The Norris isn’t enough: Why Erik Karlsson deserves to win the Hart Trophy

[Rylant]

No player on a team that misses the playoffs should be considered for the Hart Trophy. Ever. The statement "Joe Blow was SO valuable to his team that they didn't even make the playoffs" are words that should never be spoken...

Rylant

[chuckcouples]

Here's my question for all of you Karlsson should win the Norris Trophy people:

Why would Karlsson deserve the Norris over Brent Burns? The dman who has scored 18 goals and has 22 assists on the season has done a lot more offensively than the guy who has 9 goals and 36 assists.

[Axeman33]

If Karlsson can have a 2nd half like he did last season, and push the Sens into the playoffs, then I can see him in the conversation. They need Anderson or Hammond to pull off another Hamburgler this season to get them into the playoffs though.

[Pengwin7]

Here's my question for all of you Karlsson should win the Norris Trophy people:
Why would Karlsson deserve the Norris over Brent Burns? The dman who has scored 18 goals and has 22 assists on the season has done a lot more offensively than the guy who has 9 goals and 36 assists.

And this almost smells of the typical opinion that only Defensive-looking defensemen are worthy of the Norris.
Popular Opinion: Big-lumberjack-looking-defenseman HAS to be better candidate for Norris because he look like big-lumberjack-defenseman.
Here's the +/- of the SJ defensemen, who play on the same team, behind the same forwards, in front of the same goalie.

+8 Dillon
+7 Braun
+5 Vlasic
+3 Tennyson
-2 Martin
-4 Mueller
...
-10 Burns

I'm a Burns fan... but there's no way a guy is Norris-worthy when his +/- is THIS far back of his fellow D-men.

[Big Ev]

Here's my question for all of you Karlsson should win the Norris Trophy people:

Why would Karlsson deserve the Norris over Brent Burns? The dman who has scored 18 goals and has 22 assists on the season has done a lot more offensively than the guy who has 9 goals and 36 assists.

That is a very flawed statement...I don't need to get into why.

[Big Ev]

If Karlsson can have a 2nd half like he did last season, and push the Sens into the playoffs, then I can see him in the conversation. They need Anderson or Hammond to pull off another Hamburgler this season to get them into the playoffs though.

They don't need a superhuman goalie to get them in. They just need to keep putting the puck in the net and limit shots against .

[JagrBomb]

And this almost smells of the typical opinion that only Defensive-looking defensemen are worth of the Norris.
[IBig lumberjack looking defenseman HAS to be better candidate for Norris because he look like big lumberjack defenseman.[/I]
Here's the +/- of the SJ defensemen, who play on the same team, behind the same forwards, in front of the same goalie.

+8 Dillon
+7 Braun
+5 Vlasic
+3 Tennyson
-2 Martin
-4 Mueller
-10 Burns

I'm a Burns fan... but there's no way a guy is Norris-worthy when his +/- is THIS far back of his fellow D-men.

2010-2011 Detroit Red Wings when Lidstrom won the Norris:

+15 Abdelkader
+11 Rafalski
+11 Datsyuk
+9 Helm

... 15 other teammates

-2 Lidstrom (only 6 players on the team finished with worse +/-)

[NikW71]

sens need to make the playoffs for karlsson to win the Hart. i'm not sure, but has someone won the hart while missing the playoffs?

Lemieux won the Hart in 1988 where only 5 teams missed the playoffs. Also won the Lester B Pearson award twice while missing the playoffs as well (1986 & 1988).

As long as the Sens are close to making the playoffs and Karlsson continues to be the catalyst that he currently is, I think he has a good shot!

[Big Ev]

It really would be a great way to fix this problem. Karlsson is so far ahead of every other blueliner offensively, but his play at the other end is laughable at times. He's nowhere close to Hart material as far as I am concerned. Now, don't get me wrong, he'd be the #1 blueliner I'd choose if I were picking a team, but there's too many forwards making a bigger difference for their team this year. When your team can't even make the postseason I don't believe you deserve a sniff of the Hart. Just my opinion and history doesn't seem to skew that way all the time either.

Like who? We're talking about a d-man who is 5th in scoring and plays half the game for his team. Who other than Kane is making a bigger impact? Without Karlsson the Sens would be in the bottom five right now.

Also it's premature to say they won't make the playoffs as of today. Let's wait and see for that.

- - - Updated - - -

Without Karlsson the Sens are a borderline AHL caliber team. He deserves the Hart pretty much every year to be honest.

ok that's a stretch to call them AHL calibre with the star forwards they have. But their D would take a huge hit.

[Big Ev]

For Karlsson to have any chance, he's going to have to be a PPG+ player and the Sens are going to have to be a decent playoff team.

