The Puck Stops Here
Next entry: Montreal Canadiens Potentially Sold
Previous entry: NHL Awards Announced
Why Zdeno Chara Was A Poor Norris Trophy Choice
by PuckStopsHere on 06/20/09 at 01:33 AM ET
Comments (41)
The NHL awards were announced on Thursday. One award winner, which I think was chosen poorly, was Zdeno Chara of the Boston Bruins who won the Norris Trophy. He was nominated alongside Mike Green of the Washington Capitals and Nicklas Lidstrom of the Detroit red Wings. Either of them would have made a better selection. In the First All Star Team voting, Green did defeat Chara, which shows that the race was close in the voter’s minds. Slightly changing the parameters in which they vote, changed the result (for the Norris they get one first place vote and for the all star team they get two).
Zdeno Chara was considered a Norris favorite before the 2008/09 season began. He had been a nominee in 2008, where he finished third behind Lidstrom and Dion Phaneuf of the Calgary Flames.
Comparing his Norris Trophy season to his third place finish the year before, the third place finish is the better year. Offensively, he scored 50 points this season, nearly matching his 51 point output of the year before in three fewer games. Of course it is his defensive play that is cited as the reason he won the award. However, his team had a better +/- with Chara off the ice than with him on it. This is partially explained by< the fact that Chara played against top competition, but it is not a statistic that one would expect from a Norris Trophy winner. Chara fell significantly in his on/off ice adjusted +/-. In 2007/08, he was a 0.83, which led his team (among people with more than 10 games played). This season he fell to -0.44. That is a huge drop. It can partially be explained by an improvement in the overall Boston team (to which he is compared in the method), but also to a drop in the results from his defensive play.
The idea that Chara was the toughest defender to play against in 2008/09 is a myth. It does not fit with the statistics. Certainly Chara is a good defenceman and his big size makes him intimidating, but there were better defencemen this season. It was Chara’s reputation from past success, coupled with the improvement of the Boston Bruins (something he was given significant credit for despite his regression on the ice) that made him a Norris Trophy winner.
Although the other nominees for the Norris appeared to have flaws, they had better seasons than Chara did. Mike Green was the defenceman who likely led the league in win shares (essentially won the most games for his team - this is a judgment call because there is not enough sabermetric theory in hockey to calculate such things reliably). Green had a huge season offensively. He scored 31 goals and 73 points. He had the most goals in a season for a defenceman in 16 years. He did this is a period of much lower scoring league wide than existed at that time. There is no way to deny Green’s offensive prowess. The knock on him has been defensive play, but it wasn’t a significant knock. This is shown (for example) by his 12th in the league showing in adjusted +/-. That shows that Green was good defensively (he also posted a +1.34 on/off ice adjusted +/-). His offensive success was a far bigger benefit to his team than any goals scored against him. Some may criticize the fact that Green was not actively played against the toughest opposition Washington faced (though there was no attempt to play him against weak opposition either). Mike Green had a better 2008/09 season than Zdeno Chara, but he lacked the reputation and thus lost the Norris Trophy.
Nicklas Lidstrom also had a better season than Chara. He posted more points (59 to Chara’s 50) and a better +/- by several measures (his on/off ice +/- was +1.15). The flaw in Lidstrom’s Norris case was that he had won the Norris Trophy six times and voters seemed to want a change. Lidstrom was clearly not as good in 08/09 as he had been in previous seasons, so now was the time for that change. The problem was that the player they chose to pass the Norris Trophy to actually had a worse season than Lidstrom.
SImilarly I would argue that Duncan Keith of the Chicago Blackhawks and Mark Streit of the New York Islanders also outplayed Chara. They were not Norris nominees and the margin that they beat Chara by is not as significant as Green or Lidstrom.
