TJ Brodie and the Norris

[druetetective]

If he finishes 6th or 7th in scoring and increases his +/- I'd bet he gets at least some 3rd place votes.

Do voters pick 3 or 5 players when voting?

[codynw]

Originally Posted by druetetective

If he finishes 6th or 7th in scoring and increases his +/- I'd bet he gets at least some 3rd place votes.

Do voters pick 3 or 5 players when voting?

Pretty sure it's 5. Definitely more than 3.

He'll definitely get votes. Maybe even some first place votes. Just not enough to win, or even be a finalist.

[N-E-B]

At the beginning of the year I was 100% for Karlsson. As the year goes on, however, I'm starting to shift more towards Doughty as my choice for the Norris. No, I don't think Karlsson is a defensive liability, but Doughty is undeniably the better all-around player.

[druetetective]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is wrong, and the debate's over, so you can continue to live in your cave and I won't argue with you.

The point is that even if you don't think that the evidence I put forward is convincing, you'd have to be a complete idiot to suggest that it has NO value. Goals and assists don't tell anywhere near a complete story of who a player is, but they give SOME information. Giveaways and takeaways don't tell a whole story, but they give you SOME information.

Consequently, even if you don't think the evidence is as convincing as the person offering it would like it to be, it's still at least some basis for an evaluation. Whereas someone saying "I watch hockey and you guys are just going to have to trust me because I'm an expert" is has no value whatsoever.

only kidding don't ban me

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by JayP

He scores more when he plays on Team Canada's All-Star team - the same thing could be said about basically hockey player on earth.

The whole "Doughty could score more if he wanted to" argument is such a farce. Wherever you land on this debate, the idea that you can discount Karlsson's massive offensive edge because of a hypothetical scenario is ridiculous. Karlsson is scoring at a historic rate for defensemen relative to his peers, but Doughty could apparently do it too easily if he wanted. I mean, he only has 123 points versus Karlsson's 208 points in the last three systems - systems account for a 40% drop in scoring, right?

If Doughty could score more if he wasn't in such a defensive system, why doesn't he get penalized for looking better defensively when he's surrounded by more responsible defensive and better overall players? It's the exact same baseless argument.

Were you a Flame fan during the Sutter days? It's pretty obvious that the guy prefers a structured defensive game instead of a run-and-gun style of hockey that Ottawa plays. It's just like how J.Bo looked like a complete waste of money until Hartley's system allowed him to start pinching into the play and being the 4th forward on rushes.

It's so damn obvious that Doughty would score more on probably 3/4 of the other teams in the league. But run-and-gun hockey is not the way to success even if it's fun to watch. Ottawa has been known to let in tons of goals in recent years. It's always risk vs. reward in those systems and they don't work in the playoffs when every mistake is amplified. Ottawa's lack of playoff success shows that.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I would take Doughty over Karlson as well, but be fair here. Karlsson did a great deal of heavy lifting in dragging the Senators into the playoffs last year, and he is by far the largest reason they are in shouting distance of the post-season this.

You don't think Hammonds incredible win streak and .940 save percentage was a bigger factor?

Or Ryan Stones crazy 2nd half PPG scoring pace?

Edmonton had nothing else going for them when Pronger led them to the finals. Ottawa also didn't have much playoff success. Big difference.

[PeteMoss]

Doughty is not a great offensive player, he's very good but not great. It doesn't matter who coaches him, he's not going to be near Karlsson in points.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by BlackRedGold25

Yes because the player Karlsson is now is EXACTLY the same as the player he was when he entered the league. Or the same player he was when he was recovering from a sliced Achiles tendon. He has had three minus seasons - his first two in the league on a team with horrible goaltending and the season where he was still recovering from his Achilles injury and couldn't pivot but still lead dmen in point while not winning the Norris which some fools believe is only given to the blueliner with the most points.

Also +/- is not just a 5 on 5 stat. It is also affected by short handed goals which will affect Karlsson more since he plays much more on the PP (usually as the only dman) than the PK. It is also affected by empty net goals.

You proclaim Doughty better because of his team's record yet Karlsson was playing in the playoffs last season unlike Doughty. Ottawa is not one of the worst teams in the league - they're in the middle third. And head to head this season against each other Karlsson is a +3 and Doughty is a -4.

You may or may not watch a lot of hockey but I don't think you watch it intelligently.

So his bad +/- is due to early in his career. Okay well he's still not a plus player so I don't know how his early career stats are relevant. What is funny is that a minus player won the Norris trophy 2 times and is well on his way to winning a 3rd.

I'd also be quite concerned if his poor +/- was due to letting in shorthanded goals. Not sure why a self proclaimed intelligent person would bother bringing that up as it's a negligible stat at best.

Head-to-head over the course of 1-2 games is also a stat-picking joke. If that's what your leading with to prove me wrong than your already grasping at straws.

You may or may not watch a lot of hockey, but I don't think you remember what you've watched old man.

I can be an insulting little twat as well.

[PeteMoss]

Here's the thing - Karlsson is lapping the field offensively. He's got 25% more points than 2nd place defenseman scorer.

If you want Doughty to win - he's got to be 25% better defensively than guys in his scoring range - Subban, Suter, Brodie, Weber, Keith. I just don't think you can make that argument.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Oh and by the way, that beast of a defensemen Chris Pronger who led his crap team to the playoffs, has had the highest +/- in the league in 2 separate years.

If you want to talk about Correlation vs. Causation, I think this stat applies.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Doughty is not a great offensive player, he's very good but not great. It doesn't matter who coaches him, he's not going to be near Karlsson in points.

I agree, but to say he wouldn't get more points under Ottawa's system is laughable.

