Has Hitting become more of a negative statistic

[Uncle Scrooge]

I think we all love a big hit that gets a team going. And physicality is a big part of the game.

The stat just doesn't serve much purpose. Not every hit is the same, it's tracked poorly, has no context of what was going on and physicality in general is much more than just hitting.

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

This is what you wanted , this is what you get

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Hurricanes GM and general smart guy Eric Tulsky once compared hits to roaches: seeing one or two is fine and normal, seeing a lot consistently is a problem

 

[qc14]

It's not a negative statistic as much as it's a statistic that's just not really correlated at all with effectiveness. Thankfully, the idea that you have to throw hits to be a good defensive player is slowly dying. There are some really good defensive players that throw the body a lot, and also many that really don't. Ex: Slavin, Tanev, Brodin, Forsling, Toews.

Yep -- it's very similar to the NHL Edge stats to me where they're certainly interesting in giving more of a look into someone's style of play and can provide great context when paired with other stats. Sherwood's insane hit pace for example really puts into stark terms how he's been able to provide great complimentary results in Vancouver's top 6 but they don't tell you anything about whether those results are great or not

It's a very poorly recorded statistic in the first place. Not to be taken seriously, good or bad.

They have much gotten better at this. We're a long way from the 2010s Nassau Coliseum ...

 

[blankall]

Players who play a physical game are still highly sought after. See Sam Bennett.

There have always been physical players who kind of suck. All of the guys that OP has listed probably wouldn't be in the NHL at all if they didn't hit. Bad teams often end up with lots of players. News at eleven.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

I´ve been wondering what constitutes as a hit that gets into statistics? How hard the hit must be? If you just hit another player and you are way smaller than him and the hit does basically absolutely nothing, is it considered a hit? If you push a player in a scrum with your body, is that a hit? If two player reach for the puck behind the net and push each other, are those hits?

What is a hit?

Great questions, hits are actually tracked by the home arena and are pretty much up to the interpretation of the stat-keeper. There's not really a standard criteria of what determines a "hit".

Here is an interesting article from a few years ago that talks about teams' discrepancies based on which arena they're playing in. Looks like it was written during the COVID season, so the divisions are North, Central, East, West... Still a fairly interesting read.

 

[Golden_Jet]

I´ve been wondering what constitutes as a hit that gets into statistics? How hard the hit must be? If you just hit another player and you are way smaller than him and the hit does basically absolutely nothing, is it considered a hit? If you push a player in a scrum with your body, is that a hit? If two player reach for the puck behind the net and push each other, are those hits?

What is a hit?

your questions are not counted as hits, especially pushes and bumps.

 

[SirKillalot]

The way I see it if you're on the ice and have the puck, there's no need to hit cause you're maintaining possession.

This is why the Red Wings won in 2008. Keep the puck, be smart about absorbing hits.

I´ve been wondering what constitutes as a hit that gets into statistics? How hard the hit must be? If you just hit another player and you are way smaller than him and the hit does basically absolutely nothing, is it considered a hit? If you push a player in a scrum with your body, is that a hit? If two player reach for the puck behind the net and push each other, are those hits?

What is a hit?

Anything the home team's secretariat guys decide is a hit, unless how logging them have changed. But, anything more than a bump. You don't need to get hit and fall for it to be a hit. Hit along the boards where player keep balance is a hit.

 

[FlyerNutter]

Nobody wants to see the crippling blindside hits, or head shots.

But the drastic reduction in emotion, and physicality of the sport has made the game more boring - for me anyway.

The pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. Good thing we’ve got more theme nights though.

 

[Sheppy]

If you have physicality in your top 6 it does wonders. Guys who can play 16-18 minutes a game, provide offensively as well as being physical. They're hard to come by, but having a guy or two in there who can create space by being physical is always a welcome addition.

Physicality in your bottom 6 is fine as well, but the problem is they're often matched up against other teams bottom 6.

 

[thammias]

As the great Paul Maurice once said

"F*** the plays. Pound their F***ing D.... So that in Game 7 they have nothing left."

 

[mphmiles]

It's a very poorly recorded statistic in the first place. Not to be taken seriously, good or bad.

This is also true. Scorekeepers vary wildly in what is considered a hit and what isn't.

Marek a while back was telling a story about how back in the day before there was tape on every game, some GM's would have scorekeepers purposefully juice hit numbers for players they were trying to trade. Other GM's would see the numbers and be like "Wow, this guy's a killer! Look at how many hits he's throwing!"

 

[Coach Reggie Dunlop]

If you’re a team of only hitters that’s obviously not good but the opposite is extremely bad too. If you have a small not physical team they are going to have a really tough time come playoff time. But hitting isn’t the only way to play physical, but to act like it has no purpose is laughable. As a red wings fan the teams that hit a lot and are overly aggressive on the forecheck always kill us because right now we are a smaller and skilled team. At least our top 6.

 

[johnnyonthspot]

It's a very poorly recorded statistic in the first place. Not to be taken seriously, good or bad.

I disagree. The team that usually out hits the other team is typically chasing the game and not likely to win.

 

[TGWL]

Some players hit on the forecheck after the puck is moved around the boards. Some players just turn and skate by. I'd argue puck separation is far greater than lining somebody up for a hit. The other team is going to get the puck. You have plenty of chances to hit, especially on the forecheck. For teams that spend a lot of time in their own zone, it's not really a negative on the player unless he's the direct reason for the long zone pressure.

 

[Golden_Jet]

I disagree. The team that usually out hits the other team is typically chasing the game and not likely to win.

