When does dump-and-chase make more sense than carrying the puck?

[Jigger77]

Yeah, I heard that interview. What I'm saying is that Therrien needs to ease Emelin back into things rather than throw him into tough comp right away. But it's painful to watch him being misused when he's going through what Ferraro stated.

I don't think Therrien is perfect or anything, don't get me wrong, but you have to be careful with falling into it's all the coaches fault trap is what I mean. It's a very simplistic way of looking at things imho.

 

[Jigger77]

Markov is evidence of that. Plays better and a lot faster than last year.

Absolutely. Very good example and right in our own backyard.

 

[Monctonscout]

Such a general statement is useless.

Just like if I said Julien was fired in Jersey, so, Therrien also will here. You have to look at the situation.

There are unforgivable mistakes, no matter when it happens. Taking credit for a guy's performance that lead him to Team Canada is just egotistical and Pejorative Slured. It's like he wants everybody to know it's thanks to the management's job, which is so unprofessional. But that's not what I find to be unforgivable. I think he is likely losing his players by declaring stuff like that, but still, he can move on from this.
However, admitting that you flat out gave up and didn't believe in your team enough to pull the goalie is unforgivable. To me, this isn't acceptable. It's a loser's mentality.

It's like a pilot abandoning his ship and the people in it. It's unforgivable.

Therrien has shot himself in the foot on more than one occasion this year. The only going for him is this hot streak which probably secured us a PO spot (so long as we keep being this .500 team).

New Jersey is hardly a team I'd use as a shining example. They have made a ton of stupid moves the last few years.


Julien turned around and won a cup in Boston.

 

[Kriss E]

New Jersey is hardly a team I'd use as a shining example. They have made a ton of stupid moves the last few years.


Julien turned around and won a cup in Boston.

Oh well, I guess we will win the cup with Therrien then!

 

[Milhouse40]

The only thing going for our forwards squad is speed.
It's not really the "dump-and-chase" system that bothers me
It's the way Therrien use it.

Dump and chase can be effective if:

- You apply a 2-man very agressive forecheck
- You used big/gritty player to do it

One thing i always really like about Therrien's system at first, it's that 2-man forecheck deep in the 0-zone.....this team was in their faces all the time and their speed was very usefull.

For me the bigger example is Eller who is probably the best forechecker on that team and you don't see him go too deep anymore...less agressive system, more defensive.

Therrien prefer the "wait and see" , 1 man forecheck, wait and take advantages of mistakes with our speed right now.....but that's just since he said his players were tired.

Even if Therrien wants to take 2-man forecheck, or a passive dump-and-chase
Even if Therrien wants to use a puck-possession system
Even if Therrien wants to use a 4-man rush approach
Even if Therrien wants to use a really defensive trap

He'll face the same problem: SIZE

Can't play dump and chase with Briere, Desharnais, Gionta, Gallagher, Plekanec of your top 6 and expect to win more than 50% of the board battles and retrieve the puck. And if you try, at least use your big forwards.

Therrien's agressive system was good last year and beginning of this year but those
small forwards got tired really fast, too much skating, too much banging.

 

[Kriss E]

You mean the Business School analysis of hockey strategies you posted?

Well yeah you'll have more goals and shots when the puck is carried in, that's because when you have an odd man rush (3 on 1, 2 on 1, 3 on 2) you're not going to dump and chase. So of course if you're using numbers to establish a correlation between pucks carried in vs dumped in you'll have more shots and goals when carried in.

Except the odd man rush don't translate into such a difference.

It's really simple and logical. You will shoot more when you keep the puck rather than give it to the opponent and try to get it back. You don't need a PHD to figure that out.

 

[Kriss E]

Markov is evidence of that. Plays better and a lot faster than last year.

Markov barely played in 3 years. Emelin has been out for 8 months.
He should be playing on the left anyways.

 

[Kriss E]

So I guess the coach isn't the problem then.

Sure. If all you do is look at ONE thing to evaluate the actual job performance of a coach.

 

[Jigger77]

Except the odd man rush don't translate into such a difference.

It's really simple and logical. You will shoot more when you keep the puck rather than give it to the opponent and try to get it back. You don't need a PHD to figure that out.

You're not understanding it. They are establishing a direct correlation between carrying the puck in and higher shots and goals without differentiating between situations where pucks will never be dumped in vs where there is the option. So of course there will be higher shots and goals when it's carried in. If you were somehow able to eliminate odd man rushes from the equation then yes there would be something to those numbers. But right now they're just about as valuable as saying "players have a 30% better chance of getting a shot on net when they're on a penalty shot than when they're sitting on the bench". A bit of a hyperbole of course, but you get the point.

It's a typical business school article, trying to over-complicate and analyze something that is really quite simple. It's hockey, not rocket science.

 

[Jigger77]

Sure. If all you do is look at ONE thing to evaluate the actual job performance of a coach.

Not sure I'm following.