He won the Norris last year in large part b/c he was so good during the Sens great stretch run, but he's going to lose votes b/c he's a defenseman and he's an offensive defenseman. There's guys who won't vote for him simply for those two reasons. So he's going to have to be absolutely nuts for the rest of the year, and I'm not sure that gets it done.

I mean, let's face facts. The Hart rarely goes to the player most valuable to his team. It goes to a leading scorer on a very good team, or to the guy most see as the best overall player in the league. So Kane is the leading scorer in the league on the defending champs. Tough to beat that. Price was the most valuable player to his team...but he was helped a lot by being in Montreal and the buzz that goes with being the face of the Habs. He deserved it, certainly, but being with the Canadiens made it a no-doubter.

Not shots at any of those guys. Love the games of all four (Benn, Kane, Price, Karlsson). But there's way more to this than just "he's the most valuable player to his team"

Agreed with the Montreal thing. The same teams are always fondled by the media (Chicago, Pittsburgh, Boston, Philly, Washington, New York, Montreal) and will always be overrated even if they are truly great teams/players.

[Pengwin7]

2010-2011 Detroit Red Wings when Lidstrom won the Norris:

+15 Abdelkader
+11 Rafalski
+11 Datsyuk
+9 Helm

...

-2 Lidstrom (only 6 players on the team finished with worse +/-)

I don't disagree that a guy CAN win the Norris.
I don't think Lidstrom deserved it that year.

There's two lines of thinking, though, when we discuss awards:
1) COULD HE? (which is simply a matter of whether the voters like a guy... heck voters are just fans who watch each team play 5-10 games)
2) SHOULD HE? (which... when somebody provides their own opinion on whether a player "DESERVES" it... this is what they are attending to.)

In simpler terms:
Do I think Burns could win the Norris? Yes - I could see the voters going with him.
Do I think Burns SHOULD win the Norris? Definitely not.

Do I think Karlsson could win the Norris? Yes - I could see the voters going with him.
Do I think Karlsson SHOULD win the Norris? At this point of season, yes.

[For the record, my opinion of the voters specific-knowledge related to whether a player DESERVES trophies is kind of low. The Norris is voted on by the Professional Hockey Writers' Association. I like writers, don't get me wrong here... but many hockey writers are just very strong writers who happened to get an opportunity in the hockey world. I think very few, based on what I read in style/bios, would actually tell you that they wanted their whole life to BE a hockey writer first & foremost. I would bet that only maybe 25% or less of all writers actually PLAYED some level of competitive hockey growing up. Again - not a slam, a lot of very good writers have been so passionate about writing their whole lives that there was no time for organized sports in their life. Unfortunately, though, this means that their selection for their Norris ballot is going to primarily be a combination of a player's reputation and the team's success - which they likely will absorb through regurgitated opinions of their peers. Perhaps a tiny-tiny-bit is what that writer can actually analyze in comparison of one-defender vs. another during that one singular NHL season. Think about this, most writers cover ONE team, which means they see every other NHL team perhaps 5-6 times on the entire season... maybe they see divisional opponents play 15-20 games... but these people aren't catching 30 or 40 or 80 games from the teams they don't cover. I think they get this award wrong a LOT... and simply give it to a guy that has been solid for the last 3+ years and is also in good standing talent-wise with the general media/fan opinion. On a year-by-year basis, I'm usually left disappointed in the order of the players. Most hockey writers are WRITERS first and foremost... and hockey analysts a distant second. Important to keep that in mind. I'm sure actors have the same issues with movie-critics voting on who deserved an award. Or readers voting on the best writer. Which is why people like GRRM host their own informal awards events.]

[chuckcouples]

And this almost smells of the typical opinion that only Defensive-looking defensemen are worthy of the Norris.
Popular Opinion: Big-lumberjack-looking-defenseman HAS to be better candidate for Norris because he look like big-lumberjack-defenseman.
Here's the +/- of the SJ defensemen, who play on the same team, behind the same forwards, in front of the same goalie.

+8 Dillon
+7 Braun
+5 Vlasic
+3 Tennyson
-2 Martin
-4 Mueller
...
-10 Burns

I'm a Burns fan... but there's no way a guy is Norris-worthy when his +/- is THIS far back of his fellow D-men.

I thought everyone agreed that plus/minus is a very flawed stat. So far this season, at even strength, Brent Burns has been on the ice for 44 more scoring chances for than scoring chances against. The Sharks shooting percentage with Burns on the ice has been 6.7% while Braun and Vlasic are at 10.73 and 11.76 respectively. If the Sharks shooting percentage when Burns was on the ice was the same as when Braun was on the ice, Burns would have been on the ice for 15 more even strength goals this year. That would make his +/- 5 instead of -10. That's a huge difference.

