|
Also, this term is generally reserved for European and Russian players.  
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2012 14:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
goldrush posted:Basically it means they don't backcheck hard, they don't forecheck hard, and they're generally lazy and don't show much hustle when they don't have the puck. Think about a forward floating around near their blueline or in the neutral zone waiting for their teammates to get the puck to them so they can go on the attack, but not doing any actual work themselves for it. Being floaty is a bad thing. Isn't that the same thing as a cherry picker? Where they just hang around the blue line, don't play defense, and only really hustle when they have a chance for a breakaway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2012 19:04
|
|
|
Aniki posted:Isn't that the same thing as a cherry picker? Where they just hang around the blue line, don't play defense, and only really hustle when they have a chance for a breakaway. Yeah pretty much but I haven't called someone a 'cherry picker' since I was 12.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2012 19:24
|
|
|
Zorkon posted:Also, this term is generally reserved for European and Russian players. Is this because of some fundamental difference in the way Russians and Europeans play hockey? Are they more prone to loafing for some reason?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
CobwebMustardseed posted:Is this because of some fundamental difference in the way Russians and Europeans play hockey? Are they more prone to loafing for some reason? Pretty much just a Don Cherry-created stereotype. There are plenty of euros who play tough and North American players who float.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2012 20:14
|
|
|
I see cherry picking and floating as two different things. Cherry picking is what every forward who plays NHL 12 online does. They just wait at the red line (ish) for their team to get the puck and outlet it to them since they're already behind the defense Floating is more a philosophy. It's lazy skating, slow getting back, just kinda...being there on defense but not involved. That kinda thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2012 20:26
|
|
|
I always interpreted floating as technically moving to make a defensive play, but gliding into it with no sense of urgency. Putting out the absolute minimum amount of effort required to fulfill their positional duties. Cherry picking is just some prick haunting the neutral zone hoping the defense forgets he's there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2012 20:30
|
|
|
Thufir posted:Pretty much just a Don Cherry-created stereotype. There are plenty of euros who play tough and North American players who float. There actually is a historical element to it! Back in the heyday of the Soviet Union, price controls meant that hockey equipment was difficult and expensive to replace. This resulted in players developing a style of play that minimized the damage and wear-and-tear to equipment; wrist shots and stick handling were preferred to slapshots and board play as a way of preserving sticks. The notion has stuck around because Don Cherry is still fighting the Cold War and Canada has an unsettlingly long streak of parochialism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2012 20:38
|
|
|
CobwebMustardseed posted:At what point does being a guy who fights a lot start to be a drag on the team? Sometimes I’ll see a guy lose his temper during a game and start shoving someone or hit someone with his stick, etc. Whenever this happens, I always think, “Well, that was dumb. Now you’ve given the other team a power play and opportunity to score.” Is there some value here that I’m not seeing? If the guy you go after just keeps a cool head and skates away then all you’ve done is put your team at a disadvantage. Even if you’re successful in getting a guy to square off with you, it doesn’t seem like you’re doing the team any favors. Unless you pick up a minor for instigating, roughing, slashing or something dumb prior to your fight, it's 5 each and no power play. So it's really only negative if a star player gets suckered into sitting for 5+ minutes by a scrubby dude. Vinny Lecavilier of Tampa gets goaded into this poo poo from time to time. Jarome Igilna of the Flames can too. However, at the same time, you won't see too many people loving with Igilna because he will knock your rear end out After the play stuff you're talking about is more in line with being an instigator (see: Sean Avery, Brad Marchand, Alex Burrows, Maxime Fuckface Lapierrier, etc). It is a fine line because you are trying to goad a player to punch you in the head in front of a ref, or maybe get a good player to fight you, etc. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. As far as fighting and basically beating the other team into submission through fighting or scrums which are essentially that, look at the finals last year where the Bruins manhandled the Canucks. Also, here are the top 10 teams as far as fights right now: 1 New York Rangers 46 2 Boston Bruins 45 3 Philadelphia Flyers 44 4 Columbus Blue Jackets 43 5 Ottawa Senators 41 6 Vancouver Canucks 34 7 Anaheim Ducks 32 8 Minnesota Wild 30 9 New Jersey Devils 30 10 St. Louis Blues 29 The top three teams here are also right up top in the standings as well, as are the Canucks, Blues and Devils. While teams rarely fight come playoff time, the ability to dominate in all aspects of the physical play (checking, scrums and post whistle nastiness and fighting) is still a very vital part of hockey. Thufir posted:Pretty much just a Don Cherry-created stereotype. There are plenty of euros who play tough and North American players who float. It's definitely a Don Cherry stereotype, but at the same time, it's nuts to say that that NA hockey isn't too much different from European hockey. You find far more finesse players coming out of Europe than you do in North America. There are definitely floaters that were born and raised here, but the two regions just play different style of hockey all around THE MACHO MAN fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Feb 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2012 21:06
