hockey sense ... what is it?

[sr edler]

apparently you have it or you don't ...

eric lindros were one of the greatest talents ever, but he didn't have any 'hockey sense' and so his history somewhat became a battered tomato

henrik and daniel sedin aren't that fast, doesn't play very hard, or shoot the puck too great ... but hey the kids have some 'hockey sense'

so, what is it? this 'hockey sense'?

who has it? who has it not?

also historically

Click to read more...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think of it as just how aware you are of what is happening around you in a game.

Where the other players are, where they are going to go, where the puck is, where the puck is going to be, etc.

The ability to adapt your game to different situations (defensive schemes, different opponents, etc) is probably part of hockey sense.

Wayne Gretzky has the best hockey sense in history.

Lidstrom might have the most "hockey sense" of any active player.

As for Lindros, he was a very good playmaker, so he obviously had an awareness of his teammates. But he had a poor awareness of opposing players, and never adapted when his normal game became less effective (specifically against Lidstrom and to a lesser extent Stevens).

 

[Boxscore]

I would describe hockey sense in terms of:

- Being well-versed in the fundamentals of the game and the rules.

- Situational experience (where do players gravitate on the ice, how will a puck wrapped around certain boards act, etc.)

- Keen sense of awareness in regards to where your teammates/opponents will be and how they play.

- Understanding the odds of what would/should happen in certain situations, etc.

- Excellent anticipation and instincts. Some people have it in the business world, some in the sports arena. Unfortunately, some never have it, period.

- Great creativity. A lot of great things happen on the ice when a player does something unexpected or creative. Just like some writers and artists are better than others, certain players are just blessed with wonderful creativity.

There is a story where Walter Gretzky used to make a young Wayne Gretzky watch hockey games on TV while holding a large sketch book and pencil. Wayne was to stare at the TV and study where the players went on the ice, while drawling their path on the pad (without looking down). At the end of the game, Wayne would look on the pad and see the "dark" areas on the sheet. What Walter was showing him is "where" the players mostly gravitate to on the ice.

Another story has Brad Park learning to play positional defense by having his dad show him certain things while using salt/pepper shakers and items on their kitchen table.

 

[Topgoon]

I always equated hockey sense as the mental process similar to the one described by John Boyd's OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) LOOP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop

Basically - the quickness of a player's mental ability to process, react, and execute actions in the game. Looking at hockey sense from this perspective perfectly shows why the king of hockey sense, Gretzky, always seemed like he was a step quicker than his opposition.

 

[Hamilton Tigers]

I think of it as just how aware you are of what is happening around you in a game.

Where the other players are, where they are going to go, where the puck is, where the puck is going to be, etc.

The ability to adapt your game to different situations (defensive schemes, different opponents, etc) is probably part of hockey sense.

Wayne Gretzky has the best hockey sense in history.

Lidstrom might have the most "hockey sense" of any active player.

As for Lindros, he was a very good playmaker, so he obviously had an awareness of his teammates. But he had a poor awareness of opposing players, and never adapted when his normal game became less effective (specifically against Lidstrom and to a lesser extent Stevens).

Great post!

Gretzky was not big.
Gretzky was not fast.
Greatzky did not have hardest shot.
Gretzky was not the best skater.
Gretzky is the greatest hockey player ever.

Lidstrom, as great as he is, doesn't get enough due. Nice mention TheDevilMadeMe .

 

[VMBM]

One guy who had 'it' but don't probably get mentioned too often is Bobby Clarke. I've always been impressed especially by his ability to 'find' his linemates and create great scoring chances. For example, a lot of Paul Henderson's success in 1972 was a direct result of Clarke's playmaking.

Of course, he was also a dirty SOB, but that's another story...

 

[lovetherangers]

Couldn't say it any better than those above comments. Think the question has been answered. Rather than end this thread I think it would be interesting to see which players on your favorite team displayed the best hockey sense. For the Rangers it would have to be Brian Leetch, obviously Mess, and Gretzky also played for the Rangers, but Leetch was homegrown, and played almost his entire career in NY.

 

[CoupeStanley]

Anticipation and instinct.

Lindros had it btw... great hockey sense.

 

[Big Phil]

There is a story where Walter Gretzky used to make a young Wayne Gretzky watch hockey games on TV while holding a large sketch book and pencil. Wayne was to stare at the TV and study where the players went on the ice, while drawling their path on the pad (without looking down). At the end of the game, Wayne would look on the pad and see the "dark" areas on the sheet. What Walter was showing him is "where" the players mostly gravitate to on the ice.

Another story has Brad Park learning to play positional defense by having his dad show him certain things while using salt/pepper shakers and items on their kitchen table.

