Miscellaneous NHL Talk XLIII - April showers

[Striiker]

To be able to hear TK talk shit all the time? That may be worth it alone lol

What they should do is have a livestreamed version of the game on NHL.com where you can pay some kind of fee to get a feed with the players voices. That way they can still have the family friendly TV version for advertisers but also make a little extra money on the side.

Although, now that I think about it, the problem wouldn't even be the cursing, it's the possibility of a player saying something legitimately awful that could get people in real trouble. When they do mic'd up videos they get to screen what's said and edit it out... can't do that when it's live.

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

What they should do is have a livestreamed version of the game on NHL.com where you can pay some kind of fee to get a feed with the players voices. That way they can still have the family friendly TV version for advertisers but also make a little extra money on the side.

Although, now that I think about it, the problem wouldn't even be the cursing, it's the possibility of a player saying something legitimately awful that could get people in real trouble. When they do mic'd up videos they get to screen what's said and edit it out... can't do that when it's live.

yeah you bring up some good points. I think most fans would love to see it. I guess they could have a 5 second delay. But yeah the FCC probably would bring the hammer down if something was said. People are easily offended as well.

 

[Striiker]

yeah you bring up some good points. I think most fans would love to see it. I guess they could have a 5 second delay. But yeah the FCC probably would bring the hammer down if something was said. People are easily offended as well.

Oh yeah, for sure. People go way overboard when it comes to what offends them these days.

Maybe do like you said, put a delay on it so they can censor the naughty words and then also put a giant warning banner saying that it could be offensive.

Only problem would be is if it's an offensive statement instead of an offensive word. The censor might not realize where the sentence is going until it's too late.

 

[LegionOfDoom91]

I don’t think the general public could honestly handle the shit talk unfiltered on a professional sports playing surface. There would be too much outrage right or wrong that it would never be done for that reason.

It’s already bad enough when their on-surface mics pick up something bad unintentionally that causes a frenzy.

 

[TCTC]

A couple years ago NBC had to apologize for Snoop Dogg performing an uncensored version of one of his songs at the All Star game because there were people complaining on twitter and whatnot.

 

[GapToothedWonder]

What they should do is have a livestreamed version of the game on NHL.com where you can pay some kind of fee to get a feed with the players voices. That way they can still have the family friendly TV version for advertisers but also make a little extra money on the side.

Although, now that I think about it, the problem wouldn't even be the cursing, it's the possibility of a player saying something legitimately awful that could get people in real trouble. When they do mic'd up videos they get to screen what's said and edit it out... can't do that when it's live.

Also if that was an option all the players would just muzzle themselves anyways which would defeat the purpose. At least the ones with brains would.

 

[Appleyard]

Also if that was an option all the players would just muzzle themselves anyways which would defeat the purpose. At least the ones with brains would.

Or just spend more time thinking of funny/bizarre things to say that would actually get broadcast and potentially go viral for more publicity and in turn marketing deals haha.

 

[Striiker]

Also if that was an option all the players would just muzzle themselves anyways which would defeat the purpose. At least the ones with brains would.

True, but you still get some gold from the guys who know they’re wearing mics right now. TK and Hayes were pretty good this year.

Although the ones without brains would probably be the most entertaining anyways.

 

[Curufinwe]

Many NHL players not planning on returning to team facility...

Luke Schenn returned to Kelowna, B.C., three weeks ago, figuring his offseason home near family was a much better place to be with his baby boy, Weston, who was born on April 21 in Tampa.

The Lightning’s veteran defenseman said there’s about 15 NHL players in the surrounding area, which should make for a good practice group when Phase 2 of the NHL’s Return to Play plan begins next week.

While Schenn, 30, plans to stay in Canada until there’s an agreement on a training camp schedule, he realizes he’ll eventually have to leave his wife, Jessica, 3-year-old son Kingston and Weston. Schenn just doesn’t know how the process is going to work, with the NHL essentially leaving it up to players and teams – with a $1,500 stipend for travel – to get across the border and safely back for camp.

 

[Here4ThaLids]

a much better place to be with his baby boy, Weston, who was born on April 21 in Tampa.