Doughty's 2 most productive offensive seasons came before Sutter took over as coach.

So either he regressed at the age of 21 or Sutter's system is holding back Doughty from padding his individual numbers in exchange for Stanley cups. Not a bad trade off.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by codynw

Imagine the boost he would get if he were the go to guy on the powerplay, and if the powerplay didn't stink.

Brodie's not good on the PP (won't shoot) so he's never going to be a go to guy on a PP.

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

I agree, but to say he wouldn't get more points under Ottawa's system is laughable.

Doughty's 2 most productive offensive seasons came before Sutter took over as coach.

So either he regressed at the age of 21 or Sutter's system is holding back Doughty from padding his individual numbers in exchange for Stanley cups. Not a bad trade off.

That one 59 point season looks like a giant outlier from the rest of his career driven by a crazy high shooting percentage.

His next best scoring season was last year and he's on pace to beat it this year so not sure where you are getting two seasons from.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Brodie's not good on the PP (won't shoot) so he's never going to be a go to guy on a PP.



That one 59 point season looks like a giant outlier from the rest of his career driven by a crazy high shooting percentage.

His next best scoring season was last year and he's on pace to beat it this year so not sure where you are getting two seasons from.

He was projected to have a 3 fewer points, but scored 4 more goals in 2010-11 so I consider that a more productive season than last year.

And it's very rare for a player to have an outlier season at 19 years of age. More likely that he opted for a more structured and well-rounded style of play.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

He was projected to have a 3 fewer points, but scored 4 more goals in 2010-11 so I consider that a more productive season than last year.

And it's very rare for a player to have an outlier season at 19 years of age. More likely that he opted for a more structured and well-rounded style of play.

His shooting percentage that year was 11.3%. His career number is 6.3% (and that includes the 11.3% season). If he was at his career shooting percentage that year - he'd have had 9 goals and the season would be in line with most of his career.

On the opposite end, last year his shooting percentage was 3.2%, at 6.3% he'd have scored 14 goals instead of 7.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

His shooting percentage that year was 11.3%. His career number is 6.3% (and that includes the 11.3% season). If he was at his career shooting percentage that year - he'd have had 9 goals and the season would be in line with most of his career.

On the opposite end, last year his shooting percentage was 3.2%, at 6.3% he'd have scored 14 goals instead of 7.

Hahaha this actually helps to prove my point if you look closely.

He had an 11.3% shooting percentage that year because of his 30 Power Play Points. This could just as easily be explained by Sutter having a less productive power play system or a system that isn't anchored by Doughty like Ottawa's is with Karlsson.

Special team success is as much due to coaching as it is the personnel. Just look at the Flames. Looking at the PP combinations they have to work with, an outsider would think the Flames would have a top-15 powerplay not dead last.

[ricardodw]

If we are going to let scoring decide who is the best D man then Karlsson does not even make the top 10.

Generational scorer???? Brent Burns ( a heck od a d-man who is incredibly hard to play against) with 21 goals has basically twice Karlsson's 11.

OEL has 7 GWG on a equally a crappy team to Karlsson's has put up 2.

Karlsson is tied for 19-34th among D-men with 2 GWG..... Hamilton AND Schlemko have 3 each along with Drew "just win baby" Doughty

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Oh and by the way, that beast of a defensemen Chris Pronger who led his crap team to the playoffs, has had the highest +/- in the league in 2 separate years.

If you want to talk about Correlation vs. Causation, I think this stat applies.

Other defensemen that have dominated the +/- stat (and I mean seriously dominated):

Bobby Orr
Denis Potvin
Larry Robinson
Nick Lidstrom
Ray Bourque

Coincidentally, most people would include at least 3 or 4 of those guys (if not all 5) on their list of top 5 defensemen of all time.

Karlsson's negative +/- is a bit of a thing.

And yes, I know +/- is a team stat. But historically great players tend to have great teams rise up around them.

[Jason14h]

I honestly have to read your posts at least twice ricardodw everytime!

And you included a player who plays forward occasionally.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher

Wanna win a Stanley Cup or a Gold Medal? Doughty will help you.

Some fans don't understand defense in the NHL. Don't know how to evaluate it. Don't know how to watch for it. Some of these people believe the defenseman who scores the most points is the best defenseman in the league. I'm not saying any of you fit in to this category, a lot of the people I disagree with about Karlsson are still sophisticated fans.

If you have the ability to evaluate defensive play at the NHL level and you've watched a lot of Drew Doughty then you know he's arguably the best defenseman in the NHL. Same could be said of Duncan Keith, he's in the that conversation too. Erik Karlsson fails to possess the overall game of either of those guys, sorry fanboys. There's two ends of the rink and you have to evaluate defensemen on their play in both ends, not just in the offensive end. Karlsson is far from elite in his own end. He's elite in the offensive zone and neutral zone. That's reality as I see it. Karlsson helps you score goals and does less to help you prevent goals. Doughty helps you prevent goals and helps you score goals.

Some people philosophically disagree with the idea of awarding the Norris to someone who isn't elite in their own end. Some people want the Norris to go to a defenseman who helps you prevent goals.

Karlsson basically single handedly carried Team Sweden to a silver last year missing 3 of their top centers (Backstrom, Zetterberg, Sedin). He won best defenceman in the entire tournament (which included Doughty).

But no, Doughty is what got Canada gold, couldn't be the rest of Team Canada.

But yes, if Norris should go to a defenceman that helps you prevent goals, then Doughty shouldn't be in the equation either. Regehr or Mitchell should be the ones winning the Norris right?

[Street Pharmacist]

Plus minus says Maata and Campbell are the best defensemen in the league this year