|
If anyone saw the overtime goal in the Colorado/Bolts game tonight...is it likely that the scorer was actually aiming at Garon's leg to bounce that one in, or is more like just put it in a general area and hope something good happens? I'm leaning towards the later but I guess just kind of wondering about how good guys are at that sort of thing at the highest levels.
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 06:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 18:26 |
|
|
From that area of the ice a good shooter can certainly look up and notice the goalie's positioning and try to get a read on weight distribution to figure out how to best exploit any weaknesses, and a wrister from there should be pretty accurate from a pro player. But what you figure is just as likely, honestly..
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 07:55
|
|
|
Kekekela posted:If anyone saw the overtime goal in the Colorado/Bolts game tonight...is it likely that the scorer was actually aiming at Garon's leg to bounce that one in, or is more like just put it in a general area and hope something good happens? I'm leaning towards the later but I guess just kind of wondering about how good guys are at that sort of thing at the highest levels. A scorer can pick areas andif given space even corners. Jeff Tambellini is a great example of this. In teh shootout he is unsaveable cause he can pick any corner with an absolute laser beam shot and he'll do it but but a few strides past the blueline. Goalies can't react and can't cheat so its eaither just high, post, or in and its usually in. In game though he can't do that, no space, no time, to setup his wrister. Matt Moulson for me is a good player in terms of his shot selection. Mixes it up and uses his shots to create rebounds when he doesn't have a good sniping angle but has space to do more than dump and chase. Okposolypse fucked around with this message at 08:16 on Dec 24, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 08:13
|
|
|
This is the best example I've seen in a while about how precise pro players can be when given time: http://video.penguins.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=83732 That kind of accuracy blows my mind.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 17:49
|
|
|
xzzy posted:This is the best example I've seen in a while about how precise pro players can be when given time: I thought this was fake, though, wasn't it? It's a reebok ad, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 19:52
|
|
|
If it is faked, it sure fooled me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 20:46
|
|
|
It's probably plausible but they probably had to do retakes in between the pucks being knocked out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2011 10:04
|
|
|
I know when they made a vidoe of some Duke guy (JJ Reddick?) making ridiculous shots it was in fact real, they just did like 100 takes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2011 22:34
|
|
|
ElwoodCuse posted:I know when they made a vidoe of some Duke guy (JJ Reddick?) making ridiculous shots it was in fact real, they just did like 100 takes. This is usually the case with these, it's why sometimes you see such a look of relief on the players faces when its finally over
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 03:05
|
|
|
Can everyone stop polluting so I can have some minus C degrees, ok thnx in adavance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 21:17
|
|
|
Anders posted:Can everyone stop polluting so I can have some minus C degrees, ok thnx in adavance. Sorry, this lovely winter isn't because of global warming, this time it's ~*la nina*~ that's to blame.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 23:27
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Sorry, this lovely winter isn't because of global warming, this time it's ~*la nina*~ that's to blame. I'm on the other side of the world...