Saving Wyndham for the next one? Sofitel if it's a girl?

It's every time with those western Canadians. Reality starts to break down once you cross the 100th meridian. They live in the Zone.

 

[Stizzle]

For those who have been following this dude's hatred of Benning...

 

[DancingPanther]

For those who have been following this dude's hatred of Benning...

Better get back to Tennessee, Judd.

 

[DancingPanther]

Model Description: Expected Goals Fabric

Interesting read. In short, a look at goal odds based on shot type and shot location based on cumulative data sine 2010.

1. Carter Hart is good. He clocks in at decreasing goal odds by ~4% compared to baseline data, which places him #6ish among all full time NHL starters. He's 21.
2. If Giroux takes a shot, it has ~4% better odds of resulting in a goal compared to baseline data

Most importantly, and I've been beating this drum for so long...offensive "zone time" is overrated as hell. I include this as part of the HockeyGuy logic. According to this data, goal odds are DOUBLED when on the rush. To put this in perspective, that is exactly the impact a 5v3 has on goal odds according to this tracking. In other words, scoring chances generated on the rush are equally as dangerous as those generated on a 5v3. "Sustained pressure" is antiquated. The game is different; speed and skill. These qualities are conducive to rushes. This data further shows the onus should not be on dump, chase, bang bodies, and get pucks to the net (Hakstol) but to make quick outlet passes from the Dzone to the NZ with forward support and speed. It shows how important carry ins are. It shows how important a smooth skating Dman who can pass is. It shows how important possession stats in general are.

Does "sustained pressure" matter? Of course- it can cause matchup issues if the offensive team is able to change (and can render the defending team stationary if sustained enough) and can be a catalyst for momentum. However, dumping and chasing then "hoping" for a shift to cause these things is a fool's game; these shifts rarely occur anyway- what is much more reliable is to organize and execute an attack with speed starting from the back 3rd of the rink. Besides, who says a zone entry like that won't cause sustained pressure if a goal isn't scored? Couple that possibility with the fact that rushes are just as dangerous as a 5v3....well...the choice is clear.

tl;dr Hart and Giroux are good. Transition/rush hockey is great. Dump and chase stinks.

 

[CanadianFlyer88]

Model Description: Expected Goals Fabric

Interesting read. In short, a look at goal odds based on shot type and shot location based on cumulative data sine 2010.

1. Carter Hart is good. He clocks in at decreasing goal odds by ~4% compared to baseline data, which places him #6ish among all full time NHL starters. He's 21.
2. If Giroux takes a shot, it has ~4% better odds of resulting in a goal compared to baseline data

Most importantly, and I've been beating this drum for so long...offensive "zone time" is overrated as hell. I include this as part of the HockeyGuy logic. According to this data, goal odds are DOUBLED when on the rush. To put this in perspective, that is exactly the impact a 5v3 has on goal odds according to this tracking. In other words, scoring chances generated on the rush are equally as dangerous as those generated on a 5v3. "Sustained pressure" is antiquated. The game is different; speed and skill. These qualities are conducive to rushes. This data further shows the onus should not be on dump, chase, bang bodies, and get pucks to the net (Hakstol) but to make quick outlet passes from the Dzone to the NZ with forward support and speed. It shows how important carry ins are. It shows how important a smooth skating Dman who can pass is. It shows how important possession stats in general are.

Does "sustained pressure" matter? Of course- it can cause matchup issues if the offensive team is able to change (and can render the defending team stationary if sustained enough) and can be a catalyst for momentum. However, dumping and chasing then "hoping" for a shift to cause these things is a fool's game- what is much more reliable is to organize and execute an attack with speed starting from the back 3rd of the rink. Besides, who says a zone entry like that won't cause sustained pressure if a goal isn't scored? Couple that possibility with the fact that rushes are just as dangerous as a 5v3....well...the choice is clear.

tl;dr Hart and Giroux are good. Transition/rush hockey is great. Dump and chase stinks.

Nice. Been waiting on public information like this for a long time.

