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

[Bluelines]

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

Small rink. Needs physicality.

Big picture. Enjoy.

Could people be getting lost in the world physicality? Would high compete be a better term? Boston and StL are not overly physical teams, sure they both have a physical element but no one shudders at the thought of the physical Bozak line or the bone crunching Bergeron line.

 

[Bluelines]

RATT... one of those great hair bands... ROCK ON!!!

I don't have that guitar in my collection but it's on the shopping list.

 

[Pookie]

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.

Of course it’s effective.

And a low zone D, a trap, etc are all employed on any ice surface.

However, a larger ice surface would allow differences in skill to be realized vs muted on a smaller rink.

 

[Bluelines]

Of course it’s effective.

And a low zone D, a trap, etc are all employed on any ice surface.

However, a larger ice surface would allow differences in skill to be realized vs muted on a smaller rink.

Yup it allows inferior players time and space to make decisions.

Big rinks = boring soccer hockey.

 

[Pookie]

Could people be getting lost in the world physicality? Would high compete be a better term? Boston and StL are not overly physical teams, sure they both have a physical element but no one shudders at the thought of the physical Bozak line or the bone crunching Bergeron line.

It’s possible.

For some physicality means face punching.

For me it’s grit and winning battles and clearing the net and going in corners and other examples in this run on sentence.

We lose the big picture when we focus on a single series as an example as to how the “game has changed.”

I can take your St Louis and Boston and raise you VGK vs Washington.

Grit matters in this tournament.

And it’s the epitome of arrogance to rally around the notion of a changed game... and Dubas saying he doesn’t “buy” the physicality argument.... when all we have are 3 first round exits to our credit.

 

[Pookie]

Yup it allows inferior players time and space to make decisions.

Big rinks = boring soccer hockey.

So our core of Marner and Rielly and Nylander and Matthews and Tavares and Kapanen wouldn’t do well on a large surface?

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

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.

That's kind of the thing. His argument wasn't just rink size but that stats are missing this bit. All the stats in existence are based off play on small rinks. One could only argue the weight you assign to which stats or whether there are other stats that have more bearing. Further, if you want to discuss playoffs, you have to realize how small the sample size is and just how much the things that aren't statistically trackable (officiating, injuries, bounces, etc.) are magnified in effect on outcome. This playoff alone, two calls resulted in one team advancing two rounds further than they might have. Both calls were correct (IMO) but were also the difference.

For reference purposes, this playoffs will produce at most 174 team games worth of data. Regular season produces 2542 team games worth of data. Those little things you can't statistically track are greatly amplified over such a small period.

 

[Pookie]

Yup it allows inferior players time and space to make decisions.

Big rinks = boring soccer hockey.

Psst. NHL has a boredom problem

https://www.bardown.com/mcdavid-sug...to-make-the-nhl-less-boring-to-watch-1.855514

Jay Baruchel on the state of hockey in Canada, says NHL is ‘boring’

Hi sports fans, remember me? It's the Stanley Cup playoffs. - Macleans.ca

 

[Rants Mulliniks]

And it’s the epitome of arrogance to rally around the notion of a changed game... and Dubas saying he doesn’t “buy” the physicality argument.... when all we have are 3 first round exits to our credit.

That's great if you buy that "physicality" is why they lost. Of course to do so is to ignore that they are the only team in the league to face three 107+ point opponents in the first round, one of which won the Cup the following year while the other is competing for the Cup this year. Or if you ignore that they played 20/21 possible games against those teams despite having much of their core pieces still 22 and under (not yet in their primes) and have done all of this coming from being dead last in the league.

Out of curiosity, how many of those Cup teams can you name that didn't have their core guys around for a significant amount of time?

 

[Bluelines]

It’s possible.

For some physicality means face punching.

For me it’s grit and winning battles and clearing the net and going in corners and other examples in this run on sentence.

We lose the big picture when we focus on a single series as an example as to how the “game has changed.”

I can take your St Louis and Boston and raise you VGK vs Washington.

Grit matters in this tournament.

And it’s the epitome of arrogance to rally around the notion of a changed game... and Dubas saying he doesn’t “buy” the physicality argument.... when all we have are 3 first round exits to our credit.

In your last sentence you are equating our 3 eliminations to lack of toughness. The most recent exit was because of poor PK, poor PK and poor PK. I don't dispute that from a fan perspective I would like to see a little more compete and imitating physicality. I enjoy an aggressive fore check, I enjoy when we take time and space away, I love the big hit. Muzzin while a guy I wouldn't play above a #4 dman because of his defensive lapses, is a favorite of mine because he makes a habit of pasting guys into the boards but I wouldn't take his physicality over Rielly's skill.

Ideally Dubas is educated enough to understand that a team can't be a one trick pony, you need elements of skill, speed, physicality, experience, leadership, health, puck luck to win the cup.

This tournament is really about players playing way above their pay grade, Wilson, DSM did it last year for the Caps, this year Rask and Schwartz are doing it for their respective teams. If Brown had 12 goals in the playoffs we'd probably still be in this thing.

