happens far more often than breaking up a 2-on-1 and has a greater impact on winning!

Also the 2-on-1 doesn't happen if you keep the puck in the o-zone

 

[StoneHands]

A guy like Erik Karlsson, as you seem to think "always has the puck", his team only has the puck around the 50% mark. And him personally? Probably not far above 10% of the time. It's rare any players have CORSI, which, by the way, includes when ANYONE on the ice with him on his team, has the puck, over 55%.

This idea that if you have a 55% CORSI, it really doesn't matter what you do when you don't have the puck, is so unbelievably short sighted. You can't ignore what a player is doing FORTY FIVE % of the time. That's absurd.

Not to mention, you take possession, and avoid the puck ending up in your own net, mostly due to what you do when you do NOT have the puck.

People who want to ignore what a player does, at best, 45% of the time they are on the ice, because they are doing it 45% of the time, instead of 50% of the time, like other players, are totally out to lunch.

Do you want the player that contributes to his team having the puck more than 50% of the time? Of course. Does that mean you ignore 45% of his play? JFC no. This is one reason why CORSI nuts can't be taken seriously.

I agree with the premise that what a player does away from the puck is important but what the hell are you talking about here? You are aware that CORSI has absolutely nothing to do with how long a player or his team has the puck, right?

 

[ijuka]

A good offense is the best defense... If the puck's in the opponent's zone it's difficult for them to score.

 

[joe dirte]

Ask yourself if you would rather have Ekholm on your team or Karlsson. There's your answer.

For many years, my answer was Doughty. Lately, I'm thinking Hedman.

 

[ijuka]

I agree with the premise that what a player does away from the puck is important but what the hell are you talking about here? You are aware that CORSI has absolutely nothing to do with how long a player or his team has the puck, right?

Corsi has quite a bit to do with how much a player's team possesses the puck.

 

[joe dirte]

I agree with the premise that what a player does away from the puck is important but what the hell are you talking about here? You are aware that CORSI has absolutely nothing to do with how long a player or his team has the puck, right?

That's what it's attempting to measure, yes. It was designed as a proxy for puck possession. The theory being that shot attempts correlate reasonably closely to possession.

 

[Silky mitts]

The game is evolving. The puck moving/offense-oriented defenseman are the true game-changers.

This isn’t new, what’s new is that they’re the majority

 

[DL44]

So use Corsi or +/- instead of points.

You think corsi is more valuable than points after an 82 game schedule to separate your Norris candidates?

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

How many just straight defensive specialists are #1 d-men? Maybe Vlasic up to a point? Tanev?

Most of the true #1 guys in the running for the award do it ALL at a high level because their IQ and ability isn't limited to one side of the game. Just as some defensive specialists are used as complementary guys rather than true #1s, many offensive specialists are sheltered as well, and often, top point guys might get some consideration because it's very visible, but they don't crack the top-3 on accident.

I still find it silly that there is a separate award for the best defensive forward, yet no award for the best offensive D-man.

...Though I guess that would just result in the Norris winner winning two awards instead of one.

The PWHA released votes for the Rod Langway award at the halfway point last year. Or was it the year before? Before it disappeared into the void.

 

[Machinehead]

It's not. That's a myth.

The leading D scorer has only won the Norris 3 times in 13 seasons since the lockout.

 

[Kairi Zaide]

A guy like Erik Karlsson, as you seem to think "always has the puck", his team only has the puck around the 50% mark. And him personally? Probably not far above 10% of the time. It's rare any players have CORSI, which, by the way, includes when ANYONE on the ice with him on his team, has the puck, over 55%.

This idea that if you have a 55% CORSI, it really doesn't matter what you do when you don't have the puck, is so unbelievably short sighted. You can't ignore what a player is doing FORTY FIVE % of the time. That's absurd.

Not to mention, you take possession, and avoid the puck ending up in your own net, mostly due to what you do when you do NOT have the puck.

People who want to ignore what a player does, at best, 45% of the time they are on the ice, because they are doing it 45% of the time, instead of 50% of the time, like other players, are totally out to lunch.

Do you want the player that contributes to his team having the puck more than 50% of the time? Of course. Does that mean you ignore 45% of his play? JFC no. This is one reason why CORSI nuts can't be taken seriously.

Dear Joe,

Nobody uses Corsi uniquely anymore.

Best regards.

 

[ReginKarlssonLehner]

Why is a player whose passes find their target more valuable than one who dumps the puck in/out?

See how dumb that sounds?

cause one leads to possessions and the other leads to HITTTTZZZZZZZZZZZZ

 

[joe dirte]

Dear Joe,

Nobody uses Corsi uniquely anymore.

