Study: More Hits = Less Goals

[DMelt36]

This should help end the "MOAR HITZ!!!!!" argument.

Don Cherry has it wrong: more hits equals less scoring in hockey, study says - thestar.com

A few of the good parts:

For example, the 2009 Chicago Blackhawks took an average 6.36 more hits a game than they gave — the greatest difference in Macdonald’s data — and scored an average of 2.63 goals a game.

The Columbus Blue Jackets of 2010 dished out an average of 9.61 more hits than they took and scored an average 2.07 goals every 60 minutes.

The top five hit-taking teams in the study scored an average 2.63 goals a game, with the five most aggressive squads netting 2.34.

As for taking a hit, the advantage appears to be in what that means for puck possession, says Macdonald, who did the study to satisfy his love of math and hockey.

“When the other team hits you, that means you have the puck or just had the puck and passed it off to a teammate. So if you have a lot of hits against, one reason for that is because you have the puck more than the other team.”

Wells says this checking theory is sound.

“The other side of being hit is puck possession and I think it makes sense that if you have the puck more often ... it’s hard to lose a hockey game,” he says.

Discuss.

 

[DMelt36]

To further that argument, I present the Hawks win against Ottawa a few weeks back, a game that I felt was a textbook Hawks victory from the past two or three seasons. From my eye, it seemed like the Hawks always had the puck in Ottawa's end and they protected their slim one-goal lead by simply not letting the Senators get any offensive chances.

Hawks outshot the Sens 39-26, and had a 15-4 edge in takeaways.

The Sens outhit the Hawks 30-18.

Chicago Blackhawks vs. Ottawa Senators - Boxscore - March 02, 2012 - ESPN

 

[nwfisch]

Not really surprising :dunno:

Skilled teams will score more goals, teams with a stronger check probably won't.

 

[Captain Iago]

I agree with one point of the published study, being the advantage of puck possession. That's common sense.

What concerns me is the subjectivity of what constitutes a registered hit. There are many different officials who keep that statistic and many different scenarios that occur within a game. With that unaddressed, the entire study is flawed.

Also, hits can be timely and work for or against a team.

I've always wanted a balanced skilled and physical team, which as for the physicality aspect, may not necessarily emerge as hit statistics.

 

[Everyday I'm Byfuglien]

.:facepalm:

First and foremost, hits as they are tallied and defined by the NHL are as flawed of a statistic that exists in the game.

But whatever... it's an article that wants to argue a point. Against Don Cherry no less. Cool. Chalk a lot of the points made up to common sense like nwfisch said.

In a common sense defense of physical play being important to the game, I present last night's Hawks game for a recent and vivid example

Also, I present the Stanley Cup playoffs. Physical play goes way up, scoring goes down and games are tighter. Do teams suddenly turn shitty and play like the Columbus Blue Jackets in the playoffs? Not quite.

 

[Everyday I'm Byfuglien]

On the subject of scoring goals (since we're going with the MORE HITS = LESS GOALS).

The Hawks are tied for 6th in total goals scored this year. Tied with Vancouver at 208.

Nashville
Ny Rangers
St Louis
New Jersey
Dallas
Phoenix

Are all below the Hawks. Last year the Hawks were 4th in goal scoring.

What can we take away from all this?

More goals is not everything.

 

[DMelt36]

.:facepalm:

First and foremost, hits as they are tallied and defined by the NHL are as flawed of a statistic that exists in the game.

But whatever... it's an article that wants to argue a point. Against Don Cherry no less. Cool. Chalk a lot of the points made up to common sense like nwfisch said.

In a common sense defense of physical play being important to the game, I present last night's Hawks game for a recent and vivid example

Also, I present the Stanley Cup playoffs. Physical play goes way up, scoring goes down and games are tighter. Do teams suddenly turn shitty and play like the Columbus Blue Jackets in the playoffs? Not quite.

Well, yeah, I completely agree with you on the flaws of the "hit" statistic. I can't argue with that.

But I think there's a falsely-believed theory that hockey teams need to register hits to win more games, and I don't believe that at all. I think you can play a damn, damn good hockey game without EVER registering a hit (flawed stat-taking or not).

First off, you possess the puck. Blackhawks had been real, real good at this when they're on. When you're the team controlling the puck and the play, you're don't really need hits.

Second, you have sound positioning. Again, if you're consistently in the right place at the right time, you won't need to hit people. I think this is a BIG argument because, frequently, I believe players get so worried about finishing a check or making that big hit that they run themselves out of position--it's a counter-productive move.

