• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

FirstSamuel1745

Hitting and Winning

Rate this topic

16 posts in this topic

Hey guys - saw this over on www.hockeywriters.com, and I thought it appropriate for this forum. The author, who follows the Blue Jackets, took a statistical look at the correlation between hits (what we call "grit" around here), and wins.

Here's the link: http://thehockeywriters.com/hit-or-myth-busting-your-way-to-success-in-the-nhl-or-not/

To put it bluntly, it seems that while some teams do manage to hit a lot and win a lot, most teams that are highly gritty have a greater chance of being in the lower end of the league. There are exceptions of course. I thought this would make some good food for thought.

Happy Reading!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cause and effect between these two variables cannot be determined from this study. It is pretty obvious that there are other variables that have an effect on both hitting and winning. The first, and possibly most important, is puck possession. Teams that posses the puck tend to hit less and win more. This is, this variable is likely causing the relationship to occur between hitting and winning. There are also other factors- blowout games tend to have more fights, and there are likely more hits too (from the losing team). Also, skilled players tend to hit less; therefore an unskilled team may hit more than a skilled team.

55fan and EuroWing like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great article, other than Anaheim in 07 the teams that go far in the playoffs seem to be Skill>grit (id say 80% skill 20% grit) whereas the bottom teams the gap is much closer.Great find but, I have a prediction for this thread..

...Flame on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The skilled teams are primarily the ones at the top of the food chain. Thats just how it is, be happy we are skilled and soft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing new to me there.

Losing/sucking -> frustration/desperation -> hitting

Of course there will be exceptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Normally when a team leads a game in hits it means that they don't have the puck as much as the other guy.

Either way, I'm not going to use this study to make a broad statement about how the team should be structured.

Finnish Wing likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cause and effect between these two variables cannot be determined from this study. It is pretty obvious that there are other variables that have an effect on both hitting and winning. The first, and possibly most important, is puck possession. Teams that posses the puck tend to hit less and win more. This is, this variable is likely causing the relationship to occur between hitting and winning. There are also other factors- blowout games tend to have more fights, and there are likely more hits too (from the losing team). Also, skilled players tend to hit less; therefore an unskilled team may hit more than a skilled team.

Normally I would agree, but Dats is an exception, methinks. He'll knock an assclown down given half a chance. :rolleyes:

55fan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

buffalo are a bunch of floppy wimps in the physical department, I think the wings are underrated in the hitting department (at least on this board) and for sure Stl and dal are the two hardest/most active hitting teams in the league

Edited by jollymania

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's just too many considerations to consider than to just ham it up on the amount of hitting/winning alone.

As stated, the Wings usually play puck-possession which usually yields less hits.

I think pretty much anybody in here can appreciate a 3rd or 4th liner who isn't as gifted offensively but can grind and hit and be a pest creating energy for others and ramping up the hitting department.

However, all of us can probably list plenty of examples where if you just try to knock the snot out of people every play, it probably yields to more penalties, possible goonery, etc.

Hitting/energy definitely plays an important part in helping win games, but it doesn't help much when you don't have some good combination of goaltending and skill/offensive threat either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great article, other than Anaheim in 07 the teams that go far in the playoffs seem to be Skill>grit (id say 80% skill 20% grit) whereas the bottom teams the gap is much closer.Great find but, I have a prediction for this thread..

...Flame on...

Flyers are a skill team?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flyers are a skill team?

I think they were a good mixture of skill and grit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys - saw this over on www.hockeywriters.com, and I thought it appropriate for this forum. The author, who follows the Blue Jackets, took a statistical look at the correlation between hits (what we call "grit" around here), and wins.

Here's the link: http://thehockeywriters.com/hit-or-myth-busting-your-way-to-success-in-the-nhl-or-not/

To put it bluntly, it seems that while some teams do manage to hit a lot and win a lot, most teams that are highly gritty have a greater chance of being in the lower end of the league. There are exceptions of course. I thought this would make some good food for thought.

Happy Reading!

Hitting is not the same as grit. Note that Philadelphia, which is a gritty team to the point of some here saying they were goonish, ranked 14th in hits.

Sure hitting has something to do with the other, but when people are wanting the Wings to be gritty, I don't think that means they're just wanting them to run around and hit guys more. If you look through any of the grit threads most of the talk isn't about hitting.

That blog is bad statistical analysis used to prove an idea the author already seemed to have in mind. If you asked anyone is there a direct correlation between hits and points, I think most people would say no.

He mentions some anomalies, but doesn't explain situations like with LA who was 2nd in hits and 27th in points in 2009, then only dropped three places to 5th in hits but jumped all the way up to 9th in points. There's too many other variables outside his oversimplified premise for it to mean anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all honesty the only hits necessary are finishing a check, and those are the quality hits that can prevent an opposing goal scored, or even turn around to create an opportunity. Other ways hits can be positive as a secondary source, not so much directly, might be providing energy due to a big hit. There's a sense of positivity in offensive and defensive smarts in hitting that correlate with winning infinitely more than the simple notion of hitting itself being a role in winning. Quality teams that can use a good amount of hitting effectively with minimal amounts of PIMs and turning those hits into opportunities or preventing opportunities in scoring end up winning cups, and the teams that just send out useless goons to fly around the ice hitting people end up using them for entertainment's sake to keep a certain niche of fans, because they very, very likely aren't winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hitting is not the same as grit. Note that Philadelphia, which is a gritty team to the point of some here saying they were goonish, ranked 14th in hits.

Sure hitting has something to do with the other, but when people are wanting the Wings to be gritty, I don't think that means they're just wanting them to run around and hit guys more. If you look through any of the grit threads most of the talk isn't about hitting.

That blog is bad statistical analysis used to prove an idea the author already seemed to have in mind. If you asked anyone is there a direct correlation between hits and points, I think most people would say no.

He mentions some anomalies, but doesn't explain situations like with LA who was 2nd in hits and 27th in points in 2009, then only dropped three places to 5th in hits but jumped all the way up to 9th in points. There's too many other variables outside his oversimplified premise for it to mean anything.

I think 'other variables' was the premise.

It's not really a point that needed to be made, since as you said most people already know that hitting does not mean winning.

There may be a vocal crowd that preaches hitting an aggressiveness, but I think it's meant more in a 'play harder' way then a 'that's the key to victory' way, if you get my meaning. People also complain about turnovers, slowness, dumb penalties, missing open shots, etc. I'm sure if you asked people in Columbus what kind of players they'd want to add, more skill would be a priority. That doesn't mean they shouldn't expect their current players to play harder, finish their checks, clear the crease, etc... All in all, a pretty dumb article.

ManLuv4Clears likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now