Why Erik Karlsson should win the Hart

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!

He deserves a Hart a lot more than he deserves a Norris.

If you're not on the ice to kill a 5-on-3, then the coach isn't "managing your minutes", you're just not the best all-round defenceman NHL.

Karlsson is a great player, no question, and I have no issue with him being in the Hart conversation. I'm just sick of the Norris going to whoever scores the most points East of Chicago.

But if he isn't the all around best defenseman, how is he worthy of the Hart?

[BigTuna]

Too much focus on defense. He wins games with his offence. Has anyone watched the NHL? No one can score. Karlsson is truly elite.

People say guys like Weber are better. Do people actually watch hockey?

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

But if he isn't the all around best defenseman, how is he worthy of the Hart?

Because the Hart is supposed to go to the player who has the biggest contribution to his team.

The Norris is for the defenceman who is most proficient at all aspects of his position.

They are not even really related.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!

Because the Hart is supposed to go to the player who has the biggest contribution to his team.

The Norris is for the defenceman who is most proficient at all aspects of his position.

They are not even really related.

Yeah, that's the wording. But the simple fact of the matter is that it is impossible to compare one player's contribution to his team vs. another player's to theirs.

In the end, the Hart goes to the player deemed to have been the best player, or MVP, that season. Period.

And as such, if your play wasn't worthy of the Norris, then, by extension, it isn't worthy of the Hart.

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Yeah, that's the wording. But the simple fact of the matter is that it is impossible to compare one player's contribution to his team vs. another player's to theirs.

In the end, the Hart goes to the player deemed to have been the best player, or MVP, that season. Period.

And as such, if your play wasn't worthy of the Norris, then, by extension, it isn't worthy of the Hart.

What's supposed to happen is the Norris goes to the most complete defenceman and the Hart to the player most valuable to his team. There's no need to be the best in the league to be the most valuable player to your team.

If you want to look at the BS way the awards are actually handed out, the Norris is basically a scoring award, and has nothing to do with being the best defenceman or either a team or league MVP.

So whether you're awarding the trophies the way they're supposed to be awarded, or in the stupid way sports writers hand them out, either way there's no reason why you'd need the Norris to win the Hart.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by BigTuna

Too much focus on defense. He wins games with his offence. Has anyone watched the NHL? No one can score. Karlsson is truly elite.

People say guys like Weber are better. Do people actually watch hockey?

Weber might not even be the best on his own team anymore.

But I do think Doughty and Keith are better than Karlsson.

[BigTuna]

Originally Posted by codynw

Weber might not even be the best on his own team anymore.

But I do think Doughty and Keith are better than Karlsson.

That's fine. But I do think people are becoming offence snobs. Scoring is in the toilet.

[Erick Estrada]

Wouldn't Ottawa have to make the playoffs to even give merit to this discussion?

[Tinordi]

The best defence is controlling the play and driving offense. The other team isn't much of a scoring threat when you've got the puck and are carrying it forward. Karlsson excels at this.

It's a fan fetish to value two way defensemen more than elite offensive defensemen.

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Wouldn't Ottawa have to make the playoffs to even give merit to this discussion?

Yeah, I'd think so.

It's hard to argue that a guy is the most impactful player for his team in the entire NHL, if he hasn't had enough of an impact on his team to get them into the playoffs.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by BACKCHECK!!!

What's supposed to happen is the Norris goes to the most complete defenceman and the Hart to the player most valuable to his team. There's no need to be the best in the league to be the most valuable player to your team.

No, the Norris goes to the BEST defencemen.

In my view, that should mean the defensemen that has the largest positive impact on his team and the game. If there's a defencemen that literally never gets scored on, but only gets 20 points, that's still a huge positive impact. If there's a defencemen that scores 80 points, but is liable for 20 bad mistakes over the year, that's also a huge positive impact.

Then of course you have the middle of the road players, like a Weber, who scores 45 points, but only makes 5 mistakes over the entire year. Why is this all around defencemen better than either of the two theoretical examples above?

If you want to look at the BS way the awards are actually handed out, the Norris is basically a scoring award, and has nothing to do with being the best defenceman or either a team or league MVP.