Finally, to unfortunately steal a phrase from Edzo, you have active sticks on defense. Hits are one good way to separate the puck from a player, but your stick is an even better one. Much easier to corral a loose puck after forcing a turnover with your stick than it is to corral the puck when you're tangled up with a guy you just hit. Leads to some good transition attacks the other way.

 

[DMelt36]

On the subject of scoring goals (since we're going with the MORE HITS = LESS GOALS).

The Hawks are tied for 6th in total goals scored this year. Tied with Vancouver at 208.

Nashville
Ny Rangers
St Louis
New Jersey
Dallas
Phoenix

Are all below the Hawks. Last year the Hawks were 4th in goal scoring.

What can we take away from all this?

More goals is not everything.

Of course not. Defense is a big reason for the success of the top four teams on that list, I'm not all that familiar with the reasons for Dallas' wins of late, and Phoenix's goalie Mike Smith is playing out of his mind lately.

I think my main point was this: (again, ignoring how awful the statistic is tracked) hits just aren't that important. At least, not to a team that's built like the Blackhawks.

 

[Everyday I'm Byfuglien]

But I think there's a falsely-believed theory that hockey teams need to register hits to win more games, and I don't believe that at all. I think you can play a damn, damn good hockey game without EVER registering a hit (flawed stat-taking or not).

First off, you possess the puck. Blackhawks had been real, real good at this when they're on. When you're the team controlling the puck and the play, you're don't really need hits.

Second, you have sound positioning. Again, if you're consistently in the right place at the right time, you won't need to hit people. I think this is a BIG argument because, frequently, I believe players get so worried about finishing a check or making that big hit that they run themselves out of position--it's a counter-productive move.

Finally, to unfortunately steal a phrase from Edzo, you have active sticks on defense. Hits are one good way to separate the puck from a player, but your stick is an even better one. Much easier to corral a loose puck after forcing a turnover with your stick than it is to corral the puck when you're tangled up with a guy you just hit. Leads to some good transition attacks the other way.

Well, good luck trying to play a team like Nashville, St Louis or even Dallas and Phoenix without registering a hit. :nope:

They'll keep hitting no matter how good your positioning, puck control and stick work is. And as we've seen so many times from the Hawks- get hit enough and by the 3rd period, those corner battles just don't go your way when you're worn down physically.

Your ideas are fine in theory but come on. You don't actually believe NHL teams can be even close to competitive or even good without hitting. It's preposterous.

 

[Everyday I'm Byfuglien]

One last thing. The sound positioning, puck control, active stick, low hitting theory... essentially just really smart, well coached hockey. Skill over muscle. What team comes to mind?

Detroit.

Yet watch any Detroit game and almost as much as Datsyuk and Lidstrom get talked about, Nik Kronwall will be talked about and focused on. He gets talked about and focused on because he plays like this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QtipTlOscg]Niklas Kronwall hit on Jakub Voracek 3/6/2012 - YouTube[/ame]

Now, did that enormous hit put a puck in the net? Nope. Did it even lead to a play that put the puck in the net? Did it cause a breakaway or chance that almost scored? No.

That hit (and the dozens he's performed just like it) makes the opponent play differently.

That is a black and white example of hitting directly effecting a game of hockey between highly skilled teams.

 

[nwfisch]

If a team is looking to hit (Blues of earlier seasons) or focus more on skill (Detroit) More often than not, Detroit would win that matchup.

However, that doesn't stop the Blues from "stealing" a few games from Detroit.

If a team plays looking just for the kill shot, they probably won't win.

If a team plays with just their skill, they probably won't win.

There needs to be a balance between skill and checking.

 

[Capt. Serious]

Preds check well but aren't that physical.

 

[DMelt36]

Well, good luck trying to play a team like Nashville, St Louis or even Dallas and Phoenix without registering a hit. :nope:

They'll keep hitting no matter how good your positioning, puck control and stick work is. And as we've seen so many times from the Hawks- get hit enough and by the 3rd period, those corner battles just don't go your way when you're worn down physically.

Your ideas are fine in theory but come on. You don't actually believe NHL teams can be even close to competitive or even good without hitting. It's preposterous.

No, I don't.

