Speculation: Your 2013-2014 Detroit Red Wings

Jul 30, 2005
17,660
4,588
I mean, what is location, really
We don't hit. We don't punish guys in our end or in front of our net. We don't hit their defensemen enough.
I don't mind a lack of hitting as long as forecheckers physically engage with a check or at least getting in a battle for a loose puck. That's why I don't mind that Brunner is gone. But I think guys like Nyquist and Tatar are effective on the forecheck because they're fast and tenacious and wear opposing D out from chasing them around and battling all the time.

I think the front of the net thing is iffy. You never know what a ref is going to do when a D-man starts the whole front of the net battle. I think having defensemen get position on the guy in front of the net is really important. I think clearing the front of the net is a lot of times a penalty waiting to happen.


But even so, if this is what it means to be tough, then the Wings aren't all that far from being tough. All of our defensemen try to contain guys in front of the net. Almost all of our guys are tough to play against on the forecheck.

Then again, I seem to recall you wanting Torres on the team, so maybe by "hit" you mean "hit to hurt" and in that case, the Wings are better off not being tough.
 
Jul 30, 2005
17,660
4,588
I mean, what is location, really
And when the Cup Champions were 30th, perhaps it tells us we need to hit less.
Yeah, but they're in the wussy West! Obviously the Hawks could never succeed against the super-tough East. Except the Bruins, but... um.

Wait, let's start again. The Hawks are really good, so they don't need to hit, but the Wings are really bad, so they do need to hit. But didn't the Wings almost eliminate the Hawks?

Okay, how about the 2012-2013 Wings were good and didn't have to hit, but the 2013-2014 Wings are going to be bad (because no Filppula) and so they're going to need to hit. Also, the East is really scary.
 

ricky0034

Registered User
Jun 8, 2010
14,865
6,945
hits:

1: are a subjective stat that is measured differently at different arenas

2: the more you have the puck the less you tend to hit,for obvious reasons
 

RedWingsNow*

Guest
And when the Cup Champions were 30th, perhaps it tells us we need to hit less.

Hah.
Right.

Interesting how both Chicago and Detroit stepped their rate of hitting in the playoffs though eh?
Here are their regular season and playoff hits per game rate
Team RSR POR
DET 18.0 27.14
CHI 17.5 28.7
Here's Boston's by comparison
BOS 25 38.4


What would be interesting would be to see our average hits per game in wins vs losses ...(no four on four or shootout games) to see if there is any difference.
 

Heaton

Moderator
Feb 13, 2004
22,548
925
Auburn Hills
Hah.
Right.

Interesting how both Chicago and Detroit stepped their rate of hitting in the playoffs though eh?
Here are their regular season and playoff hits per game rate
Team RSR POR
DET 18.0 27.14
CHI 17.5 28.7
Here's Boston's by comparison
BOS 25 38.4


What would be interesting would be to see our average hits per game in wins vs losses ...(no four on four or shootout games) to see if there is any difference.

And that's how it's always been with Babcock and the Wings. Babcock doesn't push the Wings to hit for the first 2/3rds of the season. I'll see if I can find the quotes about Babcock pushing the hitting around the 60 game mark.
 

SoupNazi

Serenity now. Insanity later.
Feb 6, 2010
26,340
14,036
Hah.
Right.

Interesting how both Chicago and Detroit stepped their rate of hitting in the playoffs though eh?
Here are their regular season and playoff hits per game rate
Team RSR POR
DET 18.0 27.14
CHI 17.5 28.7
Here's Boston's by comparison
BOS 25 38.4


What would be interesting would be to see our average hits per game in wins vs losses ...(no four on four or shootout games) to see if there is any difference.

So basically you're saying that Boston hit more, and didn't win the Cup. What's the point?
 

Frk It

Mo Seider Less Problems
Jul 27, 2010
36,201
14,683
Hah.
Right.

Interesting how both Chicago and Detroit stepped their rate of hitting in the playoffs though eh?
Here are their regular season and playoff hits per game rate
Team RSR POR
DET 18.0 27.14
CHI 17.5 28.7
Here's Boston's by comparison
BOS 25 38.4


What would be interesting would be to see our average hits per game in wins vs losses ...(no four on four or shootout games) to see if there is any difference.

playing a style that suits your personal preference ≠ winning more
 

RedWingsNow*

Guest
So basically you're saying that Boston hit more, and didn't win the Cup. What's the point?

:shakehead
I'm not saying that at all.

Why do people a need to oversimplify and compartmentalize everything into some neat tidy package to agree or disagree with?
 

RedWingsNow*

Guest
Salary cap may have something to say about that. I think the Last couple cup winners have been different so there's no set way to win it

Well, you can use a Tootoo instead of an Eaves. You can sign a Morrow instead of an Alfredsson.
Let's not act like there's no way to add toughness or grit
 

Bench

3 is a good start
Aug 14, 2011
21,202
14,898
crease
:shakehead
I'm not saying that at all.

Why do people a need to oversimplify and compartmentalize everything into some neat tidy package to agree or disagree with?

Perhaps try explaining your position more clearly rather than lament the responses.

Many teams have won it all without big hit numbers or toughness. So while you can Don Cherry all day, don't willfully ignore success of teams that fit a "soft" criteria. Several examples have already been provided, including the current champs.
 

RedWingsNow*

Guest
Perhaps try explaining your position more clearly rather than lament the responses.

Many teams have won it all without big hit numbers or toughness. So while you can Don Cherry all day, don't willfully ignore success of teams that fit a "soft" criteria. Several examples have already been provided, including the current champs.

