Saturday, October 10, 2009
RBIs
Seems like Matt and I are enjoying the same stuff right now.
"The radio guys here protest a little … they point out that while Drew’s OPS is usually good, they aren’t sure that it has led to PRODUCTION — namely runs scored and RBIs. And this is when Theo really takes over. I bold out a few of my favorite thoughts in this wonderful little lesson:
"That’s not true. With RBIs, yes. Based on his skill set, he’s always going to have underwhelming RBI totals. I couldn’t care less. When you’re putting together a winning team, that honestly doesn’t matter.When you have a player who takes a ton of walks, who doesn’t put the ball in play at an above average rate, and is a certain type of hitter, he’s not going to drive in a lot of runs. Runs scored, you couldn’t be more wrong. If you look at a rate basis, J.D. scores a ton of runs.
“And the reason he scores a ton of runs is because he does the single most important thing you can do in baseball as an offensive player. And that’s NOT MAKE OUTS. He doesn’t make outs. He’s always among our team leaders in on-base percentage, usually among the league leaders in on-base percentage. And he’s a really good base runner. So when he doesn’t make outs, and he gets himself on base, he scores runs — and he has some good hitters hitting behind him. Look at his runs scored on a rate basis with the Red Sox or throughout his career. It’s outstanding.
“You guys can talk about RBIs if you want, I just … we ignore them in the front office … and I think we’ve built some pretty good offensive clubs. If you want to talk about RBIs at all, talk about it as a percentage of opportunity but it’s just simply not a way or something we use to evaluate offensive players.”
Now, I am well aware that baseball isn't hockey. I say this to preempt the people who will want to drive home this point in the comments section, knowing full well that they will say it anyway. Baseball is not hockey. Hockey is not baseball. Baseball is not hockey. I know. I get it. And I don't care. What I care about is the broader point of Posnanski's post, and Epstein's interview, which is this: far too many professional sports teams, sport reporters, and sports fans focus on aspects of their particular game that are either secondary or irrelevant to the game's primary purpose, which is winning. They elevate things that, while perhaps fun and entertaining, haven't really been proven to exist or matter. Coaches who talk about players needing more "crust" in their game, for example. Fans who brag about a player being the team's best body-checker, for another. Reporters who mythologize a player for being "clutch" in "crunch time." Me, I'd rather people--managers, coaches, players, reporters, fans--worried more about figuring out what things actually determine success in a sport. Do I know exactly what those things are? Hell, no. But I do have some guesses.
"That’s not true. With RBIs, yes. Based on his skill set, he’s always going to have underwhelming RBI totals. I couldn’t care less. When you’re putting together a winning team, that honestly doesn’t matter.When you have a player who takes a ton of walks, who doesn’t put the ball in play at an above average rate, and is a certain type of hitter, he’s not going to drive in a lot of runs. Runs scored, you couldn’t be more wrong. If you look at a rate basis, J.D. scores a ton of runs.
“And the reason he scores a ton of runs is because he does the single most important thing you can do in baseball as an offensive player. And that’s NOT MAKE OUTS. He doesn’t make outs. He’s always among our team leaders in on-base percentage, usually among the league leaders in on-base percentage. And he’s a really good base runner. So when he doesn’t make outs, and he gets himself on base, he scores runs — and he has some good hitters hitting behind him. Look at his runs scored on a rate basis with the Red Sox or throughout his career. It’s outstanding.
“You guys can talk about RBIs if you want, I just … we ignore them in the front office … and I think we’ve built some pretty good offensive clubs. If you want to talk about RBIs at all, talk about it as a percentage of opportunity but it’s just simply not a way or something we use to evaluate offensive players.”
--Joe Posnanski, on Theo Epstein on J.D. Drew
Now, I am well aware that baseball isn't hockey. I say this to preempt the people who will want to drive home this point in the comments section, knowing full well that they will say it anyway. Baseball is not hockey. Hockey is not baseball. Baseball is not hockey. I know. I get it. And I don't care. What I care about is the broader point of Posnanski's post, and Epstein's interview, which is this: far too many professional sports teams, sport reporters, and sports fans focus on aspects of their particular game that are either secondary or irrelevant to the game's primary purpose, which is winning. They elevate things that, while perhaps fun and entertaining, haven't really been proven to exist or matter. Coaches who talk about players needing more "crust" in their game, for example. Fans who brag about a player being the team's best body-checker, for another. Reporters who mythologize a player for being "clutch" in "crunch time." Me, I'd rather people--managers, coaches, players, reporters, fans--worried more about figuring out what things actually determine success in a sport. Do I know exactly what those things are? Hell, no. But I do have some guesses.
