Cherry picking from an intellectual perspective

[Faterson]

An “intellectual perspective” indeed.

It's hockey philosophy 101.

 

[Raistlin]

Okay, let me appeal to you intellectually about this very specific part of the game,

Body contact.

I believe when Kiefer Sherwood has ~150 more hits than the next highest hitter. 454 to be exact, he, in my cursory analysis, deserves more praise and recognition league wide. The way he angles his body to absorb the least impact while very consistently separating the puck carrier from the puck without hurting himself. He does not incur much in penalties, relatively clean reputation, does yeomans work, while maintains puck control and makes enough plays to garner 40 points. That. <<Chef's kiss>> Is a connoisseur's idea of a special hockey player.

And because he is statistically sooo much better and consistent than his peers in this one, very, under appreciated, part of the array of abilities to measure a player. I say we give him the Hart trophy.

 

[cowboy82nd]

Why don’t more wingers cheat up the ice to create breakaway chances? Power plays only convert about what, 20% of the time? And in those cases, it's a teams most talented offensive players approaching play with a scoring mindset. A skilled player’s breakaway success rate should be higher. The reward seems worth the defensive risk. Should a bottom dwelling team take a chance on a cheap, high talent AHL superstar and employ this kind of tactic?

Players do this all the time.

 

[HockeyVirus]

William Nylander is certainly no Selke candidate, but not a liability by any means and he is a master at this move. The trick is, you can't just cherry-pick because then you are effectively giving the other team a PP lol.

You need to read the play and when you see the puck going into a spot you expect your D to win the puck, take off into the neutral zone and let them find you

 

[ManofSteel55]

When a winger cherry picks, they are putting themselves out of position defensively, so to just hang around the neutral zone would give the opposition an advantage in the defensive zone. It could lead to a breakaway for you, but it could also lead to more scoring opportunities against.

Players do head up ice for breakout passes when safe to do so, but they have to balance the liklihood of gaining a good scoring chance with the liklihood of giving up a prime scoring chance.

 

[Mattb124]

I think it is a fair statement that more NHL goals are scored because offences capitalize on defensive mistakes than offenses out-skill the defense. Cherry picking sets up the potential for a “mistake” by giving the offense a mismatch. While mismatches on power plays only have a ~20% chance margin of success, that is in large part due to the defensive coverage schemes that have been devised to limit the benefit of the mismatch. When a player flies the zone at evens (unless it’s a set play), he is undermining the defensive structure of the team and setting up a situation where the opposition can capitalize on the mismatch without the defensive team identifying it and being in the proper position to defend it.

 

[wintersej]

I think watching on TV, and even at the rink, a lot fans follow the puck and fail to see what’s going on away from the play. Lots of wingers do “cherry pick” and have for a long time.

Agreed. And defenders almost always have the lanes covered.

 

[SEALBound]

William Nylander is certainly no Selke candidate, but not a liability by any means and he is a master at this move. The trick is, you can't just cherry-pick because then you are effectively giving the other team a PP lol.

You need to read the play and when you see the puck going into a spot you expect your D to win the puck, take off into the neutral zone and let them find you

I think we only have that viewpoint because we base it off the assumption that there would be no adjustment against it. Say Nylander wants to sit at the far blue line and wait for the puck. In your view, this gives the other team a 5 on 4 PP, which is reasonable. But based on a ton of games I've watched, the PK'ing team is able to clear the puck relatively frequently. Best PPs are at 25% over 2 minutes. I would be willing to bet that if the team "clears" it up to Nylander and he goes in and scores, there would be less willingness to leave him open in the future. Teams would quickly adjust and push their dman back and then it's a 4 on 4 and a 1 on 1.

That's not traditional which is why we don't see it. In my adult league, when we are uber short guys, we float a guy high to help back the other team's dmen off the blue line to make clearing the zone easier. Otherwise, we gas out too quickly. Occasionally, we get the breakaway, so there's a dual benefit.

 

[landy]

So youre saying give the other team a 5 on 3 and someone chills at the blue line hoping your team gets the puck?

 

[majormajor]

Really interesting question.