Best regards.

Do you mean "exclusively"?

I still quite a few do exactly that. Even worse, Corsi Rel.

 

[Romkey]

It's a lot harder to quantify defensive play than it is to quantify point totals. There are very few stats that go in depth into shot suppression, blocked shots, breakout passes, interceptions, broken up plays, smart positioning, etc. It's really hard to turn that into some sort of ranking system (I know there are advanced analytics that discuss this), but basically it comes down to what's flashiest - point totals.

 

[Kairi Zaide]

Do you mean "exclusively"?

I still quite a few do exactly that. Even worse, Corsi Rel.

Yes, sorry. And I did not mean to include people who don't know the purpose and the origins of those advanced stats.

That said, the relative part is useful to isolate the "player effect + other effects" from the "team effect".

 

[TT1]

It's a lot harder to quantify defensive play than it is to quantify point totals. There are very few stats that go in depth into shot suppression, blocked shots, breakout passes, interceptions, broken up plays, smart positioning, etc. It's really hard to turn that into some sort of ranking system (I know there are advanced analytics that discuss this), but basically it comes down to what's flashiest - point totals.

came to post this, basically defense is way harder to quantify

 

[Sidgeni Malkby]

Also nobody wants to see a 1-0 game.

Offense provides more entertainment value than defense for most people. It's harder to appreciate a good defensive play vs a goal.

 

[Bank Shot]

A good offense is the best defense... If the puck's in the opponent's zone it's difficult for them to score.

No a good defence is the best defence.

If you have the puck alot and create alot of chances, but just cough up high quality chances the other way, you still won't be good defensively.

 

[joe dirte]

Yes, sorry. And I did not mean to include people who don't know the purpose and the origins of those advanced stats.

That said, the relative part is useful to isolate the "player effect + other effects" from the "team effect".

No. quite incorrect. It does not "isolate" the player effect from the team effect.

You're a prime example of someone who doesn't understand the numbers you're looking at.

In fact, using CORSI rel, there is MORE of a team effect, not less. You're literally using your own team as a benchmark.

 

[37Bergenov14]

It's a lot harder to quantify defensive play than it is to quantify point totals. There are very few stats that go in depth into shot suppression, blocked shots, breakout passes, interceptions, broken up plays, smart positioning, etc. It's really hard to turn that into some sort of ranking system (I know there are advanced analytics that discuss this), but basically it comes down to what's flashiest - point totals.

Frustrating part is that too many people equate "hard to quantify" with "less important/impactful" in these kind of discussions.

 

[StoneHands]

Corsi has quite a bit to do with how much a player's team possesses the puck.

No, it has to do with how often a team shoots the puck. Some teams shoot the puck more than others so it's really not the same. Just because there's a correlation doesn't mean that's what it's measuring.

That's what it's attempting to measure, yes. It was designed as a proxy for puck possession. The theory being that shot attempts correlate reasonably closely to possession.

Well when you say that the best players only have their team possess the puck for 55% of the time, that's just not true if you're basing it off of CORSI. There's clearly a correlation between shooting the puck and possessing the puck but saying that a 55% CORSI means their team had the puck for 55% of the time is statistically inaccurate.

I really don't understand why zone time is not a common stat. It's around in small samples but I can't even believe it's not standard on every site for teams and individual players though even zone time isn't the best indicator of success since the majority of goals are scored within a few seconds of entering the offensive zone.

 

[Machinehead]

The idea that a player has the puck 55% of the time and he's murdering his team the other 45% of the time is statistically unfounded.

After all, if you're that good at possession, you might just be good at hockey.

 

[CartographerNo611]

NHL, NBA, and NFL have an unhealthy idea that a bigger score number=more entertainment. Norris winner with higher points plays a role in backing that up when it comes to the NHL.

 

[joe dirte]

No, it has to do with how often a team shoots the puck. Some teams shoot the puck more than others so it's really not the same. Just because there's a correlation doesn't mean that's what it's measuring.


Well when you say that the best players only have their team possess the puck for 55% of the time, that's just not true if you're basing it off of CORSI. There's clearly a correlation between shooting the puck and possessing the puck but saying that a 55% CORSI means their team had the puck for 55% of the time is statistically inaccurate.

I really don't understand why zone time is not a common stat. It's around in small samples but I can't even believe it's not standard on every site for teams and individual players though even zone time isn't the best indicator of success since the majority of goals are scored within a few seconds of entering the offensive zone.

No, it doesn't equate to actual possession. It's used as a close approximation of it.

Zone time isn't an actual measure of possession either, if you want to get technical.

 

[Albus Dumbledore]

easier to quantify offence then it is defence.