In hockey, for example, I'm more concerned with scoring rates than hit totals. I'm more interested in who a player is playing against, and how he is doing against those players, than I am in his leadership skills. I'm more concerned with finding players who drive results, and less interested in whether or not he is really good at driving a guy's head into the boards. I'm more interested in net total shots on net and driving possession than "errors" and the plus/minus. I'm that way because I'm guessing (I've been convinced, actually) that some of these things are more important in determining the outcome of a game than the things we've traditionally looked at and used to determine outcomes (and excellence). You want to win? Have guys on your team who do these things well. Forget about how "big" his heart is, those "huge" goals he scores, and whether or not he can impale an opponent on his stick like a trident.
Listen, I like physical hockey and fighting as much as the next guy. It gets the blood up, it gets the crowd into a game, and it's just plain fun to watch. But you know what I like more than an entertaining hockey game? One where my team wins. If I just wanted physical entertainment without results, I'd watch the Three Stooges. But I want my team to win, and I remain unconvinced that having it littered with bruisers is going to maximize that result. Am I saying that "physical hockey" is unimportant? No. It may in fact be. But I don't think it's been proven to really matter as much as "scoring hockey." That's what I want first and foremost on my hockey team. Guys who score goals. Also, guys who score goals and prevent other guys from scoring goals. That's really the ideal. If they do it by playing physically, great. But that's an added bonus, not a primary concern. When I see a near historically bad NHL player getting first-line minutes because he's big and hits people, a little bit of my sanity dies. Why? Because the bottom-line is the guy isn't helping his team win when he is placed in that position. His skill set does not match up with what is required to win hockey games. And the coach isn't helping his team win, either. In fact, he's hamstringing their chances of victory, based on some antiquated and unproven model of success. And there goes my sanity, right out the window!
Then again, I may be wrong. Maybe all those traditional ways of looking at a hockey player, and his performance, matter. But I'd like to move away from the acceptance of these things simply because that's the way it's always been, and move more towards an acceptance of these things because that's the way they really are. I'd like there to be more emphasis on determining and going with what actually leads to success (wins), and less emphasis placed on what takes us back to making ill-informed and unproven observations and evaluations. If that means heart and soul and body-checking and all that other stuff really matters, rock n' roll.
And that's my thought for the day.
# posted by andy grabia @ 6:24 pm 
Comments:
Pffffff.
As Ron MacLean has pointed out, for the game to be enjoyable you have to have a narrative -- whether that narrative is as broad as off ice personal interest stories or as local as enacting rules that allow plays to develop with some degree of continuity.
I would argue, with my gums stretched all the way back to by third molars, that heart, crust, clutch, leadership, etc., are not, as you seem to claim, "secondary or irrelevant to the game's purpose" ; they are, in fact, central to the game's purpose, which I take to be offering something enjoyable to play and something enjoyable to watch.
Asking whether these 'intangibles' are "true" is like asking whether Vivaldi's Four Seasons are a true account of the Earth's yearly cycle. It misses the point.
Sure athletes play to win, but if pressed, I best most athletes would tell you that winning isn't the reason they play. And, while watching your team win is great, I'd suggest that it isn't really the reason fans watch. They watch because it provides them with a multitude of interesting, exciting, dramatic narratives.
If you want to focus on other narratives (e.g., what factors contribute to winning) that's great, but don't tell me that the narratives I like "don't exist or matter". They matter greatly.
I'm also pretty skeptical of your implication (assertion?) that most (some?) NHL coaches and GMs use "ill-informed and unproven observations and evaluations" in order to enact "antiquated and unproven models" by "littering their team with bruisers [in order to] maximize results".
I'm all for hyperbole, but can you provide some examples of any NHL coaches/GMS who actually think this way?
Listen pal.
Baseball is not hockey.
Hockey is not deep sea fishing.
