Crowd Noise @ Blues Game

[Pimlach]

 

4 hours ago, tom webster said:

If you are hitting you don’t have the puck

True, so if you don't have the puck -  hit.  Hit hard and clean,  separate your man from the puck so as to regain the puck.  This creates opportunities to play with the puck and score  goals. 

For much of the time this season we don't have puck possession and we stand and watch, often without picking up a man. 

You're allowed to hit the man with the puck, so you should. 

[SwampD]

18 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

 

True, so if you don't have the puck -  hit.  Hit hard and clean,  separate your man from the puck so as to regain the puck.  This creates opportunities to play with the puck and score  goals. 

For much of the time this season we don't have puck possession and we stand and watch, often without picking up a man. 

You're allowed to hit the man with the puck, so you should. 

It actually can be a quite effective method of separating him from said puck.

[tom webster]

Again, 

you don’t have to like it, but the numbers are the numbers. Obviously you want some hitting and if you can find a Tom Wilson who can destroy people and still score, awesome. But the fact of the matter is, teams that hit a lot don’t win.

The playoffs are a different matter and the reason coaches like Lindy Russ constantly said, the key to the playoffs is guys playing out of their comfort zone and playing more physical and yes, as someone said upthread, it can have a cumulative effect, which is why teams often target two or three key players for said physicality.

Or, you can hire Ted Nolan, never make the playoffs, but have something to cheer about for about ten home games.

[Weave]

1 hour ago, tom webster said:

Again, 

you don’t have to like it, but the numbers are the numbers. Obviously you want some hitting and if you can find a Tom Wilson who can destroy people and still score, awesome. But the fact of the matter is, teams that hit a lot don’t win.

The playoffs are a different matter and the reason coaches like Lindy Russ constantly said, the key to the playoffs is guys playing out of their comfort zone and playing more physical and yes, as someone said upthread, it can have a cumulative effect, which is why teams often target two or three key players for said physicality.

Or, you can hire Ted Nolan, never make the playoffs, but have something to cheer about for about ten home games.

The numbers aren't obvious.  https://www.foxsports.com/nhl/team-stats?season=2018&category=MISCELLANEOUS&group=1&time=0&pos=0&team=1&page=1

Top 10 teams in hits this season are a mix of playoff and non-playoff teams.  Pittsburgh, Vegas, Edmonton, Montreal, NYR, Tampa, Carolina, NYI, Arizona, Boston.

 

 

[inkman]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

The numbers aren't obvious.  https://www.foxsports.com/nhl/team-stats?season=2018&category=MISCELLANEOUS&group=1&time=0&pos=0&team=1&page=1

Top 10 teams in hits this season are a mix of playoff and non-playoff teams.  Pittsburgh, Vegas, Edmonton, Montreal, NYR, Tampa, Carolina, NYI, Arizona, Boston.

 

 

I don't think hitting and winning have to be mutually exclusive. The Venn diagram should intersect.  Just gimme Tom Wilson, Cal Clutterbuck and a couple other guys that finish their checks and can play hockey (not a Kaleta type). 

[Weave]

12 minutes ago, inkman said:

I don't think hitting and winning have to be mutually exclusive. The Venn diagram should intersect.  Just gimme Tom Wilson, Cal Clutterbuck and a couple other guys that finish their checks and can play hockey (not a Kaleta type). 

The link I posted shows that hitting and winning are not mutually exclusive.  I’d like to see what data tom webster is seeing.

[SDS]

23 minutes ago, Weave said:

The link I posted shows that hitting and winning are not mutually exclusive.  I’d like to see what data tom webster is seeing.

I am not sure he stated it correctly. What I have heard and just read is that there is no correlation between the two, not necessarily a negative correlation.  This particular analysis says there is no correlation or perhaps there is a slight negative correlation between hits and goals scored by the hitting team.

https://model284.com/my-model-monday-understanding-the-impact-of-hits-in-the-nhl/

[SwampD]

1 hour ago, SDS said:

I am not sure he stated it correctly. What I have heard and just read is that there is no correlation between the two, not necessarily a negative correlation.  This particular analysis says there is no correlation or perhaps there is a slight negative correlation between hits and goals scored by the hitting team.

https://model284.com/my-model-monday-understanding-the-impact-of-hits-in-the-nhl/

Maybe there are different ways to win.

…and to lose.

[...]

Just now, SwampD said:

Maybe there are different ways to win.

…and to lose.

...and love.

[RonHextallsShoulderPads]

Anybody got a video of these hits?

[Stoner]

20 minutes ago, ... said:

...and love.

It is better to have lost and lost than never to have won at all.

Want to change the sign?

[...]

19 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

It is better to have lost and lost than never to have won at all.

Want to change the sign?

No.  Love only occurs between suffering.

[dudacek]

It’s not that hitting is counterproductive to winning, it’s that winning teams have the puck more, and therefore have less opportunity to hit. Losing teams have the puck less and have more opportunity to hit. The stats are are largely a byproduct, not a cause.

