| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Guest9947
( )
|
 Posted - 04/09/2010 : 16:38:26
|
Actually no, it's a total perversion of the original scenario. Beans was basically saying:
"you get to choose one defenceman for two extreme situations, one where defence is key and one where offence is key, who do you choose?"
The argument being that instead of picking the guy that is offensively gifted but a defensive liability (Green), you take a guy that, while perhaps not quite as offensively gifted, is far more defensively solid (Keith), in order to suceed in BOTH scenarios.
And this was converted into:
"Well, if we let in a goal on defence we could always score in o/t, and if we score on offence we will need to score in o/t. You need to score to win games, therefore you need the best offensive defenceman"
BUT you also would need to defend against the other team from scoring in o/t, or it's game over. That is why the logic is dubious and unconvincing. And besides, it is an unwarranted extension of the hypothetical. The question wasn't what d-man you would choose in these situations and other situations that may or may not arise subsequently, it was what d-man would you choose if you had to choose ONE d-man to play in BOTH situations. |
 |
|
|
Hugh G. Rection
Rookie
165 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2010 : 18:01:46
|
| Yes... except Bean's hypothetical situation has nothing to do with the Norris trophy, at all. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2010 : 19:49:47
|
Hey Hugh, please explain to me what your definition of the
National Hockey League's top "defense player who demonstrates throughout the season the greatest all-round ability in the position
If it not the best player offenisvely and defensively, than what is it??
I'm really confused. |
|
|
|
polishexpress
PickupHockey Pro
525 Posts |
Posted - 04/09/2010 : 22:20:27
|
| Whoever wins, whether it be Keith, Green, or someone else, they will definitely be deserving of the trophy, regardless of what we post. |
|
|
|
redneck76ca
Rookie
186 Posts |
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2010 : 06:05:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by redneck76ca
quote:
Originally posted by polishexpress
Whoever wins, whether it be Keith, Green, or someone else, they will definitely be deserving of the trophy, regardless of what we post.
Green vs Keith: By The Numbers
http://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Steven-Hindle/Mike-Green-VS-Duncan-Keith---By-the-Numbers/98/27567
All due respect, this is a report written by a Caps beat writter and the 2nd paragraph says is all.
Arguments over defense aside, even as Green has improved leaps and bounds in his own end over seasons past, I feel a key to Mike’s success and one of the most under-rated attributes of his game is his ability to keep play out of his own end.
So he is good defensively because he doesn't have to do it as often??
Ultimately, that article was pretty much what Hugh has been posted all along. We all know the numbers offensive and we all know how that impacts Green's +/-.
The argument is not what the stats are, it's if you believe they are the key. Personally, I would rather have a defensemen that will add offensive but can be a pilar on defense as well. Others believe that a great offense is a good defense. |
|
|
|
Guest9947
( )
|
Posted - 04/10/2010 : 08:07:32
|
While I wouldn't agree that the hypothetical is completely irrelevant, I might agree that it isn't the perfect test for who should be the Norris trophy winner. But then say that instead of making the ridiculous assertion that out of all the defencemen in the league, you'd want Mike Green in desperate up-one-goal situation.
It is indefensible to say that offense is the only consideration in choosing the Norris.
The real issue here is: how far is Mike Green behind other top d-men defensively compared to how far he is ahead offensively. Lets say, hypothetically we have two defencemen. Lets call them Mike and Duncan. Duncan is one of the elite shut down defencemen in the league, while Mike is only average defensively. However, Mike has 100 points on the season, while Duncan has 60. Then I would say "despite Mike's relative weakness defensively, he is so far ahead of the game offensively that I would have to choose him for the Norris over Duncan".
But lets say we have another entirely hypothetical situation. Duncan is still one of the elite shut down defencemen in the league, and Mike is still only average defensively. But now Mike has 75 points to Duncan's 68. Then I would say that the margin of advantage that Mike enjoys over Duncan is not enough to overcome his deficit in defensive ability, and I would choose Duncan over Mike for the Norris.
