Proposal: Analytics/Game Has Changed Movement misses this every time

[Pookie]

These numbers don’t show up on a spreadsheet;

- 200 by 85 feet (61 m × 26 m)
- corner radius of 28 feet (8.5 m).
- goal line is 11 feet (3.4 m) from the end boards.

Yep rink size.

Does removing physicality from the team... but playing on a uniform surface that was designed to enhance physicality make any logical sense whatsoever?

It’s like investing in F1 cars to run on a go-kart track.

Click to read more...

 

[Budsfan]

Unfortunately, every Rink in Canada and the U.S. don't have those dimensions and to change to the European and Russian size rinks, would cost a ton of money and would probably eliminate many small-town arenas in Canada and the U.S.

I don't see any changes occurring on either side of the pond that plays Hockey, costs would be prohibitive and the transition for players is difficult but not impossible and many can make the change and become acclimatized to the rink size.

 

[SprDaVE]

Replace the word "analytics" with "information". That's all it is.

Nothing is being removed from anything or vice versa.

 

[Bluelines]

These numbers don’t show up on a spreadsheet;

- 200 by 85 feet (61 m × 26 m)
- corner radius of 28 feet (8.5 m).
- goal line is 11 feet (3.4 m) from the end boards.

Yep rink size.

Does removing physicality from the team... but playing on a uniform surface that was designed to enhance physicality make any logical sense whatsoever?

It’s like investing in F1 cars to run on a go-kart track.

Says who?

There has been talk among the governors to increase the rinks size, not as big as Olympic but bigger than the current NHL guidelines. I think they said they will loose about 2 to 4 rows in each rink.

 

[Pookie]

Says who?

There has been talk among the governors to increase the rinks size, not as big as Olympic but bigger than the current NHL guidelines. I think they said they will loose about 2 to 4 rows in each rink.

There's talk:

''The NHL doesn`t have any choice but to go to a bigger ice surface, and I feel the sooner the better,'the game is just too fast now, and the players are too big."

''It`s like a pinball game out there. You`d see a lot better hockey on a bigger rink, and the fans would enjoy it more. There would be more of the skill-control game. Players are getting hurt too often on the small ice surface.''

''Everything has changed except the ice,'' ... ''The equipment is better and the game`s faster. The style of the game has changed. It (a bigger surface) would be the best thing to happen to the game in a long time.''​

Mark Messier, 1987​

DEBATE OVER SIZE OF RINKS RISES TO SURFACE

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

Doesn't every single stat tell you how they perform on rinks of those sizes?

 

[HellasLEAF]

+1 for bigger rinks obviously. but feel it will take many years or more from idea to approval to full implementation. I guess I'll believe it when I see it.

Agree it needs to be a bit bigger/wider. But not sure how much.

 

[Pookie]

Doesn't every single stat tell you how they perform on rinks of those sizes?

The premise is that the rinks were designed to enhance physicality... small, crash and bang, scrums at the net.

And we have a plan that treats physicality as a free drink with the purchase of a sub.

Our stats show us that the team we built gets beat in round 1.

 

[TheDoldrums]

These numbers don’t show up on a spreadsheet;

- 200 by 85 feet (61 m × 26 m)
- corner radius of 28 feet (8.5 m).
- goal line is 11 feet (3.4 m) from the end boards.

Yep rink size.

Actually those numbers definitely show up when inputted into a spreadsheet. You might be thinking of vampires and mirrors.

 

[Brown Dog]

+1 for bigger rinks obviously. but feel it will take many years or more from idea to approval to full implementation. I guess I'll believe it when I see it.

Agree it needs to be a bit bigger/wider. But not sure how much.

God I hope not. Olympic hockey is dull as dishwater compared to NHL. The bigger ice just makes it easier to keep the puck away from the net.

 

[Not My Tempo]

If physicality is important, it will flow through the analytics. The heart of hockey analytics right now is finding predictors of goals as the team which scores more goals wins. The point of physicality is to essentially intimidate the other team. Make them scared and more prone to mistakes. If you have a hard, physical forecheck, then the opposing team should in theory make more mistakes in their defensive zone, which should result in more goals for, and by extension, more shots for. Physicality and analytics aren’t these mutually exclusive things. Physicality, speed, stick handling, agility, etc... are all different inputs, and goals for and against are the outputs. Analytics tries to figure out the relationship between the inputs and the outputs.

 

[7even]

There's talk:

''The NHL doesn`t have any choice but to go to a bigger ice surface, and I feel the sooner the better,'the game is just too fast now, and the players are too big."

''It`s like a pinball game out there. You`d see a lot better hockey on a bigger rink, and the fans would enjoy it more. There would be more of the skill-control game. Players are getting hurt too often on the small ice surface.''

''Everything has changed except the ice,'' ... ''The equipment is better and the game`s faster. The style of the game has changed. It (a bigger surface) would be the best thing to happen to the game in a long time.''​

Mark Messier, 1987​

DEBATE OVER SIZE OF RINKS RISES TO SURFACE

I guess they did have a choice.

 

[LeafingTheWay]

Our stats show us that the team we built gets beat in round 1.