A fish does not need a bicycle.
And Jacques scored a huge goal tonight.
Huge. ;)
I'm all for hyperbole, but can you provide some examples of any NHL coaches/GMS who actually think this way?
Um, have you ever heard Pat Quinn speak?
As Ron MacLean has pointed out, for the game to be enjoyable you have to have a narrative -- whether that narrative is as broad as off ice personal interest stories or as local as enacting rules that allow plays to develop with some degree of continuity.
This is completely irrelevant to my post. I like narratives as much as the next guy, but the post is about figuring out the best way to win hockey games. How does a good story help a team win?
Um, have you ever heard Pat Quinn speak?
Cute. But not exactly a strong case-study. Really? You really believe that Quinn thinks that way. And even if you do . . . doesn't the fact that he has won (a) Olympic Gold, (b) Junior World Gold, (c) U18 World Gold, (d)World Cup Gold, (e) 2 Cup finals, tell you that his apparently antediluvian coaching methods might not be so "ill-informed and unproven" after all?
This is completely irrelevant to my post. I like narratives as much as the next guy, but the post is about figuring out the best way to win hockey games. How does a good story help a team win?
It relates directly.
Your post is a huge Halloween field of straw-men. You deride the fact that that "far too many professional sports teams, sport reporters, and sports fans focus on aspects of their particular game that are either secondary or irrelevant to the game's primary purpose"
But in order to do this, you have to define the game's "primary purpose" in your own terms: winning.
My claim is that, for most of the people towards which you are so contemptuous -- especially fans, but even players -- winning is not the primary purpose of the game. You are judging these folks according to the wrong standard. It's a faulty assumption. Winning is just one of many narratives you can focus on.
You then pined that, "Me, I'd rather people--managers, coaches, players, reporters, fans--worried more about figuring out what things actually determine success in a sport . . . I'm more concerned with scoring rates than hit totals. I'm more interested in who a player is playing against, and how he is doing against those players, than I am in his leadership skills." Blah, Blah, Blah.
Hey. If you want to worry about those things then knock yourself out. But, again, please don't tell me what to worry about. Me, I'm more concerned with evenly played games than wins, young turks and grizzled vets trying to find a place in the show, stories of leadership and heart, playing injured, playoff beards, 50 goal seasons, Big saves, first goals, Big goals and, yes clutch third period goals.
But hey, that's just me. And, apparently, "far too many professional sports teams, sport reporters, and sports fans."
Andy:
Roger Neilson used to pay his players a cash bonus for their hit totals, and it was one of those things he tallied manually (along with TOI and all that other stuff that matters).
Sacamano:
Milbury, Mike.
MacLean, Doug.
I agree with a lot of the things written in the post above.
Gabe Desjardins has pretty much shown that the 'huge goal' thing is crap; given that the game is within one 70% of the time, than 70% of goals are huge goals. Possibly more, if you count a guy who scores when his team is down 2-0 as scoring a huge goal (and I would).
Speaking as a guy who has followed J-F Jacques career with exasperation, it's probably worth noting that he's been a very good E/S scorer in the AHL; we look at his 60 NHL games and get angry but looking over the past few years in the American League it's maybe a little easier to see a guy who might qualify for top-six minutes. Not that I'm a fan of him on the top line, but I can understand why he's a candidate for a scoring role. Hell, even Dustin Penner wasn't scoring much when he got stuck on the third and fourth lines.
First, I'm not even convinced that Milbury and MacLean embody this mythical unthinking coach who just throw bruisers on the ice.
Second, did it take oodles of "non-traditional analysis" for them to end up in the TSN booth rather than behind the bench . . . ?
Gabe Desjardins has pretty much shown that the 'huge goal' thing is crap;
A classic example of confusing statistical significance for significance.
I'm no raging phenomenologist, but experientially speaking it is undeniable that some goals are bigger than others.
I'm not even sure what this debate is about really, but basically Andy is explaining why Detroit won the Cup 2 years back (skill, SOGs, a goonless roster, etc), which isn't exactly a proclamation being nailed to a church door.
I agree with Andy's sentiment:
But I'd like to move away from the acceptance of these things simply because that's the way it's always been, and move more towards an acceptance of these things because that's the way they really are.
