Blogs > Red Wings Corner

Up-to-the minute updates and insights from the Red Wings locker room at home and on the road. By Chuck Pleiness of The Macomb Daily.

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Lidstrom a Norris finalist

So the run continues. Get this stat ... for the 10th time in the past 11 seasons, Nicklas Lidstrom is a finalist for the Norris Trophy. Actually, in the previous nine seasons in which he was a finalist, Lidstrom finished either first or second in voting.

Here's his year-by-year Norris scorecard ...

2009 1st, 2nd or 3rd
2008 1st
2007 1st
2006 1st
2004 6th
2003 1st
2002 1st
2001 1st
2000 2nd
1999 2nd
1998 2nd
1997 6th
1996 6th
1995 received no votes
1994 7th

By the way, the other finalists were Zdeno Chara of Boston and Mike Green of Washington. (Side note: Green was drafted by the Caps with the pick given up by the Wings in the Robert Lang trade.)

In my opinion, Green should win the Norris Trophy and he got my first-place vote. The numbers are mind-boggling ... 31 goals, 73 points and a plus-24 in just 68 games. Those are just way to outrageous to not win this award. I know that Green isn't the two-way defenseman that Lidstrom is. (And I'm not anti-Lidstrom. I voted him first in each of the previous three seasons.) But I think that Green's defensive lapses are few and become hyperbole. He's not a bad defender. Just not at Lidstrom's level.

But that shouldn't exclude Green from Norris consideration. One-way players who are defense only are praised. Defensemen who are better on offense than defense are pitied. Well, at plus-24, Green's doing something right. Green was just so much better offensively than others at his position that he became a game-changer. Missing 14 games, Green still had 31 goals. Only two other blue-liners topped 20 and they both had 23. Green was fifth among defensemen in plus-minus, fourth in shots on goal and seven in ice time per game.

If Rod Langway got respect, so should Mike Green. Green's offense is as good as Langway's defense. Green's defense is better than Langway's offense.

Zdeno Chara is no stranger to the final-three and he'd be worthy of winning his first Norris this season. Here's how the big Slovak finished in Norris voting of late ...

2009 1st, 2nd or 3rd
2008 3rd
2007 20th
2006 4th
2004 2nd
2003 7th

I had Chara No. 2 on my ballot. I also voted for Lidstrom and thought that Shea Weber, Mark Streit and Duncan Keith deserved consideration.

I know Wings fans look at it as an insult if Lidstrom finishes third in the voting, but that's rubbish. Being called the third best defenseman in hockey this season is a high compliment.

41 Comments:

Anonymous TStar said...

You dropped the ball on this one Bruce. Green and Chara had great seasons, but they were "loud" with flash but didn't have the substance to back it up. I'll dig up my old post on the subject. I think you'll be suprised just how great Lidstrom was this season compared to his peers.

April 23, 2009 at 1:44 PM 
Blogger Nathan said...

I cannot disagree more! This is just another reason the voting should include playoff hockey. Lidstrom has shut down Rick Nash, and Green has... been taken advantage of by... Brandon Dubinski? Ryan Callahan? What?

Look at the stats for penalty killing time for Green and compare it to Lidstrom. Then compare it to the other 5 regular defenseman from the Caps lineup this year. That's right -- you'll find it interesting that Green was the SIXTH choice defenseman for the PK by Boudreau. He must know something we don't... perhaps it's not all hyperbole?

As for offense, the goal numbers are incredible, but even though he was injured part of the year, he played over a minute more on the PP per game than Lidstrom.

To me, if the Norris belongs to the best defenseman of the season, it should go to the best all-around performance from a defenseman. At that point, there's no question that Lidstrom, still, is the best all-around defenseman in the game, even with his slow start to the season.

Green's season is impressive, but would be better suited to a "Paul Coffey" award than the Norris. And perhaps Rod Langway shouldn't have won the Norris -- I wouldn't disagree with that at all -- Bourque and Potvin had better all-around seasons those two years, and better team success too, especially in the case of Potvin.

April 23, 2009 at 1:50 PM 
Blogger John said...

Well said Nathan.

April 23, 2009 at 2:02 PM 
Blogger Bruce MacLeod said...