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 23:33
|
|
|
Is it a good thing or a bad thing when someone says a goalie was standing on their head in a game? I've heard commentators say it a couple times and I haven't been able to tell if it means the goalie is kind of loving around or that the goalie is being really acrobatic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2012 02:10
|
|
|
VoodooDoll posted:Is it a good thing or a bad thing when someone says a goalie was standing on their head in a game? I've heard commentators say it a couple times and I haven't been able to tell if it means the goalie is kind of loving around or that the goalie is being really acrobatic. It's a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2012 02:11
|
|
|
VoodooDoll posted:Is it a good thing or a bad thing when someone says a goalie was standing on their head in a game? I've heard commentators say it a couple times and I haven't been able to tell if it means the goalie is kind of loving around or that the goalie is being really acrobatic. I've never heard that term ("standing on their head") used in any way but positive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2012 02:11
|
|
|
Yeah, it absolutely is a praise recognizing that the goalie has made some near-impossible saves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2012 03:20
|
|
|
Awesome, thanks for clearing that up for me. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2012 03:27
|
|
|
VoodooDoll posted:Is it a good thing or a bad thing when someone says a goalie was standing on their head in a game? I've heard commentators say it a couple times and I haven't been able to tell if it means the goalie is kind of loving around or that the goalie is being really acrobatic. It means that their defense was terrible that game and they've literally done everything they could to keep their team in the game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2012 04:05
|
|
|
Hi everyone! So, I've been hearing more and more family/friends talk about hockey, and decided to give it a go. I read the rulebook, watched the video rulebook on the NHL website, and we started watching Sharks games (we're in San Jose). I love it! The athleticism displayed is awe-inspiring. I literally couldn't do anything that the players do at all. The skating alone is really drat impressive. Previously, I've been an American football and formula one fan, but hockey has really grabbed me all of the sudden. I wish I would have tried it out sooner! It has the pace of a basketball game, but each goal is more important like in football. It makes for very exciting games, even for a novice such as myself. The OP is very helpful, and I'll definitely be going through it in more detail as I eat dinner tonight. I have a stupid question, though, that I didn't see answered at first look. In SAS (I'm new to this subforum), there seems to be a lot of NHL threads. I see that many of them are for a specific day, but I'm wondering if there's like a season specific thread. Thanks for the help! I look forward to absorbing all of your guys' knowledge to help me understand the game better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 03:59
|
|
|
We do monthly News/Views threads http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3458050 Be warned: may contain unbearable amounts of Bruins/Canucks dickwaving.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 04:01
|
|
|
e:/\/\/\ also that There'll be News/Views threads per month where non gdt chat happens. Once playoffs start it'll be by round and there'll also be a Non-Playoff thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 04:02
|
|
|
Thanks for the quick help! What does GDT stand for?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 04:05
|
|
|
Gameday Thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 04:06
|
|
|
Game Day Thread mostly useless posting interjected with 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 04:06
|
|
|
Yeah, every once in a while GDTs will be kind of interesting but mostly it's just people throwing out observations that nobody else responds to and celebrating / venting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 04:08
|
|
|
also sushi chat
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 04:09
|
|
|
Thanks again! I'm going to get to reading the OP in detail now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 04:09
|
|
|
Thufir posted:Yeah, every once in a while GDTs will be kind of interesting but mostly it's just people throwing out observations that nobody else responds to and celebrating / venting. I assume that's how everyone does it though
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2012 06:19
|
|
|
This thread is wonderful and I wish I had noticed it earlier. Here’s something I’m wondering about. What makes a team better or worse at scoring during a power play? Take Tampa Bay, for example. Assuming I’m reading the stats correctly (GF is goal for and PPG is power play goals, yes?), Tampa Bay has the tenth most goals in the league with 155. But they’re twenty-ninth in power play goals with only 24. This doesn’t make sense to me. If you’re good at scoring goals when you’re playing against five people, shouldn’t you be even better at scoring goals when you’re playing against four people? Is there something I’m missing here?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 07:04
|
|
|