See where I'm going? |
|
|
|
Hugh G. Rection
Rookie
165 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2010 : 10:31:40
|
Beans, the NHL's quote:
quote:
National Hockey League's top "defense player who demonstrates throughout the season the greatest all-round ability in the position
Yours deals with a hypothetical one-time situation, pitting offensive ability vs. defencive ability. If Keith played 5 games this season, would he still qualify for the Norris? Just proving using the nonsense extreme situations doesn't prove anything.
Also, you pointed to a playoff scenario, which obviously has even less to do with a regular-season award. Heres a better hypothetical: If you had a vote for the Norris trophy winner, who would you pick? That's the purpose of this thread, after all.
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 04/10/2010 : 12:11:24
|
This 'nonsense exteme situation' really proves everything, some just can't see a different perspective. It comes down to a players reputation based on what they do on a regular basis. If there is a defensemen who "demonstrates through out the regular season the greatest ALL AROUND ability in the position" than would it not make sense to think that playerswould be the choice for the most important offensive and defensive situations come the playoffs??
I guess this theory is just too complex to consider.
|
|
|
|
irvine
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1315 Posts |
Posted - 04/19/2010 : 21:47:23
|
Agreed Beans. I understand exactly what it is you are saying, and I agree.
The tropy (Norris) is given to the player who demonstrates the best overall ability in both offense and defense on the back end. Thus, as you said in your hypothetical, that the player who wins it should be a guy who you would put in to both situations (Offensive one or Defensive one) in a key situation. Not just one or the other.
You want the guy who will get you that much needed goal from the blueline, and who can go out and shutdown the oppositions top line, during a crucial part of the game.
Mike Green, to me, is not that guy. He's the guy you put in for a goal, when needed. But to me, he's not the guy you put out there with 30 seconds to go in a game, that you are leading 3-2. He does not have that shutdown ability. He has improved since last season, defensively. I will give Green that. But he's still certainly not the best defensive d-man in the league, nor is his offensive ability so far above the rest that he averages out to the best all around defensemen.
To me, the Norris goes to a guy who puts up solid numbers and shuts down teams more often than not.
But, what I am really getting at... is I agree with what you are getting at with your 'hypothetical'. It's about a guy you can utilize for both, and a guy who will succeed more often than not in both situations. Does not just excel at one of the two.
Irvine/prez. |
|
|
|
Guest6869
( )
|
Posted - 04/20/2010 : 14:34:13
|
| why do people think kaberle is a good defenceman ? his plus/minus is always terrible , year after year. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 04/28/2010 : 23:08:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Let me pose a question which might(just might) have some people understand my perspective.
Based on this year's play alone, you can choose any NHL defensemen in the league to be on the ice for your team in the NHL finals playing against the team with both the best offense and best defense in the playoffs. You will encouter 2 situations in those finals with the series and Cup on the line. One situation you will be down one goal with 45 seconds left. The other situations you will be up one goal with 45 seconds left.
You can choose one, and only one defensemen that would be your go to guy in both of those situations.
Who do you pick????
Remember this question? Anyone see the Montreal / Washington game? Anyone see the winning goal? Anyone see who got outmuscled for the puck defensively? Granted, it wasn't the last 45 seconds, but that's a puck that Green HAS to win possesion of and not simply get bumped off it by a forward. He, if nothing else, has to at least make contact with the puck and not lose a battle at a time like that! I do think John Carlson was somewhat lazy in coming back to help. He could have easily skated hard and tied up Moore, who the puck went to, and prob stopped that goal! Regardless, and i know it wasn't in the last 45 seconds, Green came up short at a crucial time! |
|
|
|
Guest8353
( )
|
Posted - 04/29/2010 : 04:40:48
|
Alex
For all those reasons that is why Green wasn't on the Olympic team. I am sure there will still be people who say he is the best d man in the league.
Those same people will say Ovie is the best player. Not even close anymore. Sid is so far ahead of him it's not even funny. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Best D-man trophy (LOL) 
