PDA

View Full Version : Gophers 2013-14 B1G Things To Come!



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 [45] 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

Slap Shot
02-26-2014, 10:44 PM
The argument for Olympic ice is not about total goals scored. Offensive production is neither here nor there.

lolwut?

Steve_MN
02-27-2014, 08:42 AM
lolwut?
Ummmmm.... yeah.... I was kind of thinking the same thing, Slappy.

So... Stauber1... what exactly IS the argument in favor of Olympic ice?

Stauber1
02-27-2014, 10:37 AM
LOL. Well, considering fan enjoyment and game intensity tends to come from things like goals scored, puck movement, and hitting... it is kind of clear what they feel is likely best moving forward. Yeah, there is more space to skate with 200x100... but who the hell cares if you don't have as many chances to score? Did you even read some of that article or are you just too unwilling to admit that even an international governing body of hockey doesn't see it the same way you do?

Unless of course you just watch hockey to see guys skate around and not do as much? Maybe try short track speed skating then.

Even heard them talking about it during the NHL game tonight on NBC Sports Network and how much worse the game was on the big sheet.

I did read the article. Calling what they did a "study" is a pretty liberal use of the term, unless there is more than what was reported on in this particular article.

I wonder if you read the article, as factors other than the simple size of the ice were identified as differences that cause a change in goals scored and scoring opportunities.

To answer Steve and SS, the argument for Olympic ice is about style of play. This was also discussed over in the Olympic hockey thread about a week ago.

mnstate0fhockey
02-27-2014, 11:42 AM
Same team gentlemen :)

Hammy
02-27-2014, 11:45 AM
Considering the organization involved, I'd doubt the look at it is superficial. Doubtful they'd allow an article like that on their site if it was.

Hey let's just watch guys skate around and hold the puck longer because they have more space but have fewer quality scoring chances and less scoring overall... yeah I still think if that's what you are interested in, you are better off watching guys skate around an oval.

Slap Shot and Steve... my thoughts exactly. If the game isn't about creating entertainment (i.e. providing more scoring chances, scoring, hits, etc), then what the hell are we playing it for? Laughable.

Hammy
02-27-2014, 11:46 AM
Same team gentlemen :)

Not a discussion about the team though. And if the game isn't about scoring goals, then what do we judge on? Is this figure skating? We'll just watch guys skate around and look pretty. :rolleyes:

Koho
02-27-2014, 06:51 PM
Not a discussion about the team though. And if the game isn't about scoring goals, then what do we judge on? Is this figure skating? We'll just watch guys skate around and look pretty. :rolleyes:

Well we are never going to convince each other, but watching 5 goals pounded in from in front of the net versus 4 goals, two of which are rushes with good stickhandling and passing, I'll take the 4 goal game.

I'd rather watch a game that allows a small guy like Johnny Gaudreau or Corey Millen who can skate and stickhandle than one that puts so much emphasis on size.

state of hockey
02-27-2014, 07:47 PM
Indeed. Though ideally I would like to see something like 200x90.

I like what the Finns have done by going to the "hybrid" size, which is 200' x 92' or 93'.

Stauber1
02-27-2014, 08:10 PM
Well we are never going to convince each other, but watching 5 goals pounded in from in front of the net versus 4 goals, two of which are rushes with good stickhandling and passing, I'll take the 4 goal game.

I'd rather watch a game that allows a small guy like Johnny Gaudreau or Corey Millen who can skate and stickhandle than one that puts so much emphasis on size.

Koho and I seem to be on the same wavelength.

Hammy, you are misinterpreting what I said, just as it seems you are misinterpreting the entire argument about Olympic ice.
The article you linked recognizes other factors aside from ice width as having an impact on total goals scored, but you aren't recognizing them.

The difference in the number of goals scored isn't going to change dramatically depending on if you play on NHL ice or Olympic ice. Other factors play a much larger role. The debate isn't about total goals scored.

mnstate0fhockey
02-27-2014, 08:14 PM
I like what the Finns have done by going to the "hybrid" size, which is 200' x 92' or 93'.

Yeah, I do too. I think something close to that would be the ideal size.

SanTropez
02-27-2014, 08:21 PM
If goalies went back to wearing these, the size of the ice wouldn't matter. Look at that juicy 5 hole...

<a href="http://imgur.com/sg9blKM"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/sg9blKM.jpg" title="Hosted by imgur.com"/></a>


Pads today are ridiculous.

Slap Shot
02-27-2014, 08:40 PM
Well we are never going to convince each other, but watching 5 goals pounded in from in front of the net versus 4 goals, two of which are rushes with good stickhandling and passing, I'll take the 4 goal game.

I don't find this to be a remotely true representation of the average type of goal scored on each sheet, especially when comparing the same level of hockey. Skill can find a way to shine regardless.

Go4PuckFan2.0
02-27-2014, 09:23 PM
If goalies went back to wearing these, the size of the ice wouldn't matter. Look at that juicy 5 hole...

<a href="http://imgur.com/sg9blKM"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/sg9blKM.jpg" title="Hosted by imgur.com"/></a>


Pads today are ridiculous.

Anyone wanting to know why pads are ridiculous needs only to look at the stick he's holding.

This former goalie would suggest that Kevlar / carbon fiber sticks are ridiculous.

If I didn't own a small arsenal of them. :-)

Hammy
02-27-2014, 09:28 PM
Well we are never going to convince each other, but watching 5 goals pounded in from in front of the net versus 4 goals, two of which are rushes with good stickhandling and passing, I'll take the 4 goal game.

