Lidstrom is a Norris Trophy finalist for the 11th time in the past 13 seasons

That is unreal - at 40 y/o, unbelievable.

I don’t remember which NBC announcer it was, but several weeks ago the talking head said something intelligent:  “Lidstrom isn’t the best “D” man of his generation, he is the best hockey player of his generation.”

Congratulations to all of the finalists.  But as a Wing nut, and 40+ y/o, obviously I am rooting for the “old man.”

Posted by Jeff OKWingnut from Quest for 12 on 04/25/11 at 02:09 PM ET

And all this time, so many writers around the NHL were telling me that Lidstrom would be beaten out by Yandle and Visnovsky.  Hmm.

Posted by bezukov from the kids are alright. on 04/25/11 at 02:12 PM ET

I worry Chara will get it, but it really should be Lidstrom’s. They’ll say his -1 means he’s not a good defenseman.

Posted by redxblack from Akron Ohio on 04/25/11 at 02:21 PM ET

Weber and Chara? I’m cool with Weber there, but really I think Visnovsky and Yandle were much more deserving of the nominations. Oh well, that just means Nick’s toughest competition isn’t even eligible to win….

Posted by cainer4wingsglory on 04/25/11 at 02:22 PM ET

Weber and Chara? I’m cool with Weber there, but really I think Visnovsky and Yandle were much more deserving of the nominations. Oh well, that just means Nick’s toughest competition isn’t even eligible to win….

Those are my thoughts precisely.

Posted by bezukov from the kids are alright. on 04/25/11 at 02:28 PM ET

I’m gonna say Weber wins it, because if Lidstrom is too old to win then surely Chara is too tall to win.  How can you be a good defenseman if your brain is so far from the ground?

Posted by Garth on 04/25/11 at 02:35 PM ET

They got the right nominees. Visnovsky and Yandle are strictly offensive players, who specialize on the powerplay. They are not on the ice against the other team’s top forwards. Chara plays tough minutes and he plays a ton of them.

Posted by steviesteve on 04/25/11 at 02:49 PM ET

Thank goodness that Visnovsky was not in the top three.

The Norris is for the defenseman who exhibits the best overall game.  Visnovsky and Yandle did not exhibit much of their defensive ability.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 04/25/11 at 03:02 PM ET

Posted by cainer4wingsglory on 04/25/11 at 12:22 PM ET

Don’t forget Kris Letang - 8 goals, 42 assists, +15…all w/o Crosby, Malkin and Staal for 1/2 of the season.

Really surprised Yandle didn’t get the nod, though.

They’ll say his -1 means he’s not a good defenseman.

Posted by redxblack from Akron Ohio on 04/25/11 at 12:21 PM ET

It was actually -2.  Which is WAY worse. 

Posted by Flashtastick56 from Milford, CT on 04/25/11 at 03:10 PM ET

Visnovsky and Yandle are strictly offensive players, who specialize on the powerplay. They are not on the ice against the other team’s top forwards

This statement is false in the case of Visnovsky.  He faced the second highest quality of competition of any play in Anaheim this year.  That clearly puts him on the ice against the other team’s top forwards.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 04/25/11 at 03:51 PM ET

Congrats to TPH.  Weber and Chara are fine choices but as a Wings fan, it’s a no-brainer TPH will win it.

Posted by SYF from the Flood on 04/25/11 at 03:54 PM ET

I’m going to say they’ll give it to Weber.
I’d love to see Nick win one more, but those soft Euro’s don’t belong next to the good ol’ Canadian boys in the history books. 

Posted by MOWingsfan19 from I really like our team on 04/25/11 at 03:54 PM ET

Must be because the voters didn’t read between the lines of the Norris qualifications and take it to mean that their pretend “win shares” stat means the same thing as “best all-around”.

Letang had a good year, but of all the possible candidates I saw play, I saw the most brutal errors come off his stick.  That’s still not many, but Letang is not a better all-around defenseman than Weber, Chara, or Lidstrom.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 04/25/11 at 04:13 PM ET

JJ

You have never explained what part of playing hockey you must neglect to get “all-around” ability.

Lets say hypothetically (and these numbers are meant to be an example more than anything else),  Visnovsky produced 80 points of value offensively and 20 points defensively.  That is 100 points all around.  Lidstrom might have 60 points of value offensively and 35 defensively.  That is 95 points all around.  Then Visnovsky would be a better all around player and a worse defensive player.  This season you have sat here and argued Lidstrom’s defence is better and think that says he is better all around.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 04/25/11 at 04:29 PM ET

This statement is false in the case of Visnovsky.  He faced the second highest quality of competition of any play in Anaheim this year.  That clearly puts him on the ice against the other team’s top forwards.

