Founding 100 for 2026/27 — The Brief available soon, 29 SEK · €2.90 · $3 / month. Claim a seat · See pricing
Published: May 8, 2026 | thehockeyanalytics.com
The Norris Trophy conversation tends to default to point totals. That’s understandable — defensemen who drive offense are visible, and points are easy to cite. But the award’s mandate is “greatest all-round ability,” and the 2025-26 finalists make for a sharp test of that standard. Cale Makar, Rasmus Dahlin, and Zach Werenski each put up strong offensive seasons. Where they diverge is on the defensive side, and that’s what this piece examines.
We’ll use five-on-five rate metrics from Natural Stat Trick, restricted to 5v5 situations to strip out power-play and penalty-kill noise. Metrics referenced: Goals Against per 60 (GA/60), Expected Goals Against per 60 (xGA/60), High-Danger Chances Against per 60 (HDCA/60), Shots Against per 60 (SA/60), and Defensive Zone Entries Against per 60 (DZEA/60). Where available, public tracking and EvolvingHockey’s GAR (Goals Above Replacement) defensive split supplement the rate stats.
All numbers are 5v5, full season (minimum 1,200 minutes on-ice), and zone-start adjusted.
A defenseman’s defensive footprint has two broad components: shot and danger suppression (keeping the puck to the perimeter, limiting high-danger looks) and defensive zone positioning (gap control, breakout denial, limiting odd-man rushes). Rate stats capture suppression. Tracking data captures positioning. Neither alone is sufficient.
The goal here isn’t to penalize offensive defensemen for playing with skilled forwards. Context matters. Makar’s deployment with Colorado, Dahlin’s minutes in Buffalo, and Werenski’s role in Columbus are genuinely different. Where possible, teammate- and usage-adjusted numbers are preferred.
Makar’s reputation as the league’s best defensive blueliner isn’t just a narrative built on Norris trophies — the underlying numbers have consistently backed it. This season was more of the same.
At 5v5, Colorado allowed fewer high-danger chances when Makar was on the ice than in his absence. His xGA/60 (on-ice) was among the ten lowest for qualifying defensemen — notably, while also carrying the highest offensive zone start percentage of any Norris finalist, which makes suppression numbers harder to achieve, not easier.
Where Makar stands out is gap control. Tracking data consistently shows him limiting controlled zone entries against. His DZEA/60 (defensive zone entries allowed per 60) ranked in the top quartile for top-pairing defensemen. He doesn’t give up clean entries, which compresses the quality of looks opponents generate.
His defensive GAR component finished around +4.5, placing him in the top five among all NHL defensemen. That number reflects sustained suppression of expected goals, adjusted for teammates and deployment.
Defensive profile: elite suppression, elite positioning, top-pairing deployment.
Dahlin’s candidacy rests on the argument that he’s now a complete defenseman — not just the electric playmaker drafted first overall in 2018. The defensive data supports that argument, with some caveats.
His GA/60 and xGA/60 on-ice were both below the top-pairing defenseman average, which is meaningful given Buffalo’s defensive infrastructure is not Colorado’s. When adjusted for team quality and zone starts, Dahlin’s suppression numbers are genuinely competitive. His HDCA/60 was middle-of-the-pack among the three finalists.
The honest limitation is that Dahlin’s defensive-specific GAR component (+2.8, estimated) trails Makar by a meaningful margin. His value is real — he’s a net-positive defenseman who doesn’t hurt you — but he’s not the defensive driver that Makar is. His game works defensively because his offensive threat compresses opposing forwards, which has value but is harder to isolate in pure suppression metrics.
Zone entry prevention is where the gap shows. Dahlin’s DZEA/60 sits slightly below Makar’s, a function of his aggressive offensive positioning. He plays further up the ice, which opens controlled entry opportunities when possessions turn over.
Defensive profile: above-average suppression, usage-adjusted, not a defensive driver in isolation.
Werenski’s inclusion as a Norris finalist is the season’s narrative. He was a +70-point defenseman who drove Columbus’s offense in a way that hadn’t been seen from the franchise in years. The case for him is almost entirely offensive.
The defensive numbers are the honest counterpoint. His xGA/60 on-ice was the highest of the three finalists, and his HDCA/60 was the worst by a measurable margin. Columbus as a team had defensive struggles, so some of this is team-driven — but the same team context applies to his linemates, and the on/off splits don’t fully clear him. When Werenski was off the ice, Columbus’s 5v5 xGA/60 improved.
His defensive GAR component sits around +0.4 — roughly replacement level on the defensive side. That’s not catastrophic, but for a Norris Trophy argument it’s a significant qualifier.
What Werenski does defensively that has value: he controls the puck. His possession rate in defensive zone retrievals is strong. He doesn’t turn pucks over in his own end at a high rate. But those contributions show up more in transition metrics than in outright suppression, and they don’t offset the danger he allows when opponents enter the zone.
Defensive profile: below-average suppression, high-danger exposure, positive possession in transition.
| Player | xGA/60 (on-ice, 5v5) | HDCA/60 | DZEA/60 | Defensive GAR |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cale Makar | Low (top 10%) | Low (top 15%) | Low (top 25%) | ~+4.5 |
| Rasmus Dahlin | Below avg. (top 35%) | Mid (top 45%) | Mid (top 40%) | ~+2.8 |
| Zach Werenski | Above avg. (bottom 35%) | High (bottom 30%) | High (bottom 25%) | ~+0.4 |
Exact figures rounded; percentile ranges versus top-pairing defensemen only.
This analysis isn’t meant to diminish the Norris case for Dahlin or Werenski — the award includes offensive production, and both had outstanding seasons by that measure. But purely on defensive impact, the order is clear:
Makar leads by a meaningful margin. The combination of elite suppression, strong zone entry prevention, and positive deployment-adjusted GAR puts him in a category of his own on this dimension.
Dahlin is a legitimate all-around candidate. His defensive metrics are real, even if they don’t put him in Makar’s tier. The argument for Dahlin requires weighting his offensive engine (which does have defensive downstream effects) and his team context.
Werenski is a compelling offensive finalist with a thin defensive case. If the Trophy goes to him, it will be an acknowledgment of his offensive dominance — not a reward for two-way play.
The Norris Trophy is ultimately a judgment call, and reasonable voters can weigh the components differently. What this piece wants to establish: if defensive impact is the deciding factor, Makar wins cleanly. If it’s a combined value argument, Dahlin is the closest competitor. If offense carries the day, Werenski has a case.
The data doesn’t make the decision for you. It just makes the trade-offs visible.
Data sources: Natural Stat Trick, EvolvingHockey, Sportlogiq via public reporting. All stats 5v5, full 2025-26 regular season.