Why is the Norris focused more on offense than defense?

neXis

Registered User
Jan 3, 2016
457
121
In reality there isn't a real NHL defensive stat that can be used to measure defenseman like offensive points are used to measure forwards. Plus/minus was supposed to be that but it doesn't mean you are bad defensively or good, it just means the line you are out there sucks. Blocked shots? Since the game is played very fast, shots are coming from anywhere, just putting your stick out there blocking a shot constitutes a blocked shot, it isn't the best stat to used to measure defensive play. Advanced stats? Maybe, but good luck telling people that Josi is better than Karlsson because advanced stats (just a scenario).

I too would like to see the Norris be award for defensive play than just offense. It doesn't have to be one or the other but someone who is the best overall in that position.
 

John Eichel da GOAT

Registered User
Oct 7, 2008
6,486
2,097
Because playing in the offensive zone more than the defensive zone is actually a very underrated defensive attribute on HF.
This^. If you make it to your offensive zone as a dman, it shows you did your job on the backend. Putting up points is just a bonus.

But with all the advanced stats we have now, we really should have a defensive defenseman award.
 

joe dirte

Registered User
Sep 28, 2017
9,430
3,559
I'm trying to find where I mentionned the word "winning", but I can't.

"Rel" is "Relative to his team".
Congrats. You're half way there.

On what planet does comparing your stats/performance/metrics to your team, aka your stats relative to your team, "remove" the effect your team has on those stats? How can using your team as a benchmark, mean that your team has no effect? Do you not see how completely absurd that notion is?
 

Kairi Zaide

Unforgiven
Aug 11, 2009
104,788
12,221
Quebec City
Congrats. You're half way there.

On what planet does comparing your stats/performance/metrics to your team, aka your stats relative to your team, "remove" the effect your team has on those stats? How can using your team as a benchmark, mean that your team has no effect? Do you not see how completely absurd that notion is?
Because certain stats - such as CF, GF, +/-, xGF, etc. - are also driven by how your teammates play and also by the team's system (coaching)? Because of how these teams play, using CF% as an example, the same player is more likely to have a higher CF% on a team like Carolina, Boston or Tampa than on a team like Anaheim, Washington (under Trotz at least) or NYR.

It's the same reason people use era-adjusted stats, because scoring 50 goals if the scoring rate is 6 goals/game is not as good as scoring 30 goals when the scoring rate is 3 goals/game in the league. In that case, you remove a league wide effect.

Also, I suggest that you re-read my post, because I did not say it removes a team's effect completely because combinatory effects do exist - but it does a good job at removing most of the individual effect a team might have on a stat.
 

joe dirte

Registered User
Sep 28, 2017
9,430
3,559
Because certain stats - such as CF, GF, +/-, xGF, etc. - are also driven by how your teammates play and also by the team's system (coaching)? Because of how these teams play, using CF% as an example, the same player is more likely to have a higher CF% on a team like Carolina, Boston or Tampa than on a team like Anaheim, Washington (under Trotz at least) or NYR.

It's the same reason people use era-adjusted stats, because scoring 50 goals if the scoring rate is 6 goals/game is not as good as scoring 30 goals when the scoring rate is 3 goals/game in the league. In that case, you remove a league wide effect.

Also, I suggest that you re-read my post, because I did not say it removes a team's effect completely because combinatory effects do exist - but it does a good job at removing most of the individual effect a team might have on a stat.

Based on what? How can you possibly make this claim?

Logically, a good corsi rel would actually be easier to achieve on a bad team.

But, end result, it's not an accurate reflection of a player on one team being better than a player on another.
 

Anisimovs AK

Registered User
Apr 14, 2006
3,324
1,401
Columbus, OH
The Norris Trophy, as described by the league, is awarded to the "defense player who throughout the season demonstrates the greatest all around ability in the position." So pretty much every candidate would have to have impressive point totals no?

