Let's Talk About Hits, Baby
- Thread starter Amberelise
- Start date
Em etah Eh
Maroon PP
- Jul 17, 2007
- 3,090
- 1,498
Isn't the general answer to this that you're going to be the ones getting hit more if you are in possesion of the puck, controlling play for good portions of the game?
Bluesnatic27
Registered User
- Aug 5, 2011
- 4,714
- 3,212
This topic surfaces every now and then.
I made a post way back in November about hits - to - wins, and at the time, the teams that were winning were the ones that weren't hitting. Well I checked back and it seems much more evenly split. half the teams that are hitting are in a playoff position. The other half that are a playoff position hardly hit at all. It seems that teams that are near the extremes in total hits, regardless of if they hit a lot or very little, are the ones winning. It's the teams that are closer towards the center that are the ones not doing much of anything. It's an interesting turnaround to say the least.
I made a post way back in November about hits - to - wins, and at the time, the teams that were winning were the ones that weren't hitting. Well I checked back and it seems much more evenly split. half the teams that are hitting are in a playoff position. The other half that are a playoff position hardly hit at all. It seems that teams that are near the extremes in total hits, regardless of if they hit a lot or very little, are the ones winning. It's the teams that are closer towards the center that are the ones not doing much of anything. It's an interesting turnaround to say the least.
Driveshaft
Registered User
Also what is considered a hit in one arena might not count in the next. It's too subjective to be a reliable stat.
Amberelise
Registered User
The disparity in hits is too much to directly correlate to puck possession time. I discount that not only from the basic percentage to percentage math, but also based on historical data which does not reflect this sort of disparity as common.
I also would argue regular season stats are different than playoff stats, but I can be proven wrong on that as I'm going on gut.
Home arena argument is directly refuted in the above numbers. Not saying it doesn't give or take on some instances, but not to this extreme, no.
I also would argue regular season stats are different than playoff stats, but I can be proven wrong on that as I'm going on gut.
Home arena argument is directly refuted in the above numbers. Not saying it doesn't give or take on some instances, but not to this extreme, no.
Amberelise
Registered User
I don't see the Blues being physically dominated in games. It looks at least even over the course of play. I don't care what the hit numbers are, if that's the case, if they're dominating things like possession and shots/chances.
- Jul 4, 2014
- 7,857
- 8,192
This is a very good point. While it is un-clean as most non-statistical data, there is a big difference between being out-hit and being physically dominated. I can't think of any game, much less a stretch of games, where I thought we were being physically dominated based on the eye test.
Majorityof1
Registered User
The team as constructed should be getting outhit. For better or worse, we don't have many players who are big time hitters. And that's fine because hitting is just one means to an end. The important thing is separating the puck from the attacking player. If you do that with your body or your stick, its all the same to me.
The problem with looking at hits in a vacuum is that a lot of the time players chase hits. They are getting out of position to finish a check, but aren't separating puck from player in doing so. You can be a half a second behind the play and still get a "hit" wihtout really doing much for your team. In fact, it can be a negative as a player can take himself out of the play trying to hit too. With a poke check, if done right, your body is generally between the puck and the net. If you miss the poke, you are still in position. Our D have long reach and are generally good with their stick, so that is preferable to hits for the sake of hits. Players should play to their strengths, not chase some arbitrary stat.
As an example, Nicklas Lidstrom, one of the best D of all time, had 212 hits over his last 5 years (since they starting tracking hits). That's an average of only 42 hits a year, or .53 hits a game. Compared to let's say, Zaitsev, who imo is a borderline NHL player. Zaitsev has 383 hits in his 2 and a half year career, for 1.94 hits per game. That's almost 4 times as much. Who would help a team win more? Prime Lidstrom and his hit every other game, or prime Zaitsev with his 2 hits a game? Or compare Bergeron, a multiple selke winner, and his .73/gm since they started tracking them vs Steve Ott and his over 3 hits/gm. Also when comparing these stats, Lidstrom and Bergeron because they are far superior players, also play more minutes than their comparison, so the hits per minute numbers are even more slanted.
The problem with looking at hits in a vacuum is that a lot of the time players chase hits. They are getting out of position to finish a check, but aren't separating puck from player in doing so. You can be a half a second behind the play and still get a "hit" wihtout really doing much for your team. In fact, it can be a negative as a player can take himself out of the play trying to hit too. With a poke check, if done right, your body is generally between the puck and the net. If you miss the poke, you are still in position. Our D have long reach and are generally good with their stick, so that is preferable to hits for the sake of hits. Players should play to their strengths, not chase some arbitrary stat.
As an example, Nicklas Lidstrom, one of the best D of all time, had 212 hits over his last 5 years (since they starting tracking hits). That's an average of only 42 hits a year, or .53 hits a game. Compared to let's say, Zaitsev, who imo is a borderline NHL player. Zaitsev has 383 hits in his 2 and a half year career, for 1.94 hits per game. That's almost 4 times as much. Who would help a team win more? Prime Lidstrom and his hit every other game, or prime Zaitsev with his 2 hits a game? Or compare Bergeron, a multiple selke winner, and his .73/gm since they started tracking them vs Steve Ott and his over 3 hits/gm. Also when comparing these stats, Lidstrom and Bergeron because they are far superior players, also play more minutes than their comparison, so the hits per minute numbers are even more slanted.