 

[Victoire HuGo]

Markov barely played in 3 years. Emelin has been out for 8 months.
He should be playing on the left anyways.

I don't disagree with you on that. He was at his best this season playing with Gorges. I don't get why Therrien has this obsession to keep Markov and Subban away from each other when our team was better in the transition and we weren't giving away too many odd man rushes. I'd rather see Gorges and Emelin together than have to experience Murray and Gorges again. I'm curious to know why we havn't tried Emelin and Diaz (although both of them have been underwhelming as of late). They were pretty good (considering they were NHL rookies) in 2011-12.

 

[Jigger77]

I don't disagree with you on that. He was at his best this season playing with Gorges. I don't get why Therrien has this obsession to keep Markov and Subban away from each other when our team was better in the transition and we weren't giving away too many odd man rushes. I'd rather see Gorges and Emelin together than have to experience Murray and Gorges again. I'm curious to know why we havn't tried Emelin and Diaz (although both of them have been underwhelming as of late). They were pretty good (considering they were NHL rookies) in 2011-12.

I agree with this too. I think Subban and Markov should be back together and on the ice as much as humanly possible. Not only for the defense but for the transition and puck possession. At least until Emelin can return to form. Then spreading that out could make sense.

 

[beaverBFP]

Don't know if I'm right here but it looks like the forwards are forced to dump the puck in because the breakouts have been brutal. The wingers are positioned way too high (even sometimes at the red line). If the center is covered on the breakout the defensemen are forced to either skate the puck out, chip it off the glass or try for stretch passes. All of the above often turn into a choppy breakout with no support which results into them being forced to dump it in. I would like the forwards to come circle down lower and make shorter passes, similar to Boston's style. Thoughts?

 

[Jigger77]

Don't know if I'm right here but it looks like the forwards are forced to dump the puck in because the breakouts have been brutal. The wingers are positioned way too high (even sometimes at the red line). If the center is covered on the breakout the defensemen are forced to either skate the puck out, chip it off the glass or try for stretch passes. All of the above often turn into a choppy breakout with no support which results into them being forced to dump it in. I would like the forwards to come circle down lower and make shorter passes, similar to Boston's style. Thoughts?

This was one of the points Jacques Martin always made. He called it puck support if I recall. Essentially it was based around bridging the gab between the D and the forwards and having them come back and help the D. The result was as you said much shorter passes and quick tape to tape and out of the zone. I remember he layed into SKost pretty bad once at practice because he was way up in the neutral zone when the D had the puck deep in their end.

I can't say I've noticed this with the Habs this year, but I did notice they have A LOT of trouble clearing their zone and they ice the puck really often. So you could be onto something.

 

[overlords]

Don't know if I'm right here but it looks like the forwards are forced to dump the puck in because the breakouts have been brutal. The wingers are positioned way too high (even sometimes at the red line). If the center is covered on the breakout the defensemen are forced to either skate the puck out, chip it off the glass or try for stretch passes. All of the above often turn into a choppy breakout with no support which results into them being forced to dump it in. I would like the forwards to come circle down lower and make shorter passes, similar to Boston's style. Thoughts?

Only at the red line. Most of the time I see them waiting at the other team's blue line. It's brutal.

 

[beaverBFP]

Yea thought about it after i posted, you're right they are at the other teams blue a lot.

 

[HeShootsHeScores]

I swear sometimes people don't pay attention when watching the games... In Montreal, the players that can skate in with the puck actually do it. The ones that can't, dump it in and chase it. It's rather simple folks.

You may be right, but who the hell really wants to play dump and chase? Who really want to throw the puck away besides clumsy d-men and fourth liners? Dump and chase is counter intuitive, it kills creativity and turns the offensive game into a probability contest (bounces and opportunism). It's my guess that playing dump and chase is not by choice.

And it just doesn't work with this team.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Except the odd man rush don't translate into such a difference.

It's really simple and logical. You will shoot more when you keep the puck rather than give it to the opponent and try to get it back. You don't need a PHD to figure that out.

Made me think about why NFL teams ever punt. I mean, you need to run plays to score touchdowns, so why waste so many 4th downs by kicking, yielding possession, instead of just trying, right?

Reality is that there's an element of "field position" in hockey, and that it's more tiring (and prone to error/interception) to start each breakout from the farthest spot away from your target. But (and this is the problem) that study only correlates zone entries to shots, with the implied understanding that more shots (regardless of "type") should produce more goals. Problem is, what kind of shots are being produced by carrying the puck over the blueline as opposed to dumping it in? Is it a higher percentage play to carry it over the blueline and try to beat goalies or create rebounds off long shots as opposed to getting the puck as close to the scoring area as possible and trying to generate scrums from there?

