Betamax*
Guest
They blocked something like 5 shots last night anyway. Guess what? Devils blocked... 16. Hmmmm.
Sure and how did blocking shots help them? One injured player.
They blocked something like 5 shots last night anyway. Guess what? Devils blocked... 16. Hmmmm.
Sure and how did blocking shots help them? One injured player.
Sure and how did blocking shots help them? One injured player.
Who wasn't blocking a shot. Are you now expecting the Sedins to flee shooting lanes to avoid the same fate as Clowe?
You're not even trying to debate in good faith anymore.
Clowe also wasn't injured. Just a stinger. Out there skating around again a couple shifts later.
But let's ignore that because it doesn't fit the current narrative.
I would rather utilize their offensive talents versus their defensive acumen ... tactics such as putting them with "offensive zone starts" on ES or PP versus "defensive zone starts" that you have when you're on the PK instead.
Clowe was "sufficiently injured" on the play and was incapacitated to be of any use in the play and was a liability on the ice for the remainder of his shift. It gave the Canucks an advantage which they capitalized and scored the GTG. That certainly fits the narrative.
Even if the "injury" doesn't knock him out of the game, it's still an injury if it limited the player's ability to perform on the ice as Clowe was seen struggle-ling to get to the bench.
Why? It's clearly not directly related to their actual offensive output.. to provide a specific example, from 2011-12 to 2012-13 the Sedins offensive zone starts were reduced by nearly one fifth (specifically 18%) but both the rate at which the team scored while they were on the ice and their own point production rates only dropped by about 5%.
So what compelling reason is there, given you can't demonstrate that playing a defensive role makes a player more likely to get injured or even that it will directly impact the team's offensive production (especially in this case where it appears the Sedins will get more minutes than before, ie. added defensive minutes without subtracted offensive assignments), and that just about the only thing we can demonstrate is that the Sedins have requested this assignment and had done so in the past as well?
Do you know better than the Sedins what they should be doing on the ice?
Yeah but it is an "injury" that was not incurred while attempting to block a shot so any point you are trying to draw with regards to shot blocking as a defensive tactic is moot.
If you could provide the relevant links for reference, I'd appreicate it.
No ... but my expectations are for the Coach to mitigate injury risk to their top offensive stars who haven't historically been utilized on the Penalty Kill.
Would you not agree that blocking shot is a skill that is cultivated over time and via real world in-game playing experience?
In other words, don't go over board with putting them in the PK would be my expectations from the Coach. I would in most cases, prefer for them to be given the first shift after the end of the PK (unless the other PKers are struggling or it's near the end of the game and the team is in the PK and there's a couple of minutes remaining and they need a goal)
I would rather utilize their offensive talents versus their defensive acumen ... tactics such as putting them with "offensive zone starts" on ES or PP versus "defensive zone starts" that you have when you're on the PK instead.
Clowe was "sufficiently injured" on the play and was incapacitated to be of any use in the play and was a liability on the ice for the remainder of his shift. It gave the Canucks an advantage which they capitalized and scored the GTG. That certainly fits the narrative.
Even if the "injury" doesn't knock him out of the game, it's still an injury if it limited the player's ability to perform on the ice as Clowe was seen struggle-ling to get to the bench.
CA is often a crapshoot with their opinion pieces, but I find their interest in statistics to be fun and informative. I could care less about the shot blocking injury argument because I have my own opinion and don't feel like arguing about it, but here is data taken from the last few seasons regarding man games lost and total cap hit lost to injury for the entire league
http://canucksarmy.com/2013/10/8/a-point-about-tortorella-and-shot-blocking
It's amazing how you want everybody to back up their opinions but to support your own you throw out a few individual cases like Gregory Campbell and Ryane Clowe.
Before this conversation progresses any further, I think the burden should be on you to provide something tangible that disputes the work done by Cam Charron on the ties between shot blocking and injuries. If I'm being honest, I would also like you to factor into it the study done by mc79hockey on the distribution of shot blocking and the effects on shot attempts taken against.
And that "something" better not be another anecdote about a player who got injured blocking a shot. I expect you to do solid research.
CA is often a crapshoot with their opinion pieces, but I find their interest in statistics to be fun and informative. I could care less about the shot blocking injury argument because I have my own opinion and don't feel like arguing about it, but here is data taken from the last few seasons regarding man games lost and total cap hit lost to injury for the entire league
http://canucksarmy.com/2013/10/8/a-point-about-tortorella-and-shot-blocking
If you could provide the relevant links for reference, I'd appreicate it.