|
|
|
THE MACHO MAN posted:It's definitely a Don Cherry stereotype, but at the same time, it's nuts to say that that NA hockey isn't too much different from European hockey. You find far more finesse players coming out of Europe than you do in North America. There are definitely floaters that were born and raised here, but the two regions just play different style of hockey all around Something that again comes partially from the sizes of the rinks, and that european hockey got popular via bandy back in the day, a sport with far less physical contact and much more speed and finesse. Fighting is also strickter penalized in most european leauges (not counting KHL, and then spesificly not the team Vizytas, who are so packed with goons that the Broad Street Bullies would look like Lady Byng nominees), often with a game misconduct for each player who fights, with an extra 5 minute major if there is a clear inistigator. Oddly enough, no more dirty checks and/or high sticks than in NA.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2012 21:24
|
|
|
Aniki posted:Isn't that the same thing as a cherry picker? Where they just hang around the blue line, don't play defense, and only really hustle when they have a chance for a breakaway. Mmm, like myron_cope said, floating is a bit more of a "philosophy". In my opinion, I would say that perhaps cherry-picking is but one aspect of being floaty. But it is really a multi-layered term. Generally it means you're a lazy rear end in a top hat, though. goldrush fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Feb 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2012 23:55
|
|
|
A good example would be (noted Canadian) Eric Staal in this play: http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2012/01/24/systems-analyst-the-curious-case-of-the-missing-staal-and-napping-nodl/
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2012 07:50
|
|
|
Zorkon posted:A good example would be (noted Canadian) Eric Staal in this play: Thanks, that was a really thorough (if maybe a little too technical for me) breakdown. What does strong side/weak side refer to?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2012 07:58
|
|
|
CobwebMustardseed posted:Thanks, that was a really thorough (if maybe a little too technical for me) breakdown. What does strong side/weak side refer to? Strong side = puck side Weak side = other side of the ice from the puck Another (unrelated) side I can think of is: Short side: when shooting from an angle, the side of the goalie closest to the near post: code:e: it's the side on the bottom.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2012 08:02
|
|
|
So is the goalie's other side called the long side?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2012 08:35
|
|
|
CobwebMustardseed posted:So is the goalie's other side called the long side?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2012 09:15
|
|
|
goldrush posted:Mmm, like myron_cope said, floating is a bit more of a "philosophy". In my opinion, I would say that perhaps cherry-picking is but one aspect of being floaty. But it is really a multi-layered term. Generally it means you're a lazy rear end in a top hat, though. All cherry pickers float, but not all floaters cherry pick. I just tend to classify those players as assholes who don't backcheck. I feel that a lot of players either undervalue backchecking or just don't seem to care beyond accumulating individual stats. Even if a backchecker can't catch up with a guy on a breakaway, he can still force him to not slow down, which will lead to the shooter either running out space or not taking an ideal shot. If no one backchecks, then it just creates a stupid waiting game where whomever commits first loses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2012 09:16
|
|
|
I've always wondered, why isn't there more cherry picking? Team's are used to playing 5 on 4, and for the most part, keep the puck out of the net 75% of the time (during a full 2min penalty kill). What's stopping teams from keeping someone in the neutral zone, while the team defends with 4. They would then try to pass it out to the cherry picker as soon as they get possession. Yea, I realize you're giving the team a "free powerplay" (although only until you get possesion back, and not for a full 2 minutes), but you also have a cherry picker ready for a breakaway (guessing roughly a 30% chance at scoring?) as soon as the team gets possession and clears it out. The cherry-picker would also be distracting, because the opponent will be aware that some dude is behind them, and not completely focusing on whats happening in front. It just seems like you would be getting more goals than giving up over the long run. Is it some sort of gentleman's rule to not do this poo poo? vvv makes sense. didn't think of that 
Hirez fucked around with this message at 12:03 on Feb 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2012 11:56
|
|
|
Hirez posted:I've always wondered, why isn't there more cherry picking? Team's are used to playing 5 on 4, and for the most part, keep the puck out of the net 75% of the time (during a full 2min penalty kill). What's stopping teams from keeping someone in the neutral zone, while the team defends with 4. They would then try to pass it out to the cherry picker as soon as they get possession. Because one of the D-Men would hang back and protect the cherry picker, and then there would be a 4 on 4 in the offensive zone. That means more space for the attackers to set up, and easier to score.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2012 12:00
|
|
|
I'm unhappy with the OP. There are so many words. It's so...verbose. How can I make it better?