By the teams that have made the finals 2 of the 3 playoff series we've played with this group.

You should be complaining about the playoff format instead of the rink size lol.

 

[CelticDruid]

By the teams that have made the finals 2 of the 3 playoff series we've played with this group.

You should be complaining about the playoff format instead of the rink size lol.

Why not both?

 

[4thline]

The premise is that the rinks were designed to enhance physicality... small, crash and bang, scrums at the net.

The premise... is false.

NHL rink sizes were standardized in the ~20's... to prevent teams from playing on smaller ice surfaces.

Swing and a miss

 

[Advanced stats]

These numbers don’t show up on a spreadsheet;

- 200 by 85 feet (61 m × 26 m)
- corner radius of 28 feet (8.5 m).
- goal line is 11 feet (3.4 m) from the end boards.

Yep rink size.

Does removing physicality from the team... but playing on a uniform surface that was designed to enhance physicality make any logical sense whatsoever?

It’s like investing in F1 cars to run on a go-kart track.

Analytics says that skill wins 8 times out of 10 in all of the NHL.
Rink size haven't changed much at all.

Therefore, skill wins on a NHL regulation rink the vast majority of the time, and we should build a team based on skill.

What's so hard about the concept? Or am I missing something?

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

The premise is that the rinks were designed to enhance physicality... small, crash and bang, scrums at the net.

And we have a plan that treats physicality as a free drink with the purchase of a sub.

Our stats show us that the team we built gets beat in round 1.

.....but all statistics (be they advanced or not) are based on play on those size of rinks.

You could argue that you believe some are more important than others. Fine. What you can't do is ignore all of the underlying context which seems to be where you are leaning.

 

[kb]

Where the analytics movement has failed and completely dropped the ball is that they are using regular season metrics to build teams to win in the playoffs.

 

[Fogelhund]

Where the analytics movement has failed and completely dropped the ball is that they are using regular season metrics to build teams to win in the playoffs.

I doubt that's true.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

Where the analytics movement has failed and completely dropped the ball is that they are using regular season metrics to build teams to win in the playoffs.

Wouldn't you be assuming they don't look at playoff data and/or differences between the two? Doesn't really sound like the way people interested in data work.

 

[Budsfan]

The conversion of arenas from one size to another, is too overwhelming, especially in small towns in North America and Canada in particular and costs would be prohibitive and any conversion would take many years to accomplish.

Kids just learning to play hockey and having to go to a large ice surface would make it a bit daunting too, most start out on lakes and ponds and backyard rinks, where size is of little consequence.

Leaving things the way they are for the near future is probably the way things will be but taking things into consideration when a player is from a different rink size place, is a factor and perhaps should be taken into account when assessing them.

 

[socko]

There's talk:

''The NHL doesn`t have any choice but to go to a bigger ice surface, and I feel the sooner the better,'the game is just too fast now, and the players are too big."

''It`s like a pinball game out there. You`d see a lot better hockey on a bigger rink, and the fans would enjoy it more. There would be more of the skill-control game. Players are getting hurt too often on the small ice surface.''

''Everything has changed except the ice,'' ... ''The equipment is better and the game`s faster. The style of the game has changed. It (a bigger surface) would be the best thing to happen to the game in a long time.''​

Mark Messier, 1987​

DEBATE OVER SIZE OF RINKS RISES TO SURFACE

So the 80s Oilers team preferred a big rink, there's a shocker, and let me guess, the 80s Blackhawks really liked their smaller than regulation rink. I was at a game once at Chicago Stadium, just an amazing experience, yeah no Olympic game is going to beat that packed little arena and that organ system.

 

[Pookie]

The premise... is false.

NHL rink sizes were standardized in the ~20's... to prevent teams from playing on smaller ice surfaces.

Swing and a miss

Technically it was designed to fit between streets and given they had more players and backwards passes.

Didn’t know you were lawyer like on specific words and couldn’t grasp the big picture.

Let me modify the OP then to remove the word “designed” and we can all agree that the smaller surface enhances physicality while the larger Olympic sized surface enhances speed, skill and more open space.

Can you see the big picture now?

 

[4thline]

Technically it was designed to fit between streets and given they had more players and backwards passes.

Didn’t know you were lawyer like on specific words and couldn’t grasp the big picture.

Let me modify the OP then to remove the word “designed” and we can all agree that the smaller surface enhances physicality while the larger Olympic sized surface enhances speed, skill and more open space.

Can you see the big picture now?

It's ok Pookie. Sometimes when you bullshit you get called on it. It's the cost of doing business. It is unequivocal, the design of NHL ice had nothing to do with physical play. The OP that implied such was categorically false.

And no. Smaller ice does not inherently enhance physicality. Smaller ice increases congestion emphasizing the need to be able to play in traffic (a skillful trait). There's a reason Hockey Canada is implementing small ice play in minor hockey, and it's not to "enhance physicality"

Culture and rules increase physical play. Case in point- see Olympics played on NHL ice.

 

[ACC1224]

Hockey on big ice is brutal, why would anyone want that?