CobwebMustardseed posted:This thread is wonderful and I wish I had noticed it earlier. Well the main reason is that the team on the penalty kill gets to ice the puck, which deflates attacks. This means they shoot it to the attacking end, which would result in a faceoff while even-strength. Perhaps Tampa Bay has a style that require buildup, which is difficult if the first thing an opponent does when he gets the puck is shoot it away. There is also the fact that PK line is usually the best players the team has out on the ice and usually their only concern is to keep the puck out of the net.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 07:43
|
|
|
CobwebMustardseed posted:This thread is wonderful and I wish I had noticed it earlier. You should be looking at PP%, which the Bolts are 28th. Some teams are just bad on the powerplay. Look at the Penguins from a few years ago. Crosby/Malkin/Gonchar and they were godawful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 07:46
|
|
|
There can be other reasons, too. For example, if you score a lot of goals off the rush, well you're kinda hosed when you get on the powerplay because it's very difficult to score rush goals off the powerplay since teams stack up at their blueline and go into a defensive shell since they are short handed. Sometimes the chemistry is off on a powerplay unit, even if they have a ton of talent. One problem the Penguins have when Crosby and Malkin are healthy is that both Crosby and Malkin love to play the right side half wall in the offensive zone on the powerplay, and so when both are out there at the same time on the powerplay one of them has to play in a spot where they aren't as comfortable since only one guy can play the right side half wall. That's not a problem they have at even strength.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 07:57
|
|
|
for some teams the powerplay just does not work ever and there is no goddamn reason for it. the rangers, for example, are a Very Good Team this year, and yet their power play has been a joke for most of the season and has been bad for most of the last decade and beyond. they have all the tools for a working power play in terms of personnel, but it just never seems to come together. this is also an example of how a good power play is not necessarily an indicator of a good team (and vice versa, seeing as the islanders, a bad team, have a pretty good power play). it certainly doesn't hurt on the whole when you can count on occasionally scoring goals on power plays though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 08:08
|
|
|
CobwebMustardseed posted:This thread is wonderful and I wish I had noticed it earlier. You would think so, but sometime's that's not the case. The dynamics of a power play are a little changed. Instead of teams rushing back and forth, one team has possession of the puck for the majority of the time in the offensive zone. Defenses adjust to this by playing either a box or a diamond in front of the goal to clear away the crease.  The box is used basically to deny the crease (area in front of the goal) to the team on the power play. In short, this takes away the best area on the ice and forces the team on the power play to shoot from the point (blue line) and side boards (area along the boards in between the goal line and the blue line). The con of this is that you basically give up the area to the outside in favor of protecting the crease. The diamond is used to put pressure on the offense as the players are cycling the puck back and forth. The pros to this is that you try to attack where the offense is going to be cycling the puck, and this style will usually lead to more shorthanded scoring opportunities. The cons to this is that you leave one defender in the crease to clear away the puck.  Here's an illustrative of an umbrella type power play. The defender basically quarter backs the power play and gets the puck to the forwards who are along the side boards, who then shoot the puck at the net. You would think that the forwards down at the net would be the ones who got the puck, but because they're being covered by the defenders. The two forwards up front are there to a) shoot rebounds, and b) deflect the puck. There's a few other ways to play the power play , but they most of the time cycle the puck around the outside. Now, the thing is is that the dynamics of the PP are different than 5 on 5 hockey. A team that is good at generating odd man rushes and getting down and dirty won't have that luxury because the team on the pk is in full on defense mode. Plus, the defense can ice the puck at will without penalty.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 08:18
|
|
|
Day Man posted:Thanks again! I'm going to get to reading the OP in detail now. Good choice in team too. There are a few of us Sharks fans on here. If you have any questions about the history of the team and what not, feel free to ask.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 08:45
|
|
|
Even the blackhawks, who could assemble probably the best looking powerplay unit on paper, are terrible at it. You'd think with kane, toews, Hossa, sharp, and Keith they might be able to score more. Unfortunately, their scheme (the hawks play the umbrella) hasn't been working all year, because teams know how to counter the common plays the hawks try, namely the back door pass and toews trying to stuff it in all alone in front.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 17:16
|
|
|
So then how important is having a good power play to the success of the team? Obviously good is better than bad and goals are better than no goals, but if a team like the Rangers are twenty-sixth in PP% but third in goal differential... I guess what I'm asking is: what does this mean? What knowledge about the nature of how strong or weak the Rangers are can I extrapolate from knowing that they have a high goal differential but a low PP%? And speaking of which, where do you guys get statistics from? Is there a hockey equivalent of basball-reference? Also, if the OP (or someone else) was feeling ambitious and/or generous, something that would be valuable to me would be a breakdown of the thresholds of what is considered good for these stats. For instance, the OP explains what S% is, but when I read that Brooks Orpik has a S% of 7.1, I have no context to know if that's good or not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 18:36