Dont really see the big deal
 

triggrman

Where is Hipcheck85
Sponsor
May 8, 2002
31,627
7,348
Murfreesboro, TN
hfboards.com
0d7efb93f5.png

Sorry for the ugly graph, but I don't want to do an ANOVA or anything on that because it's clear that teams do have an effect regarding CF% (probably the same for +/-, GF%, xGF%, etc.).

If you remove that, you partly eliminate one of the many sources of bias on how good a player is and get closer to how beneficial he is to his team. Does it eliminate all the other sources? Nope, but it's a start, and the easiest to remove. Do you completely remove the effect of teams by using rel stats? No, because, as I said, combinatory effects also exist (the effect of a player is different from the effect of a team which both are different from the effect of a player and the team combined)

For Karlsson, I saw you mentionned his terrible GA last season. But, he also happened to have one of the best RelGF% in the league, which means that when he's on the ice, his team was more likely to score and/or the opponent is less likely to score.
How can the opponent be less likely to score a goalie if he was on the ice for more goals than anyone else
 

Kairi Zaide

Unforgiven
Aug 11, 2009
104,788
12,221
Quebec City
Based on what? How can you possibly make this claim?

Logically, a good corsi rel would actually be easier to achieve on a bad team.

But, end result, it's not an accurate reflection of a player on one team being better than a player on another.
I suggest that you read on this very useful statistical tool called ANOVA.

As you can see from the simple analysis I did, there is no statistical difference in mean Corsi Rel between teams, but there is a very small tendency (not statistically significant) that point that mean corsi rels are higher on bad corsi teams.

And I agree with your last point, as I've stated before.
How can the opponent be less likely to score a goalie if he was on the ice for more goals than anyone else
If you are referring to my last sentence, to clarify, it just means that the ratio GF/GA for the Sens went up when Karlsson was on the ice compared to when he was not.
 

saluki

Registered User
Nov 18, 2017
730
397
NHL awards can be strange.

Hossa was the best defensive 5 on 5 forward in hockey for at least 5 years and I don't remember him even getting nominated for the Selke.
 

Raccoon Jesus

Todd McLellan is an inside agent
Oct 30, 2008
61,474
60,896
I.E.
Stopping pucks is the goalies job, sans last-ditch efforts by defenders e.g. Faulk (?) the other night. Preventing scoring chances isn't even the sole job for defensemen anymore, except in extreme cases.

Overall impact is IMO the bottomline. If Brent Burns is directly involved in 76 goals, for another player have a greater positive impact, that player would probably have to be elite in either defense/offense and very good in the other.

Bingo, and I think just about everyone agrees with this--offensive impacts are relatively easy to account for. It's defensive impacts that have been the question.


0d7efb93f5.png

Sorry for the ugly graph, but I don't want to do an ANOVA or anything on that because it's clear that teams do have an effect regarding CF% (probably the same for +/-, GF%, xGF%, etc.).

If you remove that, you partly eliminate one of the many sources of bias on how good a player is and get closer to how beneficial he is to his team. Does it eliminate all the other sources? Nope, but it's a start, and the easiest to remove. Do you completely remove the effect of teams by using rel stats? No, because, as I said, combinatory effects also exist (the effect of a player is different from the effect of a team which both are different from the effect of a player and the team combined)

For Karlsson, I saw you mentionned his terrible GA last season. But, he also happened to have one of the best RelGF% in the league, which means that when he's on the ice, his team was more likely to score and/or the opponent is less likely to score.

Ok so EK has had more years as one of the worst relGF% relative to team than he has as the opposite. Even relative to the Sens, they were bleeding goals with him on the ice to the extent that his overwhelming offense didn't supersede his terrible ("unlucky" because of on-ice save percentages repeatedly) on-ice impact on goals against. What you're citing is an outlier year (edit: at least, so far--it stands to reason he may be improving)--so if we follow your argument to its logical conclusion...

The real problem is people pick and choose which relative stats to run with and then make excuses for the others. I think EK is a good flashpoint of this because he always had stellar CF% rel but wide variance in GF%rel and that forced people to start using 'predictive' stats like xGF% (ugh) to make excuses for him instead of try to ask what accounts for the difference. Though instead of good discourse examining the stats and the player you just get "EK is the best AINEC" or "EK is the worst AINEC" and around we go.

