Norris Trophy Study

[egroen 384]

A look at Norris voting throughout the careers of defensemen. Lidstrom does very, very well... as does Chelios.

Red Kelly is another Red Wing who would be way up there, if half his career was not played when there was not a Norris Trophy.

Mark Howe needs to be in the HHoF.

http://www.geocities.com/thehockeyoutsider/Norris_shares.pdf

[WhiteLightning91 105]

The link does not work for me.

[Reds4Life 51]

It will go up again

rapidshare.com link:

http://rapidshare.com/files/144261148/Norris_shares.pdf.html

Hockey Outsider from HF did great job, again.

[toby91_ca 620]

I dont' get how the calculation works. In any given year, shouldn't all the norris trophy shares for all players add up to a combined 1.0? That should be the case, but in the example they used with Howe, in 86/87, his Norris trophy share was 0.51, yet he didn't even win the trophy, so surely, the winner would have had more than 0.51 and with those two guys, we're already above 1.0.

[egroen 384]

I dont' get how the calculation works. In any given year, shouldn't all the norris trophy shares for all players add up to a combined 1.0

1.0 is how much the Norris trophy wins.

[norrisnick 1]

1.0 is how much the Norris trophy wins.

Not quite. A 1.0 is sweeping the 1st place votes.

[egroen 384]

Not quite. A 1.0 is sweeping the 1st place votes.

Gotcha... and then 2nd - 5th place votes also carry a value, which accounts for how points in a given year will add up to much more than 1.0

[toby91_ca 620]

I probably should have been a little more clear, I do understand (mathematically) how the calculation works, I just don't agree with it. I think all players' totals in any given year should only add up to 1.0 and the way it currently works is that you will see the totals add up to quite a bit more than that. I think it might work better if the totals were based on a % of the total available, although I don't like that much either since a guy can receive 100% of the first place votes (basically the best you can possibly do) and only wind up with a .75....don't like that.

Ultimately, even you did something like that, the list might look the same anyway.

[eva unit zero 271]

I probably should have been a little more clear, I do understand (mathematically) how the calculation works, I just don't agree with it. I think all players' totals in any given year should only add up to 1.0 and the way it currently works is that you will see the totals add up to quite a bit more than that. I think it might work better if the totals were based on a % of the total available, although I don't like that much either since a guy can receive 100% of the first place votes (basically the best you can possibly do) and only wind up with a .75....don't like that.

Ultimately, even you did something like that, the list might look the same anyway.

It's designed the way it is because that way, a 1.0 is the best you can possibly do, always, in any year. Your vote totals are expressed, basically, as a percentage of the possible amount of votes you could have received.

Using the current 10-7-5-3-1 point system that has been in place since the early 90s or so, the shares will always add up to 2.6 because each ballot adds up to 26 points and first place votes are worth 10. The previous system was 5-3-1, so each ballot was worth 9 points and the total of all shares would have been 1.8.

[b.shanafan14 733]

Interesting stuff...

[Uncle Danny 155]

Fun read -- thanks for the post.