|
|
|
CobwebMustardseed posted:So then how important is having a good power play to the success of the team? Obviously good is better than bad and goals are better than no goals, but if a team like the Rangers are twenty-sixth in PP% but third in goal differential... NHL.com has all the basic stats available and there is also http://www.hockey-reference.com/ and http://www.behindthenet.ca/ "Good" can really vary depending on the player's role and the stat. For example, you asked about shooting %. Most NHL players will, over their career, have a S% of somewhere in the 7-15% range. Seeing someone at 20% doesn't mean they're doing good, it pretty much means they're getting lucky and might actually be over-performing and will eventually revert to the mean. To really get an idea for who is likely to be a consistent goal scorer you should look at s% and # of shots on net combined. Someone who shoots 10% (pretty average) but gets 200 shots a season is doing a decent amount of goal scoring. Something pretty much all the goal-scoring leaders have in common is that they take a ton of shots. Some other stats: Faceoff Percentage: only really useful for centers since some wingers will have a great percentage...on like, 3 faceoffs. +/-: This is stupid and should be ignored Zone starts: where a player starts their shifts, getting a lot of offensive zone starts will mean you get a lot of scoring chances but are kind of sheltered, lots of d-zone starts usually means you're doing tough defensive work and won't have as much opportunity to score. TOI/Shift stuff: How much time a player gets per game / how many shifts. PIM: Penalty minutes There's also Qualcomp/Corsi/PDO/etc that you can probably read about here http://www.behindthenet.ca/about_stats.html Thufir fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Feb 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 18:41
|
|
|
CobwebMustardseed posted:So then how important is having a good power play to the success of the team? Obviously good is better than bad and goals are better than no goals, but if a team like the Rangers are twenty-sixth in PP% but third in goal differential... The thing about individual statistics in hockey is that they almost never tell the whole story about a player. Brooks Orpik has a really low S% because he's a defenseman. D-men will typically have a significantly lower S% than forwards because they play the point (the blue line) in the offensive zone, so they're shooting a lot farther and usually through traffic. Add to that, Brooks Orpik is a "defensive defenseman" which sounds a bit redundant but there's actually different styles of d-men. In contrast, Letang would be considered an "offensive defenseman" ; he's got a lot better of a shot and in general is more comfortable trying to generate offense as opposed to shutting the other team down and keeping the puck in the zone. Some players are extremely valuable to their teams despite not putting up a lot of big numbers. For example, Chris Kunitz plays on the Penguins top line with Neal and Malkin. He doesn't really get anywhere near the amount of points as the other two do (16g-24a-40pts vs Malkin at 32-37-69 and Neal at 29-26-55), but he's been extremely important to their success because he's amazing at keeping the puck cycling in the other teams zone and is great at being physical and is a good netfront presence. It's interesting to see because Malkin and Neal are 1st and 9th overall in points respectively, and Kunitz is 61st, but most likely they wouldn't be doing nearly as well without Kunitz with them. I guess there's more advanced statistics sites that I don't have a link to because I don't really pay all that much attention to them, but at least for the main stats that are tracked, they really don't do a good job at painting a picture of a player.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 18:26 |
|
|
CobwebMustardseed posted:So then how important is having a good power play to the success of the team? Obviously good is better than bad and goals are better than no goals, but if a team like the Rangers are twenty-sixth in PP% but third in goal differential... This really only becomes a thing when you start talking about playoffs. Usually what's going to make or break a team in the playoffs are things like PP% because scoring chances are so rare, and they're both generally good 5-on-5. In a 7-game series, penalties, PP% and PK% are magnified. That said, in the regular season, it's just another stat. Teams might use it to focus in practice, or to change-up lines on the PP, but it's otherwise relatively meaningless when talking about how objectively good a team is. quote:And speaking of which, where do you guys get statistics from? Is there a hockey equivalent of basball-reference? Also, if the OP (or someone else) was feeling ambitious and/or generous, something that would be valuable to me would be a breakdown of the thresholds of what is considered good for these stats. For instance, the OP explains what S% is, but when I read that Brooks Orpik has a S% of 7.1, I have no context to know if that's good or not. I hardly ever look at stats, because...jesus why do that to yourself. But NHL.com actually has a pretty good historical reference.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 18:57
|
|