Those are great stories that I have heard before as well. I think hockey sense is something you can acquire for sure. I think you'll get it just by being carefree in your backyard rink. No drills, just imagination. Who among us didn't learn to stickhandle by putting the puck through the "legs" of a pylon? Do that enough with your head up and you'llbe more aware on the ice.

A great quote an Oiler player once said was that: "don't ever assume that Gretzky can't see you on the ice". I've always felt supreme hockey sense is the most valuable asset to the game of hockey even over speed.

Lidstrom was a good current example of a player who has great hockey sense. Sakic was another recent one. Crosby of course is arguably the best right now.

 

[hsing]

IMO, kovalev might be the perfect example of a great skilled player without the hockey sense that should come with his skill set. Sure, he can set up play and make pass on the power play, but these passes seems only available because of his stickhandling, who can buy time and force the opposition to respect that first.

For me, hockey sense is pretty much related to the decision making process, either in speed or efficienty. A great hockey sense would allow you to take the good decision quickly
.

 

[Mayor Bee]

I played football in high school (offensive line), and I was always amazed at how my line coach would watch a play be run in practice and be able to correct each one of five linemen for every play.

One time I asked him how he did it, and he told me to stand next to him. The offense ran the play, and he asked what I saw. I told him that I saw the center do this and the guards do this. He asked me what the tackles did on that play, and I couldn't tell him because I couldn't see them. He showed me how to expand my field of vision by actually focusing on nothing; the next play I saw all five linemen.

How does it relate to hockey? I'd always been a below-average offensive player, but I applied that; the next season I had a point in every game, had better than a goal-per-game average, and had three multi-goal games after never having any in the previous seven years.

If you think about it, what's usually a common theme with someone who is described as having poor hockey sense? It's usually one of the following:
- Tunnel vision
- Inability to anticipate where teammates are going
- Inability to anticipate where opponents are going
- Inability to use geometry and physics (this is the innate sense, not actually stopping, calculating, and interpreting)
- Inability to read timing in sequences

The first three on there can be helped by expanding the field of vision like I mentioned above. The last two...that's another story entirely. I once played on a defensive pairing with someone who had minimal hockey skills, but he always seemed to be in exactly the right place at the right time. Turns out that he was taking advanced college level math and science classes as a high school sophomore; if the puck was dumped in, he had the innate ability to determine exactly where it was going. If it was cleared around the boards, he knew exactly how fast he was going and would adjust his angle to play it perfectly. It was amazing to watch.

 

[mobilus]

There is a story where Walter Gretzky used to make a young Wayne Gretzky watch hockey games on TV while holding a large sketch book and pencil. Wayne was to stare at the TV and study where the players went on the ice, while drawling their path on the pad (without looking down). At the end of the game, Wayne would look on the pad and see the "dark" areas on the sheet. What Walter was showing him is "where" the players mostly gravitate to on the ice.

Studies have been done with Grandmaster chess players, where they've been shown chess pieces on a board either midgame or near endgame. The masters could backtrack the play, and state what moves led to that positioning, and could see where the game was going to end. Sometimes, they were shown pieces on the board that were just placed randomly, and the masters could not recognize what moves led to those positions. For all the billions of possibilities to get 40 moves into a chess game, the Grandmasters need only memorize the percentages of probability for moves that could lead to victory or failure, and all else was meaningless. Early in his pro career, Gretzky was tested in a similar way, and when shown stills of game situations, could accurately predict what was going on the ice five seconds before the photo was taken, and what did happen five seconds afterwards.

In chess, there are 400 different positions after each player makes one move apiece, 72,084 positions after two moves apiece, over 9 million positions after three moves apiece and 288+ billion different possible positions after four moves apiece. When Kasparov first played against Deep Blue (an IBM supercomputer) in 1996, he won 4-2. The computer programmers were stunned when they realized that Kasparov was playing and understanding the game up to 20 moves in advance of the play. With this in mind, they went back to reprogramming their computer for a year after the tournament, and played Kasparov again in 1997 with Deeper Blue, a revised computer which ultimately beat him.

In hockey, the positional possibilities alone surpasses the moves in chess. Five players aside plus those on the bench plus who's tired, who's sick or healthy, varying skill levels, etc. mean the possibilities of what, when and how are infinite. However, the probabilities eliminates most of the possibilities as to what might happen on the ice. I might skate hard and shoot on a breakaway, but I won't attack the net skating backwards with one hand on my stick and holding an ice cream in the other. Kasparov doesn't have to memorize every possible move in chess, just the ones most likely to happen. Him knowing what's likely to happen 20 moves into the future gave him a certain advantage when playing. Gretzky, likewise, having a five second advanced notice as to what will probably happen on the ice gave him a tremendous advantage. A good NHL skater can move about 3/4 the length of the ice in five seconds. That's a tremendous head start over other players that didn't see the game unfold as he did. Goes a long way to explaining the 200+ point seasons in spite of the fact he was not physically overpowering, overly fast nor possessing a tremendous shot.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Not really...............