A few points ...
-- The award doesn't include a second of the playoffs. We can have another discussion about that if the voting is moved, but it's not going to be.
-- PK time is the only stat being used? Not that the Red Wings had a very poor PK this season and that Lidstrom was a big part of that?
Again, I'm not a Lidstrom basher. Calling him the third-best defenseman in hockey isn't an insult. I love the guy.
Geting into the all-around argument is tricky. It seems like a club. Some defensemen are all-around, others just O and others just D. That's way too black and white.
To me, Green's overall impact on regular-season games was the greatest. It was an unusual season that he had, one of the best ever offensively for blue-liners.
Lidstrom didn't have one of his best seasons, but he's still one of the top three D in the NHL at his age. That's remarkable too.

April 23, 2009 at 2:23 PM 
Anonymous Lloyd Christmas said...

If you asked the coaches who they would rather have in a game 7 of the cup finals, they will say Lidstrom. So, in my eyes, that makes him the best defenseman.

April 23, 2009 at 2:27 PM 
Blogger Bruce MacLeod said...

A, you're assuming what coaches will say. Neither you or I know.
B, what kind of question is that? They only get one defenseman? Who are the other defensemen in the lineup? Do you need one for the PP, one for the PK or what? Do you need to shut down one opposition forward, an entire line or do the other guys have two strong forward lines?
And again, 7th game of the Cup final? We're talking about a regular-season award here. What's that got to do with Game 7?

April 23, 2009 at 2:30 PM 
Blogger Nathan said...

Green spent almost 1:30 more on the PP per game than Lidstrom. That's a lot of extra power play time. Even though Nick played 10 more games than Green, that means Green roughly spent and entire hour longer on the power play than Lidstrom. (1.5 minutes more per game time 68 games Green played = 102 more minutes; subtract Nick's average of 4 PP minutes per game times 10 more games played for a gap of roughly 60 minutes). Now, Nick scored 33 PP points. Divide that by 78 games and get 0.42 PP points per game, which equates to 0.42 PP points per 4 minutes. If he plays roughly 5.5 PP minutes per game, like Green, we can figure using a proportion that Nick's PP points per game would increase to 0.57. Over 78 games played, that would increase his PP production to 45, a jump of 12 points. That would put him at 71 points on the year. Right at Green's level. Combine that with his vastly superior defensive skill...

Perhaps we just disagree about the Wings PK troubles this season, but I don't fault Lidstrom for even a tiny fraction of that. The regular season was plagued by mediocre goaltending and horrible gap control by the forwards. I actually think as a whole, the defenseman had decent defensive seasons -- the forwards were lazier than usual with tracking back in regular play, and filling gaps when defending in their own zone, such as on the PP.

The point is that Green is chosen LAST by his coach in situations where defense is the second-most important thing (after goaltending). Nick is chosen first.

Just a little food for thought... hopefully my math was correct, tell me if it isn't.

April 23, 2009 at 2:56 PM 
Blogger John said...

Haha. Remove all the qualifiers, eh Bruce?

If this award is supposed to go to what is essentially the defensive version of the Hart then I have to Vote Chara 1, Green 2, Lidstrom 3.

If it goes to whom I think was the best defensemen this season I vote Lidstrom 1, Chara 2, Phaneuf 3.

The understanding that I am lacking is the parameters that I am to consider before voting.

Lay it on me.

April 23, 2009 at 2:58 PM 
Blogger Paul said...

Bruce I have to disagree - Green's flash is good but he plays in a weak conference and weak division.

Stats can manipulated 5 ways from Sunday but it interesting to note the quality of Quality of Competition stat from Behindthenet. Nik (and Chara) easily beat Green and I think you have to admit it been something of a predictive stat so far - Green has wilted when push comes to shove.

April 23, 2009 at 3:08 PM 
Blogger jl said...

Hi Bruce -

I don't have a huge problem with your ballot, and I understand your reasoning. Lidstrom was actually not as good this year as he has been the previous few seasons (he has raised the bar pretty high). And Green had an excellent offensive season. I still wouldn't even blink if you asked me which one I would rather have on my team, and we all know there isn't a coach or GM who wouldn't rather have Lidstrom for a playoff run. (Yes, I know it is a regular season award; and I think we all know now what the Wings think of the regular season)

Don't forget that +/- numbers are inflated for Green because he plays so often with Ovechkin, who often draws the other teams "shut down" line, not a top scoring line. Lids draws the other teams best line every game.