All told, Zdeno Chara played a worse season in 08/09 than he had the year before. He was third in the Norris voting the year before. I had him as fifth best this year. Fifth best defenceman in the 2008/09 season is very good, but it is not worthy of a Norris Trophy. Zdeno Chara won the Norris on reputation. His drop-off in defensive play was masked by the improvement in his team (Boston had the best team +/-). One could look at Chara’s +/- of +23 and not notice that is mostly a team result and his defensive play had dropped. The other Norris Trophy candidates appeared flawed. Mike Green did not have the reputation as a top defenceman especially in his own zone and Nicklas Lidstrom is in decline and it is time for a change atop the Norris standings. Therefore, neither of them won the Norris despite playing better seasons than Zdeno Chara did. Chara’s Norris Trophy was undeserved and won largely by reputation.
Filed in: | The Puck Stops Here | Permalink
Tags: Mike+Green, Nicklas+Lidstrom, Zdeno+Chara,
Comments
Probably the only thing I’ve ever read from you that didn’t make me think you were an idiot. But you still are.
Every minute I’m awake I’m proud to be a Wing fan. Part of the reason is because of brilliance like that.
Awesome.
Posted by IwoCPO from Washington, DC on 06/20/09 at 06:37 AM ET
Lidstrom plays defense better with one testicle than Mike Green can with two.
That is all.
Posted by DigitalGypsy66 on 06/20/09 at 06:41 AM ET
Lidstrom plays defense better with one testicle than Mike Green can with two.
Based on his play in the postseason, I think it may be a little dangerous to assume Green has any testicles at all.
Posted by HockeyinHD on 06/20/09 at 07:48 AM ET
This year, Mike Green was tied for 158th in short-handed time on ice. He was fifth in the league in PP time on ice. He had roughly 1:30 (1:28 than Lidstrom, 1:38 than Chara) more PP PER GAME than both Lidstrom and Chara. Yes, it’s wonderful that he scored a lot of goals when he is fed pucks to shoot at penalty killers for over 5 minutes per game. Lidstrom and Chara would have both had more points if they played an extra 2-3 shifts on the PP per game. Green’s goal scoring is impressive, but taken in or out of context, it doesn’t make you the best “defenseman”
Lidstrom has 0.11 points per powerplay minute. Green has 0.10. Yet, in 10 less games, green played 59.4 more minutes on the power play. If Lidstrom got all the time on the powerplay, he would have had 39 power play points at his regular pace, to Green’s 38. Given the same time on the powerplay, does Green’s 73 points look so astounding next to a Nick Lidstrom who was allowed on the ice for 5:22 power play time with 65? Not as much, and you have to start looking at other stats.
Green only played 68 games and was fourth in the league in giveaways. He had the most giveaways per game with 1.4. In the league.
This alone disqualifies him. There is no 30 paragraph response to qualify this stat. If you are a blueliner and hand the puck over, your goalie has to bail you out on an odd man rush.
Not.
Norris.
Material.
Posted by MarkK from Maryland on 06/20/09 at 08:02 AM ET
The Norris is “supposed” to be awarded for all-around ability by a defenseman....
I think it’s arguable that Mike Green couldn’t have played more horrendous than he did in the series vs. the Penguins....
He was terrible, an absolute liability....
Not that the playoffs matter in the voting, just sayin’....
Posted by Tony F from Virginia Beach, VA on 06/20/09 at 08:18 AM ET
God how sick is this, but I agree with a Pens fan! Compare the playoff stats of the 3 and see who stands out. Green only played in 13 playoff games and his +/- was like -5.
Compare that to Lidstroms first 13 games in the playoffs.
I had not seen Green’s give away stat, but that is pathetic. And how much of a liability is he if he’s not on the penalty kill?
Kind of like Crosby and Malkin, they never play on PK either.
Posted by Johnny 2 in Kalamazoo on 06/20/09 at 08:56 AM ET
I think it’s arguable that Mike Green couldn’t have played more horrendous than he did in the series vs. the Penguins....
He was terrible, an absolute liability....