Disagree, Panthers are a great example.

Some players hit on the forecheck after the puck is moved around the boards. Some players just turn and skate by. I'd argue puck separation is far greater than lining somebody up for a hit. The other team is going to get the puck. You have plenty of chances to hit, especially on the forecheck. For teams that spend a lot of time in their own zone, it's not really a negative on the player unless he's the direct reason for the long zone pressure.

Ya you see lots of times on the forecheck , F1 goes in lays a hit, and F2 follows right behind and nabs the puck.

 

[Kuz]

Even if you have the puck the most the other team will have the puck. Hitting is one way to win back the puck the same as pokechecks etc. Better to Get the puck back in this ways than waiting for the goalie to make a save to have a chance to Get the puck back.

 

[Tie Domi Esquire]

I think being competitive is bad, it's better to dipsy doodle and make nice tiktok highlights.

 

[DuklaNation]

It's a bigger factor in a 7 game playoff series. The cumulative effect on key players especially defensemen take its toll.

 

[oXo Cube]

Similar to shot blocks.

Not inherently bad at all(especially if it's recorded as it's officially defined) but if you are consistently at or around the top of the league, that's a red flag that your team never has the puck when you're out there.

 

[ijuka]

I ran the numbers a couple of years ago, and hitting is negatively associated with winning. That is, hit ratio(hits for vs hits against) has as strong a negative correlation when it comes to winning games, as corsi has a positive correlation.

However, that could well be a byproduct of many hits -> little possession, a bit of a chicken-or-egg type of a question. It would be more interesting to explore contextual hitting, like "given that the opponent already has possession, how good is hitting?" but that would require much more advanced models and at least publicly they aren't exactly available.

 

[Else Ermine]

Great questions, hits are actually tracked by the home arena and are pretty much up to the interpretation of the stat-keeper. There's not really a standard criteria of what determines a "hit".

This is also true. Scorekeepers vary wildly in what is considered a hit and what isn't.

Hit counts were actively getting recounted about a year ago. The league was auditing all the game footage and counting independently, I assume for the purposes of sports betting. At the time I looked at TSN and NHL stats pages to see the discrepancies after the NHL audits had been applied and from what I saw generally hit totals were being bumped across the board suggesting the previous stat counting was under-representative of what constitutes a hit. That goes some way to explain why last year had the highest hit total for a player and why this year that's tracking to be eclipsed.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I suspect that we’d find hits more strongly correlated with success if we first adjusted for the team’s possession time while the player is on the ice (hits / time of possession), to account for bad teams being on defense more.

And I suspect that if we had that stat, it would correlate more strongly with wins across the course of a playoff series than with one-off regular season matchups.

 

[ToDavid]

I feel like a lot of people aren't really addressing the question.

I don't think OP is suggesting that hits are a negative thing. Like blocked shots, the action is obviously a positive thing.

The question is whether the statistic is more of a negative because what it might indicate about what's going on on the ice. I would argue that it's not really a positive or a negative, just something that needs more context. There are good players (and/or not bad players) who throw a lot of hits or block a lot of shots and that's obviously positive. Then there are bad players that throw a lot of hits and block a lot of shots simply because they never have the puck. Granted, a bad player who hits and blocks shots is still better than a bad player who doesn't do those things.

Blocked shots are a bit easier to deal with because you could look at something like how many shot attempts players are actually facing. Hits are harder and you really just need to understand who the player is and how they play. Like I think most people would agree Keifer Sherwood at #1 is a valuable part of the Canucks this season. He's leading the hits stat because he's a strong forechecker who finishes his checks and it seems to be working out for him.

Then you've got Reaves at #3 who is Toronto's worst possession player by a pretty wide margin and all he does is skate around trying to hit people. Are his hits still useful and is he better than a similarly bad player who's "big for nothing"? Yes. Is his "Hits" statistic reflective of generally bad play? Also yes.

 

[1989]

Like blocked shots, the action is obviously a positive thing.

Think I have to disagree here, because there are good hits and bad hits.

Just hoping to provide anecdotal context because I am in the camp of "hits as a general statistic is pretty useless outside of fantasy leagues" in which I picked Matt Martin throughout the early 2010s for his hits alone...

Countless times I feel like I've seen following scenarios:

1. Team Red Defenceman has the puck in the corner of his own zone following a dump-in. Team Blue Forecheck approaches in a hitting stance and makes contact; defenceman has already gotten rid of the puck to his partner. If Team Blue's second forward doesn't commit to the retrieval, or isn't fast enough, etc., no retrieval occurs.
2. Team Red Forward has the puck, skating through neutral zone either open-ice or by the half wall. Team Blue Defender closes the gap and goes for a hit/bump and connects; puck is loose but another Team Red forward picks it up because they were already in a supporting position with momentum but now Team Blue defender has to get back in position with momentum going past him.

In my view, hits are probably the least efficient method of action for puck recovery/defence because the hitting player has to count on two things: that the hit will connect, and that a second player is there to retrieve the puck, whereas a poke-check keeps the player less committed to being out of position, although not perfectly.

Basically, I'm trying to advocate for "effective hit" metrics, not "hit anything that moves" category.

Outside of corner scrums, I feel like two-thirds of the bumps and hits I see anywhere else along the ice as not that effective, at least nowadays where players are just better overall at skating, positioning, and puck skills. Historically the teams I followed pre-2010s were considered to be physical, hard-hitting teams but I do think the era has changed in terms of strategy.