Edited March 19, 2019 by dudacek

[Neo]

Had you pulled me aside, long ago, and told me that in the future the efficacy of  “hitting in hockey” would be debated ... 

A lesson for the youth.  Your immutables have shelf lives!

[SDS]

13 hours ago, SwampD said:

Maybe there are different ways to win.

…and to lose.

Not sure what the point you are making.

There are a whole bunch of mathematically inclined people mining data to see what conventional wisdom holds merit. So far, as far as I can determine, the current research and subsequent conclusions say that hitting the other guy has no bearing on wins and losses (and perhaps is even slightly negatively correlated.). 

So when fans clamor for more hitting, it should be because it is for their entertainment, not because they are frustrated with the outcome of the game.

[Stoner]

What if hitting is a proxy for giving a *****, and giving a ***** correlates with winning?

[SDS]

49 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

What if hitting is a proxy for giving a *****, and giving a ***** correlates with winning?

The the numbers would bear this out. As far as we know, it doesn’t. 

[SwampD]

28 minutes ago, SDS said:

Them the numbers would bear this out. As far as we know, it doesn’t. 

What if they already do, thus my different ways to win comment. Weave already showed that some good teams are hit leaders. What if those teams are winning because they are more physical and hit? What if the other good teams are winning a different way and don't need to hit.

Correlation isn't causation,... except when talking advanced stats in sports.

Edited March 19, 2019 by SwampD

[#freejame]

The Sabres aren’t going to control every single possession, no matter how good they are. All people want is a team that will be aggressive and play like they give a ***** (which includes finishing checks). How is that so hard to understand? The Flames hit less than us, but I guarantee Sabres fans would be happy with their numbers if it came with their effort and aggressiveness of the hits. 

There are opportunities in every game to separate your man from the puck using a check. One team (Flames) does that. One team (Buffalo) doesn’t. Flames have fewer “hits” because they control possession more. 

[Neo]

Interesting side path ...  what the fans want to see v’s. what wins.

I am reminded of the 1990s New Jersey Devils, or the franchise that nearly killed hockey.  The left wing lock/neutral zone trap.

We hated it.  New Jersey loved it.  It was effective and not entertaining.

If there’s little or no correlation to hitting and winning, what do we want to see?  I suspect winning would silence a lot of the hitting talk.

Just an observation.  I’m casting no vote.

[CallawaySabres]

This really is not as complicated as people are making it. 75% of the time this team looks disinterested.....they are professional athletes, step up the aggressiveness (checking, hitting, getting back to the play, whatever) - just step it the F up!

[Sabel79]

13 minutes ago, Neo said:

  I suspect winning would silence a lot of the hitting talk.

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.  

“Hits” are an absolute canard.  The team is bad.  Different people will attribute this to different failings, wether it be they’re not hitting/punching/scoring/saving enough.  It could, theoretically, be any/all of these things, but we have data showing hits don’t equal wins.  So maybe just be better at hockey? 

[CallawaySabres]

26 minutes ago, Sabel79 said:

Winner, winner, chicken dinner.  

“Hits” are an absolute canard.  The team is bad.  Different people will attribute this to different failings, wether it be they’re not hitting/punching/scoring/saving enough.  It could, theoretically, be any/all of these things, but we have data showing hits don’t equal wins.  So maybe just be better at hockey? 

I don't think anyone is trying to say that hitting more will produce more wins, I am trying to say that until this team gets out of its own way, try other things that will at LEAST get the crowd engaged.

[SDS]

47 minutes ago, SwampD said:

What if they already do, thus my different ways to win comment. Weave already showed that some good teams are hit leaders. What if those teams are winning because they are more physical and hit? What if the other good teams are winning a different way and don't need to hit.

Correlation isn't causation,... except when talking advanced stats in sports.

This just basically agrees that there is nothing intrinsically beneficial to hitting as it relates to wins in general. I'm not sure where you are going with the last line. If there is no correlation then there certainly is no causation.  One idea behind advanced stats is to look for universal truths. If hitting is not correlated with winning, then these teams that hit more AND win must be doing something better than those that hit and lose.

[SwampD]

2 minutes ago, SDS said:

This just basically agrees that there is nothing intrinsically beneficial to hitting as it relates to wins in general. I'm not sure where you are going with the last line. If there is no correlation then there certainly is no causation.  One idea behind advanced stats is to look for universal truths. If hitting is not correlated with winning, then these teams that hit more AND win must be doing something better than those that hit and lose.

This is the part that just makes me crazy. Every team is different. Stats actually give us the exact percentage of how often they don't matter.

Possession and goals are very important stats to indicate winning teams, correct? But if you have a generational goalie and a great defensive system that takes advantage of odd man rushes, they don't matter as much. There can be and are different ways to win.

Stats tell us the way most teams do it, not the only way.

FTR, even if we were winning, I'd want to see more hits. I like 'em.