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

[notDatsyuk]

There is a bit of truth in the OP, but I'm not sure what his point is.

Yes, a larger ice surface means more room (duh), which should benefit faster and more skilled players.

Is the OP arguing for larger rinks? It would be very expensive to modify existing rinks, both in construction costs and loss of revenue, and even more so to build new, especially if you want all rinks to become a new standard size at the same time. Most teams couldn't afford it.

On the other hand, maybe the OP is just doing the standard whining about one team (the Leafs) not being as physical as he would like.

 

[notDatsyuk]

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

It's great when you have only a few teams, with all the best players, because then it's a faster game with much more flow, where skill wins more often, and strategy is less relevant.

It won't work for the NHL, because there are too many teams, and the disparity in skill is too pronounced. Look at the Flyers when they became an expansion team: not enough talent, so they had to resort to violence, which would not have worked as well on larger rinks.

 

[ACC1224]

It's great when you have only a few teams, with all the best players, because then it's a faster game with much more flow, where skill wins more often, and strategy is less relevant.

It won't work for the NHL, because there are too many teams, and the disparity in skill is too pronounced. Look at the Flyers when they became an expansion team: not enough talent, so they had to resort to violence, which would not have worked as well on larger rinks.

Don't agree at all.
All the large ice does is allow weaker Teams to keep the play to the outside.
The World Cup at the ACC was some of the best hockey I have ever seen, Olympics not so much.

 

[Bluelines]

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

Tampa Bay shows that they have a team that gets swept by a wildcard team in the 1st round.

Our stats show we took a better team team, a team that has been our boogieman, to Game 7 two years in a row.

Stats show that our PK let us down. It was the 1st, 2nd and 3rd reason why we did not make it to round 2. Now what I expect is for Dubas, Shanny, Babcock to have an allergic reaction to our poor playoff PK and over pay for PK specialist and put us even further into cap purgatory. Yeah! Another rebuild muffed up...

 

[Bluelines]

Don't agree at all.
All the large ice does is allow weaker Teams to keep the play to the outside.
The World Cup at the ACC was some of the best hockey I have ever seen, Olympics not so much.

Agreed, you could fall asleep for 30 minutes watching an Olympic game and probably not miss a thing, the Olympic game is so slow.

 

[notDatsyuk]

Don't agree at all.
All the large ice does is allow weaker Teams to keep the play to the outside.
The World Cup at the ACC was some of the best hockey I have ever seen, Olympics not so much.

I'm not sure how more space allows slower players to control faster players. What I've seen is the better players taking advantage of the larger ice surface to totally dominate the weaker teams. Which admittedly makes some of the round robin mismatches boring (who wants to watch Canada beat Britain 8-0?), but the elimination rounds are much better.

 

[ACC1224]

I'm not sure how more space allows slower players to control faster players. What I've seen is the better players taking advantage of the larger ice surface to totally dominate the weaker teams. Which admittedly makes some of the round robin mismatches boring (who wants to watch Canada beat Britain 8-0?), but the elimination rounds are much better.

It allows them to push them to the outside.
This strategy has been used countless times against Canada.
Canada is a far better team so they will(should) find a way to win but it doesn't make it fun to watch.

 

[Bluelines]

I'm not sure how more space allows slower players to control faster players. What I've seen is the better players taking advantage of the larger ice surface to totally dominate the weaker teams. Which admittedly makes some of the round robin mismatches boring (who wants to watch Canada beat Britain 8-0?), but the elimination rounds are much better.

You have more time and space on a bigger rink, more time to make decisions ... less skilled players can control the game easier on a big rink as a result of this extra time and space. The trap actually came out of Sweden as a result of the larger rink. Mind you it was meant to drive offence but still.... ugh..the trap...

 

[4thline]

You have more time and space on a bigger rink, more time to make decisions ... less skilled players can control the game easier on a big rink as a result of this extra time and space. The trap actually came out of Sweden as a result of the larger rink. Mind you it was meant to drive offence but still.... ugh..the trap...

Torpedo!

 

[4thline]

Big ice is better for players with great hands and skating but slower processing/ reaction time.

 

[Bluelines]

Torpedo!

I'm kinda fond of the flying V ..

 

[notDatsyuk]

It allows them to push them to the outside.
This strategy has been used countless times against Canada.
Canada is a far better team so they will(should) find a way to win but it doesn't make it fun to watch.

How does a bigger ice surface allow a slower player to force a faster player to the outside? It's actually just the opposite: the bigger area allows the faster player room to go around, either inside or outside, the slower player.

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

How does a bigger ice surface allow a slower player to force a faster player to the outside? It's actually just the opposite: the bigger area allows the faster player room to go around, either inside or outside, the slower player.

Exhibit A: Zdeno Chara

 

[Nineteen67]

Hockey on the Olympic sized ice is brutal to watch.

 

[Nineteen67]

How does a bigger ice surface allow a slower player to force a faster player to the outside? It's actually just the opposite: the bigger area allows the faster player room to go around, either inside or outside, the slower player.

They clog the area in front of the net. Wrist shots from the blue line near the boards....yawn.

 

[notDatsyuk]

They clog the area in front of the net. Wrist shots from the blue line near the boards....yawn.

How does standing close to the net force a player to the boards?

If you try to force a better player to the outside, by actually going towards him, you just give his teammates more room to get in position, and more space gives the better players more time and options to make better plays.

 

[Nineteen67]

How does standing close to the net force a player to the boards?

If you try to force a better player to the outside, by actually going towards him, you just give his teammates more room to get in position, and more space gives the better players more time and options to make better plays.

Watch it sometime.....it’s horrible.

 

[Pookie]

I'm kinda fond of the flying V ..

 

[Pookie]

They clog the area in front of the net. Wrist shots from the blue line near the boards....yawn.

Wait. Wait. Wait.

Are you saying that this is boring? Wrist shots from the point through the traffic of a low zone Defense?

 

[Pookie]

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.

And the Hawks’ teams of the 80’s... were they physical? Built for the small ice?

Even the Oilers who were skilled and would have preferred a larger ice had grit.

That’s kind of my point. We are building a speed and skill team to play on a small surface.

Not working yet.

 

[al secord]

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?

The way you double down is down right embarrassing.

 

[al secord]

Auston Matthews honed his skills playing on half of a rink in Arizona.

 

[Bluelines]

Wait. Wait. Wait.

Are you saying that this is boring? Wrist shots from the point through the traffic of a low zone Defense?

He didn't say it couldn't be effective from time to time, he said it was boring, much like Lou's NJ Devil's teams that trapped the heck out of you and then won a few cups, boring as hell but effective enough to win the cup a few times.

 

[Pookie]

The way you double down is down right embarrassing.

Weird. I don’t feel anything doubling down on the obvious.

Small rink. Needs physicality.

Big picture. Enjoy.

 

[Bluelines]

And the Hawks’ teams of the 80’s... were they physical? Built for the small ice?

Even the Oilers who were skilled and would have preferred a larger ice had grit.

That’s kind of my point. We are building a speed and skill team to play on a small surface.

Not working yet.

If the debate is skill does not work on small rinks, I think one could easily argue that Boston is one of the most skilled teams in the league and they are doing OK.

I personally feel experience, health and good fortune are more important in a 16 team tournament than rink size. You can't control things like ref's making a bad call that decides the series (LV/SJ), injuries (SJ/StL), players getting playoff hot (Schwartz), who you are seeded against in the playoffs.

There are so many other intangibles that would have greater effect than rink size, especially when most of these players grew up playing on small rinks (comparatively to the Olympic rinks), rink size would be close to bottom of things I would consider when building a team.