Except the reality is the guys in question in these events are among the best in the world in the skill department. If the Olympic ice size was such magic, you should see more playmaking and more scoring opportunities... not less.

Some of the greatest players are guys that score "garbage goals" or go hard to the net for rebounds, tips, etc. In fact, I'd bet you'd see most of the teams that are highly successful do a lot of damage scoring the types of goals that you don't like.

Frankly, hockey isn't a beauty contest. You guys sound like you want a bunch of figure skaters with sticks out there.

In the end, it is going to end up a moot point. Word is we aren't likely to be staying at the current size.

Hammy
02-27-2014, 09:49 PM
Hammy, you are misinterpreting what I said, just as it seems you are misinterpreting the entire argument about Olympic ice.
The article you linked recognizes other factors aside from ice width as having an impact on total goals scored, but you aren't recognizing them.

I would never generalize that ice size alone is the sole cause of anything. I read the entire article and I didn't say ice size was mentioned as the only reason. But I'd much rather see the best in the world with more opportunities to score than less and whether you like it or not, a healthy part of it is the rink size.

Like it or not, fans want to see scoring and scoring opportunities. You can skate around like a princess and hang on to the puck all you want and its not going to excite most fans.

It sounds like they will shrink our sheet 8 to 10 feet. I won't be complaining.

Slap Shot
02-28-2014, 08:27 PM
Why are the Gophers scoring garbage goals on large ice?

Stauber1
02-28-2014, 10:58 PM
Why are the Gophers scoring garbage goals on large ice?

And it came with such physical play...and all the hitting the rest of the game...and a game with more goals than would statistically be expected :p

Stauber1
02-28-2014, 11:10 PM
Except the reality is the guys in question in these events are among the best in the world in the skill department. If the Olympic ice size was such magic, you should see more playmaking and more scoring opportunities... not less.
As I've said before, and as Koho said, the argument for Olympic ice isn't that it is "magic" and will result in a ton of goals. You're missing the point.


Frankly, hockey isn't a beauty contest. You guys sound like you want a bunch of figure skaters with sticks out there.

You can skate around like a princess and hang on to the puck all you want and its not going to excite most fans.
What a ridiculous thing to say. There is a large body of evidence to show that the game on Olympic ice doesn't eliminate hitting or physicality. It is stupid to suggest that playing the game on Olympic ice, or advocating for it to be played on Olympic ice, is akin to wanting to turn the game into a skating pageant. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be inflammatory or an *******, but I don't know how else to respond to that other than to point out how stupid it is.


I would never generalize that ice size alone is the sole cause of anything. I read the entire article and I didn't say ice size was mentioned as the only reason. But I'd much rather see the best in the world with more opportunities to score than less and whether you like it or not, a healthy part of it is the rink size.
But you are generalizing. Or to be more accurate, you are drawing some very precise conclusions from a very imprecise data set. The article you linked reads like a press release, and a press release from an organization that has a PR interest in portraying this a particular way if they opt to permanently alter the size of ice surface. To come to the conclusion based on this very limited examination that Olympic ice drastically decreases goals scored is ludicrous.

If you want a case study for the impact of Olympic ice on scoring, college hockey would be a good place to start (and it would be more pertinent to our interests, to boot). In college hockey, not only do you have teams playing a number of games on varying ice surfaces over the course of a season, but you also have teams with varying ice surfaces as home rinks.
Taking a meta-approach would give the most clear picture: looking at things like total goals scored on wider sheets vs. smaller sheets, how individual teams' scoring outputs change depending on which surface they are playing on, and looking at how teams that play home games on wider sheets rank in total goals scored.

I did the work for you on the last one, only because it's the easiest to compile. There are 10 teams that have home ice 95'-100' in width*. The remaining have rinks 85'-90'. Over the past 10 years there have been 58-59 D1 teams. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and call it 58. That means just over 17% of the teams in college hockey play on "wide" ice.

All things being equal, we should statistically expect on any given year:
- 1.7 out of the top 10 offenses in the country to be teams that play on wide ice
- 3.44 of the top 20 offenses

Going back to the 2003-2004 season, what we find, on average:
- 1.82 of the top 10 offenses played home games on Olympic ice
- 4 of the top 20

In both cases, these exceed what would be expected. Now, it would be crazy to extrapolate from this 1 metric that Olympic ice increases scoring. But at the same time, it certainly runs counter to your claim that Olympic ice significantly decreases scoring. I have a mild curiosity as to what it would show if we ran the other two metrics I suggested...but not a great enough curiosity to put the work in myself. I will say that my guess is that we wouldn't find any statistically significant change in the number of goals scored.

And so I'll repeat. The debate on this topic isn't, and shouldn't be, about total goals scored.


*The 10 teams: Minnesota, Wisconsin, St. Cloud, Mankato, CC, Northern, UMass, New Hampshire, UAA, UAF

Koho
03-02-2014, 09:52 PM
Just to be clear, I am not saying he is bad, I can't stand when people are always overcritical of a D, but Defensively, I'll take Bischoff over Brodzinski. Seems lately, Bridzinski has had a few bad decisions or bad angles per game. Expected for a frosh. Just seems like Bischoff plays smarter. I would play Brodzinski vs teams like Wis where O is needed at any chance, but against teams with high speed attacks on transition, like BC and UMi, I'd go with Bischoff.

Koho
03-05-2014, 09:47 PM
So I don't really follow NHL much beyond watching Wild. Are people thinking Buffalo is going to want to see Fasching sooner, rather than later?