A legit(?) hockey strategy question

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sportsnutty. Show Sportsnutty's posts

    A legit(?) hockey strategy question

    After having read the 240-post thread on the Bruins PP, a thought occurred to me and I didnt know the answer. I stopped playing organized hockey in high school, so it's not something that I was coached-up on, so I'll defer to you guys with much more experience. Would it be nice if the Bruins had a little better power-play? Yes. But this flips the question on its head a bit...

    The question is: How much does the Bruins relative ineffectiveness on the PP affect the type of hockey opposing teams employ against the Bruins? And does it matter? Do the other teams take liberties thinking, "They're not that good on the PP, so let's play 'this type of game' against them?"

    Any thoughts?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from boborielly224. Show boborielly224's posts

    Re: A legit(?) hockey strategy question

    I would be nice to see the Bruins get a better PP establish. This would put more pressure on the opposing team knowing that the bruins are tough five on five, very defensive and great PK'ing.

    With having a higher % on the PP will make other teams think twice about getting undiscipline penalties.

    My over answer to this is simple of course I would like to see a Bruins team with an consistent PP. Take a look at the defending cup champs the Kings and take notice, they are at the same % rate.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Soxdog67. Show Soxdog67's posts

    Re: A legit(?) hockey strategy question

    I really can't believe that another team would take extra liberties and risk penalties against the B's because they believe their PP is weak or ineffective.

    The shorthanded time is time spent by the opposition not playing offense and thus not scoring goals themselves...so a more talented team would have an advantage even if that team has not perfected it's power play.

    Keep in mind that the B 's have talented players on the ice for these situations, they are just not executing effectively. More player movement and guys in front of the net would better their %...

    ...maybe Julian is willing to sacrifice this area to perfect and build a mindset from his players in the other areas of solid two-way hockey when at even strength and solid penalty killing?

     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: A legit(?) hockey strategy question

    I agree with Soxdog to an extent as it from a strategy standpoint means the team drawing the penalty would have less puck possession so it would still be a disadvantage. The only ways I could see it being good from a strategy perspective would be:

    A) If the offending team had a better scoring pecentage shorthanded than at even strength, and no team in the league is better shorthanded than at 5 on 5.

    B) If the penalty eliminated a player from he game - like a slash that broke Bergeron's or Seguin's ankle for example. No team has been employing an intent to injure strategy against the Bruins and there would be hell to pay if they did.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from lambda13. Show lambda13's posts

    Re: A legit(?) hockey strategy question

    If other teams started taking liberties they would have to answer to one of Chara, McQuaid, Lucic, Horton, Thornton, Campbell, Boychuck, Seidenberg... I had to sort of laugh/shake my head when I typed Campbell but I love his heart and dedication to his team.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sportsnutty. Show Sportsnutty's posts

    Re: A legit(?) hockey strategy question

    In response to red75's comment:

    I agree with Soxdog to an extent as it from a strategy standpoint means the team drawing the penalty would have less puck possession so it would still be a disadvantage. The only ways I could see it being good from a strategy perspective would be:

    A) If the offending team had a better scoring pecentage shorthanded than at even strength, and no team in the league is better shorthanded than at 5 on 5.

    B) If the penalty eliminated a player from he game - like a slash that broke Bergeron's or Seguin's ankle for example. No team has been employing an intent to injure strategy against the Bruins and there would be hell to pay if they did.




    Maybe the question should be rephrased that I asked. I don't mean so much that a coach would say, "Let's play this team 4v5 all night." I guess the thought was that if you can play with no fear of the other teams power play it might alter opposing teams tactics. Maybe not.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: A legit(?) hockey strategy question

    I think the simple answer is the Bruins were 25th in the league in PP opportunities last year.  Either they haven't thought of this (unlikely) or they've dismissed it.  Most PPs score between 1 and 2 goals / ten opportunities, so even if the Bruins had the absolute worst PP, there's a risk that you're spotting a goal to an excellent defensive club that can also score 5 on 5.  No one wants to do that.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from scooter244. Show scooter244's posts

    Re: A legit(?) hockey strategy question

    I see your point, and I do agree to a certain extent.   Maybe the lazy penalties, the ones when you are tired, a grab or a hook.  Maybe, and it is a maybe, an opposing player thinks twice about being lazy if the opposition has a deadly power play. 

