Speculation: Ola's analysis on tactical hockey

[Chimpradamus]

I've asked @Ola to make a thread of his post after the loss against Calgary, but I won't ask for a response any longer. I'll drag him by the collar to the spotlight. My reason is, he posted this sublime post in a post-game thread of game x. Nope, nope, nope, not good enough. I think there are some things here to discuss from his analysis. I agree with alot of it. What are your thoughts? If you didn't want this, sorry Ola, but your thoughts are too interesting to be forgotten. I've made way worse threads than this, let's put it that way. I will be surprised if this won't end up as an HF article.

A few things:

1. Even if individual players can, should and will be called out -- offensively we have bigger issues than Panarin and Ziba not firing on all cylinders. In fact, our lack of offense is mainly not referable to them.

2. Fundamentally, what creating offense in the NHL is about is not rocket science. You must be able to create havoc in the offensive zone. From time to time, there are numbers about like how X% of the goals in hockey are scored within 3 seconds of a giveaway and so forth. What like 98% of the 5 on 5 goals in hockey have in common is that they are created after some kind of havoc is created forcing a mistake defensively. Besides a clean FO win and a direct slapper, its extremely uncommon that a goal is scored against a calm and collected D that is in control of the situation.

3. Goals have gone down at a steady pace for long stints of the modern history of the NHL, unless the game has been disrupted by rule changes or large expansions opening things up. But the last years we have seen goals per game increase instead. The reason for that is very obvious, coaches and teams felt the scale tilting and it made it worth it for teams to take risks. And this is one of the key points with this post. Because there are no obvious way to create offense, i.e. creating havoc in the attacking zone and offensively, that aren't explored by all teams -- that does not include an element of taking risks.

How does these risks display themselves? A few examples
* Pre I don't know, 2015?, if one defender had jointed the attacking and the other defender jumped into the attack too, it was jaw-dropping, it was 'you are running home behind the buss', it was simply unthinkable and a complete no-go. The following 5 years it has to different degrees with different teams becomes a regular event.

* Pre 05' you didn't stickhandle on the offensive blueline, its a horrible place to lose the puck. Gradually for a good 10 years that rule of thumb has been removed more or less, and in addition, players being great at stickhandling in those areas have seen their roles increase. If someone beats their guy, criss-cross inside the blueline, backhand drop passes, the defending team can lose their coverage and it creates havoc.

* Pre 05', all systems were designed to cut down on giveaways around your own defensive blueline (between the redline and the defensive blueline). In fact, the trap was designed to create turnovers in these areas. Give the puck away, let the other team come at you, then you have 3 guys at the redline and 1 guy steering the attacking team towards either side of the ice, and you shut the trap when they come up over the defensive blueline. This is the "trap" in all essence:
View attachment 474189

Torts claimed to be in favor of safe-is-death hockey, but it was a truth with modification. In relation to Renney he let the players lose more on the forecheck and he let defenders join the rush more -- but he was and is super conservative in the transition game. Remember Girardi just throwing pucks up the ice all the time? That is how you beat the trap. If you just flip the puck high up ice and put pressure on the other team, you won't make any turnovers. All the pre-05' top coaches, Torts, Hartley and Crawford especially, kept this accept of their game -- i.e. take no risks in the transition game -- and it killed them in the post 05' NHL.

Coaches that lets their defenders move the puck up ice, try low percentage passes that can open things up, can open things up, but it comes at a risk. This have changed a lot the last decade.

* One of the bigger changes lately, that still is ongoing, is that attackers have -- genuinely -- started to challenge defenders 1 on 1. I think this especially is what has increased scoring the most just the last handful of years. Nobody should beat a defender in a good position, that isn't on his heels or whatever, clean with a 1 on 1 move. As a result, many one on one challenges have for a long time just been about pressuring the defender back a bit, and the guy with the puck often circles back looking for a trailer or use the open ice to snap a shot between the legs of the defender. What these new offensively gifted players does is just that. I mean lets say that a forward fearlessly tries to split two defender and gets sandwhiched -- what could create more havoc? Bodies are flying, if you hit someone with the puck it can go flying in any direction. When a line knows that they will challenge a defender 1 on 1, they provide more support, are prepared to go looking for that puck that will end up in some random spot. Its seen all the time when like the Swedish U20 team plays, Raymond and co. but also look at the perfection line. How often doesn't they score a goal after either Pasternak or Marchand have engaged with a D, perhaps been taken out of the way, but 2 of the others get a hold of the puck, the defense is scrambling, and they just make a simple pass to someone infront of the net for a one-timer.