Seems to me that goalies are most affected by moving laterally, reading and reacting, and traffic. Both of these are encouraged to a larger degree by the dump and chase... IF you can dump the puck properly and ONLY if you have success retrieving the puck at least X% of the time. If you can't maintain a certainly level of success maintaining/gaining possession off the dump-in (such is the struggle of our team), then either get better at dump-ins (don't dump it to the side of the puck mover of a pairing, for example), or try different ones (if speed is an asset, why not slow lob dumps to corners, away from goalies, pretty much like we do most often to get OUT of our zone, to put more defensemen under pressure to get those pucks. And when they start cheating by hanging back closer to where they expect you to dump it, then take the space instead, and look to make a play exploiting their poor gap control.

For me it comes down to having a group of players with enough hockey I.Q. to take what the opponent gives them (take space ANYWHERE, not just straight ahead, if they give it to you, dump it to open space and chase it if you have to), as opposed to insanely repeating a pattern regardless, waiting for it to yield results under favourable conditions or lucky bounces. I don't think enough of our players are good enough at coming up with alternative solutions at game speed, stifling creativity, making us predictable at times, and preventing us from hanging with the really good teams who have players on multiple lines changing games with plays like this just about every shift of every night.

Also, I think teams are too infatuated with getting the breakout from blueline to blueline as quickly as possible. It makes breakouts predictable in most cases, and defensive formations (especially those with 5 guys standing on one half of ice) have to move relatively little to choke off access and force the chip/dump. A little more patience and creativity in the neutral zone (still need to incorporate speed and circling, as standing around is what the defense is probably doing, too) should be able to draw just one defender at least slightly out of place and forwards should be able to recognize the space opening up and get there as a passing option.

 

[Mrb1p]

Ok, I came to the conclusion that Habsterix and Monctonscout are actually MT and MB.

 

[Kriss E]

You're not understanding it. They are establishing a direct correlation between carrying the puck in and higher shots and goals without differentiating between situations where pucks will never be dumped in vs where there is the option. So of course there will be higher shots and goals when it's carried in. If you were somehow able to eliminate odd man rushes from the equation then yes there would be something to those numbers. But right now they're just about as valuable as saying "players have a 30% better chance of getting a shot on net when they're on a penalty shot than when they're sitting on the bench". A bit of a hyperbole of course, but you get the point.

It's a typical business school article, trying to over-complicate and analyze something that is really quite simple. It's hockey, not rocket science.

Of course I understood. But the difference in shot production is too big to simply be explained by odd man rushes. It's not like teams give up 10-20 odd man rushes per game. He explains this in his point #6 ''Strategic Considerations''.
Odd man rushes represents less than 3% of all 5vs5 zone entries. That's negligible.

 

[Talks to Goalposts]

But (and this is the problem) that study only correlates zone entries to shots, with the implied understanding that more shots (regardless of "type") should produce more goals. Problem is, what kind of shots are being produced by carrying the puck over the blueline as opposed to dumping it in? Is it a higher percentage play to carry it over the blueline and try to beat goalies or create rebounds off long shots as opposed to getting the puck as close to the scoring area as possible and trying to generate scrums from there?

Did you read the report? Its right there on the 2nd page. The correlation to goals is the same as shots, the point was that the difference in scoring between the method was the effectiveness at getting shots with shooting percentages not particularly relevant to the outcome.

League average 15 goals on 1000 dump ins, 35 goals on 1000 carries. With 62 shot for every 100 carries in compared to 28 for every 100 dumps.

 

[Jamie Thomas]

Ok, I came to the conclusion that Habsterix and Monctonscout are actually MT and MB.

Makes a lot of sense.

 

[Kriss E]

Not sure I'm following.

A record is only one aspect to look at. Put a crappy coach in Chicago, pretty sure he'll have a great record too.

But there's 23 teams in the NHL that have a .500 record or more. Almost half the league has over .600. So, I don't think looking at the record is all you have to do in order to look at the record. There's more to it than just that.

 

[Jigger77]

Of course I understood. But the difference in shot production is too big to simply be explained by odd man rushes. It's not like teams give up 10 odd man rushes per game. That's probably why it wasn't taken into context.

It doesn't matter how many there are per game though. Think of it this way. It's early in the game and 0-0 so teams are dumping and chasing. Say one team dumped the puck in 6 times and got no goals out say 3 shots off the dump and chase. During the same time period they got a 2 on 1 and scored. If you apply what that article you posted suggests to this example dumping and chasing got them a shot 50% of the time and a goal 0% of the time. It also concludes that carrying the puck in results in goals 100% of the time and a shot 100% of the time. Of course you get a higher success rate with carrying than when dumping. See what I mean?

 

[Jigger77]

League average 15 goals on 1000 dump ins, 35 goals on 1000 carries. With 62 shot for every 100 carries in compared to 28 for every 100 dumps.

Of course. That's completely normal because chances are if you're carrying the puck in it's because it's a better scoring situation. You're not going to dump it in when you just broke up a play in the neutral zone and you created an odd man rush for example.

Also a 4th line is much more likely to dump a puck in instead of carrying it, so this can simply mean that a 1st line is more likely to carry the puck and more likely to score than a checking line.