Studies have been done with Grandmaster chess players, where they've been shown chess pieces on a board either midgame or near endgame. The masters could backtrack the play, and state what moves led to that positioning, and could see where the game was going to end. Sometimes, they were shown pieces on the board that were just placed randomly, and the masters could not recognize what moves led to those positions. For all the billions of possibilities to get 40 moves into a chess game, the Grandmasters need only memorize the percentages of probability for moves that could lead to victory or failure, and all else was meaningless. Early in his pro career, Gretzky was tested in a similar way, and when shown stills of game situations, could accurately predict what was going on the ice five seconds before the photo was taken, and what did happen five seconds afterwards.

In chess, there are 400 different positions after each player makes one move apiece, 72,084 positions after two moves apiece, over 9 million positions after three moves apiece and 288+ billion different possible positions after four moves apiece. When Kasparov first played against Deep Blue (an IBM supercomputer) in 1996, he won 4-2. The computer programmers were stunned when they realized that Kasparov was playing and understanding the game up to 20 moves in advance of the play. With this in mind, they went back to reprogramming their computer for a year after the tournament, and played Kasparov again in 1997 with Deeper Blue, a revised computer which ultimately beat him.

In hockey, the positional possibilities alone surpasses the moves in chess. Five players aside plus those on the bench plus who's tired, who's sick or healthy, varying skill levels, etc. mean the possibilities of what, when and how are infinite. However, the probabilities eliminates most of the possibilities as to what might happen on the ice. I might skate hard and shoot on a breakaway, but I won't attack the net skating backwards with one hand on my stick and holding an ice cream in the other. Kasparov doesn't have to memorize every possible move in chess, just the ones most likely to happen. Him knowing what's likely to happen 20 moves into the future gave him a certain advantage when playing. Gretzky, likewise, having a five second advanced notice as to what will probably happen on the ice gave him a tremendous advantage. A good NHL skater can move about 3/4 the length of the ice in five seconds. That's a tremendous head start over other players that didn't see the game unfold as he did. Goes a long way to explaining the 200+ point seasons in spite of the fact he was not physically overpowering, overly fast nor possessing a tremendous shot.

Nice try at an analogy but chess is static. One move at a time, first white than black. Repeat until the game is over. Football would be a better comparable but you still have successive offensive plays.

Take Peyton Manning calling plays at the line of scrimmage. From the defensive set he knows what the defense can and cannot do, so he adjusts his offense accordingly. With the net result that the options for both sides are reduced significantly. Basically binomial for each offensive and defensive position. Further reduced by his knowledge of the best offensive choice given the defensive sets. Then it becomes a simple question of execution in less than five seconds.

Hockey is fluid since you do not have a start every few seconds,like you do in certain sports where the players are aligned in certain standard positions. So players have to improvise, offensively and defensively, on the move.

Wayne Gretzky's strength was the ability to know how much time he had to execute any given action at any given time on the ice. Likewise he knew how much time other players had to do likewise. At this point the choices are simplified since the best option is limited and it becomes a matter of execution.

 

[Scouter]

Hockey sense is a players anticipation of the play.

 

[mobilus]

Nice try at an analogy but chess is static.

I understand chess is static, I wasn't making a comparison to the actual nature of play, but a comparison to predictability of outcome. I could have compared Gretzky's hockey IQ to the insurance industry, as they set their rates based upon mathematical models whether or not your house will burn down or your car will be stolen. I'm discussing percentages. If Gretzky could see the ice and predict the highest chance of probability of what the puck would be doing three seconds later, he held an advantage over other players with a lower hockey IQ. His mind was negating any physical advantage other players may have had. Likewise with Kasparov and his chess IQ. If he could read a chess game 20 moves in advance, over other masters who could only see a game 12-15 moves in advance, he held a long term advantage over them in tournament play.

 

[sr edler]

from a few of the answers here hockey sense doesn't look to be that ... sexy? ... at least not as much as talent ... perhaps a little too calculating and boring?

i mean, who wants to watch the game of hockey being played solely by advanced mathematicians who makes up for flaws in skills by cutting angles?

i guess it has more than one aspect?

