Playing to win vs "you can't take the game away from the kids" | Syracusefan.com

Playing to win vs "you can't take the game away from the kids"

its an interesting stat that also totally ignores some key stats in a hockey game. it assumes all players have equal chances to score and its a sport where players tend to play less as the game ends not more like the other sports.
 
RMH44 said:
Why smarter...because it aligns with your dogma? Others might consider it stupidity.
Expand...
Smarter because they're increasing their understanding of probabilities. Did you read the article and understand it? The guy leading the way is considered one of the best goalies of all-time, and he gets it.
 
upperdeck said:
its an interesting stat that also totally ignores some key stats in a hockey game. it assumes all players have equal chances to score and its a sport where players tend to play less as the game ends not more like the other sports.
Expand...
You way over thought this. The question is, when you're down by one late, when do you pull your goalie in an attempt to draw even.

You need that goal regardless of whether all of your players have an equal chance of scoring. That comes secondary to needing the goal. You're probably going to have your top scorers on the ice in that situation anyway, right? What does the point about players playing less at the end have to do with needing a goal to tie? I think you're introducing variables here that don't matter. You need a goal. Are your chances better getting that goal if you yank the goaltender at 2:30 left or with 1:00 left? Seems like you have better odds if you take that goalie out at 2:30. It's straightforward.
 
having been to hundreds of hockey games i say the answer is no. you can blindly just pull the goalie to give yourself more time but you cant just start doing it at some random time and expect better results. you need to do it when you have the puck if possible, when you have the line you want, even when the OPP has the line you want out. I agree that teams often waited too long, but the fact that the odds only increased by 2% show that its probably more of a variable of other factors than what time that has the most impact on how well it works. if time was the main variable then 2% is an anomaly that probably requires more analysis to even show that time made the difference and not something else
 
upperdeck said:
having been to hundreds of hockey games i say the answer is no. you can blindly just pull the goalie to give yourself more time but you cant just start doing it at some random time and expect better results. you need to do it when you have the puck if possible, when you have the line you want, even when the OPP has the line you want out. I agree that teams often waited too long, but the fact that the odds only increased by 2% show that its probably more of a variable of other factors than what time that has the most impact on how well it works. if time was the main variable then 2% is an anomaly that probably requires more analysis to even show that time made the difference and not something else
Expand...

Sample sizes are probably not optimal, but logic says that playing 6 on 5 with players that can play the puck on the ice should lead to more chances. Leaving the goal open, of course, is the risk that you take, but you should have more chances to score. That's pretty much a given.
 
upperdeck said:
having been to hundreds of hockey games i say the answer is no. you can blindly just pull the goalie to give yourself more time but you cant just start doing it at some random time and expect better results. you need to do it when you have the puck if possible, when you have the line you want, even when the OPP has the line you want out. I agree that teams often waited too long, but the fact that the odds only increased by 2% show that its probably more of a variable of other factors than what time that has the most impact on how well it works. if time was the main variable then 2% is an anomaly that probably requires more analysis to even show that time made the difference and not something else
Expand...
This isn't saying you pull the goalie at 2:30 if you don't have the puck.
 
In hockey I could see it working at lower levels but not at the high level when they can hit the goal from anywhere on the ice. it's the same as lacrosse. You pull the goalie and you're dead meat. I didn't read the article.
 
PhatOrange said:
In hockey I could see it working at lower levels but not at the high level when they can hit the goal from anywhere on the ice. it's the same as lacrosse. You pull the goalie and you're dead meat. I didn't read the article.
Expand...
It more or less said you're dead meat anyway, but if you pull your goalie with a little more time left, maybe you're still twitching.
 
Personnel must be a variable. Throw a line out there that emphasizes puck possession and movement, with blue line speed and strong forechecking forwards, a coach may be more inclined to take that risk a bit earlier.
 
how does pulling the goalie compare to punting??

you suggesting they add another offensive player on 4th & 1 indside the 50 and go 12-11??

this is just saying that he trusts the stick ability and passing/shooting acumen of his 6 v their 5, as opposed to the normal 5 on 5.

big difference.
 