Gets your facts straight. Green had a separated shoulder and mono during that series. He shouldn’t have even been playing. Just sayin’.
Posted by billiebee on 06/20/09 at 09:08 AM ET
If anyone cares about the actual numbers:
Player--GP--SH TOI/G
Tom Poti--52--4:22
Jeff Schultz--64--3:18
Karl Alzner--30--3:07
Shaone Morrisonn--72--2:57
Tyler Sloan--26--2:28
Mike Green--68--2:28 104th in league among D
Brian Helmer--12--1:51
John Erskine--52--1:37
Milan Jurcina--79--0:56
In comparison:
Lidstrom--78--3:27 33rd in the league among D
Chara--80--3:21 38th in the league among D
And as for this:
In the First All Star Team voting, Green did defeat Chara, which shows that the race was close in the voter’s minds.
If you want to illustrate how close (or not) it was, why not just put the voting totals up? Paul posted them yesterday:
2008-2009 Norris Trophy Voting
Pts. 1st-2nd-3rd-4th-5th
1. Zdeno Chara, BOS 1034 (68-36-18-4-0)
2. Mike Green, WSH 982 (50-53-19-4-4)
3. Nicklas Lidstrom, DET 733 (14-34-58-19-8)
Posted by K24 from NYC on 06/20/09 at 09:29 AM ET
I think we have covered a lot of ground on this blog over the last couple of days about Mike Green--he is not a very good defenceman, at least not yet. We all know this.
But the headline of this post is “Why Zdeno Chara Was A Poor Norris Choice.” And to that I have to say, once again, PuckStopsHere is an idiot. I am partial to Lidstrom, being a Wings fan, and I don’t think its over the top to say that he is the best d-man in the league. But Zdeno Chara was absolutely not a poor choice for the Norris. He is an exceptionally talented d-man and the captain of the Bruins, so he does deserve a good amount of credit for the B’s turnaround this season.
Your reasoning for saying he doesn’t deserve the award? His plus minus dropped this season compared with the overall plus minus of the rest of the team. You say that this is attributable to one of two things: either 1) The team improved over last year, or 2) the Chara’s play fell off. But, we already know that option #1 is true, so why do you dismiss it and continue to argue that Chara’s play fell off despite all other evidence to the contrary? You don’t discuss this at all! Its idiotic!
Also, what is this bullshit about the “voters wanted change this year”? This isn’t the *#$%@& electoral college, and Zdeno Chara is Barack Obama. This is probably the dumbest thing I have ever read on your blog.
Here is the truth: Lidstrom had an off season (impressive considered he is still nominated for the Norris in an ‘off season’), Chara had a very good one, and Green put up some big numbers. The big story is how the hell Green beat Lidstrom in the voting, but I don’t think anyone who is serious is saying the Chara is undeserving of the award.
Posted by John from Pittsburgh, PA (Wings fan for life!) on 06/20/09 at 09:56 AM ET
Zdeno Chara is *not Barack Obama. Sorry for the typos, I was impatient in writing this comment because this post is a waste of internet space.
Posted by John from Pittsburgh, PA (Wings fan for life!) on 06/20/09 at 09:58 AM ET
“The idea that Chara was the toughest defender to play against in 2008/09 is a myth. It does not fit with the statistics. Certainly Chara is a good defenceman and his big size makes him intimidating, but there were better defencemen this season. It was Chara’s reputation from past success, coupled with the improvement of the Boston Bruins (something he was given significant credit for despite his regression on the ice) that made him a Norris Trophy winner. ”
These blogs are like White Caste at 2 a.m.—you know how you’ll feel in the morning, but you just can’t help yourself.
A. If Chara is a “good” defenseman, who would qualify as “average” in your NHL? Rafalski?
B. Could you humor us with the number of Boston Bruins games in the regular season you viewed in order to evaluate Chara’s play, beyond a random collection of stats that would make a baseball nerd lose interest by the third paragraph?