Visnovsky is the offensive defensemen on the top pairing in Anaheim. For years, New Jersey used to pair an offense-first defenseman with a defense-first defenseman. That Malakhov and White made a good pair did not make Malakhov a well-rounded defenseman. That Lydman and Visnovsky make a good pair does not make Visnovsky a well-rounded defenseman.

Terry Murray doesn’t even trust Visnovsky’s all-around game enough to make him a #7 penalty killer. This cannot be said of Chara, Weber or Lidstrom.

Posted by steviesteve on 04/25/11 at 04:30 PM ET

You have never explained what part of playing hockey you must neglect to get “all-around” ability.

You incorrectly assumed that I said you had to neglect any.

Maybe while you were busy incorrectly assuming that it would be a good idea to make a dead baby joke in one of your posts.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 04/25/11 at 04:44 PM ET

You have never explained what part of playing hockey you must neglect to get “all-around” ability.

Um, doesn’t being the best all-around defenseman indicate that you are not neglecting anything, but are instead very good at both offense and defense?

Then Visnovsky would be a better all around player and a worse defensive player.

So you’re throwing out baseless, imaginary numerical values to offense and defense without any context as examples asking if that makes Visnovsky better than Lidstrom?

Do you even make sense to yourself?

Posted by Garth on 04/25/11 at 05:38 PM ET

I would certainly say that Lidstrom’s defensive values is considerably more than six points higher than Visnovsky’s.

I wouldn’t even get how you’d give Visnovsky 80 fake offensive points to Lidstrom’s 60.  There was a six point difference in the points they scored this year.  How does that equal to Visnovsky being fake 133% to fake-offensive-fake-rated-player that Lidstrom is?

I have never argued that the fact that Lidstrom is better defensively is the only measure by which I credit him.  YOU have once again incorrectly attributed a false corollary to what I have said.  You have had to put words into my mouth to defeat an argument I have never made and you have had to create a false numbering system to make a point that is weak.

That’s ALMOST as poor a decision as making a dead baby joke in a post about the Masterson trophy and then complaining that YOU’RE the victim of censorship.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 04/25/11 at 05:44 PM ET

Visnovsky has far better puck possession numbers than Lidstrom.  That is a huge extra offensive value.  Restricting yourself to points misses the majority of the point.

Just like you miss the point about a joke about Kurtis Foster’s bad luck and want to use it to argue how good Lidstrom is because you have no better argument.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 04/25/11 at 05:48 PM ET

Just like you miss the point about a joke about Kurtis Foster’s bad luck and want to use it to argue how good Lidstrom is because you have no better argument.

A) JJ’s argument comes from actually watching hockey, something you might attempt to do some time.  I know you have a hard time tearing yourself away from your stats websites to watch hockey live on TV, but nowadays there are many ways to watch hockey streaming on your computer.  Just make a small window in the corner of your screen and you can add some context to the numbers you love so much.

B) There was no point to your “joke” about Foster’s CHILD DYING and you’re an *#$%@& if you try to defend it.

Posted by Garth on 04/25/11 at 06:06 PM ET

Visnovsky has far better puck possession numbers than Lidstrom.  That is a huge extra offensive value.  Restricting yourself to points misses the majority of the point.

Just like you miss the point about a joke about Kurtis Foster’s bad luck and want to use it to argue how good Lidstrom is because you have no better argument.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 04/25/11 at 03:48 PM ET

Imagine that, Visnovsky has FAR better puck possession skills with a MUCH higher quality of team.

You’re attributing that which is to his team’s credit to him.  Randy Carlyle has more to do with Visnovsky’s Corsi (which is a useless number to attribute to an individual anyway)  than Lubomir Visnovsky.

Oh, there was a point to be made by joking about Kurtis Foster’s dead daughter?  I must have missed that.  But hey, we all know that you have a good sense of humor… after all, you have the stones to say that I have no better argument when you’re the one who has to make up numbers to say that Visnovsky is a better all-around defenseman.

That one’s a real laugher.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 04/25/11 at 06:08 PM ET

JJ now argues that Anaheim is a better team than Detroit.

Visnovsky has FAR better puck possession skills with a MUCH higher quality of team

When did your rationality fail?