For comparison sakes, the Senators also have scored on 11.23% of their even strength shots with Erik Karlsson on the ice. Karlsson has been on the ice for only 9 more scoring chances for than scoring chances against and he's been on the ice for 3 more high danger scoring changes against then for. Burns is +26 in high danger scoring chances.

[Rodgort]

Here's my question for all of you Karlsson should win the Norris Trophy people:

Why would Karlsson deserve the Norris over Brent Burns? The dman who has scored 18 goals and has 22 assists on the season has done a lot more offensively than the guy who has 9 goals and 36 assists.

I can think of two:
1) The people who vote for the Norris still think +/- should be used to evaluate players
2) Like 90% of the voters are out East and rarely watch West coast games, especially in the Pacific time zone

There's a good case for Burns and a good case for Karlsson, but it is also mid-way point of the season so there is still a ton of hockey left

[Pengwin7]

I thought everyone agreed that plus/minus is a very flawed stat. So far this season, at even strength, Brent Burns has been on the ice for 44 more scoring chances for than scoring chances against. The Sharks shooting percentage with Burns on the ice has been 6.7% while Braun and Vlasic are at 10.73 and 11.76 respectively. If the Sharks shooting percentage when Burns was on the ice was the same as when Braun was on the ice, Burns would have been on the ice for 15 more even strength goals this year. That would make his +/- 5 instead of -10. That's a huge difference.

For comparison sakes, the Senators also have scored on 11.23% of their even strength shots with Erik Karlsson on the ice. Karlsson has been on the ice for only 9 more scoring chances for than scoring chances against and he's been on the ice for 3 more high danger scoring changes against then for. Burns is +26 in high danger scoring chances.

1. Trust me, not everyone agrees that plus/minus is a very flawed stat. I do not. Flawed, yes. Very flawed, no. [When the top five all-time +/ leaders are named Robinson, Orr, Bourque, Gretzky, Clarke... it's not a VERY flawed stat.]
2. All stats are flawed. Even Corsi (shot attempts) and other enhanced stats are flawed.
3. When you talk about scoring percentages, theory (such as PDO) assumes that eventually SH% normalizes... but some defenders do give up higher-SH% opps and some players do create higher-SH%-opps.

I won't disagree with you on the Braun/Vlasic SH% stats. They have been on for some fortunate attempts - valid point. It suggests their +/- could be lower if the Sharks on-ice SH% is lower.
But Burns is still -10, facing about level 5-on-5 competition.
And... in support of Burns... Paul Martin ain't no super-duper D-partner any more... neither was Dillon last year... and it's hard to separate out what a D-man gains/loses in stats from his partner's presence.

We also go to 5-on-5 stats and then try to figure out what the fair value of PPTOI or PKTOI is towards overall value.

I'm not gonna lie... there's gonna be stats somebody could hand-select for any player that can help support or discredit that player's value.
I like +/- (relative to own teammates).
Ultimately, it's the difference in goals scored vs. goals against that makes a team win or lose.
There's bad bumps over the course of a season, but they should level out.

Peng's Burns Summary
Burns is a team D-worst -10 on a team that is a +5 as a team.
He has 40pts incl. 19PPP on a team with very dynamic PP pieces. He's shooting 10% (a career 7.5% sh, some luck there)
From the SJ games I've watched (~15, I like SJ & esp. Pavelski), he's been very good all-around. (To use a qualitative opinion, that most people seem to prefer.)
SJ has 44pts in 41gp.

Peng's Karlsson Summary
Karlsson's +3 is slightly above average on an OTT team that is -12 as a team.
He has 45pts incl. 16PPP on an average or sub-average PP1 unit (relative to NHL, IMO).
From the OTT games I've watched (~8 to 10), he's been excellent all-around. (To use a qualitative opinion, that most people seem to prefer.)
OTT has 46pts in 43gp.


From what I've seen... and the stats I crunch... Karlsson > Burns this year.
Burns is going to have to SJ into the playoffs AND get closer to +0 to be in contention to deserve to win... in my books.

It's all opinion when it comes down to it.
This is mine from what I've viewed & what I supplement that viewing with (numbers).

P7
NHL GameCenter Subscriber and DOUBLE-GAME-VIEWER (most nights)

[2014olympicgold]

Karlsson also has better takeaway and giveaway numbers
(Burns 25TA, 58GA – Karlsson 35TA, 44GA)

Karlsson CF% - 57.3
Burns CF% - 54.9

Karlsson FF% - 55.9
Burns FF% - 55.9

Karlsson PDO – 100.7
Burns PDO – 98.9

Just a quick few advanced stats I saw.