[News] Norris Finalists: Chara, Keith, Weber

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

Weber was nominated. Gio was hurt. I personally don't think a D who played 75% of the games can be one of the 3 best defencemen for THE SEASON.

You don't help the team on the IR.

If you want players I would have nominated over Keith besides Giordano, then Suter and Doughty. I think a lesser argument can also be made for McDonagh.

It's not like I don't think Keith isn't a top 10 defenceman in the NHL, but he simply did not have the same impact on the game as Weber, Chara, Suter, Doughty, or Giordano this season.

[codynw]

The fact that Weber has never won a Norris trophy and Karlsson has shows just how screwed up the voting for this award is.

[EldrickOnIce]

Ok, so obviously Keith has better advanced stats that Karlsson, or simply +/- , or what?

Because if Keith is nominated as an 'offensive defenseman' type, he sure had a lot less points than Karlsson

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Ok, so obviously Keith has better advanced stats that Karlsson, or simply +/- , or what?

Because if Keith is nominated as an 'offensive defenseman' type, he sure had a lot less points than Karlsson

Despite Keith's easy QoC and zone starts compared to his competition, Karlsson has it easier.

Lesser QoC: Cowen, Methot, Phillips, and even the rookie Ceci faced tougher competition even strength.

He had a similar offensive zone start ratio, but was 6th (!!) on his team. When you consider the overall quality of the teams, that's simply not good.

But most people know that Karlsson kind of goes on an adventure in his own end of the rink.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I didn't just use 4 "superficial stats".

Players like Weber and Giordano did it all this season. They hit, they blocked shots, and they scored. Keith didn't do those first two because the other defencemen balances it out? That's an argument against Keith, not for. It's an individual award.

This is not an argument anyone can win, so let's stop acting like it.

Keith blocked shots too. 89 to be exact. That's not much less than Chara's 104, but it's about half as much as Weber (and less than Gio despite Gio playing less games). What do you think would be a good reason for that? If you guessed "Keith has significantly higher possession numbers than Weber" you'd be correct!

See, Keith blocks less and hits less, because he has the puck MORE. He's a puck possession defenceman. His zone starts aren't as high in the defensive zone 5 on 5, but when he's on the ice his team is controlling the puck FAR more than Weber, and a good amount more than Chara.

The problem here is how you're valuing what it means to be a defenceman in today's NHL. These guys have different roles, but it's all about how you perform in your role and how you accomplish goals outside of your area of expertise. Keith is an offensive, puck possession defenceman. Does he hit a lot? No, but he blocks a decent amount of shots considering his possession numbers.

With Keith, the Hawks are in possession of the puck 56.8% of the time. Chara 55.2 and Weber 48%. It might not seem like a lot at only 3-8% different, but considering you claim the quality of competition difference between all three is significant at only 2%, then I'd say the numbers speak for themselves.

I have no problem if you say "Weber deserves the award," because quite frankly I think all three men deserve their nominations and I would not be shocked by any means to see any of the three win it. They were all the best defencemen in the NHL this year. The problem I, and I think a lot of people have, is the extremes you're going to in order to make your point. Keith deserves to get nominated, he was just THAT good, if you don't see it, you're wrong. It's not that it's an opinion or whatever, you're just wrong. Sorry. Furthermore, to say that you know better than professional hockey writers? Come on man. You barely know better than 95% of the people here, so don't act like you know better than people whose profession it is to study and write about hockey. It just makes you sound ignorant on every single level.

Again, if you prefer one of the other guys, that's fine, these guys are outstanding. But you'd do a lot better around here if you chilled with the hyperbole. It's getting a little crazy. People will listen to you without you being outlandish every time.

[Ashasx]

a 2% difference in QoC is extremely significant, considering most defencemen in the NHL fall within the range of the original graph I posted

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

a 2% difference in QoC is extremely significant, considering most defencemen in the NHL fall within the range of the original graph I posted

Actually, MOST defencemen fall outside of the range of the original graph you posted.

Defencemen with worse QoC than Keith:
179 out of 262, or 68%

Again, not arguing Keith's QoC was brilliant, but "most" is a lie.

Considering the difference between Chara and Keith is 1.6% (1.2% between Weber and Keith) and the chart ranges 4.8% (a 33% spread), it's not quite as significant as the 8.6% gap between Keith and Weber (1.4% between Keith and Chara) on a chart that ranges 21.2% (41% spread).

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by strombad

The problem I, and I think a lot of people have, is the extremes you're going to in order to make your point. Keith deserves to get nominated, he was just THAT good, if you don't see it, you're wrong. It's not that it's an opinion or whatever, you're just wrong. Sorry.

Furthermore, to say that you know better than professional hockey writers? Come on man. You barely know better than 95% of the people here, so don't act like you know better than people whose profession it is to study and write about hockey. It just makes you sound ignorant on every single level.

And boom goes the dynamite. 100% this, I couldn't have said it any better.

[Ashasx]

Can you guys tell me where I've stated things on this forum that have proven to be so wrong where it affords you the statement "you barely know better than 95% of the people here", from a poster who has been banned in the past.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Can you guys tell me where I've stated things on this forum that have proven to be so wrong where it affords you the statement "you barely know better than 95% of the people here".

Well, while I don't necessarily disagree with that, I never claimed that. I claimed you tend to whine a lot while saying outlandish things. What you're saying in this thread (Keith didn't even deserve a nomination / you know better than those who pick this award) is outlandish, and this post has a whining tone to it. Are you questioning yourself, fearing what he said about you knowing less than 95% of those here - is true? It sounds like it. If someone had said that to me I would have just disregarded it, never mind felt the need to question if it might be true.