KaiserUEO said:
how does pulling the goalie compare to punting??

you suggesting they add another offensive player on 4th & 1 indside the 50 and go 12-11??

this is just saying that he trusts the stick ability and passing/shooting acumen of his 6 v their 5, as opposed to the normal 5 on 5.

big difference.
Expand...
That's EXACTLY what I'm saying.

Come on, Kaiser, you're pretty smart about this stuff. It's not about having a better chance to score 6v5. Everybody knows that. It's about knowing the ideal time to gain the 6v5 advantage knowing you live with the possibility of an empty net goal. Teams are figuring out that there is a slightly optimal time to do it that gives you a little bit better chance of winning.

It relates to punting because we still see coaches make decisions based on "not taking the game away" instead of making decisions that give their team the best chance to win. It's the same thinking that keeps a goalie on the ice late when their team needs a goal.
 
OttoinGrotto said:
That's EXACTLY what I'm saying.

Come on, Kaiser, you're pretty smart about this stuff. It's not about having a better chance to score 6v5. Everybody knows that. It's about knowing the ideal time to gain the 6v5 advantage knowing you live with the possibility of an empty net goal. Teams are figuring out that there is a slightly optimal time to do it that gives you a little bit better chance of winning.

It relates to punting because we still see coaches make decisions based on "not taking the game away" instead of making decisions that give their team the best chance to win. It's the same thinking that keeps a goalie on the ice late when their team needs a goal.
Expand...
no it doesnt.
 
Coaches rather punt down 2 scores halfway through the 4th so the game looks close and they don't get fired. Not sure why so many fans support it but I'd guess it's because they're .
 
OttoinGrotto said:
OK, then.
Expand...
i love analogies, but this doesnt work.

pulling the goalie is akin to in an baseball NL game...you announce that you are going to use a DH for the pitcher, but because of this...you will only put 8 guys in the field.

going for it on 4th as opposed to punting???

total reach.

hell, not even a reach, makes no sense.

sorry.:noidea:
 
KaiserUEO said:
i love analogies, but this doesnt work.

pulling the goalie is akin to in an baseball NL game...you announce that you are going to use a DH for the pitcher, but because of this...you will only put 8 guys in the field.

going for it on 4th as opposed to punting???

total reach.

hell, not even a reach, makes no sense.

sorry.:noidea:
Expand...
The analogy isn't pulling the goalie.

The analogy is when to use data about risk v reward to maximize chances of winning.
 
OttoinGrotto said:
The analogy isn't pulling the goalie.

The analogy is when to use data about risk v reward to maximize chances of winning.
Expand...
i guess i dont like using data resulting from using a man advantage to maximize a chance of winning...and comparing it to the same 11 on 11 and going for it.
 
OttoinGrotto said:
Interesting article on when to pull the goalie in hockey: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/nhl-coaches-are-pulling-goalies-earlier-than-ever/

I'm trying to draw a subtle parallel between this and punting. Everyone can see where it's headed. Each sport is getting smarter at this stuff.
Expand...
this is another example of coaches maximizing the amount of time they have any chance of winning instead of maximizing the chance of winning.

in the past, coaches pulled the goalie right at the point where people thought, if they don't pull now, the game's over right now
 
KaiserUEO said:
i guess i dont like using data resulting from using a man advantage to maximize a chance of winning...and comparing it to the same 11 on 11 and going for it.
Expand...

It's about actually using data to maximize a chance of winning, period. The analogy is clear, IMO. But since you don't like it, how 'bout this one for a "going for it" analogy then: hitting on 16 when the dealer shows a face card?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
170,443
Messages
4,891,506
Members
5,998
Latest member
powdersmack

Share this page

Online statistics

Members online
259
Guests online
1,616
Total visitors
1,875
Totals may include hidden visitors.


...
Top Bottom