The wings lost 8-0 this year to Nashville (sorry to bring that up again). The game featured seven even strength goals against. Lidstrom played 20 minutes. He was even for the game.

In the end, you're talking about the best defensive defensemen, and a top-5 offensive defensemen. He didn't blow away the competition as in previous years, so the media is right to consider others.

But I'm not sure how Chara even figures into the conversation. He's inferior to Lids on both ends of the ice, whether you are watching the games or reading the stat sheet. I realize it's closer than previous years, but still ... maybe he is getting credit for winning the hardest shot competition? Or being so darn tall?

April 23, 2009 at 3:08 PM 
Blogger Bruce MacLeod said...

I'm not agreeing with your math or logic Nathan. Your change in PP time for Nick (which is problematic) puts Lidstrom at 71 points over 78 games. Green had 73 points in just 68 games. I don't call that the same level.
And as far as logic, you're crediting Lidstrom for getting more PK time than Green saying that it means he's better on the PK. But when Green gets more PP time than Lidstrom, that's a strike against Green. I don't buy it.

April 23, 2009 at 4:55 PM 
Blogger Bruce MacLeod said...

OK, so I'm the devil. I admit it.
I don't want to debate this a ton because my vote's already in and this isn't making any change.

I do like some of the points raised and should have acknowledged that. I like the points in favor of Lidstrom and I wouldn't be one bit upset if he wins another Norris.

One thing I would like to see is more facts on both sides of the argument. One point is that Green is playing against weak opposition because of Ovechkin. I'd like to look up Green's plus-minus with and without Ovechkin on the ice. That would be one step to getting a tangible read on that argument, which I think could be true.

So if anyone has any other stats or facts or whatever for either side of the Norris debate, toss them in.

I do like the stat on quality of opposition from behindthenet. Very good argument against Green.

April 23, 2009 at 5:02 PM 
Anonymous Justin said...

Green gets a lot more PP time than Lidstrom for pretty obvious reasons that do not involve individual skill. Look at Detroit's other PP point men options: Rafalski, Kronwall, Samuelsson, even Stuart. Then look at Washingtons. Poti? Jrcina? Erskine? Pothier? There's a reason Washington puts a forward (Ovechkin) on the point for the 1st PP unit - outside of Green they have no offensively-skilled d-men.

April 23, 2009 at 6:23 PM 
Blogger Bruce MacLeod said...

Valid point that the other Caps D-men aren't good (Poti has had three double-digit goals seasons, but he's on the downside) ... but that doesn't make Green bad or a default option. I think we're downplaying that the man scored 31 goals in 68 games as a defenseman. That puts him in rare company all-time. At some point, we have to start saying Green had a great season and not because of Ovechkin. Does anyone argue that Green shouldn't be a Norris finalist? I don't think that's defensible. I think you can argue that Green should be No. 2 or No. 3 and I'll buy that.

April 23, 2009 at 6:37 PM 
Anonymous Justin said...

I'm not participating in the Norris debate. I only made my post to invalidate Nathan's point about Green having more PP time than Lidstrom. OF COURSE Green is going to have more PP time - who else is Boudreau going to play?

April 23, 2009 at 7:58 PM 
Anonymous LLoyd said...

Seems my game 7 comment went way over your head. My point is quite obvious. Wow.

April 23, 2009 at 8:09 PM 
Blogger Bruce MacLeod said...

Two minutes unsportsmanlike on me.

April 23, 2009 at 8:16 PM 
Blogger Bruce MacLeod said...

Thanks for the insult LLoyd, but I don't think it went over my head. My point is that who you want on the ice for a playoff game doesn't matter in this vote/discussion. Of course you want Lidstrom in the playoffs just for experience sake.
The vote is only on what the players did during the regular season, on only what happened in the 82-game set. Not who did what in previous years or who would be better in what situations.
So no, I don't think your point went over my head.

April 23, 2009 at 8:25 PM 
Anonymous Justin said...