As an example, fighting is useless and I've never heard a great argument for its purpose in the game (the "violence to prevent violence" defense being most laughable, especially compared to other major sports that don't have fighting) but it persists in the game, its role explained away as a lazy, narrative-friendly "momentum boost" (an indinspensible mood changer that inexplicably disappears when it's needed most, in the playoffs).
On the other hand, I can be convinced that putting some size into the lineup or that making hits can help a team win. I can buy the idea that JF Jacques "creates space for skilled players" or that teams need "grit," even if it's wrapped in lazy cliches that explain nothing.
I suppose the more mercurial and sensitive of us fans would rest a lot easier if we heard an Oilers' coach at least acknowledge things like even-strength scoring rates or Corsi numbers, and speak a little less about "big goals".
I'm not even sure what this debate is about really
I am: how to best evaluate players in order to win more hockey games. Sac is off on some tangent on how much he loves narratives. Oh, and how he doesn't care who wins or loses. He's just really into "evenly played hockey games," apparently. I think the turkey and pumpkin pie has gotten to him.
Mmm. Pumpkin pie.
I'm not even sure what this debate is about really, but basically Andy is explaining why Detroit won the Cup 2 years back
I'd be a lot more convinced of this if, say, the Detroit coaches were any better than the Oilers coaches in that they "at least acknowledge things like even-strength scoring rates or Corsi numbers".
Or is the fact that they drafted well and won the Cup sufficient proof that they actually think in terms of Corsi and even-strength scoring rates, despite the fact that they, to my knowledge, have ever talked about it either?
I guess the alternative would be to suggest that, just perhaps, NHL coaches, GMs, etc., are not tradition-bound slaves, and that few if any of them "[accept] these things simply because that's the way it's always been," and that they have resisted "[moving] towards an acceptance of these things because that's the way they really are."
i'm in grabia's camp. "Me, I'm more concerned with evenly played games than wins, young turks and grizzled vets trying to find a place in the show, ... yes clutch third period goals. "
sure, who doesn't love that but that's not the point. all that stuff is incidental. If it happens, then great. it colors the event but that shouldn't be how team should be managed professionally i.e. putting a historically bad player in that position.
its almost like you're asking for it. like waiting for the river with a seven-eight off-suite (i know, tired poker analogy). Sure you might win that one hand and remember it forever... or you might remember that one time in the season that jacques scored that goal. but the oilers are asking for it.
I'd be a lot more convinced of this if, say, the Detroit coaches were any better than the Oilers coaches in that they "at least acknowledge things like even-strength scoring rates or Corsi numbers".
Mike Babcock was the originator of the quote "possession is everything" which is pretty much what we're trying to capture with Corsi and scoring chances and such.
Mike Babcock was the originator of the quote "possession is everything" which is pretty much what we're trying to capture with Corsi and scoring chances and such.
Pardon my language but, "Oh or fuck's sake". You've got to be kidding me. Every coach in the world recognizes the value of possession. If you think Babcock invented the idea you're seriously delusional. And if this is the only hurdle needed to be recognized as an innovative, non-traditional hockey mind, then the standard is set far, far too low.
Pardon my language but, "Oh or fuck's sake". You've got to be kidding me. Every coach in the world recognizes the value of possession. If you think Babcock invented the idea you're seriously delusional. And if this is the only hurdle needed to be recognized as an innovative, non-traditional hockey mind, then the standard is set far, far too low.
Firstly I was responding to this point:
I'd be a lot more convinced of this if, say, the Detroit coaches were any better than the Oilers coaches in that they "at least acknowledge things like even-strength scoring rates or Corsi numbers".
whih is perfectly true given - the Detroit coaches are better than the Oilers coaches at acknowledging this particular factor.
Secondly I don't think every hockey mind in the NHL has a full appreciation of possession. For isntance, look at the types of contracts that are handed out to albatrosses like Bertuzzi (and yes this includes my home team GM Sutter).
So acknowledging that "possession is everything" is the same as acknowledging "even-strength scoring rates or Corsi numbers".
Puh-leeze.
I challenge you to do a Google search with "puck possession + __________ (insert any NHL coach's name here)" and come up empty. My strong suspicion is that you will be unable to find a single coach that has not stressed the importance of puck possession.
