HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Correlation between hitting and winning Is there any?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-24-2010, 03:28 AM
  #1
Christina Woloski
Registered Something
 
Christina Woloski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Narnia
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,660
vCash: 500
Correlation between hitting and winning Is there any?

Interesting information found on Canucks.com forum...

Hitting is a large part of the game...but does it result in wins? I placed teams into three groups: High hitting teams, average hitting teams, and low hitting teams. I then determined the average number of points for each group. Numbers are from the 09-10 season.

High hitting teams: 91.2 points
Number of teams in playoffs: 5

Average hitting teams: 92.3 points
Number of teams in playoffs: 4

Low hitting teams: 93.2 points
Number of teams in playoffs: 6

There is a weak negative correlation between points and hits.

Does this mean that winning does not help a team at all? Not necessarily. One might assume that teams that cannot afford highly skilled players fill their roster with hard working, physical players who lack skill. Unfortunately I cannot find salary information from last season. I can, however, determine the average goals per game.

High hitting teams: 2.73 GPG

Average hitting teams: 2.77 GPG

Low hitting teams: 2.79 GPG

Again, there is a weak negative correlation between hits and goals scored. This supports the theory that teams that hit more lack skill and thus score less goals and win less games.

What do you think? Is hitting as important as we think it is? Are teams better off having guys who score 15 goals on their fourth lines vs. guys who score 4 or 5 but throw far more hits?


(All credit to canucklehead44@CDC)

Christina Woloski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2010, 03:43 AM
  #2
Crossovert*
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Wisconsin
Country: United States
Posts: 8,340
vCash: 500
Dallas is the "hardest" most frequent hitting team, it isn't hurting them right now

Crossovert* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2010, 03:47 AM
  #3
invictus
Registered User
 
invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 15,305
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsBeReality View Post
Interesting information found on Canucks.com forum...

Hitting is a large part of the game...but does it result in wins? I placed teams into three groups: High hitting teams, average hitting teams, and low hitting teams. I then determined the average number of points for each group. Numbers are from the 09-10 season.

High hitting teams: 91.2 points
Number of teams in playoffs: 5

Average hitting teams: 92.3 points
Number of teams in playoffs: 4

Low hitting teams: 93.2 points
Number of teams in playoffs: 6

There is a weak negative correlation between points and hits.

Does this mean that winning does not help a team at all? Not necessarily. One might assume that teams that cannot afford highly skilled players fill their roster with hard working, physical players who lack skill. Unfortunately I cannot find salary information from last season. I can, however, determine the average goals per game.

High hitting teams: 2.73 GPG

Average hitting teams: 2.77 GPG

Low hitting teams: 2.79 GPG

Again, there is a weak negative correlation between hits and goals scored. This supports the theory that teams that hit more lack skill and thus score less goals and win less games.

What do you think? Is hitting as important as we think it is? Are teams better off having guys who score 15 goals on their fourth lines vs. guys who score 4 or 5 but throw far more hits?


(All credit to canucklehead44@CDC)
Craig Patrick says yes.

invictus is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2010, 03:47 AM
  #4
Tree444
Registered User
 
Tree444's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,203
vCash: 500
Those stats might indicate that teams that spend less time with the puck (and thus are more likely to lose a game) will spend more time hitting, since they are pursuing the puck carrier.

Like any academic will tell you, correlation does not imply causation. I can't think of another metric that might be used to measure physicality, but regardless, that would be my first explanation of your results.

Tree444 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2010, 03:52 AM
  #5
Christina Woloski
Registered Something
 
Christina Woloski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Narnia
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,660
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tree444 View Post
Those stats might indicate that teams that spend less time with the puck (and thus are more likely to lose a game) will spend more time hitting, since they are pursuing the puck carrier.

Like any academic will tell you, correlation does not imply causation. I can't think of another metric that might be used to measure physicality, but regardless, that would be my first explanation of your results.

Christina Woloski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2010, 03:58 AM
  #6
Daryl
Registered User
 
Daryl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 787
vCash: 500
Probably because some teams have the more physical guys who are willing to hit,some may only be good at hitting thus it is low on your stats you have given us.