Exactly. It's an ANNUAL award. IT awards the defenseman who was best for one particular season. Career achievements and reputation have nothing to do with it.

April 24, 2009 at 2:32 AM 
Blogger Ryan said...

this was a lively debate...

i think that while clearly Green's season was a great accomplishment, you cannot really compare him to Lidstrom - either statistically or in terms of value to his team... they are two totally different kinds of players on totally different kinds of teams in totally different situations. And clearly, arguments can be made that any of Bruce's finalists should win the award. And I should be clear that I believe that Lidstrom was the best overall defenseman this year by far - even with Green's scoring feats. If that is what the award is for, Lids gets it in my book. Unfortunately, Lidstrom is living in his own shadow. I think that Lidstrom isn't so much competing against Green or Chara, but rather against Lidstrom '06, '07, '08 - and like it or not, he clearly was not as good this year as he was the last few years. I think that skewed perception will cost him the trophy whether he deserves it this year or not. I should mention that I obviously don't think the media are judging him this way on purpose, but it definitely seems to be how he is being judged.

April 24, 2009 at 2:46 AM 
Blogger Bruce MacLeod said...

Good points Ryan. Lidstrom probably is being judged more against Lidstrom than he is against Green or Chara.

April 24, 2009 at 3:08 AM 
Anonymous Bob said...

Mike Green was fourth in the league in giveaways with 95, 2nd amongst all defensemen. That doesn't scream "best defensemen" to me. Chara or Lidstrom deserve the award over Mike Green.

April 24, 2009 at 10:09 AM 
Anonymous Octopus said...

I know I'm a little late to this party, but I'm still on vacation, and can barely keep up with the playoff scores and highlights the way this family is running me around. Still, I have to say a word for Lidstrom, even though it's a moot point, and the stats-addled sportswriters have already awarded Lids' trophy to Green.

Lidstrom, to put it simply, makes the game look too easy. Therefore, he doesn't get credit for half of the amazing stuff he does. He's like the great Willie Mays or our own Al Kaline, who turned their outfield positions into an art form that laymen had difficulty understanding, but coaches and players goggled at.

It's not common for opposition players in the heat of battle to heap praise on their opponents, but you hear more praise for Lids from the other team than you do from the jaded fans and sportswriters in his own town, these days.

You can say, as Bruce does in the last statement I'm reading here, that "Lidstrom is being judged more against Lidstrom than he is against Green or Chara." That doesn't absolve anyone of making a serious mistake, voting the Norris to a less-deserving player who just happened to hitch his points-wagon to the Flying O Show, and pile up the pp-points. It reminds me of when the writers gave the trophy to Blake, over a decade ago now...it's a fluke, that happened due to the small hockey-media echo-chamber jumping on the bandwagon.

Getting back to Kaline, one of our few living legends in Detroit, here's a quote that could also be applied to Lidstrom on a regular basis, with only a few details changed. Lids is the best d-man in the NHL, and one misguided poll doesn't change that one bit. He's an artist, whose work will only be truly appreciated after he retires.
Kaline's fielding skills in the outfield were unsurpassed. He "made playing right field into an art form," wrote a contributor to BaseballLibrary.com. "Never a wasted motion, never a wrong decision." Kaline once played 242 consecutive games without a single outfield error. In a 1994 wire article for the Knight-Ridder/Tribune News Service, George Puscas recalled the artistry of Kaline's glovework: "The best throw I ever saw was one Kaline made from the rightfield fence down the line to home plate, on the fly, to nail a Yankee runner.… Yankees poured from the dugout not to protest the call, but to applaud Kaline." Only Kaline and Joe DiMaggio, added Puscas, "are viewed as the near-equal of all the outfield greats who proceeded them."

April 24, 2009 at 11:15 AM 
Blogger Bruce MacLeod said...

Hey Bob. Excellent point/stat on Green and giveaways. That is a big negative. Hmmm, making me reconsider.

April 24, 2009 at 11:41 AM 
Blogger Bruce MacLeod said...

Hey Octopus, welcome to the party (late) ... and what a party it's been. I'm having the time of my life. Honest.