I'll start you off:
Brent Sutter and "Puck Possession"
Pat Quinn and "Puck Possession"
So acknowledging that "possession is everything" is the same as acknowledging "even-strength scoring rates or Corsi numbers".
Actually that's backwards. We're not trying to use Corsi numbers for the sake of counting shots for and against, we're using it as a proxy for measure meaningful puck possession. So we don't need to hear these guys talk about Corsi numbers - if they are concerned about puck possession they can measure it far better than we can.
Also here are some quotes from Babcock about "puck possession". None of the usual BS about how it's a "style", just emphasis on how forecheck, backcheck positioning, and skill play roles in getting the puck.
Is it mindblowing? No, but here we're all used to thinking like this. And I don't often read this much common sense from what say coaches publicly.
http://redwings.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=468250
I think you might be underestimating Quinn, Andy. I remember seeing a televised interview with him years ago when he was coaching the Leafs. They had been winning a lot of games recently but Quinn was cautious, he said that 5 on 5 scoring chances is a stat they put a lot of weight in, and they weren't doing so well in that lately, despite the wins.
I also remember a post game presser after an Oiler win at Rexall. This was just before the heritage classic. The Oilers won, and I listened to the presser live from the parking lot. The TO writers had already constructed the narrative (that being: at the end of a long road trip, and missing a couple of key players due to injury ... the Leafs had run out of steam) The only glitch was that this hadn't actually happened. Presumably they were just fishing for a confirming quote of some sort from Quinn to insert into the story. He didn't oblige.
By memory "No. We outchanced them 8-3 in the third period. We just didn't finish our chances. Their goalie was pretty good too." (Conklin was on a Hasekesque tear at EV at the time). His tone implied a "you fuckin' idiot" tacked on at the end of the sentence, but he never actually said it. I respected Quinn for that, almost all coaches would have just given them the quote they were after, probably in a form that wasn't a technical lie.
If Sacamano had been listening he would have been clucking his tongue ;) Pat Quinn effing up a beautiful narrative with trivial matters such as "things that actually happened in the hockey game". For shame, Pat, for shame.
Quinn also claims to be the first NHL coach to track scoring chances. I don't know if it's true, but it would have been when he was an assistant to Fred Shero. Presumably that was something that Freddy brought back from the Soviet Union, along with the off ice training philosophy. (Apparently Shero's parents were Russian, and though I don't know if he spoke the language, it makes sense that he was more receptive to ideas from that part of the world that his NHL coaching brethren at the time).
And for MacTavish, he was a player when Neilson was recording (amongst a bunch of other stuff); scoring chances and on-ice shots+ and -. And over the short term they don't necessarily mesh with one another, but over a decent sample of games the relationship is powerful and obvious even to a fool.
Both Sacamano and Grabia are correct, but they are arguing completely different points. Andy is talking about what it takes to win hockey games, which is quite different from what it takes to enjoy watching hockey games. By way of illustration, Rush is fucking amazing from a technical standpoint, but from an aesthetic one, I'd rather listen to my own screams as my hand gets fed into a lawnmower.
Where things go pear shaped is when the aesthetic elements are used as genuine factors in success, but that's largely the domain of lazy journos, message boards and call-in shows.
Now kiss, you two.
Quinn also claims to be the first NHL coach to track scoring chances. I don't know if it's true, but it would have been when he was an assistant to Fred Shero.
I always thought it was Roger Nielsen, but Shero makes sense, too.
Post a Comment
<< Home
Pffffff.
As Ron MacLean has pointed out, for the game to be enjoyable you have to have a narrative -- whether that narrative is as broad as off ice personal interest stories or as local as enacting rules that allow plays to develop with some degree of continuity.
I would argue, with my gums stretched all the way back to by third molars, that heart, crust, clutch, leadership, etc., are not, as you seem to claim, "secondary or irrelevant to the game's purpose" ; they are, in fact, central to the game's purpose, which I take to be offering something enjoyable to play and something enjoyable to watch.
Asking whether these 'intangibles' are "true" is like asking whether Vivaldi's Four Seasons are a true account of the Earth's yearly cycle. It misses the point.