Transition/clear path data is key, but I have never seen a public compilation of it.

 

[DancingPanther]

Nice. Been waiting on public information like this for a long time.

Transition/clear path data is key, but I have never seen a public compilation of it.

True transition data is always behind a paywall. I've been thinking of splurging recently. idk

To be clear I drew my own conclusions here based on data signifying that 5v3 and on the rush increase goal odds by 104% each. That much is not speculation

 

[Striiker]

Model Description: Expected Goals Fabric

Interesting read. In short, a look at goal odds based on shot type and shot location based on cumulative data sine 2010.

1. Carter Hart is good. He clocks in at decreasing goal odds by ~4% compared to baseline data, which places him #6ish among all full time NHL starters. He's 21.
2. If Giroux takes a shot, it has ~4% better odds of resulting in a goal compared to baseline data

Most importantly, and I've been beating this drum for so long...offensive "zone time" is overrated as hell. I include this as part of the HockeyGuy logic. According to this data, goal odds are DOUBLED when on the rush. To put this in perspective, that is exactly the impact a 5v3 has on goal odds according to this tracking. In other words, scoring chances generated on the rush are equally as dangerous as those generated on a 5v3. "Sustained pressure" is antiquated. The game is different; speed and skill. These qualities are conducive to rushes. This data further shows the onus should not be on dump, chase, bang bodies, and get pucks to the net (Hakstol) but to make quick outlet passes from the Dzone to the NZ with forward support and speed. It shows how important carry ins are. It shows how important a smooth skating Dman who can pass is. It shows how important possession stats in general are.

Does "sustained pressure" matter? Of course- it can cause matchup issues if the offensive team is able to change (and can render the defending team stationary if sustained enough) and can be a catalyst for momentum. However, dumping and chasing then "hoping" for a shift to cause these things is a fool's game- what is much more reliable is to organize and execute an attack with speed starting from the back 3rd of the rink. Besides, who says a zone entry like that won't cause sustained pressure if a goal isn't scored? Couple that possibility with the fact that rushes are just as dangerous as a 5v3....well...the choice is clear.

tl;dr Hart and Giroux are good. Transition/rush hockey is great. Dump and chase stinks.

That's interesting stuff. Although it should be noted that even if the chances of scoring a goal during sustained pressure is lower than on the rush, it's still higher than if you're in your own zone, so I'm not sure I'd say "antiquated". It's just not as vital for scoring as some think.

Also, sustained pressure is the best way to prevent your opponent from scoring, so it's still something to aim for.

Plus...

 

[FLYguy3911]

Model Description: Expected Goals Fabric

Interesting read. In short, a look at goal odds based on shot type and shot location based on cumulative data sine 2010.

1. Carter Hart is good. He clocks in at decreasing goal odds by ~4% compared to baseline data, which places him #6ish among all full time NHL starters. He's 21.
2. If Giroux takes a shot, it has ~4% better odds of resulting in a goal compared to baseline data

Most importantly, and I've been beating this drum for so long...offensive "zone time" is overrated as hell. I include this as part of the HockeyGuy logic. According to this data, goal odds are DOUBLED when on the rush. To put this in perspective, that is exactly the impact a 5v3 has on goal odds according to this tracking. In other words, scoring chances generated on the rush are equally as dangerous as those generated on a 5v3. "Sustained pressure" is antiquated. The game is different; speed and skill. These qualities are conducive to rushes. This data further shows the onus should not be on dump, chase, bang bodies, and get pucks to the net (Hakstol) but to make quick outlet passes from the Dzone to the NZ with forward support and speed. It shows how important carry ins are. It shows how important a smooth skating Dman who can pass is. It shows how important possession stats in general are.

Does "sustained pressure" matter? Of course- it can cause matchup issues if the offensive team is able to change (and can render the defending team stationary if sustained enough) and can be a catalyst for momentum. However, dumping and chasing then "hoping" for a shift to cause these things is a fool's game; these shifts rarely occur anyway- what is much more reliable is to organize and execute an attack with speed starting from the back 3rd of the rink. Besides, who says a zone entry like that won't cause sustained pressure if a goal isn't scored? Couple that possibility with the fact that rushes are just as dangerous as a 5v3....well...the choice is clear.

tl;dr Hart and Giroux are good. Transition/rush hockey is great. Dump and chase stinks.