But the belief that a team built on skill more than anything else isn't racking up enough hits is, in my mind, ridiculous. Certain games will require a non-hitting team to get a bit more physical, yes. The most recent game is a perfect example of that. But if the Hawks get outhit 70 times a season, I don't think it's that big of a deal.

May have gotten a bit carried away with the thread title, but I've just gotten sick of hearing that the Hawks don't hit enough.

I just don't think you need that many hits to win hockey games, if you have the right kind of players. I believe that's the kind of team the Blackhawks have. That's the main point I'm trying to get across.

 

[DMelt36]

Preds check well but aren't that physical.

I think there's a major difference between the word "check" and "hit" in hockey. You can check a player rather well without ever making physical contact. Something as simple as tying up a stick counts as a check, in my understanding of the word.

 

[Everyday I'm Byfuglien]

May have gotten a bit carried away with the thread title, but I've just gotten sick of hearing that the Hawks don't hit enough.

I just don't think you need that many hits to win hockey games, if you have the right kind of players. I believe that's the kind of team the Blackhawks have. That's the main point I'm trying to get across.

You can get sick of hearing it, but they have flat out folded in games where the going got too tough. It is an issue against bigger tougher teams- 2 of which are in the central. And like I said earlier, finishing every hit becomes a religion in the playoffs... none of us need reminders of what the Vancouver series looked like last year. That was a blood bath for 3 games and it was the Hawks that were on the receiving end of it. Things turned around when the Hawks got tired of it and decided to charge back.

That's part of what made last night's game so satisfying. They were getting for lack of a better word- owned -by the Blues but they came back in the 2nd and 3rd by growing a spine. The fact that Hossa and Kane (!!) were hitting showed a lot more than any goals would show. It showed that the Hawks wanted that game against a good, strong team and they were willing to play well outside of their abilities to get it.

Hits dont win games.

But if you can't answer the bell when you need to- you won't win.

 

[DewsSox79]

On the subject of scoring goals (since we're going with the MORE HITS = LESS GOALS).

The Hawks are tied for 6th in total goals scored this year. Tied with Vancouver at 208.

Nashville
Ny Rangers
St Louis
New Jersey
Dallas
Phoenix

Are all below the Hawks. Last year the Hawks were 4th in goal scoring.

What can we take away from all this?

More goals is not everything.

It is when your team ranks 24th in Goals Against.

 

[Everyday I'm Byfuglien]

It is when your team ranks 24th in Goals Against.

I'm sure you'll agree the issue this year has been stopping the puck more than it has been potting it.

 

[DewsSox79]

I'm sure you'll agree the issue this year has been stopping the puck more than it has been potting it.

of course, but if you have a team with avg defense and sub par goaltending scoring more goals is a must. the team obviously has to supplement for that. this whole thread is a case by case basis, almost reminds me of talking about UZR/150.

 

[DMelt36]

You can get sick of hearing it, but they have flat out folded in games where the going got too tough. It is an issue against bigger tougher teams- 2 of which are in the central. And like I said earlier, finishing every hit becomes a religion in the playoffs... none of us need reminders of what the Vancouver series looked like last year. That was a blood bath for 3 games and it was the Hawks that were on the receiving end of it. Things turned around when the Hawks got tired of it and decided to charge back.

That's part of what made last night's game so satisfying. They were getting for lack of a better word- owned -by the Blues but they came back in the 2nd and 3rd by growing a spine. The fact that Hossa and Kane (!!) were hitting showed a lot more than any goals would show. It showed that the Hawks wanted that game against a good, strong team and they were willing to play well outside of their abilities to get it.

Hits dont win games.

But if you can't answer the bell when you need to- you won't win.

You're right, the Hawks did get a lot more physical and it paid off against the Blues. But I think expecting the Hawks to do that on a nightly basis isn't a good idea and simply will not happen. I just don't see that type of team when I look at the roster.

I guess there's two ways to look at this, when your opponent goes the goon route. You can fight back, like they did against St. Louis, which resulted in a win.

Or, when the other team's goonery results in your team going on the power play, you light up the scoreboard. That worked real well against the Canucks in previous postseasons. Last year's series, the Hawks PP went 4-12 in Games 4 and 5 to help swing the momentum of that series back to Chicago. Can't say I'm holding my breath for that to happen this year.

So maybe they have to hit more? God, I hope not. Because I don't see that working in a 7-game series. Rather see them finally fix that damn power play.

 

[Everyday I'm Byfuglien]

fix the powerplay and play physical when necessary.

don't think anyone is going to argue there.