Below Market Value
Member Since
Nov. 8, 2015
Forum Posts
Posts per Day
Forum: NHLJan. 11 at 10:46 a.m.
Forum: NHLDec. 12, 2022 at 12:15 p.m.
Forum: NHLNov. 16, 2022 at 11:17 a.m.
Forum: NHLSep. 21, 2022 at 10:35 a.m.
Forum: NHLAug. 16, 2022 at 11:36 a.m.
Forum: NHLAug. 15, 2022 at 3:49 p.m.
Forum: NHLAug. 15, 2022 at 11:27 a.m.
Hockey analysis has come a long way compared to just 5 years ago. The data is better, more research is done, people are understanding how to contextualize better, and we have more now to consume than ever. If you think about it, the on-ice ideas that are emphasized by those in the analytics sphere are essentially the same as what old heads have been preaching for decades.

Getting pucks on net = increasing your shot attempts
Get to the dangerous areas = improving your shot quality, which ties into expected goals
Net-front battles = prevent the opposition from taking those high xG shots and prevent your goalie from being screened
Creating/preventing odd-man rushes = rush chances are shown to be of higher quality than chances created on the cycle or forecheck
...and so on and so forth.

I guarantee you that 90-95% of the findings from analytics spheres align with the general consensus. The problem most people have are with the edge cases, which they then use to dismiss the entirety of analytics. The on-ice arguements are essentially the same, albeit the wordings differ. Most everyone will agree that today's game is far different than the game from even a decade ago. It's a possession-based game, physicality is emphasized less, etc.

A lot of the polarization comes from how off-ice/locker room effects come into play. It's pretty clear that guys like Ryan Reaves are not valuable to the modern game, in terms of on-ice impact; he plays very limited minutes and the team does not control play when he is on the ice. The arguments for Reaves state that he provides a morale boost to his teammates, he's a locker room guy, etc. The problem with that is how can we even know that's the case when we're not around the team and we don't know what's going on behind the scenes, other than the canned statements we hear in interviews? I'm sure that most, if not all, teams have guys that are good in the room, so as long as there aren't guys that are a detriment to team morale, I don't see the value in having a guy that also plays poorly on the ice.
Forum: NHLAug. 10, 2022 at 1:36 p.m.