At 5v5, if you have a cherry picker leave the zone while the other club has possession, usually the other club will have a defender pull back at least somewhat, either in the pass lane or all the way back. They don't take the 5v4. They play it 4v4. And with the extra ice in a 4v4 they can go longer without turning it over, making it less likely the cherrypicker will get the puck.

That's why cherrypickers try and anticipate turnovers before blowing the zone.

 

[1989]

Players do this all the time.

OP sounds like they doesn't go to live games, to be honest. Cherrypicking happens like a handful of times per game but the standard TV angles can't/don't show it if the action is in the defensive zone.

It's not so much a "coached strategy" either at the NHL level, so much as it is "these are professional hockey players that play the game for a living and have the instinct to know when to blow the zone" ... and sometimes it works and sometimes it fails, but that's every strategy.

While proposing this, OP has provided no basis of statistics or numbers to even begin a debate which I believe is needed to present this potential strategical shift as viable.

 

[JackSlater]

Florida with Bure probably used this strategy more than any team I've seen. No good team would do it regularly, but sometimes a team, like Florida around the year 2000, knows it isn't winning a Stanley Cup and wants to at least get some eyeballs.

It's pretty easy to counter a player excessively cherry picking. It's one of the first strategies any new player to the game would try/think of.

 

[majormajor]

OP sounds like they doesn't go to live games, to be honest. Cherrypicking happens like a handful of times per game but the standard TV angles can't/don't show it if the action is in the defensive zone.

It's not so much a "coached strategy" either at the NHL level, so much as it is "these are professional hockey players that play the game for a living and have the instinct to know when to blow the zone" ... and sometimes it works and sometimes it fails, but that's every strategy.

While proposing this, OP has provided no basis of statistics or numbers to even begin a debate which I believe is needed to present this potential strategical shift as viable.

What the OP is suggesting is a little bit different than normal.

Normally forwards will blow the zone when they anticipate a turnover, it's a little more rare to park on the other club's side of the ice all shift when the other team has solid possession in your zone.

I don't know what statistics you are suggesting be presented.

 

[Hank Chinaski]

Florida with Bure probably used this strategy more than any team I've seen. No good team would do it regularly, but sometimes a team, like Florida around the year 2000, knows it isn't winning a Stanley Cup and wants to at least get some eyeballs.

It's pretty easy to counter a player excessively cherry picking. It's one of the first strategies any new player to the game would try/think of.

Yeah, Bure was the first name that came to mind. Also not an unheard of strategy at lower levels of hockey. Actually fairly common in Canadian juniors until the later 90s when you started to see a more pro-style structure being demanded by coaches.

That said, you and I are talking more about guys who “blow the zone” really, really early or players who deliberately take their sweet ass time getting back to their end, in hopes of being left alone following a quick turnover.

What OP seems to be talking about is a set strategy where a team would defend undermanned in their own end for a sustained period of time while keeping a designated “cherry picker” out of the zone.

I have never seen anything as extreme as this, probably never will.

 

[1989]

What the OP is suggesting is a little bit different than normal.

Normally forwards will blow the zone when they anticipate a turnover, it's a little more rare to park on the other club's side of the ice all shift when the other team has solid possession in your zone.

I don't know what statistics you are suggesting be presented.

Fair enough. Can't really have stats for something nobody is willing to do unless they want to be benched for the game and healthy scratched for two more.

 

[JackSlater]

Yeah, Bure was the first name that came to mind. Also not an unheard of strategy at lower levels of hockey. Actually fairly common in Canadian juniors until the later 90s when you started to see a more pro-style structure being demanded by coaches.

That said, you and I are talking more about guys who “blow the zone” really, really early or players who deliberately take their sweet ass time getting back to their end, in hopes of being left alone following a quick turnover.

What OP seems to be talking about is a set strategy where a team would defend undermanned in their own end for a sustained period of time while keeping a designated “cherry picker” out of the zone.

I have never seen anything as extreme as this, probably never will.

Yes understand that, 2000ish Florida is mainly the team that I'd say came closest to implementing such a strategy, not that Bure literally hung at the redline no matter what. The actual suggested strategy is obviously not a strategy that would work. You'd park one player in passing lanes and take the offensive advantage that is four on four.