So whether you're awarding the trophies the way they're supposed to be awarded, or in the stupid way sports writers hand them out, either way there's no reason why you'd need the Norris to win the Hart.

Norris is not a scoring award. If Doughty put up as many points as Karlsson, while playing top defence, then Doughty is better than Karlsson.

When Karlsson puts up 30 more points than Doughty, then you have to evaluate whether 30 points is worth the difference in defensive capability.

Did Doughty prevent 30 extra goals compared to Karlsson last year? I personally don't think Doughty's defensive impact is that big, especially when Karlsson is no slouch himself. My random number out of a hat is that Doughty has to be within 15 points of Karlsson to be "better" overall.

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Well since we're just making up criteria now, may as well give him the damn Vezina too.

After all, what better way to prevent goals against than to have possession?!

[Samonadreau]

Originally Posted by sharkov

Brent Burns is a double digit minus. Even being a minus 3 killed weber's chance at the Norris in 2012

You must have thought I was making a case for Burns.... not even close. Rather that if Karlsson is not the most offensive defenseman does he still have a case as that is his niche. If he has 2nd most points why not go for 5th or 6th most with other better attributes.

I would personally give Doughty the Norris at this point and the Hart is too close to call Karlsson would probably be in the top 5.

[BigTuna]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

The best defence is controlling the play and driving offense. The other team isn't much of a scoring threat when you've got the puck and are carrying it forward. Karlsson excels at this.

It's a fan fetish to value two way defensemen more than elite offensive defensemen.

I agree. People are now undervaluing offensive play. How many games is Karlsson actually winning for his team with his incredible offensive abilities? And yet people want to go on about getting top minutes on the PK. That is not more important at all from what Karlsson does.

[saillias]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

His minutes are up, and they are a worse team. Coincidence?

When Brodie plays 30 minutes, the Flames are usually better for it.

Um yes. The same analytics you have looked up to evaluate Brodie would also tell you how much astronomically better Karlsson is than every other defenseman on that team, and why you want him on the ice all the time.

[Erick Estrada]

He's probably a little underappreciated seeing he plays in Ottawa but my issue is that team really hasn't accomplished anything and are kind of in the same area of mediocrity of the Jets but he and most of their key players are in their prime or close to prime. Ottawa's roster isn't amongst the best but it's also not terrible. It's a team that has enough talent that a true Hart caliber player should be able to carry to something better than hanging around the 7-12 spot in the conference. I just don't see a player that's been able to take the team on his back to winning anything or even win a regular season division title.

[Tinordi]

The fallacy of composition that one player is the reason for failure or success of 22 other players. Sure some players have outsized roles on their team but fans routinely want to pine team success and failure on individuals. And what's to say that Karlsson isn't having a huge success premium on the Senators. Where would they be if we wasn't on their team?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

The fallacy of composition that one player is the reason for failure or success of 22 other players. Sure some players have outsized roles on their team but fans routinely want to pine team success and failure on individuals. And what's to say that Karlsson isn't having a huge success premium on the Senators. Where would they be if we wasn't on their team?

How about instead of simply passive-aggressively insulting everyone else, you actually present an argument yourself and push the conversation forward?

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

How about instead of simply passive-aggressively insulting everyone else, you actually present an argument yourself and push the conversation forward?

Sure. Read this article.

http://hockeypdocast.com/2015/12/21/...se-in-the-nhl/

Brodie is a beauty there is no doubt. But he's no Karlsson who looks like he's a 'generational' defenceman. (I know that's a tired term but just to say that Karlsson is is just a cut different and above almost all other defencemen in the league).

To say that Brodie is having a greater impact on the Flames winning games than the best defenceman in the league just isn't plausible.

[Enoch Root]

Much more useful, thanks.

That blog was basically a fan piece though, which said the same thing everyone is saying: his offensive skills and contribution are undeniable. And Ottawa runs all of their offense through him.

But we are still left with the elephant in the room that is the fact that the Senators, built around Karlsson, are not very good.

Of course that is not all his fault. In fact, it might not be any fault of his at all. But that doesn't change the fact that him being the centre-piece of that team has not been a recipe for success, or even improvement, for the team that he is so valuable to and is built around him.