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 22:10
|
|
|
add more sirens to the start where it says ASK ANY QUESTION edit: also add a link to timeonice.com under shots where you have Shots Attempted because its tracked by that site maybe this site too because the dude that made time on ice hasn't actually made links or documentation on what the website can do Verviticus fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Mar 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 22:11
|
|
|
I tripled the number of sirens and underlined it too!
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2012 22:14
|
|
|
myron cope posted:I'm unhappy with the OP. There are so many words. It's so...verbose. How can I make it better? Maybe add an explanation on why players can be really good even if they almost never score points? Maybe along with an explanation of the different types of players (Sniper, Playmaker, Offensive/Defensive-defenseman, etc). I've run into a lot of people who don't understand why teams keep players who don't "put up numbers".
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2012 07:45
|
|
|
myron cope posted:I'm unhappy with the OP. There are so many words. It's so...verbose. How can I make it better? Personally, I found the OP to be really, really helpful. Reading through it the first time was wonderful and answered a ton of questions for me (and I still look at it often when I don't know things). Look Around You posted:Maybe add an explanation on why players can be really good even if they almost never score points? I was going to ask something akin to this the other day. I kept hearing about how amazing Jordan Staal is and oh boy, just wait till he comes back. Now that he is back, I fail to see his utility. It seems to me that he just skates around slowly like a big galoot who can't get to the puck quickly enough to do anything. Now, I'm sure that this is just because I have an unsophisticated view of hockey, but it would be cool if someone could show me what it is that makes him valuable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 03:26
|
|
|
myron cope posted:I'm unhappy with the OP. There are so many words. It's so...verbose. How can I make it better? quote:ADD MORE STUFF  In all seriousness though I thought it was very awesome and helpful. I could see maybe moving the things under the "advanced" heading down into the second post or something along those lines, but there's not really anything in there that I'd recommend removing altogether.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 03:43
|
|
|
CobwebMustardseed posted:I was going to ask something akin to this the other day. I kept hearing about how amazing Jordan Staal is and oh boy, just wait till he comes back. Now that he is back, I fail to see his utility. It seems to me that he just skates around slowly like a big galoot who can't get to the puck quickly enough to do anything. Now, I'm sure that this is just because I have an unsophisticated view of hockey, but it would be cool if someone could show me what it is that makes him valuable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 03:47
|
|
|
CobwebMustardseed posted:
Well, he scores goals, for one thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 03:53
|
|
|
Maybe I'm just spoiled by the razzle-dazzle of Kunitz-Malkin-Neal but Staal always looks like he's just lumbering along , two beats behind everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 04:04
|
|
|
Well it's good to hear the OP is useful! As for Jordan Staal, he's awesome. He's what you would call a "Two-way forward" (and certainly is more that now that he's scoring more consistently). He's tall and strong and has BIG BODY PRESENCE and an ACTIVE STICK. Now those are horrible hockey cliches but they mean he doesn't get knocked off the puck easily and he makes pretty good defensive plays. He kills penalties extremely well, he gets minutes against the other team's top line, and he can provide offense. He can eat up minutes, playing in pretty much any forward role the Penguins want, wing or center, penalty kill or power play, first line or fourth line (and in fact he's the #3 center on the depth chart if it were ever possible for everyone to be healthy). I was ok with Jordan Staal getting traded as recently as like...December. Now I've changed my mind. I was wrong before.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 04:11
|
|
|
CobwebMustardseed posted:Maybe I'm just spoiled by the razzle-dazzle of Kunitz-Malkin-Neal but Staal always looks like he's just lumbering along , two beats behind everyone else. I actually made a post about this earlier in the thread (though not about Staal specifically). As myron cope said, Staal is somewhere between a "two way forward" and a "power forward" (e: I added the power forward part actually, oops!). He's extremely good defensively and on the PK (this is the TWF part), but he's really good at using his size and strength to create scoring chances and stuff, which is more of a power forward thing. He's gotten a lot better at using his body effectively since last season, and it's showing up in his numbers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 04:15
|
|
|
I just didn't say "power forward" because it always annoys me when Steigerwald says something about Staal "making a power move!" But that's between me and Steigy I guess
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 04:19
|
|
|
myron cope posted:I just didn't say "power forward" because it always annoys me when Steigerwald says something about Staal "making a power move!" Haha Steigerwald is retarded I'll give you that. Staal is honestly good at "power moves" though, and as loving stupid as Steigy is, he's actually right about that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 04:21
|
|
|
Jordan Staal is really good defensively and probably would have scored 30+ goals this year had he been healthy for a full season. He's pretty darn good at hockey.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 04:24