But I'm not liking your comment. Lidstrom's work won't be appreciated until he retires? Doesn't get praised by the media? So those six Norris Trophies -- only behind Orr and Harvey -- mean Lidstrom is being overlooked? Ten times in the past 11 seasons Lidstrom has been a Norris finalist.

I have no idea what you mean that Lidstrom isn't appreciated. The guy's been knighted by the media, heaped with praise and awards. You're saying that being named one of the three best defensemen in all of hockey this season is being ignorant to his greatness, then I think you've got a skewed view of praise.

And I'm a big baseball guy myself. Member of SABR and love the history of the game. But quoting a bit or two of praise doesn't mean much. (Funny praise too, saying that "Kaline and DiMaggio are viewed as the near-equal of all the outfield greats who proceeded them." Near-equal means less than equal. He's calling them worse than those who went before.)

I could find you quotes about Clemente being a dominant outfield and his being the best arm ever or about Tris Speaker or Bob Ferguson or a multitude of others. But don't get me wrong. I'm a huge Kaline fan.

But I'd prefer to hear about achievements, statistics and facts.

April 24, 2009 at 12:25 PM 
Anonymous MMarkk said...

Bruce,
I'm a saddened by the media hype over Green. Shouldn't people be aware of things more than scoring? Particularly writers? It seems the only thing they check on a regular basis throughout the season is the top scoring list. Green has not been particularly good consistently since at least the 3/4 mark of the season, and I would argue since the halfway mark. The problem is, people were already making up their minds.

Now, I'm not condemning you. I think you more than many considers everything and doesn't just have his mind made up going into something. What I'm really saying is, I'm disappointed in the writers in general, mainly in that no one has even mentioned the giveaways. A giveaway by a defenseman directly leads to a scoring oppurtunity often, certainly moreso than for a forward. This should sort of be important.

I don't see why scoring is so important for a defenseman for consideration of this trophy. If you can imagine a goalie that somehow scores 20 goals a season taking center ice slap shots, does that make him the best goaltender in the league? The obvious answer is no, unless he is the best goaltender in the net as well, as the first job of a goaltender is to tend goal. In the same way, a defenseman's first job is to defend or at least be ready to defend.

April 24, 2009 at 1:18 PM 
Blogger Bruce MacLeod said...

Good points MMMark about Green's consistency and giveaways. I don't think this is an award for defense only. And the goaltender analogy isn't valid because defensemen are an integral part in creating offense. So that much offense can't be ignored.
I think that Green had a big positive effect on Caps games.

April 24, 2009 at 1:27 PM 
Anonymous lilaj4mvp said...

green winning this thing will be an absolute joke. too bad weber couldn't have put up a few more goals, and then lidstrom wouldn't even be on the ballot so those 2 defensive nightmares could go at it for the trophy.

ugh.

April 24, 2009 at 1:31 PM 
Anonymous Octopus said...

Maybe someday, the NHL will figure out his name isn't spelled "Lindstrom," too. ;)

Nice comeback, Bruce. I'm not going to belabor the point, but I still think Lids is the best d-man in hockey, hands-down. Not the third-best, or the second-best. I don't even think it's all that close, to be honest.

I've been down that Kaline-Clemente road a few times myself, and I don't want to go again. It's an argument nobody can win, and usually ends in a draw, with both sides declaring victory. I got to sit across from Kaline at a pro-am golf tournament luncheon when I was about 13, thanks to my friend's dad being a club pro with lots of pro athlete friends--Al actually spoke to me, so he's the best as far as I'm concerned. Former Piston Bob Lanier ignored my request for an autograph at the same event, so he's the worst.

April 24, 2009 at 1:35 PM 
Anonymous Garrett said...

Some great points and some not so great on everybody's part. I tend to side with the theory that the Norris trophy is for the best defenseman. Not the flashiest or the most goals. This is the same reason Datsyuk will not win the Hart. The same reason why Lidstrom hasnt won the Hart. Mr. MacLeod I believe you have a strong hockey knowledge and though I wont agree with your reasoning I wont argue with your pick. The reason for that is simple. You can ask Lidstrom, Datsyuk, Green, Ovie, Crosby, Chara (do I need to go on?) what they would rather win. A Hart/Norris/Calder etc trophy or the Stanley Cup. I dont think there will be an argument they ALL pick the Stanley Cup. And at last check Lidstrom = 4 cups, Datsyuk = 2 and the rest of those guys = a grand total of 0 cups. So give the Norris to Green and the Hart to Malkin. Those are the sexy NHL type picks. I will take the class of Lidstom and the heart of Datsyuk over any of those other guys every time.