    There may even be times a player takes an instigator to send a message or change momentum because the other teams PP is less of a threat.  Could happen.  More likely and somewhat the same thing, is that the goon doesn't act because the opposition has a great PP. 

    Sure, the ability to make someone pay for penalties taken, would help. 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from lucdufour. Show lucdufour's posts

    Re: A legit(?) hockey strategy question

    Good question.  Haven't been in an NHL dressing room but have been in the college ranks for a considerable time.  

    I don't think any NHL (or high level) coach would tell his team to rack up some minor penalties with the hopes that the ref will "even it out" and give his team the PP all the while knowing that the opposing team's pp is inferior.  I don't think it is that explicit, although you might be able to make an argument for these kind of tactics given the officiating tendencies.   For example, I think it is rare to look at a box score and see one team with 5 minors, and the other with 0, but it does raise an interesting question.      

    A coach, however, might be more inclined to say  "let's play physical against these guys, hit everything that moves,  as they are undisciplined and will retaliate".   Or "let's get after this D, put pressure on em and hit em as they are prone to making mistakes".  Or "let's crash the net on every opportunity as it will throw that wingnut of a goalie off his game".   Or "the only way to slow down these smaller faster A-wholes is to hit em"....  Or "these guys can't get the puck out if we crash our D-men hard with support"....Something along those lines.  And the penalities happen as a result of that strategy/mind set.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: A legit(?) hockey strategy question

    I agree with the consensus, that no team is likely to think it's okay to take penalties against the B's because of a below average PP, mainly for two reasons:

    1. The past really doesn't matter and with a very talented roster like the Bruins have, you can't possibly conclude that they won't score on the next PP.  The bottom line is that every time you take a penalty you are making it more likely that the other team will score in the next 2 minutes (and much less likely that your team will).  If the Bruins are 0-20 on recent powerplays, that means nothing towards the probability of scoring on the next one.

    2. As Soxdog alludes to, NHL penalties often come from being in a bad spot -- not having possession, chasing the opponent, reaching, etc.  It's usually a sign of a losing team when you have a lot of 2-minute penalties.  So, no strategy should involve taking penalties.  

    All that said, you might be a little more careful with some teams than others.  Vancouver can be pretty average 5-5, but they live for the powerplay when the Sedins don't have to compete so hard and deal with getting hit, to set up their finesse passes.  The Bruins seem to play so well 5 on 5 (particularly against rivals like Montreal and Vancouver) that I always cringe when they take penalties.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: A legit(?) hockey strategy question

    How much does the Bruins relative ineffectiveness on the PP affect the type of hockey opposing teams employ against the Bruins? And does it matter?

    When drawing up a plan against the Bruins PP I would instruct everyone to be very agressive against Chara, Horton, Lucic and Krejci as they have no confidence on the PP. Don't fear the cross ice pass, from the corner up to the point or vice versa. Keep a tight shot blocking box because all Ward is trying to instruct a set up for a ontimer from the point or the half wall then hoping for a rebound. Teams have no fear of the Bruins puck handlers on the PP.

    Do the other teams take liberties thinking, "They're not that good on the PP, so let's play 'this type of game' against them?"

    No that's why a football coach should never takes points off a board after a good field goal even though they were just given a free play becuase of a penalty on a kick. Never be that over confident that a teams "special teams" are that terrible so that means you can be cocky.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: A legit(?) hockey strategy question

    In response to Soxdog67's comment:

    I really can't believe that another team would take extra liberties and risk penalties against the B's because they believe their PP is weak or ineffective.

    The shorthanded time is time spent by the opposition not playing offense and thus not scoring goals themselves...so a more talented team would have an advantage even if that team has not perfected it's power play.

    Keep in mind that the B 's have talented players on the ice for these situations, they are just not executing effectively. More player movement and guys in front of the net would better their %...

    ...maybe Julian is willing to sacrifice this area to perfect and build a mindset from his players in the other areas of solid two-way hockey when at even strength and solid penalty killing?

     



    I agree.  I dont think other teams take it into account.  It doesnt matter how cold/bad another team is on the PP.  You dont want to be shorthanded.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: A legit(?) hockey strategy question

    In response to ipotnyc's comment:

    THe Bs are not purposely stratgezing to be lousy on the PP all these seasons.

    They have been missing a true QB since Savard was lost.    Seguin is the one with the skill set to do that.



    What about Hunwick?  (JK)

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share