Risk: When A Player's Stick Breaks

[KasparsHipCheck]

Hello,
I apologize in advance if this has been asked before, I'm only lightly into analytics and only a basic understanding of statistics.
Has this issue been locked at:

The risk of a player in a given position on the ice and in different situations (man-up, even, man-down situations) playing with a broken stick vs. going to the bench to get a new one.
There's always that awkward moment when I'm watching a game and depending on the location of the bench and the where the player is located on the ice and situation, where I wonder what is truly best. I don't see where there is an absolute yes or no answer to this.

Can you please let me know if this has been looked at or if there is an existing explanation--provide a link so I can see the argument.

Thank You

Click to read more...

 

[frozenrubber]

Hello,
I apologize in advance if this has been asked before, I'm only lightly into analytics and only a basic understanding of statistics.
Has this issue been locked at:

The risk of a player in a given position on the ice and in different situations (man-up, even, man-down situations) playing with a broken stick vs. going to the bench to get a new one.
There's always that awkward moment when I'm watching a game and depending on the location of the bench and the where the player is located on the ice and situation, where I wonder what is truly best. I don't see where there is an absolute yes or no answer to this.

Can you please let me know if this has been looked at or if there is an existing explanation--provide a link so I can see the argument.

Thank You

I'm hoping this is the next convention to fall (like only pulling the goalie in the last minute).

I would like a coach to strictly instruct all players to immediately go to the bench under almost all circumstances upon breaking a stick. (edge case being lone defender on 2 on 1)

Anecdotally, when a player breaks a stick, it usually leads to a team being pinned in their zone and being exhausted. Those situations usually lead to higher chance scoring opportunities or taking a defensive zone penalty.

As a player on the ice, I'd personally find it easier to process defensive assignments when you know there are only (temporarily) 4 players, opposed to not being exactly clear on assignments when you have a hapless/stickless teammate.

 

[KasparsHipCheck]

I don't know if it can truly be advocated in all situations. But say a winger's stick breaks (the one closest to the bench) in the defensive zone in the 1 or 3 period, how much time elapses between them going to the bench--where they leave their team prone defensively for those few seconds vs. being out there trying to use body positioning to break up passing lanes/block shots on goal for x amount of time. It seems like many situations I've seen unfold, the 3 or 4 seconds it takes to go is a short more temporary risk, being how essential stick positioning is to breaking up passes.
Thanks
Can the ice be broken down spatially? into a few basic areas--quadrants to say if you are here in this area of the d zone--go. The game is so fluid, that its tough to address by saying RW, LW, C, D yes and no.

 

[nilan30]

I would even say it would cause one of the opposing teams defensemen to at least have to be aware that there is a guy behind him and there is potential for a breakaway if he doesn't pay him any attention. I've long thought in most cases it'd be better to go get a new twig.

 

[KasparsHipCheck]

This is weird to me, so far. This practice of leaving a player high and dry and with more random variables--amount of time that elapses until a stoppage occurs, that has enough randomness within it--potential that a goal can be scored or more probable a penalty taken given the chaos it creates, just doesn't make sense.
I also like the point nilan30 made, that their is a small potential for an offensive opportunity, if you gain puck possession and catch a player right, like when they step out of the box after a penalty.
I'd definitely like to see someone apply this to a small degree with the least risk, involved. The player covering the point closest to the bench in the 1st and 3rd periods. I guess we have to wait for a coach with a mind like Patrick Roy's.
Until then convention rules...and I will continue to loss sleep, at times. Uuggghhh.
Thanks for the input.

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Sorry but I don't really see how this is something answered analytically or statistically (both in terms of the value/meaningfulness and how feasibly it could be studied).

I think it depends on a few things such as if the opposing team has established a cycle in your zone and if it's a long change (i.e 2nd period or overtime). If both of those things are true (team is cycling and it's a long change) I think you have to stay out there and do your best to keep your guy to the outside. Going off for a change can cause things to break down really quickly.

Let's say it's a short change though and your stick breaks on somewhat of a broken play/loose puck where the other team isn't cycling, I think with variables like that it would be cool to sprint off for a change or new stick.

Also, wingers should always be handing off their sticks to defensemen/centers because the play lower in the zone. When a winger is caught out there without a stick and can't get off (like in the first scenario I laid out) his job is to front the defenseman and do his best to not let the defenseman easily activate from the point.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Also, wingers should always be handing off their sticks to defensemen/centers because the play lower in the zone. When a winger is caught out there without a stick and can't get off (like in the first scenario I laid out) his job is to front the defenseman and do his best to not let the defenseman easily activate from the point.

This is really the basis of current convention. It's assumed that the player without a stick will be the guy covering the point. If anyone else breaks his stick, the point man should hand his over -- which is much faster than a defenseman sprinting almost half the length of the ice and back.

Assuming they are doing things correctly, the only guy who should ever be stuck without a stick for a significant amount of time is a winger covering the point. In that case, he is effectively being asked to use his skating skill to become a pure shot-blocker and physically block the D from getting close to the net. It's not that hard of a situation for the defense, unless the opponent is allowed to completely set up (as in a PP) and really start working that weak point in deliberate fashion.

In the event that the opponent gets complete control and starts working on the stickless point man, I agree he should go to the bench immediately. I'd rather have a shorthanded situation for just a few seconds than see my team get abused for an entire shift. The sheer chaos of having a defender exit and then re-enter the play, along with the breakaway threat which pulls a defender back to the blue line, is probably enough to prevent the offense from really taking advantage.

I would add the caveat that he should not go to "get a stick". He should skate as hard as he can to get off the ice, and a teammate should be standing in the door in Usain Bolt position, ready to sprint back to the play as soon as the stickless guy gets within 5 feet.

 

[Doctor No]

Sorry but I don't really see how this is something answered analytically or statistically (both in terms of the value/meaningfulness and how feasibly it could be studied).

With player tracking data, it could be analyzed in a pretty straightforward fashion.