I'm tiring of your insults, Bench.
"Don Cherry" all day? Are you kidding?

I'm talking about a balanced approach -- so that instead of 29th in the league in hitting, we're 10th to 20th.
I'm talking about adding a couple guys to make the roster tougher.

We don't have the skill and speed of the Chicago Blackhawks. It would be nice if we did, but we don't.
 

Bench

3 is a good start
Aug 14, 2011
21,202
14,898
crease
Wasn't meant to be insulting, but it's funny even a passing comparison to Cherry can get the hackles up. He's a fairly big proponent of your position here, that's all.
 

RedWingsNow*

Guest
Wasn't meant to be insulting, but it's funny even a passing comparison to Cherry can get the hackles up. He's a fairly big proponent of your position here, that's all.

I think it's pretty clear that it was. First you offered and "instruction on posting," and then you added the Cherry comment.

Don Cherry is not a proponent of what I'm talking about here. That's simply not true. And I'm not a proponent of Don Cherry hockey.

I'm a proponent of balanced hockey -- about having the team to handle any kind of hockey a coach can throw at you.

We've got a coach that likes big, physical hockey players -- so much so that he'll play a scrub like Abdelkader way out of position or overuse a broken down Danny Cleary.

If you spent the money to sign an Iginla, Morrow, Clarkson, Penner or whoever, then you wouldn't be forced to play these guys way out of position.
 

RedWingsNow*

Guest
Then what are you saying?

I was pointing out the stats not to make any point. But to post the stats.

All three teams drastically increased the hitting.

Here's the post, again:

Interesting how both Chicago and Detroit stepped their rate of hitting in the playoffs though eh?
Here are their regular season and playoff hits per game rate
Team RSR POR
DET 18.0 27.14
CHI 17.5 28.7
Here's Boston's by comparison
BOS 25 38.4


What would be interesting would be to see our average hits per game in wins vs losses ...(no four on four or shootout games) to see if there is any difference.

I note the interesting increase in hitting.
I post the stats and include Boston's, just because I thought it would interesting, since they were near the top of the league in hitting and Detroit and Chicago were at the bottom.

And then I finish by saying it would interesting to see our average hits per game in wins vs losses, to see if playing physical does indeed increase your chance of winning.

It was said earlier in this thread that teams that don;t have the puck hit more...and while that sounds nice to say.... I think hitting is a sign of an engaged team. So I'd love to see some numbers
 

Bench

3 is a good start
Aug 14, 2011
21,202
14,898
crease
We've got a coach that likes big, physical hockey players -- so much so that he'll play a scrub like Abdelkader way out of position or overuse a broken down Danny Cleary.

If you spent the money to sign an Iginla, Morrow, Clarkson, Penner or whoever, then you wouldn't be forced to play these guys way out of position.

On misusing players: Weiss and Alfredsson were brought in exactly for the purpose of rearranging the top 6. Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Weiss, Alfredsson, and Franzen are 5 locks for the top 6. So at worst, Abby finds his way onto one of those lines. But I think it's much more likely Nyquist ends up getting those minutes in the long run, with Abdelkader making space for the likes of Tatar.

It's not a physical top 6, I'll give you that, but I guarantee it's going to give coaches some fits trying to spread out their best defenders against either the D/Z line or Weiss and Alfredsson.
 

InjuredChoker

Registered User
Dec 25, 2011
31,402
345
LTIR or golf course
Hah.
Right.

Interesting how both Chicago and Detroit stepped their rate of hitting in the playoffs though eh?
Here are their regular season and playoff hits per game rate
Team RSR POR
DET 18.0 27.14
CHI 17.5 28.7
Here's Boston's by comparison
BOS 25 38.4


What would be interesting would be to see our average hits per game in wins vs losses ...(no four on four or shootout games) to see if there is any difference.

On a team-wide scale, both hits and block shots have no correlation to winning.

http://www.examiner.com/article/examining-real-time-statistics-and-dispelling-the-myths

Also

http://www.pensionplanpuppets.com/2...n-corsi-fenwick-PDO-hits-fights-blocked-shots

I decided to run correlations over the past 6 years of regular season NHL hockey between a number of various team stats and the given team's point percentage and win percentage. I then ran year over year correlations to determine the predictive power of each yearly statistic. That is to say - I determined which of these stats are repeatable with a relatively high degree of certainty.

Statistic Reliability Pt% R Pt% R2 Win% R Win% R2
Road Hits 0.031 0.015 0.000 0.003 0.000
Home Hits 0.284 0.028 0.001 -0.003 0.000

You'll notice that team 5v5 Sh% is near the top of this list. It also has very low reliability. Then you'll see all of the penalty, hit, and RTSS stats. Virtually none of these matter to teams winning and losing. Teams win with an edge, or win without one. They also lose with an edge and lose without one. Being big and tough is NOT a cure all to a losing franchise... getting better at puck possession and spending more time in the other team's end is.

You'll also see that 3 of the 4 lowest ranked stats are Road, Home and Total hits. None of them matter particularly... but it's interesting to see how reliable Home hits are while Road hits are virtually non-repeatable. Obviously this indicates serious bias by score keepers around the NHL. Similarly Home Giveaways and Road Giveaways diverge enormously in terms of their reliability year over year.
 

Bench

3 is a good start
Aug 14, 2011
21,202
14,898
crease
All these stats are getting in the way of my feelings.

Thanks for the information, guys.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->