Less words. More charts.

 

[DancingPanther]

That's interesting stuff. Although it should be noted that even if the chances of scoring a goal during sustained pressure is lower than on the rush, it's still higher than if you're in your own zone, so I'm not sure I'd say "antiquated". It's just not as vital for scoring as some think.

Also, sustained pressure is the best way to prevent your opponent from scoring, so it's still something to aim for.

Plus...

If you're looking to increase your chance of scoring, it's not something to aim for. In that way, it is antiquated. Besides, dumping and chasing results in a change of possession many times anyway...which is not conducive to "keeping the puck in the offensive zone". Why risk it? Gain the zone on the rush with speed and control.

 

[DancingPanther]

Less words. More charts.

Sometimes even #chartguy needs to ramble

 

[Striiker]

If you're looking to increase your chance of scoring, it's not something to aim for. In that way, it is antiquated. Besides, dumping and chasing results in a change of possession many times anyway...which is not conducive to "keeping the puck in the offensive zone". Why risk it? Gain the zone on the rush with speed and control.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I wasn't defending dump/chase hockey at all. I was thinking of sustained puck control and cycling in the zone after entering with speed and control.

Best case scenario is a scoring chance off the rush that then results in sustained pressure. Best of both worlds.

 

[TheKingPin]

Projection wise, as long as the pause has been is how long we have left before a realistic first game. Something around 75 days.

 

[Curufinwe]

Meanwhile German soccer is already into their 4th round of matches after resuming.

 

[Harhis]

Meanwhile German soccer is already into their 4th round of matches after resuming.

And both La Liga and Serie A are going to restart their seasons within few weeks. If Italy and Spain can manage, so can US and NHL.

Edit. And Premier League is also restarting

 

[PALE PWNR]

Model Description: Expected Goals Fabric

Interesting read. In short, a look at goal odds based on shot type and shot location based on cumulative data sine 2010.

1. Carter Hart is good. He clocks in at decreasing goal odds by ~4% compared to baseline data, which places him #6ish among all full time NHL starters. He's 21.
2. If Giroux takes a shot, it has ~4% better odds of resulting in a goal compared to baseline data

Most importantly, and I've been beating this drum for so long...offensive "zone time" is overrated as hell. I include this as part of the HockeyGuy logic. According to this data, goal odds are DOUBLED when on the rush. To put this in perspective, that is exactly the impact a 5v3 has on goal odds according to this tracking. In other words, scoring chances generated on the rush are equally as dangerous as those generated on a 5v3. "Sustained pressure" is antiquated. The game is different; speed and skill. These qualities are conducive to rushes. This data further shows the onus should not be on dump, chase, bang bodies, and get pucks to the net (Hakstol) but to make quick outlet passes from the Dzone to the NZ with forward support and speed. It shows how important carry ins are. It shows how important a smooth skating Dman who can pass is. It shows how important possession stats in general are.

Does "sustained pressure" matter? Of course- it can cause matchup issues if the offensive team is able to change (and can render the defending team stationary if sustained enough) and can be a catalyst for momentum. However, dumping and chasing then "hoping" for a shift to cause these things is a fool's game; these shifts rarely occur anyway- what is much more reliable is to organize and execute an attack with speed starting from the back 3rd of the rink. Besides, who says a zone entry like that won't cause sustained pressure if a goal isn't scored? Couple that possibility with the fact that rushes are just as dangerous as a 5v3....well...the choice is clear.

tl;dr Hart and Giroux are good. Transition/rush hockey is great. Dump and chase stinks.

Hmm but do teams that are good at scoring off the rush tend to give up more goals? Even if you score more goals if more rushes are coming at you because you can't sustain pressure wont you give up more goals too?

 

[FLYguy3911]

I want to say Colorado generated the most chances off the rush and allowed the fewest chances against, so no I don't think there is a correlation between the two.