|
|
|
If you want to understand a player's value that doesn't translate to the scoresheet, look toward more advanced statistics like corsi. (Jordan Staal has a really good one this year, but we'll get to that in a bit.) It's not the greatest statistic, but when it comes to hockey, pretty much every stat aside from potting 50 goals in a season has some kind of caveat. Here is a real good scoop on advanced stats starting with corsi, but here's the skinny: quote:Corsi Number = (Shots on Target For + Missed Shots For + Blocked Shots Against ) - (Shots on Target Against + Missed Shots Against + Blocked Shots For) So basically if a player has a positive corsi, that means when they are on the ice more shots are being directed at the opposition. Alternatively, if they have a negative corsi, then more shots are being directed at their own net. It's a proxy for puck possession, essentially. As long as you're putting pucks on their net and not on your own, you're more likely to score and less likely to get scored on, or so the theory goes. (The Predators have been bucking the system for a long time now.) Relative corsi is that corsi number minus the corsi number for the player's team when they're not on the ice. So if they have a positive number, that means the team performs better when they're on the ice. A negative number would imply the team performs worse. Jordan Staal's relative corsi is +10.7, with only Malkin and Kunitz posting better numbers. The ultimate caveat, of course, is that this is highly dependent on the quality of teammates a player is out on the ice with. Obviously, if you put Sidney Crosby on a line with four AHL callups, he's probably going to have a lovely corsi, so it's always important to note the Quality of Teammates and Quality of Competition, which is the average corsi number of all teammates and competition, respectively. This is also problematic since they can be self-fulfilling prophecies--surprisingly, lovely players play with other lovely players, and good players play with good players, so it's hard to isolate an individual's performance. My personal opinion is that it is better for evaluating a team as a whole than individuals. Gio fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Mar 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 04:35
|
|
|
Gio posted:If you want to understand a player's value that doesn't translate to the scoresheet, look toward more advanced statistics like corsi. (Jordan Staal has a really good one this year, but we'll get to that in a bit.) It's not the greatest statistic, but when it comes to hockey, pretty much every stat aside from potting 50 goals in a season has some kind of caveat. Does Corsi handle stuff like I guess Malhotra (or whoever it was) that got mentioned earlier in the thread for having really bad numbers and stuff but only getting like 10% of his starts in the offensive zone?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 04:40
|
|
|
Yeah, forgot to mention zone starts, too. It doesn't. That one site I linked does use a stat that tries to control for zone starts, but I'm not all that convinced by it. So yeah, a player may get really lovely zone starts (i.e. start all their shifts at faceoffs in their own end), which is obviously going to skew their corsi number. The only thing I can say with corsi is take it with a big grain of a salt and look at a thousand other statistics as well to try and explain it. If a player has above 50% offensive zone starts, positive quality of teammates, negative quality of competition, and still has a negative relative corsi, then they probably suck. Awhile back someone tweeted a list of players that had these characteristics and I can't find it for the life of me. Had the title "Statistical Nightmares".
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 04:43
|
|
|
Gio posted:Yeah, forgot to mention zone starts, too. It doesn't. That one site I linked does use a stat that tries to control for zone starts, but I'm not all that convinced by it. I guess the thing to take out of it is that some stats are better predictors of it than others, but it's almost impossible to judge a player just based on stats alone, no matter how advanced they are. At least that's my position v  v
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 04:46
|
|
|
Oh yeah, I agree. I mean, there are a number of players on the Wings with negative relative corsi but I'm not about to say they suck or should be traded. In fact, I like a lot of them (except for Ericsson he sucks).
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 04:48
|
|
|
Trying to understand offsetting penalties is hurting my tiny English brain. What's more annoying is that the NHL rulebook is really verbose and complex with it's explanation and not really very accessible, and there are not many other places having a go at explaining it. So, when do penalties get canceled out, and teams NOT have to put a player in a box. Obviously there's the classic fighting major example, and in that instance if one player gets an extra 2 for instigating the fight, they will play 5 on 4. But what about offsetting minor penalties? Does the rule only get applied when in certain situations? (ie full strength, 4 on 4, etc?) I have a feeling the answer is not straightforward.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 17:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
Coincidental penalties still put players in the box.. someone has to serve that time. But you don't lose a man on the ice for it. Doesn't matter if it's a minor or a major.. even if it's 5 on 5, someone is in the box serving the penalty. Only time someone doesn't go to the box is if it's near the end of a period and a guy gets a fighting major.. he typically goes straight to the locker room. But after the intermission he'll show up in the box and sit for his remaining time. 5+2 penalties put an extra player in the box to serve the two minutes and give a 5 on 4 situation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2012 17:46
|
|