Posted by Greg Wyshynski from Washington, DC on 06/20/09 at 10:36 AM ET
A. Chara is a good defenceman. I call him fifth best in the league last year. That’s very good. I think you are attempting to make an issue out of my lack of superlatives and not about anything of substance.
B. I imagine the number is approximately on the order of ten games in the regular season.
Posted by PuckStopsHere on 06/20/09 at 10:42 AM ET
These blogs are like White Caste at 2 a.m.—you know how you’ll feel in the morning, but you just can’t help yourself.
Love it Greg.
Posted by moore00 from the Ohio State University on 06/20/09 at 10:48 AM ET
Mike Green shouldn’t have even been a nominee. For a defenseman, offensive ability is a plus, but the most important thing is defense, and Green is awful at that.
I’m not basing that on stats, I’m not basing that on “fixed” stats, and I’m not basing that on the fact that I hate the Caps. Its based on watching about 20 Caps games this regular season plus the 7 Pens Caps playoff games and seeing just how terrible Mike Green is at defense.
As far as Chara goes, I admit I only watched about 8 B’s games all season, but in those 8 games Chara was the same Chara he has always been, and thats a solid defensive player with good leadership and a constant offensive threat.
It’s not that he improved his game a lot this season, its just that the guy who usually wins it had a slow start and no one else was even close.
Posted by Kstewy16 on 06/20/09 at 11:00 AM ET
I thought Chara was deserving given the fact that lidstrom had a sub-par season for his standards and Green’s garbage defensive play. Without Chara the Bruins wouldnt have been as good as they were this past season. Anybody that says Green should have won is an idiot....
Posted by Aaron from MI from Huron, MI on 06/20/09 at 11:44 AM ET
Fifth best defenceman in the 2008/09 season is very good, but it is not worthy of a Norris Trophy.
Yeah, and I’m still pissed that the league changed its voting to “sports writers from around the continent” from the old “Whoever Puck Stops Here thinks is the best”.
Posted by Garth on 06/20/09 at 12:00 PM ET
Gets your facts straight. Green had a separated shoulder and mono during that series. He shouldn’t have even been playing. Just sayin’.
And ???
Lidstrom played with a ruptured ballsack.... Gonchar played with a torn MCL.... They didn’t look nearly as horrible as your boy did....
Posted by Tony F from Virginia Beach, VA on 06/20/09 at 12:06 PM ET
I think Mike Green is getting unfairly bashed here. As a thought experiment, we can imagine that it was possible to break up everyone’s play into two numbers. the number of offensive goals created and the number of goals prevented defensively. Adding the two numbers would give us the best overall player. Now I don’t think anyone doubts that among defencemen in the 08/09 regular season, Green had the best offensive goals created number and by a sizeable margin.
His defensive goals prevented number is middle of the road, but his offensive number is so good that upon adding the two he remains in front among defencemen. Were this not at least plausible, it would show up in his +/-. It doesn’t. You can adjust his +/- in several ways to try to remove team problems and it still doesn’t show up. In fact his on/off ice +/- comes out better than either of the other two nominees.
Many voters and commenters look at his defence and say thats not good enough. He certainly isn’t the best defensive defenceman in hockey by a long shot. But when you add in the goals he created, I think he was worth more goals (and hence wins) than any other defenceman in hockey in the 08/09 regular season. Hence he should have won the Norris.
“Smart” hockey fans often outsmart themselves by overlooking big offensive numbers. Of all the individual stats kept, none correlate with being a good player as well as scoring goals. It is half of the equation of winning games by itself - score more than your opponent does. Green has a big league in goals scored over the rest of the defencemen in the NHL and that lead is enough that it made him the most valuable defenceman in the league (in that he won the most games for his team) despite his mid-level defensive play.
Posted by PuckStopsHere on 06/20/09 at 12:27 PM ET
“Smart” hockey fans often outsmart themselves by overlooking big offensive numbers.