Sure athletes play to win, but if pressed, I best most athletes would tell you that winning isn't the reason they play. And, while watching your team win is great, I'd suggest that it isn't really the reason fans watch. They watch because it provides them with a multitude of interesting, exciting, dramatic narratives.
If you want to focus on other narratives (e.g., what factors contribute to winning) that's great, but don't tell me that the narratives I like "don't exist or matter". They matter greatly.
I'm also pretty skeptical of your implication (assertion?) that most (some?) NHL coaches and GMs use "ill-informed and unproven observations and evaluations" in order to enact "antiquated and unproven models" by "littering their team with bruisers [in order to] maximize results".
I'm all for hyperbole, but can you provide some examples of any NHL coaches/GMS who actually think this way?
Listen pal.
Baseball is not hockey.
Hockey is not deep sea fishing.
A fish does not need a bicycle.
And Jacques scored a huge goal tonight.
Huge. ;)
I'm all for hyperbole, but can you provide some examples of any NHL coaches/GMS who actually think this way?
Um, have you ever heard Pat Quinn speak?
As Ron MacLean has pointed out, for the game to be enjoyable you have to have a narrative -- whether that narrative is as broad as off ice personal interest stories or as local as enacting rules that allow plays to develop with some degree of continuity.
This is completely irrelevant to my post. I like narratives as much as the next guy, but the post is about figuring out the best way to win hockey games. How does a good story help a team win?
Um, have you ever heard Pat Quinn speak?
Cute. But not exactly a strong case-study. Really? You really believe that Quinn thinks that way. And even if you do . . . doesn't the fact that he has won (a) Olympic Gold, (b) Junior World Gold, (c) U18 World Gold, (d)World Cup Gold, (e) 2 Cup finals, tell you that his apparently antediluvian coaching methods might not be so "ill-informed and unproven" after all?
This is completely irrelevant to my post. I like narratives as much as the next guy, but the post is about figuring out the best way to win hockey games. How does a good story help a team win?
It relates directly.
Your post is a huge Halloween field of straw-men. You deride the fact that that "far too many professional sports teams, sport reporters, and sports fans focus on aspects of their particular game that are either secondary or irrelevant to the game's primary purpose"
But in order to do this, you have to define the game's "primary purpose" in your own terms: winning.
My claim is that, for most of the people towards which you are so contemptuous -- especially fans, but even players -- winning is not the primary purpose of the game. You are judging these folks according to the wrong standard. It's a faulty assumption. Winning is just one of many narratives you can focus on.
You then pined that, "Me, I'd rather people--managers, coaches, players, reporters, fans--worried more about figuring out what things actually determine success in a sport . . . I'm more concerned with scoring rates than hit totals. I'm more interested in who a player is playing against, and how he is doing against those players, than I am in his leadership skills." Blah, Blah, Blah.
Hey. If you want to worry about those things then knock yourself out. But, again, please don't tell me what to worry about. Me, I'm more concerned with evenly played games than wins, young turks and grizzled vets trying to find a place in the show, stories of leadership and heart, playing injured, playoff beards, 50 goal seasons, Big saves, first goals, Big goals and, yes clutch third period goals.
But hey, that's just me. And, apparently, "far too many professional sports teams, sport reporters, and sports fans."
Andy:
Roger Neilson used to pay his players a cash bonus for their hit totals, and it was one of those things he tallied manually (along with TOI and all that other stuff that matters).
Sacamano:
Milbury, Mike.
MacLean, Doug.
I agree with a lot of the things written in the post above.
Gabe Desjardins has pretty much shown that the 'huge goal' thing is crap; given that the game is within one 70% of the time, than 70% of goals are huge goals. Possibly more, if you count a guy who scores when his team is down 2-0 as scoring a huge goal (and I would).
Speaking as a guy who has followed J-F Jacques career with exasperation, it's probably worth noting that he's been a very good E/S scorer in the AHL; we look at his 60 NHL games and get angry but looking over the past few years in the American League it's maybe a little easier to see a guy who might qualify for top-six minutes. Not that I'm a fan of him on the top line, but I can understand why he's a candidate for a scoring role. Hell, even Dustin Penner wasn't scoring much when he got stuck on the third and fourth lines.
First, I'm not even convinced that Milbury and MacLean embody this mythical unthinking coach who just throw bruisers on the ice.