Defensive metrics have a loooong way to go. Offense is mostly clean and tidy outside of some things like usage (i.e. PK last year getting absolutely buried in tough minutes but still putting up offense yet his defensive work getting largely ignored)
 
Last edited:

Kairi Zaide

Unforgiven
Aug 11, 2009
104,788
12,221
Quebec City
Bingo, and I think just about everyone agrees with this--offensive impacts are relatively easy to account for. It's defensive impacts that have been the question.




Ok so EK has had more years as one of the worst relGF% relative to team than he has as the opposite. Even relative to the Sens, they were bleeding goals with him on the ice to the extent that his overwhelming offense didn't supersede his terrible ("unlucky" because of on-ice save percentages repeatedly) on-ice impact on goals against. What you're citing is an outlier year--so if we follow your argument to its logical conclusion...

The real problem is people pick and choose which relative stats to run with and then make excuses for the others.
I did not look at other seasons, that is true. I mostly picked that because I wanted to get back on topic a little. That being said, if people are saying "unlucky", then they clearly don't know PDO is real.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raccoon Jesus

Raccoon Jesus

Todd McLellan is an inside agent
Oct 30, 2008
61,474
60,896
I.E.
I did not look at other seasons, that is true. I mostly picked that because I wanted to get back on topic a little. That being said, if people are saying "unlucky", then they clearly don't know PDO is real.

And to be fair for a lot of reasons EK is largely the most interesting discussion point because his offensive impact is untouchable by anyone besides arguably Burns, but his defensive impact even relative to team can be argued all over the map.
 

maacoshark

Registered User
Jul 22, 2017
9,629
3,723
They actually aren't easy to understand well. What's apparent to me is that most people here who think they understand advanced statistics don't, at least not well. The interpretation of these advanced stats are often problematic.
Sorry but advanced stats really aren't that accurate.
 

hector morrison

Registered User
Apr 1, 2018
4,792
1,998
The Norris Trophy, as described by the league, is awarded to the "defense player who throughout the season demonstrates the greatest all around ability in the position." So pretty much every candidate would have to have impressive point totals no?

Dont really see the big deal
Leaves a lot of room for interpretation!
For example, A guy who blocks shots,clears the crease ,hits,doesn't get beat off the rush,kills penalties , makes an accurate exit pass but does not get PP time or spend much time in the O Zone ...meaning doesn't rack up the points will never be considered for the Norris.
Odd that a Selke award is given out though! Perhaps they should come up with a separate award for offensive Dman?
 

Anglesmith

Setting up the play?
Sep 17, 2012
46,441
14,715
Victoria
True but if your on the ice for more goals against compared to how many your on the ice for goals scored than your not really helping your team win.
Indeed. The whole point of the analytics field is to dig into the data we can collect to find a way to explain who best contributes to goal differential for their team while on the ice. Not that we have anything close to being precise yet, but that's the general idea.

I don't think anyone like what you're describing has won a Norris lately, or ever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Anisimovs AK

Anisimovs AK

Registered User
Apr 14, 2006
3,324
1,401
Columbus, OH
Leaves a lot of room for interpretation!
For example, A guy who blocks shots,clears the crease ,hits,doesn't get beat off the rush,kills penalties , makes an accurate exit pass but does not get PP time or spend much time in the O Zone ...meaning doesn't rack up the points will never be considered for the Norris.
Odd that a Selke award is given out though! Perhaps they should come up with a separate award for offensive Dman?
There really isnt much room actually. That guy you described doesnt have all around skill. Just defensive skill. So that player going up against someone who does all of that, AND STILL gets pp time and points is always going to get beat out.

Its simple actually. This handwringing is odd to me
 

koyvoo

Registered User
Nov 8, 2014
17,242
16,979
There was a couple of seasons that Mike Green wished this was actually the case. He’d have a couple of this were the case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Machinehead

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->