That puck that goes flying, that is also a risk not only an opportunity.

4. Under Gallant we play in straighter lines, we are simply more predictable. It helps the team confidence because we are less volatile as a team, more in control, but we are also more easy to control. Its hear that it takes "fingerspitzengefühl" from Gallant. We need to find ways to create more havoc offensively and be less predictable, while also not losing the stability we have gained as a team. I keep referring to this, but Tampa won 3 elimination games in the POs last season 2-0, 1-0 and 1-0. And some games 8-0. It cannot be all offense or all defense. You must be capable of both. My biggest objection against DQ was that he was all over the place, and went from one extreme to the other. Neither suits this team. But -- there are a ton of room for improvement for us. If you ask Tampa what they learned the most and what put them over the top, they will 100% say that it was their decision making. Deciding as a team, getting it into their DNA, to make the right call on when to take a risk and when to not take a risk. That is one thing we must work on, but also simple execution.

I think all this is on the agenda for sure. I would expect improvements over the year.

Click to read more...

 

[egelband]

Even strength Havoc. Power play surgery. We have neither. Right now.
I also agree we’re seeing our players getting a little more comfortable fighting through opponents in both ends. Which is a great sign. So I’m optimistic.
@Ola well done. Lots of good points. And thanks to @Chimpradamus for spotlighting!

 

[Bacon Artemi Bravo]

Might I add - as Ola said, it's "Create Havoc". The first part is just as important as the 2nd. Players need to be put in spots where they can use their creativity to wreak havoc and break down defensive systems/positioning. Cannot create anything without possession, this is at the core of the Rangers issues right now. Inability to possess the puck for long enough to create anything. We haven't even breached havoc yet.

 

[RempireStateBuilding]

This team's DNA has been to wait for the perfect play. I know it's a cliche to be screaming stuff like "Shoot the puck" from the stands, but there just seems to be a bit of hesitation all around. Decision making and puck management have looked lackadaisical in a noticeable amount of shifts each game. There are certainly glimmers of what will be once everyone gets going at the same time. The road stretch had some spectacular wins. But they have to start just going for it sometimes, making the bold play. Shoot the puck a little more. Blais is a perfect example of the mentality of just going for it and trying to make a play. For me, he's been the most electric player to watch each game.

 

[HFBS]

Adam Fox always made points for his teammates.

 

[romba]

We've had very little puck luck on random bounces, wrong guys getting high danger chances. Against Calgary, Chytil breaks in 1 on 2, makes a nice first move and the puck is swatted away on his second move and it bounces perfectly to the opposition instead of to one his teamates streaking in. We finally get a guy wide effing open in front and it's Trouba, easy first save and the rebound goes right to back to Trouba on a platter on a 20% open net at a bad angle a few feet up from the goal line(on his backhand regretfully) and the puck is thrown horizontally away from the net which the goalie gobbles up anyway. 0% chance of that going in. He also had a man open in front for a tap in but it was Trouba, not Panarin so can't expect him to see that pass. Then the opposition goalies seem to be on their A game and stopping our skill guys left and right anyway. CK with a tap in he never misses on the PP, and ofc miraculous save (he might've actually been sending that through the crease based on the angle of his backhander).

If our PP were clicking like it did last year we'd see way fewer complaints about our lack of scoring 5 on 5. And it would also give us momentum to open things up in the O zone. Aside from that though, our 5 on 5 stagnation in the O zone is huge detriment to this team and the growth of our youngsters.

 

[Glen Sathers Cigar]

Creating havoc is bang on. You need to create havoc and confusion to open up lanes in order to make the east/west plays they keep trying to make. When you don't confuse the defense though, and just try and force those plays anyway, you're going to turn the puck over all night and have a hard time generating consistent pressure - which is what we saw against Calgary.

 

[TheDirtyH]

@Ola always brings the heat. Great to hone in on one of his many gems as a discussion point.

What you wrote made me think of something my father always repeated to me when I was growing up playing hockey. I played defense for most of my childhood before switching to forward in high school (I was a short kid until junior year). He said over and over -- 'When your team has the puck, you're on offense. When your team doesn't have the puck, you're on defense.'