You’re an idiot (no quotation marks) hockey blogger who tries to “outsmart” (quotation marks) everyone by overlooking the Norris trophy is awarded for all around play by a DEFENCEman.
Posted by VooX from Behind the Bar in the Hasek Club Car on 06/20/09 at 12:51 PM ET
And all-around play = offence + defence. In some cases, the leader may win because excels at the offensive part, in others it is because he excels at the defensive part. Usually, he is near the top in both parts, but that is not necessarily true. I think Mike Green this season is a prime example of one excelling as an offensive defenceman, who may have been worth more goals scored + goals prevented than any other defenceman in the league this year.
Posted by PuckStopsHere on 06/20/09 at 12:56 PM ET
i saw the headline, but before clicking the link i saw who wrote the story and i hesitated. i recalled reading your piece about how there were no elite goaltenders left, as i watched ozzie hold a .929 save percentage in the playoffs, and m.a.f. allow two goals over game 6 and 7 to lead his team to a stanley cup (pretty elite to me). But i said, oh why not, it’s the offseason, a slow day, might as well read it. Then i see you reference all star voting. Is that the same voting that was taken over by Canadien fanbots. The same voting system that had the shitty koivu and mike komisarek starting in the asg before pens fans took it over. Oh yeah that system truly holds alot of weight. that’s when i stopped reading. you do have a penchant for catchy titles though. 
Posted by Itrusteddrrahmani from Ann Arbor on 06/20/09 at 12:58 PM ET
Itrusteddrrahmani
Congratualtions on making the dumbest comment to date. You complain about fan voting for the all star game, when no reference to that exists in the post.
Your reading comprehension is not good.
Posted by PuckStopsHere on 06/20/09 at 01:18 PM ET
Saying he’s an idiot makes me ignore your posts because it’s a lack of class on your parts which makes me believe you’re a bunch of kids in a schoolyard.
Now… He’s got a point about the offense +defense configuration. By mostly everyone’s reasoning about defense, Duncan Keith should have won the award. He had the the highest plus/minus.
Now while I disagree that Chara was a poor choice, I think the other two were more deserving. When a defenseman (like Chara) takes the same amount of penalties as the other two nominees put together, that’s not really a sign of a “great” defenseman. Since plus/minus doesn’t count when scored in a powerplay (I don’t think it does anyways?) how many goals were scored when he took penalties? I don’t know where to go to find stats like that but I think it’s likely that more scored goals were scored against the Bruins when he took a penalty than when Green or Lidstrom were in the box. The same argument could be used against Green too as he had 68 PMs.
Lidstrom, on the other hand, only had 30 PMs. IF you can have the stats he does and barely take penalties, I think thats’s a good sign of Norris trophy winnings.
This is MY opinion. If you want to act like 6 year old and rag on me, go ahead. I’ll just ignore it. If you like having an intelligent, opinion based conversation, this is a good place to be.
Posted by Matt Fry from Winnipeg on 06/20/09 at 01:25 PM ET
Lidstrom played with a ruptured ballsack.... Gonchar played with a torn MCL....
So what’s your point? Lidstrom is one of the greatest defensemen of all-time. He’s an experienced player who knows how to compensate for injuries AND he had his injury repaired before he came back to play. Gonchar was nothing great after he got hurt, five points in 12 games and just 2 in the Finals. And a torn MCL sounds a lot worse than it actually is. Football players will play an entire season with them. It’s the ACL that’s bad. Green never got his shoulder fixed and he’s just now getting over the mono. Keep hatin’ on Green and the Caps if it makes you feel better. I figured having your team win the Cup would get you Pittsburgh fans over your fixation against Washington. Guess I was wrong.
Posted by billiebee on 06/20/09 at 01:31 PM ET
We Penguins fans have no fixation with Washington. We enjoy the Penguins beating them consistently and knocking them out of the playoffs every time they meet.