I do think you're correct in saying that this is subjective to a degree and I've said my piece. I don't think advance stats are needed to concretely say what's blatantly obvious. Watching Duncan Keith this year and the last few - it's obvious the guy thinks and plays the game on a different level. He's one of the very best in the game at both ends of the ice - point blank. Very deserving of the Norris he's already won, and 100% deserving of a nomination this year.

I just think strombad hit the nail on the head talking about the overwhelming hyperbole. All you needed to say what that you felt there were a few better choices. Not "Keith doesn't deserve this nomination and those who think he did have no idea what this award even is". That was ignorant, and brought on the much deserved criticism of your take.

[Ashasx]

I questioned it because you quoted it, and agreed with it. I ignored it until then.

You guys keep saying I'm always wrong. Wrong about what? Iginla? Baertschi? Nemisz? Not too long ago people were on me about not wanting Ritchie at 4, now it seems to be the general consensus of this forum.

If a forum does not allow for dissenting opinion, then there is no purpose for any sort of discussion.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Can you guys tell me where I've stated things on this forum that have proven to be so wrong where it affords you the statement "you barely know better than 95% of the people here", from a poster who has been banned in the past.

Hard to say, I'd guess that any apt statement you've made has been incredibly muddied by the fact that you fill in all the blanks with hyperbole and dramatics.

What was your last username btw?

[Ashasx]

This is my one and only account to have been made on this forum.

[strombad]

Sure, that's what I always say.

Let's not make this about you, so let me wrap this portion of the conversation.

You make some good points, you say some valid stuff, but seriously man, CHILL with the hyperbole. It's exhausting. That's why you always end up victimising yourself, because people get genuinely exhausted reading the crazy amount of hyperbole you throw at the wall. Try and humanise your views a little bit so people can actually relate to and understand what you're saying.

That's all I'm going to say about you. Back to the Norris trophy! Keith's the best!

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by strombad

Do you like "advanced stats"?
Fenwick ES:
Keith - 188
Weber - 191
Chara - 166

Corsi ES:
Keith - 281
Weber - 254
Chara - 255

Are these raw ES Fenwicks and Corsis for? Or are they Fen/Corsi plus minus? Because if it's just events for that doesn't do anything to argue against Ashasx's point; I don't think anyone's arguing the Keith is a good offensive defenseman but his shot attempts against number is similarly high.

EDIT: Actually even if it is plus minus which it might be considering those seem like low raw numbers, there's still a lot of hair on that because there are 9 other guys on the ice influencing it and usually two of them are Toews, Hossa, Kane or Sharp.

He is a high event defenseman whose pace of offense-generation is higher than the pace he allows the other team to get chances against him. In other words, a top flite offensive defenseman who isn't top flite defensively; good enough offensively that his shortcomings defensively don't matter. He benefits in that regard from his teammates, many of whom ARE great defensively.

Solid refutation of the hits / blocked shots point though.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by strombad

Actually, MOST defencemen fall outside of the range of the original graph you posted.

Defencemen with worse QoC than Keith:
179 out of 262, or 68%

Again, not arguing Keith's QoC was brilliant, but "most" is a lie.

Considering the difference between Chara and Keith is 1.6% (1.2% between Weber and Keith) and the chart ranges 4.8% (a 33% spread), it's not quite as significant as the 8.6% gap between Keith and Weber (1.4% between Keith and Chara) on a chart that ranges 21.2% (41% spread).

Chara is significantly better defensively than Keith. Keith is much better offensively.

I doubt Chara will win, but when you consider he spent a large portion of his year without Seidenberg and was going up against other team's best players with Dougie Hamilton or Boychuk he had one hell of year.

[ForeverFlameFan]

I've always disliked Minnesota, but I really thought that Suter was going to at least be a nominee.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Chara is significantly better defensively than Keith. Keith is much better offensively.



I doubt Chara will win, but when you consider he spent a large portion of his year without Seidenberg and was going up against other team's best players with Dougie Hamilton or Boychuk he had one hell of year.

No denying that, Chara is a beast. Especially at his age.

[Point Blank]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

I didn't just use 4 "superficial stats".

I applaud strombad for actually taking the time to find something to defend his claim.

But then he ends his post with "you're wrong, as usual".

...

But it's not black and white. strombad did well being the first person to actually do some research before criticizing what I said (although his combined pairing stats are nonsense, especially when you consider the quality of the other defenceman [Seabrook vs Josi & Hamilton], and he knows that).

And yet you took 4 pages before actually finding something to defend YOUR claim?

It's interested how you expect people to back up their claims with numbers when they're criticizing your claim, and yet you didn't seem to expect it out of yourself.

Originally Posted by Ashasx

This is not an argument anyone can win, so let's stop acting like it.

I don't think it was ever about winning the argument, I think it was more about the way you put your claim out by saying that the voters don't know what the Norris is.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by Point Blank

And yet you took 4 pages before actually finding something to defend YOUR claim?

It's interested how you expect people to back up their claims with numbers when they're criticizing your claim, and yet you didn't seem to expect it out of yourself.



I don't think it was ever about winning the argument, I think it was more about the way you put your claim out by saying that the voters don't know what the Norris is.

It took me 4 pages? Was this argument not predicated on the graph I posted on this very first page of this thread?

How does such a graph not support my claim? How is it not backing my argument with numbers?