People keep looking for that secret sauce that will be the answer to how to win the cup and the truth is there really is no specific answer, its different every series, different every year. If there was that one key element that worked every year, people much smarter than us would have already figured it out.

 

[Bluelines]

Psst. NHL has a boredom problem

https://www.bardown.com/mcdavid-sug...to-make-the-nhl-less-boring-to-watch-1.855514

Jay Baruchel on the state of hockey in Canada, says NHL is ‘boring’

Hi sports fans, remember me? It's the Stanley Cup playoffs. - Macleans.ca

Subjective opinions, I happen to think the NHL game is for the most part enjoyable.

 

[Bluelines]

So our core of Marner and Rielly and Nylander and Matthews and Tavares and Kapanen wouldn’t do well on a large surface?

I don't know, you'd have to try them there to find out. Not sure us vs Boston on a larger surface would result in an different outcome. Would us on a larger surface help or hurt our PK?

 

[notDatsyuk]

Watch it sometime.....it’s horrible.

I've watched most of the NHL playoffs and most of the IIHF World Cup this year, and the biggest difference I have seen is that on the larger ice, the difference between the good players and the average players is accentuated. If you like watching skill players excel, the larger ice is much better. If you like watching the average grinders slow the game down and prevent the better players from dominating, then the smaller ice is fine.

 

[ACC1224]

Best Olympic tournament was Vancouver on the NHL rink.
Big ice gives the Latvias of the World a chance.

 

[Pookie]

I don't know, you'd have to try them there to find out. Not sure us vs Boston on a larger surface would result in an different outcome. Would us on a larger surface help or hurt our PK?

When you get down to it... a PK is is likely to be played the exact same. Regardless of the width of the rink, you want to defend shooting and passing lanes.

You’d give up the outside all day long and focus on the lanes.

Where the difference comes is the break out and off turnovers and 4v4 or other situations in which speed can create gaps.

Once you have the zone... either on a PK or and PP, the game is largely the same. Protect the net.

Nylander seems to be doing well overseas.

 

[Pookie]

I've watched most of the NHL playoffs and most of the IIHF World Cup this year, and the biggest difference I have seen is that on the larger ice, the difference between the good players and the average players is accentuated. If you like watching skill players excel, the larger ice is much better. If you like watching the average grinders slow the game down and prevent the better players from dominating, then the smaller ice is fine.

Indeed. I’d give you a like but I lost that in a Tim Thomas debate.

 

[notDatsyuk]

Best Olympic tournament was Vancouver on the NHL rink.
Big ice gives the Latvias of the World a chance.

Small ice gave Pittsburgh and Tampa no chance. Those series would have been completely different on the larger ice.

 

[Nineteen67]

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.

They did that to compete with St Louis who was winning the new conference.

 

[Bluelines]

When you get down to it... a PK is is likely to be played the exact same. Regardless of the width of the rink, you want to defend shooting and passing lanes.

You’d give up the outside all day long and focus on the lanes.

Where the difference comes is the break out and off turnovers and 4v4 or other situations in which speed can create gaps.

Once you have the zone... either on a PK or and PP, the game is largely the same. Protect the net.

Nylander seems to be doing well overseas.

Uggh, a name I wish never wore the Leafs jersey. He's everything I don't like in that generation, lazy, entitled, weak, arrogant, ignorant.... the day he is traded is the day I break out my special Single Malt from Islay.

 

[Nineteen67]

I've watched most of the NHL playoffs and most of the IIHF World Cup this year, and the biggest difference I have seen is that on the larger ice, the difference between the good players and the average players is accentuated. If you like watching skill players excel, the larger ice is much better. If you like watching the average grinders slow the game down and prevent the better players from dominating, then the smaller ice is fine.

What happens when they play intense, real hockey, on the large ice? Unless they increase the size of the net, I would guess that scoring would go down.

 

[Nineteen67]

Small ice gave Pittsburgh and Tampa no chance. Those series would have been completely different on the larger ice.

Pittsburgh recently won back to back Cups on the regulation size ice.

 

[Nineteen67]

Wait. Wait. Wait.

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

Shot from the top of the slot.....now move that back another 10 feet.

 

[thewave]

Big ice is boring. No fighting for space and contact gets reduced. Sorry no soccer on ice for me. If they want another 5 ft of neutral zone length only, that could work, possibly up to 10 so you can have the benches in the neutral and breakouts would be more interesting. That's all I would do, 5ft could be done in most rinks or not be enough to disturb kids transition to pro assuming towns don't bother to comply.

 

[Pookie]

Shot from the top of the slot.....now move that back another 10 feet.

Actually it’s the opposite.

Distance from blue line to goal line is 6 feet shorter under IIHF rules.

Olympic Hockey Is the Same, Except for This and That

 

[Pookie]

Big ice is boring. No fighting for space and contact gets reduced. Sorry no soccer on ice for me. If they want another 5 ft of neutral zone length only, that could work, possibly up to 10 so you can have the benches in the neutral and breakouts would be more interesting. That's all I would do, 5ft could be done in most rinks or not be enough to disturb kids transition to pro assuming towns don't bother to comply.

Exactly. Contact gets reduced.

Why are we “not buying” physicality if this is the surface we play on?