Posted by cs6687 on 06/20/09 at 01:55 PM ET
I suppose all the people not happy with Mike Green’s defensive game would not have awarded any Norris trophies to Paul Coffey.
By the standard being set here for Green, Coffey should not even be in the hall of fame and should never have won a Norris Trophy. Maybe Kevin Hatcher should be the multiple Norris hall of famer and not ol’ Paul?
Can we revise history to make it so?
Posted by Downtown from Ottawa on 06/20/09 at 02:50 PM ET
Anybody who says “anybody who says ‘blah’ is an idiot” is an idiot.
Wait..
Posted by Mojo Tooth on 06/20/09 at 02:55 PM ET
To mention MIke Green and Paul Coffey in the same sentence is a major insult to Mr. Coffey.
Posted by cs6687 on 06/20/09 at 03:44 PM ET
I call TPSH an idiot for two reasons:
1) His use of quotation marks and “smart” implies those who argue for defensive considerations and the Norris are somehow stupid.
2) Based upon his posting history, TPSH is truly an idiot.
And Paul Coffey cannot be compared to today’s Mike Green because Coffey was actually more responsible defensively. The amount of scoring chances that result from him joining the rush or pinching is astounding. During this season’s post-season, when I had my best chance to watch him, I considered him a defensive LIABILITY to his team.
How can a defensive liability be Norris-worthy?
Posted by VooX from Behind the Bar in the Hasek Club Car on 06/20/09 at 04:08 PM ET
Clarification: Green is the defensive liability. My pronoun usage was not clear.
Posted by VooX from Behind the Bar in the Hasek Club Car on 06/20/09 at 04:11 PM ET
In many ways, hockey is the most difficult sport to make comparisons and understand, partly because of the traditional, nonscientific mentality of most people involved, as well as the style of the game itself. Simply put, we don’t quite have the technology to make all the measurements we need in order to perform proper statistical analysis. It’s not like baseball which has somewhat easier to measure, discrete variables.
As far as the Norris is concerned, I think you’re right to suggest that it should somehow be an evaluation of a player’s offensive and defensive contributions. But I don’t think you can just sum the two up. There should be some sort of minimum qualification, i.e. a player should be above a B+ in both categories. Obviously Green would qualify as an A or A+ offensively, but defensively I wonder if he makes a B+. Probably not.
On the other hand, maybe it would make more sense to develop some sort of win shares style statistic to evaluate all contributions to winning, and see who made the biggest contribution. This would take care of on-ice contributions, but it’s unlikely that we would be able to measure off-ice contributions until the distant future (imagine instantaneous brain imaging, analysis etc. to literally measure the so-called unmeasurables: poise, confidence, leadership. Not possible now, but maybe years in the future it could be).
Posted by wilford brimley on 06/20/09 at 04:31 PM ET
His defensive goals prevented number is middle of the road, but his offensive number is so good that upon adding the two he remains in front among defencemen.
WOW, that is an absolutely ridiculous thing to say.
It might not have been if you hadn’t complained about Chara’s year.
If you look at Green’s offensive numbers, then compare him defensively against the top 4 point-getters behind him (Lidstrom, Markov, Neidermeye, Rafalski) and create your magic number, he’s number five on that list. Extend the top scoring list to include Boyle and Streit (who were 6 and 7 offensively) and Green slides further down.
If you want to take your magic number and apply it to the three finalists...if you think Chara is the wrong choice then you HAVE to give it to Lidstrom. Compared to Lidstrom, Green is a beer league defenseman defensively, and Lidstrom is number three in points.
If you’re doing your magic number, then there’s ZERO argument for Green because he is SUCH a defensive liability.
Remember, it’s an award for DEFENSEMEN.
Posted by Garth on 06/20/09 at 05:38 PM ET
I think he was worth more goals (and hence wins) than any other defenceman in hockey in the 08/09 regular season.
WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So scoring goals, as a defenceman, is more important than stopping goals? Do you realize that in order to win, you don’t just score, you also DEFEND against the other team?
It completely boggles the mind that you can just ignore defence when judging defencemen!!!
Posted by Garth on 06/20/09 at 05:42 PM ET
Gonchar was nothing great after he got hurt, five points in 12 games and just 2 in the Finals. And a torn MCL sounds a lot worse than it actually is. Football players will play an entire season with them. It’s the ACL that’s bad. Green never got his shoulder fixed and he’s just now getting over the mono. Keep hatin’ on Green and the Caps if it makes you feel better. I figured having your team win the Cup would get you Pittsburgh fans over your fixation against Washington. Guess I was wrong.
Nope, not hatin’ on Green, he had a great year.... The Caps, yeah OK....
But why are you coming back to me with Gonchar’s offensive stats when I mentioned Green’s defensive liabiility ??
Gonchar was a +3 in 22 playoff games, against competition like the Flyers, your Caps, and the Wings.
Green was a -5 in only 14 games, against an offensively weak Rangers team and against the Pens......
So you can throw the injury excuse out there, I’ll even agree with you, IF you agree that he was a defensive liability to your team....
M’kay ????
Posted by Tony F from Virginia Beach, VA on 06/20/09 at 06:49 PM ET
Of course TPSH is a moron, but here’s the larger issue:
The NHL awards are stupid. How do I know?
When was the last time the Selke went to a guy who didn’t score 20 goals in a full season?
Guy Carbonneau, 1992.
Gaudy offensive numbers will always sway the asshats that actually do the voting. Apparently you can’t be the best defensive forward in the league without also, you know, scoring a bunch of goals too.
It’s stupid. It makes no sense.
It’s the NHL.
Posted by HockeyinHD on 06/20/09 at 10:26 PM ET
Garth
It should be completely clear from the context that the statement:
I think he was worth more goals (and hence wins) than any other defenceman in hockey in the 08/09 regular season.
Refers to the sum of the goals Green created offensively pluse the goals he prevented defensively. In other words, we appear to agree.
It looks like instead of understanding the argument and discussing things in context, you are looking for a statement to pull out of context and bash even if you must dishonestly take it to mean the direct opposite of what it is intended to mean. That is very dishnest and lazy on your part.
Posted by PuckStopsHere on 06/21/09 at 02:18 AM ET
Add a Comment
Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.
Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.
Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.
Most Recent Blog Posts
The Flip Side To Best Teams Pre-Lockout
Future Hall Of Famer Brendan Shanahan Retires
About The Puck Stops Here
The Puck Stops Here was founded during the 2004/05 lockout as a place to rant about hockey. The original site contains over 1000 posts, some of which were also published on FoxSports.com.
Who am I?
A diehard hockey fan.
Why am I blogging?
I want to.
Why are you reading it?
???
Email:
Donate to Kukla’s Korner
I think he was saying that it was somewhat unfounded and blown out of proportion - not that a defenseman who doesn’t play defense isn’t a big deal. Maybe you should avoid calling people idiots just because you can’t pay attention, hmm?
And I agree, it’s something people latch on to who base their opinion of Green solely on the fact that he scores a lot and not on having actually watched him play. Having seen Mike Green since the start of his pro career I can tell you that a) his offensive skills make him a consistent threat and added bonus to an already potent offense and b) his defense has VASTLY improved and continues to improve every game.
He was also one of the biggest minute guys on the team and consistently played against other teams’ top lines - and don’t forget he had a pretty impressive +/- even as a ton of his points came on the power play.
Lidstrom is a legend, a future hall-of-famer and a defenseman I would love to have on my team, but he had an off year and I’m not surprised he finished third in the voting. Every few years he can let someone else win - and while I respect Chara and don’t think this was exactly a bad call, I think Green deserved it more.
Posted by CC from Washington, DC on 06/20/09 at 01:45 AM ET