Second, did it take oodles of "non-traditional analysis" for them to end up in the TSN booth rather than behind the bench . . . ?
Gabe Desjardins has pretty much shown that the 'huge goal' thing is crap;
A classic example of confusing statistical significance for significance.
I'm no raging phenomenologist, but experientially speaking it is undeniable that some goals are bigger than others.
I'm not even sure what this debate is about really, but basically Andy is explaining why Detroit won the Cup 2 years back (skill, SOGs, a goonless roster, etc), which isn't exactly a proclamation being nailed to a church door.
I agree with Andy's sentiment:
But I'd like to move away from the acceptance of these things simply because that's the way it's always been, and move more towards an acceptance of these things because that's the way they really are.
As an example, fighting is useless and I've never heard a great argument for its purpose in the game (the "violence to prevent violence" defense being most laughable, especially compared to other major sports that don't have fighting) but it persists in the game, its role explained away as a lazy, narrative-friendly "momentum boost" (an indinspensible mood changer that inexplicably disappears when it's needed most, in the playoffs).
On the other hand, I can be convinced that putting some size into the lineup or that making hits can help a team win. I can buy the idea that JF Jacques "creates space for skilled players" or that teams need "grit," even if it's wrapped in lazy cliches that explain nothing.
I suppose the more mercurial and sensitive of us fans would rest a lot easier if we heard an Oilers' coach at least acknowledge things like even-strength scoring rates or Corsi numbers, and speak a little less about "big goals".
I'm not even sure what this debate is about really
I am: how to best evaluate players in order to win more hockey games. Sac is off on some tangent on how much he loves narratives. Oh, and how he doesn't care who wins or loses. He's just really into "evenly played hockey games," apparently. I think the turkey and pumpkin pie has gotten to him.
Mmm. Pumpkin pie.
I'm not even sure what this debate is about really, but basically Andy is explaining why Detroit won the Cup 2 years back
I'd be a lot more convinced of this if, say, the Detroit coaches were any better than the Oilers coaches in that they "at least acknowledge things like even-strength scoring rates or Corsi numbers".
Or is the fact that they drafted well and won the Cup sufficient proof that they actually think in terms of Corsi and even-strength scoring rates, despite the fact that they, to my knowledge, have ever talked about it either?
I guess the alternative would be to suggest that, just perhaps, NHL coaches, GMs, etc., are not tradition-bound slaves, and that few if any of them "[accept] these things simply because that's the way it's always been," and that they have resisted "[moving] towards an acceptance of these things because that's the way they really are."
i'm in grabia's camp. "Me, I'm more concerned with evenly played games than wins, young turks and grizzled vets trying to find a place in the show, ... yes clutch third period goals. "
sure, who doesn't love that but that's not the point. all that stuff is incidental. If it happens, then great. it colors the event but that shouldn't be how team should be managed professionally i.e. putting a historically bad player in that position.
its almost like you're asking for it. like waiting for the river with a seven-eight off-suite (i know, tired poker analogy). Sure you might win that one hand and remember it forever... or you might remember that one time in the season that jacques scored that goal. but the oilers are asking for it.
I'd be a lot more convinced of this if, say, the Detroit coaches were any better than the Oilers coaches in that they "at least acknowledge things like even-strength scoring rates or Corsi numbers".
Mike Babcock was the originator of the quote "possession is everything" which is pretty much what we're trying to capture with Corsi and scoring chances and such.
Mike Babcock was the originator of the quote "possession is everything" which is pretty much what we're trying to capture with Corsi and scoring chances and such.
Pardon my language but, "Oh or fuck's sake". You've got to be kidding me. Every coach in the world recognizes the value of possession. If you think Babcock invented the idea you're seriously delusional. And if this is the only hurdle needed to be recognized as an innovative, non-traditional hockey mind, then the standard is set far, far too low.
Pardon my language but, "Oh or fuck's sake". You've got to be kidding me. Every coach in the world recognizes the value of possession. If you think Babcock invented the idea you're seriously delusional. And if this is the only hurdle needed to be recognized as an innovative, non-traditional hockey mind, then the standard is set far, far too low.