 

[SensontheRush]

Sens play cheatey Hockey seven straight years and miss the playoffs. Sens are defensively mindful for once and start plays in the dzone and work them all the way up the ice; they easily make the playoffs.

Cherry-picking in Hockey leads to losing teams. You should be able to ride it out over the Regular Season as a Champion-tier team, but in the playoffs, you get eaten alive. It becomes impossible to cheat the way you could in lighter checking situations.

Tale as old as time.

 

[McShogun99]

I'm not entirely sure what OP thinks could happen here? Do you mean cherry pick on the PP? Impossible. As stated above, defenders often don't even leave their zone on the pk so there's no breakaway pretty much ever on the PP.

At 5on5, as soon as a defender saw a winger trying to get in behind him in the neutral zone he would just retreat.

Only real place I could see this happening is on the pk. But do you really want to play 3on5 in hopes that you can intercept a pass and get a pass off to the cheating winger?

Also, what's a 'high talent AHL superstar?'

Maybe he means the team plays a PK style setup in the defending zone while the 5th player is hanging around the other teams blue line hoping for a breakaway pass?

 

[MVP of West Hollywd]

Because the other team can just put a guy on him and I think playing 4 on 4 in the other team's zone and 5 on 5 in your zone is a pretty good deal.

 

[Hippasus]

Why don’t more wingers cheat up the ice to create breakaway chances? Power plays only convert about what, 20% of the time? And in those cases, it's a teams most talented offensive players approaching play with a scoring mindset. A skilled player’s breakaway success rate should be higher. The reward seems worth the defensive risk. Should a bottom dwelling team take a chance on a cheap, high talent AHL superstar and employ this kind of tactic?

In the playoffs or a must-win situation, this tactic might not be so pretty. Complete players are needed in dire situations and the whole team needs to be on board for success.

Don't like to sound like an ass, but, 'intellectual' and hockey talk don't really go together. It's a game.

 

[sr edler]

There are and have been opportunistic scorers who either are or were pretty sneaky scoring goals shorthanded due to vulture circling and/or high pinching, like Bure or Bondra. Some even did it fairly effectively 5-on-5, like rookie version Selänne.

 

[DisgruntledHawkFan]

This is the Andreas Athanasiou thread. I've long maintained he's a unicorn fourth liner. Put him with two low event checkers and tell them to chip it in front of AA and let him attack in transition. He's one of the most dangerous players in the league when attacking with speed and open ice. He's brutal everywhere else and doesn't use his teammates.

It's against conventional coaching wisdom but I really think there's a 30-35 point "game breaker" fourth line winger in that idiot head of his.

 

[saintunspecified]

The neutral zone is only 60' of a 200' long rink. Unless the cheat is perfectly timed, or the cheating winger has extraordinary acceleration it's difficult to cheat and not get caught even if the cheater got (momentarily) behind the defender. Because unless the timing is perfect (in which case it really isn't cheating), the forward has to slow down. I remember as a NYI fan that opposing D would give Grabner 5 or so extra feet gap, which for the most part made his being on the ice a defensive advantage. And, for sure, if a player like with elite acceleration doesn't get that extra gap, he should cheat a little.

Cherry picking isn't really a thing the way current defenders skate.

The 'better' way to cherry pick is to chance a momentary 5 on 4 on short changes rotate forwards, change one, and have the new forward diagonal towards the offensive blueline. The change creates confusion, and diagonal path creates a longer possible window for a breakaway pass without slowing down. I've seen enough of this actually happen in the NHL to think that coaches coach their players to look for those opportunities.

I coach lacrosse, and it's a lot different with 10 players on the field (and our offsides is obv different), but it's routine to try do do things like that to create breaks in transition.

 

[SensontheRush]

This is the Andreas Athanasiou thread. I've long maintained he's a unicorn fourth liner. Put him with two low event checkers and tell them to chip it in front of AA and let him attack in transition. He's one of the most dangerous players in the league when attacking with speed and open ice. He's brutal everywhere else and doesn't use his teammates.

It's against conventional coaching wisdom but I really think there's a 30-35 point "game breaker" fourth line winger in that idiot head of his.

It just doesn't work in reality. Playing perpetually a man down is such a significant handicap. It's why powerplays are so effective.

It's also why Daniel Sprong has bounced around the league incessantly.