To your point about defensemen activating now in ways they haven't in the past. I think that speaks heavily to this kind of approach. Because if the most effective way to create offense at even strength is to create havok, upset or destabilize the defensive structure of your opponent, and to follow the first wave with a second or third in order to keep the puck on attackers sticks in the midst of that chaos--which I think is a brilliant and correct take--what gets over looked too often might be the way that offense, like defense is dependent on a unit of five skaters to maximize its effectiveness.

Too much of how hockey is talked about is individualized. Even in analytics, there's an overdetermining assumption that guides a lot of the questions being asked (and so obviously sets some parameters on how they're answered)--and that question, as I've noticed it most frequently, is asking on any given team, line, etc. who is the driver and who is the passenger. Much of it gets boiled down into differently nuanced kinds of +/-. If you are a player who consistently has delivered results on the plus side of a ledger, you can be considered a driver--whether that measure be Sh%, Corsi for or against, xG, G%, etc.

The assumptions are two part: 1) that the distinction of driver or passenger will always be born out over time and as a sample size grows. I.e. someone like Dan Girardi or Neil Pionk will always be passengers given that over a sizable sample, they fall in the minus category of the relevant data set in question. And that 2) Outliers, noise, and any results challenging one category of +/- can always be attributed or located either in coinciding categories or 'luck' (ex. Patrick Kane cannot drive play (xG, corsi, etc.) but does drive goals/results (S%, G%.) and has gotten 'lucky' (Sv%).)

To be clear, I find advanced stats fascinating and I do think that they can illustrate certain things really well. For me, they help me to challenge myself in how I'm evaluating a player. If I don't like what I see but the results are good, where is the gap? And the same for the other side of the equation. On the other hand, I find it hard to use these stats predictively--or I'm still skeptical of their ability to be predictive. That's because, in my opinion, it's just not possible to isolate the impact of a given individual in this sport. In hockey, everything is so dynamic, the butterfly effect is the ruler of the ice surface. It's a game of attrition. It's played at a sprint, on a surface that changes over the course of a game. Players leave and enter play without play discontinuing. If Player A hits the post, gets lazy on his backcheck, sags to the bench, leaves an opening for a carry in at his defensive blue line, the next line is hemmed in until eventually needing to end their shift on a dump and handing possession back to the opponent, the opponent gets back into the zone on the change and scores off a turnover from a bad pass between the corner defenseman B and the winger C on the half wall--who is ultimately more responsible for the goal against? Surely Defenseman B or Winger C whose turnover was the last play before the goal.. but my feeling is that between the shot that hit the post and the goal that's scored later was potentially 2-3-4 mins of uninterrupted play. If Player A comes back harder, pressures the carrier, and allows his defenseman to pinch and force a dump in before the change, does that puck end up in the back of his team's net two shifts later?

Of course, at a certain point, you have to stop zooming out. But at the ice level--for coaches, players, etc.--I would hope that that lazy backcheck gets as much attention as a turnover. Because ultimately, in hockey, turnovers are inevitable. The conditions of hockey are so strange and inconstant, steeped in so many variables and fatigue. But a lazy play is a lazy play. And for me, so much of what happens on the puck is what most players in most situations can control the least. What happens off the puck is where individual players can assume the most control over the game.

Why is a team like Pittsburgh 'controlling play' to the extent they are without Malkin, Crosby, Letang, Rust, Guentzel? Why is Detroit off to such a hot start? Why are so many great, skilled teams struggling (Colorado, Tampa, Toronto)?

If your team has the puck you are on offense. Each individual on the ice has to commit full force to that notion in order to generate offense effectively. Players have to understand that the teammate with the puck is more likely than not the player with the least 'control' over what is going to happen. It's a strange thing to say, but it's my belief. Players without the puck have to play as though they have it--they have to understand themselves as part of a five man attack rather than as one of two or three players who are the options to have the puck next. Nils for example hasn't been terrific by any stretch, but he's demonstrated a great ability to support the transition up the ice and to play within the unit 'away from the play.' Of course, there are special players. Players like Panarin or McDavid who can control play with the puck to a degree like 95% of NHL players can't. But even still, they'll play 20mins max in a game and they won't have it 100% every night.