Firstly I was responding to this point:
I'd be a lot more convinced of this if, say, the Detroit coaches were any better than the Oilers coaches in that they "at least acknowledge things like even-strength scoring rates or Corsi numbers".
whih is perfectly true given - the Detroit coaches are better than the Oilers coaches at acknowledging this particular factor.
Secondly I don't think every hockey mind in the NHL has a full appreciation of possession. For isntance, look at the types of contracts that are handed out to albatrosses like Bertuzzi (and yes this includes my home team GM Sutter).
So acknowledging that "possession is everything" is the same as acknowledging "even-strength scoring rates or Corsi numbers".
Puh-leeze.
I challenge you to do a Google search with "puck possession + __________ (insert any NHL coach's name here)" and come up empty. My strong suspicion is that you will be unable to find a single coach that has not stressed the importance of puck possession.
I'll start you off:
Brent Sutter and "Puck Possession"
Pat Quinn and "Puck Possession"
So acknowledging that "possession is everything" is the same as acknowledging "even-strength scoring rates or Corsi numbers".
Actually that's backwards. We're not trying to use Corsi numbers for the sake of counting shots for and against, we're using it as a proxy for measure meaningful puck possession. So we don't need to hear these guys talk about Corsi numbers - if they are concerned about puck possession they can measure it far better than we can.
Also here are some quotes from Babcock about "puck possession". None of the usual BS about how it's a "style", just emphasis on how forecheck, backcheck positioning, and skill play roles in getting the puck.
Is it mindblowing? No, but here we're all used to thinking like this. And I don't often read this much common sense from what say coaches publicly.
http://redwings.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=468250
I think you might be underestimating Quinn, Andy. I remember seeing a televised interview with him years ago when he was coaching the Leafs. They had been winning a lot of games recently but Quinn was cautious, he said that 5 on 5 scoring chances is a stat they put a lot of weight in, and they weren't doing so well in that lately, despite the wins.
I also remember a post game presser after an Oiler win at Rexall. This was just before the heritage classic. The Oilers won, and I listened to the presser live from the parking lot. The TO writers had already constructed the narrative (that being: at the end of a long road trip, and missing a couple of key players due to injury ... the Leafs had run out of steam) The only glitch was that this hadn't actually happened. Presumably they were just fishing for a confirming quote of some sort from Quinn to insert into the story. He didn't oblige.
By memory "No. We outchanced them 8-3 in the third period. We just didn't finish our chances. Their goalie was pretty good too." (Conklin was on a Hasekesque tear at EV at the time). His tone implied a "you fuckin' idiot" tacked on at the end of the sentence, but he never actually said it. I respected Quinn for that, almost all coaches would have just given them the quote they were after, probably in a form that wasn't a technical lie.
If Sacamano had been listening he would have been clucking his tongue ;) Pat Quinn effing up a beautiful narrative with trivial matters such as "things that actually happened in the hockey game". For shame, Pat, for shame.
Quinn also claims to be the first NHL coach to track scoring chances. I don't know if it's true, but it would have been when he was an assistant to Fred Shero. Presumably that was something that Freddy brought back from the Soviet Union, along with the off ice training philosophy. (Apparently Shero's parents were Russian, and though I don't know if he spoke the language, it makes sense that he was more receptive to ideas from that part of the world that his NHL coaching brethren at the time).
And for MacTavish, he was a player when Neilson was recording (amongst a bunch of other stuff); scoring chances and on-ice shots+ and -. And over the short term they don't necessarily mesh with one another, but over a decent sample of games the relationship is powerful and obvious even to a fool.
Both Sacamano and Grabia are correct, but they are arguing completely different points. Andy is talking about what it takes to win hockey games, which is quite different from what it takes to enjoy watching hockey games. By way of illustration, Rush is fucking amazing from a technical standpoint, but from an aesthetic one, I'd rather listen to my own screams as my hand gets fed into a lawnmower.
Where things go pear shaped is when the aesthetic elements are used as genuine factors in success, but that's largely the domain of lazy journos, message boards and call-in shows.
Now kiss, you two.
Quinn also claims to be the first NHL coach to track scoring chances. I don't know if it's true, but it would have been when he was an assistant to Fred Shero.
I always thought it was Roger Nielsen, but Shero makes sense, too.
Post a Comment
<< Home
