pvr
Leather Skates
- Jan 22, 2008
- 4,714
- 2,116
When was the last time the Blackhawks outhit their opponent, including the playoffs? Choose your guess in the poll.
Where's the 'who cares' option?
We did nothing to slow down Nashville this series. Our weak board play, lack of forecheck, lack of physicality, let them out of their zone too easily, and let them control the boards below our goal line.
We did nothing to slow down Nashville this series. Our weak board play, lack of forecheck, lack of physicality, let them out of their zone too easily, and let them control the boards below our goal line.
I went 1-50. Anything more than a hundred would surprise me. I mean, not even once?
This past season the Hawks had five or less hits in a game five times. They were in single digits 13 times, and had ten hits in a game another six times. 23 out of 86 games they had ten or less hits. That's simply pathetic.
That the team can only play one style and when it doesn't work they are sunk.
No adaptability.
How many of those games did they lose?
Hint: There's no positiver correlation between hitting and winning. Actually, it's the exactly opposite.
Hawks need to focus on having the puck more. Not chasing it and making more hits as a result. Hits is one of the most meaningless stats imo.
This past season the Hawks had five or less hits in a game five times. They were in single digits 13 times, and had ten hits in a game another six times. 23 out of 86 games they had ten or less hits. That's simply pathetic.
And why do you think the Hawks didn't have the puck as much? They did a terrible job of separating the man from the puck this year.
Nashville's defense was able to activate the whole series because our forwards did nothing to keep them honest and in their own zone. They joined the rush with impunity.
You are aware what a small percentage of changes in possession occur as the result of a hit, right?
There really is going to be an unbearably vocal meatball contingent in Chicago this summer, isn't there? Can't wait for the calls to bring back Andrew Shaw.
There is a difference between hitting and being physically engaged. Hit on their own mean little bit being physically engaged is crucial. Example: TT in the playoffs last year.
I agree. Then why are we counting hits?
Because hits can be used as an indicator.
The reliable inverse correlation between shot attempts (possession) and hits suggests that hits aren't a particularly strong indicator of all those other possession-driving physical actions that come up in puck battles, puck protection, cycling, driving to the net, etc.
Which makes sense since hits are counted inconsistently across every arena, and they're actually relatively rare compared to the number of instances of 'physicality' in general listed earlier. You're basically weighing 'physicality' sum total based on the one action that can only be used [legally] when the other team has possession of the puck and you do not.
Correct. I look at it a little different. Any game where Hawks don't win possession I look to hits to see if the Hawks were at least engaged. Is it the most accurate way to look at it? Not but if we get killed in possession and have no hits it is typically the games where the Hawks are just not engaged. Make sense?