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 04/25/11 at 06:10 PM ET

When did your rationality fail?

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 04/25/11 at 04:10 PM ET

Apparently at the same time as your reading comprehension did.

Do you deny the stats at behindthenet?  The ones that state that Visnovsky’s quality of team rating was FAR higher than Lidstrom’s?

Now you’re just being intentionally obtuse.  Show me the methodology for your fake rating.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 04/25/11 at 06:15 PM ET

JJ now argues that Anaheim is a better team than Detroit.

Why do you feel the need to narrate this thread?

Posted by Garth on 04/25/11 at 06:22 PM ET

You obviousl;y do not understand the numbers on behind the net.  Each player gets ranked on his quality of teammates versus his other teammates.  A player on team X will have a value that is only truly meaningful when compared with other players on team X.  It isn’t entirely obvious how to compare numbers like that between differing teams.

Of course your argument now seems to be entirely based upon one number calculated calculated on a website.  Perhaps you should try watching hockey (that seems to be an argument on your side - yet you are the one making conclusions that have nothing to do with hockey).  It is pretty clear to me that Detroit is a better team than Anaheim.  You might have caught that if you watched a game instead of only looking at numbers.  if we only look at the numbers (which you interpret incorrectly), you would conclude Zach Stortini of the Oilers plays against more than 8 times as good a quality of teammates than Lidstrom on Detroit. 

If you believe that your rationality is long gone.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 04/25/11 at 06:26 PM ET

Yes, and Lidstrom’s numbers when compared to his own team are show clearly that he’s the single-most exposed defenseman they have to other team’s top lines and one of the least protected when it comes to being hidden behind the best forwards.

There is nowhere in the numbers that you don’t seem to understand to indicate that Visnovsky’s puck possession was driven by anything other than his teammates.  This severely limits the argument that his individual puck possession numbers are meaningful in a comparison… especially meaningful enough to say that Visnovsky is 133% the offensive defenseman Lidstrom is while throwing Lidstrom a bone to the tune of being ALMOST twice as good in a half-as-meaningful category as you would like to have us believe. (that defensive ability for a defenseman is half as important as the ability to score points)

Of course, it’s clear that you have no concept of how winning hockey works when you would throw out your own fake numbers that automatically value anything offensive more than double anything defensive.

Show me your fake-ranking methodology because you have still done nothing to convince anybody that you’re basing your rankings off of things that are actually in the games themselves. 

Hell, do it on your blog and I might actually visit it again.  In the meantime, don’t you have a soldier’s funeral to protest or something?

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 04/25/11 at 06:33 PM ET

Visnovsky’s puck possession numbers relative to his temmates are outstanding.  He was the one drviving the Anaheim offence.

Lidstrom’s puck possession numbers relative to his teammates are pretty poor.  This can be partially mitigated by the fact he had a tough role.

Those are facts.  They don’t fit with the imaginary things you report in your narrative.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 04/25/11 at 06:36 PM ET

Still talking imaginary things without a methodology to your fake rankings?

So not only are you a terrible person without the capacity for empathy, but you’re also a blazing hypocrite.

Do you have anything of value to add here?  It’s pretty clear that you have a broken definition for Norris-worthy and the voters, despite their shortcomings, have gotten this one right.  Lubomir Visnovsky is not one of the three best all-around defensemen in the league.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 04/25/11 at 06:40 PM ET

It’s a little funny that in the same comments section, we’d have a person using the concept that Detroit is a much better team than Anaheim to try to defeat an argument and then later stating that Visnovsky being much better than his (inferior) teammates would help him arrive at his conclusion.

Detroit is a better team than Anaheim?  Yes
Visnovsky is at a higher level than his teammates compared solely to how much better than his teammates Lidstrom is?  Yes.

200% of 20 is still less than 150% of 40

The talent drop-off between the two teams is measurable, especially when you get below the top line and top pairing.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 04/25/11 at 07:14 PM ET

JJ

You are deliberately being obtuse.  You have not been this stupid in the past.

Visnovsky has the 6th best rate adjusted +/- rating.  Lidstrom comes out as a zero by this method.  I count Lidstrom at 241st among players with 50 or more games played this season.

That is a significant difference that you have been pretending doesn’t exist.

Posted by PuckStopsHere on 04/25/11 at 07:44 PM ET

Pulling out plus/minus?  The big guns have arrived.

Still waiting on that fake-ranking methodology there, Phelps.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 04/25/11 at 07:50 PM ET