 

[NMF78]

Seeing things faster is only one thing, you got to have the ability to execute, to take advantage of this and thats what the all-time great players are able to do.

 

[tomf]

I understand chess is static, I wasn't making a comparison to the actual nature of play, but a comparison to predictability of outcome. I could have compared Gretzky's hockey IQ to the insurance industry, as they set their rates based upon mathematical models whether or not your house will burn down or your car will be stolen. I'm discussing percentages. If Gretzky could see the ice and predict the highest chance of probability of what the puck would be doing three seconds later, he held an advantage over other players with a lower hockey IQ. His mind was negating any physical advantage other players may have had. Likewise with Kasparov and his chess IQ. If he could read a chess game 20 moves in advance, over other masters who could only see a game 12-15 moves in advance, he held a long term advantage over them in tournament play.

This is pretty close to what I imagine under the term hockey sense. The analogy to risk management but done realtime at every second is perfect IMO.

 

[Jeri]

I played football in high school (offensive line), and I was always amazed at how my line coach would watch a play be run in practice and be able to correct each one of five linemen for every play.

One time I asked him how he did it, and he told me to stand next to him. The offense ran the play, and he asked what I saw. I told him that I saw the center do this and the guards do this. He asked me what the tackles did on that play, and I couldn't tell him because I couldn't see them. He showed me how to expand my field of vision by actually focusing on nothing; the next play I saw all five linemen.

How does it relate to hockey? I'd always been a below-average offensive player, but I applied that; the next season I had a point in every game, had better than a goal-per-game average, and had three multi-goal games after never having any in the previous seven years.

If you think about it, what's usually a common theme with someone who is described as having poor hockey sense? It's usually one of the following:
- Tunnel vision
- Inability to anticipate where teammates are going
- Inability to anticipate where opponents are going
- Inability to use geometry and physics (this is the innate sense, not actually stopping, calculating, and interpreting)
- Inability to read timing in sequences

The first three on there can be helped by expanding the field of vision like I mentioned above. The last two...that's another story entirely. I once played on a defensive pairing with someone who had minimal hockey skills, but he always seemed to be in exactly the right place at the right time. Turns out that he was taking advanced college level math and science classes as a high school sophomore; if the puck was dumped in, he had the innate ability to determine exactly where it was going. If it was cleared around the boards, he knew exactly how fast he was going and would adjust his angle to play it perfectly. It was amazing to watch.

I think that means Pronger is the best player all time?

 

[John Flyers Fan]

eric lindros were one of the greatest talents ever, but he didn't have any 'hockey sense' and so his history somewhat became a battered tomato

This is a giant fallacy. You aren't a great playmaker, and you don't post a top 5 all-time ppg for a huge chunk of your career without having hockey sense.

Also the myth that Lindros always skated with his head down is a joke as well. Yes, he got nailed twice with his head down (the Kasparitis hit, being much more important and devastating than teh Stevens hit) but there are some out there that would lead you to believe it happened on a regular basis, it did not.

One other thing, while I agree with Gretzky's hockey sense as the best ever, especially for an offensive mind, Gretzky's "skills" are underrated.

While he wasn't a blazing fast skater, he was a brilliant skater, certainly one of th ebest in the worls during the 80's. Very few could stop and start, curl and move and have Gretzky's agility.

Gretzky's shot is also massively underrated. For my money he has one of the 2 or 3 best slapshots of all time. It wasn't the hardest, although it was plenty hard, but it was ridiculously accurate. Also because he was able to buy himself more time than almost anyone, he could go into his full wind-up and it wasn't getting blocked or deflected out of the rink like so many others.

 

[lextune]

This is a giant fallacy. You aren't a great playmaker, and you don't post a top 5 all-time ppg for a huge chunk of your career without having hockey sense.

Also the myth that Lindros always skated with his head down is a joke as well. Yes, he got nailed twice with his head down (the Kasparitis hit, being much more important and devastating than teh Stevens hit) but there are some out there that would lead you to believe it happened on a regular basis, it did not.

One other thing, while I agree with Gretzky's hockey sense as the best ever, especially for an offensive mind, Gretzky's "skills" are underrated.

While he wasn't a blazing fast skater, he was a brilliant skater, certainly one of th ebest in the worls during the 80's. Very few could stop and start, curl and move and have Gretzky's agility.

Gretzky's shot is also massively underrated. For my money he has one of the 2 or 3 best slapshots of all time. It wasn't the hardest, although it was plenty hard, but it was ridiculously accurate. Also because he was able to buy himself more time than almost anyone, he could go into his full wind-up and it wasn't getting blocked or deflected out of the rink like so many others.

Everything about this post is exactly right.