TK 421
Barbashev eats babies pass it on
- Sep 12, 2007
- 6,460
- 6,114
No concern at all for me. To me if we're being out hit badly I'm just going to shrug my shoulders and assume we're out possessing the other team significantly. We've out shot and out chanced 20 of our last 21 opponents and it directly coincides with a dramatically positive turn around.
PiggySmalls
Oink Oink MF
- Mar 7, 2015
- 6,107
- 3,516
The most successful teams year in and year out are those that play to their strengths. This lineup is not really composed to me a high hitting group, clearly the coaching staff has identified that and built their scheme to best avoid that.
When Yeo was HC and they weren't hitting it was irritating me, because it seemed like they were giving too much space to the opposition. Berube and his staff haven't increased the hitting but are having the players close gaps alot better.
Over the past 10 years Blackhawks are 29 out of 31 in total hits over that time period. They showed that if you are good enough, you can play to your strengths and not get trapped into your opponents strength.
Yes I know a counter point to above is LA Kings are number 1 during that same period. My response would be which of those teams played a modern game that the rest of the league has emulated.
When Yeo was HC and they weren't hitting it was irritating me, because it seemed like they were giving too much space to the opposition. Berube and his staff haven't increased the hitting but are having the players close gaps alot better.
Over the past 10 years Blackhawks are 29 out of 31 in total hits over that time period. They showed that if you are good enough, you can play to your strengths and not get trapped into your opponents strength.
Yes I know a counter point to above is LA Kings are number 1 during that same period. My response would be which of those teams played a modern game that the rest of the league has emulated.
Amberelise
Registered User
I agree when discussing takeaways and not hunting for the hit.
But, it's a two part issue...one, do we hit enough, and, two how much are the amount of hits we're taking affecting us physically? Getting out-hit 2:1 each game means we're getting "beat up" more, and in best of 7, that adds up comparatively. Hence the playoffs concerns.
But, it's a two part issue...one, do we hit enough, and, two how much are the amount of hits we're taking affecting us physically? Getting out-hit 2:1 each game means we're getting "beat up" more, and in best of 7, that adds up comparatively. Hence the playoffs concerns.
It’s a fair question but what I look at is “can this roster play a playoff-style game?” I think they can. What I mean by that is not only hits but playing a hard working, balls out game as well.
On the back end, Edmundson, Bortuzzo and Parayko are physical. Pietrangelo has shown he can take hits and play through it.
Up front, we might not have any Reaves-type guys but we have a lot of guys that play tenacious. Schenn hits a lot. Tarasenko has upped that part of his game this season. Schwartz and ROR aren’t physical but they play a hard, puck-hounding game. Perron and Steen play a gritty, pest role. Mac, Barbie and Sunny will play the body and they do a great job mucking it up and going to the dirty areas of the ice. Maroon is slow but obviously is a big body that can mix it up.
I think really the only forward we have that I’d say is real soft is Thomas. But he’s 19 so that should improve with time hopefully. I like the makeup of our team.
On the back end, Edmundson, Bortuzzo and Parayko are physical. Pietrangelo has shown he can take hits and play through it.
Up front, we might not have any Reaves-type guys but we have a lot of guys that play tenacious. Schenn hits a lot. Tarasenko has upped that part of his game this season. Schwartz and ROR aren’t physical but they play a hard, puck-hounding game. Perron and Steen play a gritty, pest role. Mac, Barbie and Sunny will play the body and they do a great job mucking it up and going to the dirty areas of the ice. Maroon is slow but obviously is a big body that can mix it up.
I think really the only forward we have that I’d say is real soft is Thomas. But he’s 19 so that should improve with time hopefully. I like the makeup of our team.
trevorftw
Voice of Reason
I think hits are a very subjective stat. You could make the argument that blues players have been taking more hits to make better plays rather than avoid the hit and turn the puck over.
There's something that you sometimes see in the playoffs where a team will physically steamroll another and it will intimidate a few players into playing poorly. We're not there yet, but I'd say they blues have looked pretty composed while getting outhit recently.
There's something that you sometimes see in the playoffs where a team will physically steamroll another and it will intimidate a few players into playing poorly. We're not there yet, but I'd say they blues have looked pretty composed while getting outhit recently.
We used to run around hitting people a few years ago. I don’t recall any Stanley cups being awarded for it.
Celtic Note
Living the dream
- Dec 22, 2006
- 16,909
- 5,668
I don’t think there is quite the direct correlation that some make it out to be.
If you are the more physical team and better with possession, you can still out hit the other team. The Hitchcock Blues hit at a high number and also had high possession stats.
Celtic Note
Living the dream
- Dec 22, 2006
- 16,909
- 5,668
Celtic Note
Living the dream
- Dec 22, 2006
- 16,909
- 5,668
For the record, I don’t think you have to be a heavy team to win. You cannot be soft. But being soft is shying away from physicality and hard areas of the ice.
The Hawks, despite not being hitters, were not a soft team. They could down right be nasty. They worked hard to get to high danger areas.
The Hawks, despite not being hitters, were not a soft team. They could down right be nasty. They worked hard to get to high danger areas.
izzy
go
What about the Penguins?
There’s more than one way to win a Cup. I never said a team can’t win while also checking a lot. The league overall is moving away from that philosophy though.
Celtic Note
Living the dream
- Dec 22, 2006
- 16,909
- 5,668
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
Game 2 Nashville Predators @ Vancouver Canucks - Vancouver leads series 1-0Wagers: 13Staked: $22,382.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