Let's see in a compressed schedule with multiple back-to-back games, being a west coast team with just about the toughest travel schedule, they have a "sleep doctor", I'd like to know if they keep track of the total KMs each players skate per game. In other words, it just seems logical to me that they would have to pace themselves the more ice time they receive, especially if it's for stressful defensive purposes i.e. the PK with a lot of starts and stops.
Didn't Bobby Lu pretty much every starting goalie wanted/wants to play every game? Does that mean he knows best?
It occurred in the defensive zone, therefore, if you put the Sedins more in a defensive role where they are facing shots and they are actively encouraged to be in the shooting lanes, they are putting themselves at a higher risk of getting hit by the puck whether it be via "active" shot blocking or allegedly in a "passive" manner re: Clowe.
I think getting hit by the puck @ 90-100mph, is blunt force trauma. That generally leads to some sort of "injury" ... even if they don't miss a shift or games ... it could affect their performances for the rest of the game and for subsequent games.
The Sedins were the second PK unit the year before AV showed up.
Before this conversation progresses any further, I think the burden should be on you to provide something tangible that disputes the work done by Cam Charron on the ties between shot blocking and injuries. If I'm being honest, I would also like you to factor into it the study done by mc79hockey on the distribution of shot blocking and the effects on shot attempts taken against.
And that "something" better not be another anecdote about a player who got injured blocking a shot. I expect you to do solid research.
But anyway as Tiranis stated, it's time for you to stop dealing in anecdotes and youtube clips and start dealing in actual numbers and figures that represent real trends in the league relating to shot blocking and injuries.
Until you do that your argument - no matter how insistently you make it - is pretty well based on your assumptions and a few cherry picked examples.
I would rather utilize their offensive talents versus their defensive acumen ... tactics such as putting them with "offensive zone starts" on ES or PP versus "defensive zone starts" that you have when you're on the PK instead.
Why? It's clearly not directly related to their actual offensive output.. to provide a specific example, from 2011-12 to 2012-13 the Sedins offensive zone starts were reduced by nearly one fifth (specifically 18%) but both the rate at which the team scored while they were on the ice and their own point production rates only dropped by about 5%.
You may recall Hodgson’s monster January, a streak during which he put up 6 goals and 4 assists, picked up an “NHL Rookie of the Month” Award, briefly waded into the Calder trophy discussion, and won the hearts of nearly the entire Vancouver fanbase in the process. It was his coming-out party, the month Canuck nation decided that, not only was this Hodgson kid was going to work out after all, but he was going to be an absolute stud.
You may also recall that Thomas Drance took a very close look at Hodgson’s numbers and determined that they were inflated based on some curious changes to his usage. Quietly, his icetime spiked by 2 minutes and his offensive zone start percentage went from 33% in December to 83% in January — a higher rate than even the Sedins, the league leaders in offensive zone deployment.
As it turns out, this deployment wasn’t just done to capitalize on Hodgson’s offensive abilities and get him away from his defensive weaknesses. It done to make him look attractive to potential buyers, the hockey equivalent of staging a home. Gillis again:
We built him into something we could move. We put Cody on the ice in every offensive situation we could, I don’t think he took more than 5 or 6 defensive zone faceoffs. That was by design. I don’t regret that move and I’d do it again.
CA is often a crapshoot with their opinion pieces, but I find their interest in statistics to be fun and informative. I could care less about the shot blocking injury argument because I have my own opinion and don't feel like arguing about it, but here is data taken from the last few seasons regarding man games lost and total cap hit lost to injury for the entire league
http://canucksarmy.com/2013/10/8/a-point-about-tortorella-and-shot-blocking
Other commentators, including my undisputed favourite "Stats Guy" in non-mainstream media of all-time, the one and only Cam Charron, who also wrote an article on GMMG comments and in his article tried to isolate the time period, where the Canucks began "sheltering" Hodgson's minutes:
http://canucksarmy.com/2012/4/25/can-we-pinpoint-when-the-canucks-started-sheltering-cody-hodgson
I suppose for that year and from the numbers provided by Mr. Charron, one can maybe track the Sedins' offensive production up to games 38 and see if it dipped from games 39-63 (25 games) the games where Hodgson was allegedly "sheltered" to "fattening" him up ... kinda like a Thanksgiving Turkey.
If I'm wrong on that ... I'm sure you or someone else will be quick to correct me.