April 24, 2009 at 1:39 PM 
Blogger Bruce MacLeod said...

lilja4mvp slamming Shea Weber. I know it's not about the fight, but I love the two names together.

April 24, 2009 at 1:41 PM 
Blogger Bruce MacLeod said...

We've topped the 30 comment mark on this thread. This blog's all-time record. Is that good or bad?

April 24, 2009 at 1:42 PM 
Blogger Bruce MacLeod said...

I understand your point Garrett about opting for the best defenseman and by saying that I assume you stress defense. Valid way of looking at the award even if I don't agree.
And these awards really are meaningless compared to the Stanley Cup. I'm not sure why everyone is so bothered by Lidstrom getting seven Norrises or six.
I know you're saying that you're glad Lidstrom has so many Cups, but you're on the border of determining a player's value by Cup counting which isn't good. Maltby had four Cups and Ovechkin has zero. So?
And I too agree with you that I'll take Lidstrom and Datsyuk over Green and Malkin. I bet Lidstrom and Datsyuk will do better in the post-season than Green and Malkin.

April 24, 2009 at 1:47 PM 
Anonymous lilja4mvp said...

actually i wouldn't mind if chara won it. he's an absolute force out there.

i just have an issue with the trophy going to a guy that would be riding the pine when you need to kill a 5on3 in the last period of game 7.

April 24, 2009 at 1:55 PM 
Anonymous Mmark said...

That's fair Bruce. I guess the problem I have is the fear that this award and others are being evaluated in the same way, and it no longer matters what position you play, other than for determining WHICH trophy you qualify for.

Take another hypothetical (you obviously rejected my last one outright): A defenseman who starts every play as a D-man but immediately switches to forward after a faceoff and is wildly successful at scoring. Is he the best defenseman? I know this is a straw man, but I'm worried that even a cut and dry case like this (he is a defenseman in name only) would keep him in contention for best defenseman today.

April 24, 2009 at 1:59 PM 
Blogger Nathan said...

Bruce,

Thanks for the lively debate. Obviously, while I might disagree, I respect your opinion, and appreciate that you reply to our comments. Well done!

You say a few things:

"I'm not agreeing with your math or logic Nathan. Your change in PP time for Nick (which is problematic) puts Lidstrom at 71 points over 78 games. Green had 73 points in just 68 games. I don't call that the same level."

What's problematic? I fully admit my math could be wrong. I didn't get out the graph paper and do it to a T, it was mostly using rough calculations in my head and with Windows Calculator for the annoying decimals. I'm willing to admit my numbers may be incorrect, just show me what I did wrong. In regards to them not being at the same level, even with the adjusted numbers for PP time, I guess my point is that even with Green's still superior points per game rating, to me, Lidstrom's vastly superior defensive game and leadership role makes up for the offensive disparity between the two. And since it's the award for the best all-around defenseman, that means a whole heck of a lot.


"And as far as logic, you're crediting Lidstrom for getting more PK time than Green saying that it means he's better on the PK. But when Green gets more PP time than Lidstrom, that's a strike against Green. I don't buy it."

I'm not saying it's a strike against Green that he gets more PP time -- I'm saying that it skews the offensive numbers in his favor, the same way Lidstrom's 10 more games played skew some numbers in his favor. You have to adjust for both. Credit to Green for playing lots of PP time -- but the question I would have is does Green play 1.5 minutes extra per game on the PP because he's better than Lidstrom at the PP, or is it because the 3rd and 4th options for the Caps on the point are vastly inferior to Detroit's 3rd and 4th (and 5th and 6th) point man options? Babcock has the horses to balance ice time.

As for the PK, the same is true. Babcock has way better defenseman, 1 through 8 or heck, even 9, than Washington does. You would thing Washington would rely heavily on Green in PK situations just like they do in PP situations simply because he's the most talented player they've got on the blueline. Yet they don't. In fact, they AVOID putting him on the ice for the PK. Seems odd to me. I just don't think a player can win the award for best defenseman if his coach chooses him dead last (among the defense corps) to go out on the PK, especially, when his fellow D-men aren't anywhere close to being as talented as the group of Rafalski, Kronner, Stuart, Ericsson, Lilja, and Chelios.

Again, perhaps my math is off, if so someone please show me what's wrong and I am more than willing to admit I may need to revise my opinion.

One last thing -- I know the awards will never be changed to include post-season play. I simply said that I believe they should. The best players play in the post-season, and play well in the post-season. The debate of Green or Lidstrom is another example where it would make a huge difference in the outlook people would have on the trophy voting. I know getting to the post-season is a team accomplishment, but I just cannot hack giving a major personal award to a guy that couldn't even get to the second season. Look no further than Mark Streit -- for the awful team he played on, he had great offensive and defensive numbers, but nobody's voting for him. Probably because his team did nothing. Perhaps it's an unfair bias on my part, but I just cannot imagine giving a prestigious award like the Norris to a player that can't even get himself to the most challenging Cup competition in all of sports.

April 24, 2009 at 2:00 PM 
Anonymous Garrett said...

I misspoke myself then because I do not feel ANY regular season award should be based on 1. Any amount of awards previously won 2. Amount of Stanley Cups won or 3. Name sake alone. Obviously Green is not really a household name like Ovechkin or Crosby so the validity of winning would not be based on the marketability of his name. It so happens I DO think that the name Ovechkin/Crosby/Malkin will be a part of some hockey trophy voters (what) process. It almost seems some of these guys open the stats book see Ovechkin 56goals 54assists 110 points and mark his name on the ballot. Or in this case Green 31 42 73. Which to me is crazy. If you look at stats alone why is Andrei Markov on this list? I am not a conspiracy theorist who thinks the NHL is out to get the Red Wings, however the NHL is a business and Malkin or Crosby winning the Hart sells better then Datsyuk. As far as Maltby having 4 cups to Ovies 0. Well I dont think anyone is taking Maltby over Ovechkin on their fantasy team however Maltby was on a team that won 4 cups with Lidstrom. That should say something right there I believe. It doesn't mean Lidstrom wins the Norris automatically but I think it means he deserves more then his name being spelled wrong at the freakin NHL awards show. I am getting off point I apologize. Thanks for your time Mr. MacLeod

April 24, 2009 at 2:03 PM 
Anonymous Mike said...

Looking at this season alone...

Out of the 3 finalists, and the order in to which who I want on my team?


1. Chara
2. Lidstrom
3. Green

I suppose if I was a voter, this is how I would rank them.

Now if someone asked me to rank who I would want on my team over a course of their career:

1. Lidstrom
2. Chara
3. Green

It will be interesting to see where these 3 show up on the overall Hart votes. If Lidstrom and Chara rank ahead of Green, yet Green wins Norris over them, Houston we have a problem.

April 24, 2009 at 3:04 PM 
Blogger Bruce MacLeod said...

You bring up an interesting thing about voting ... not all voters vote for every award. So there can be discrepancies. For example, I wasn't asked to vote for the Vezina, but I had an all-star vote. Things like that could make Goalie A the Vezina winner and Goalie B the first-team all-star.
I believe they do that to get more writers voting, spread the awards votes around to more people.

April 24, 2009 at 4:06 PM 
Anonymous Bob said...

So did Green's giveaway stat make you change your mind yet? ;)

April 25, 2009 at 5:33 PM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Bruce (nn from rwc)

As I mentioned on the forum (not sure if you've read the Norris thread) I took issue with the notion that being 2nd or 3rd best is a grand compliment. It isn't so much a compliment if you are the best.

Lidstrom got robbed in '98 and it seems he's headed that way again. Any way you want to stack it up no one else compares once you add everything together. (see TStar for the details)

Nick is the best all around defenseman in the league and he should be tying Bobby Orr come June, but he won't even tie Harvey.

And if it turns out to be by the difference between a 1st and 3rd place vote I'll never forgive you. ;)

April 26, 2009 at 9:00 AM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home