Daryl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2010, 04:03 AM
  #7
JAK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 906
vCash: 500
What about the record of teams that do hit often and those that don't, when they are in a 1 goal game?

JAK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2010, 04:27 AM
  #8
TOML
Registered User
 
TOML's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Walnut Grove
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,939
vCash: 500
Example 1: A player hits another in the offensive zone, takes the puck away and proceeds to create a scoring play.

Example 2: A player hits another in the offensive zone, but that player made a pass before he was hit and now the first player is out of position and the opposing team makes a scoring play.

Whether you're the one doing the hitting to make a play or the one taking the hit to make a play, the key aspect to winning games is not the hitting itself, but making scoring plays with the puck.


Sometimes hitting is a detriment to the team.

I'm not a big fan of players who hit and hit and hit for the sake of hitting when they don't create anything in the way of offense from all that hitting. All that does is rile up the other team.

That's not saying that hitting isn't important. It is.

I'm also not a big fan of players who don't hit at all or strive to avoid contact. So many plays in this league absolutely require a player to either make or recieve a hit. If the player isn't active in this regard, then he's essentially letting the other team dictate the play.

Overall, there is no correlation between hitting and winning. It's more important to observe what the players are doing to make plays by hitting or when they are being hit. And whether or not the team is prone to boneheaded mistakes due to an over-commitment to hitting. Not to mention the discipline factor. Better make sure there's a good PK if the team is going across the line a lot.

TOML is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2010, 04:33 AM
  #9
Hockey Team
Hunger Force
 
Hockey Team's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New York, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,485
vCash: 500
Teams that are have more hits might tend to take more penalties and be in the box more. It might also be an indication of a less disciplined team that takes runs at players at bad times.

Either way, the correlation is so weak on your results they're not statistically significant (especially if it's for 1 year)

It's not the quantity of hits that matter. What does the hit accomplish? Was it a run at someone for retaliation? In which case it accomplishes nothing and sets your team up to be shorthanded. Did it get someone off the puck and prevent them from setting up a play?

Hockey Team is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2010, 04:59 AM
  #10
In Exisle
Registered User
 
In Exisle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,511
vCash: 500
Just piggybacking on some points made before..

Excelling at the game physically and number of hits are two different entities.

While a team who is strong in the physical aspects of the game may have a large quantity of hits, a team who has a large number of hits isn't automatically excelling physically. Hits are merely the simplest (and really only) statistical way to measure the physical aspect of the game, but its ultimately not a sufficient method to thoroughly evaluate the importance of physicality.

Your stats answered the correlation between hits and success. That's fine and the analysis served its purpose in that regard. However, the more important aspects of the physical game (winning board battles, net presence, momentum swinging hits, strength on the puck, etc.) can't be measured in such a manner. For example the Red Wings probably aren't up there in the hits category. But they do win board battles, have good net presence, and get the big hits when they need them.. which ultimately translates to winning hockey.

Hitting is important to the game. That being said, you can rack up a bunch of hits but still have weak net presence and lose puck battles. It's the more intangible aspects of the physical game that weigh in on the game at the end of the day. So it really isn't hitting that's so important as it is physicality.

In Exisle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2010, 05:07 AM
  #11
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tree444 View Post
Those stats might indicate that teams that spend less time with the puck (and thus are more likely to lose a game) will spend more time hitting, since they are pursuing the puck carrier.

Like any academic will tell you, correlation does not imply causation. I can't think of another metric that might be used to measure physicality, but regardless, that would be my first explanation of your results.
This makes a lot of sense... I'd wager this is the case.

kmad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2010, 05:17 AM
  #12
NGARV
Registered User
 
NGARV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 372
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsBeReality View Post
Why the facepalm, this is logical

NGARV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2010, 06:29 PM
  #13
torero
Registered User
 
torero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Border of lake Leman
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 3,210
vCash: 500
I fully agree with your theory that hitting may be counter productive.

A hit is a tool that, like any tool appropriately used, brings a great payback.

Yet if they hit for the sake of hitting ... the result may be more doubtfull.

Like specatcularity ... a beautifull move may be specatacular ... but if you favour spectactle over efficiency ... you may reach the same results than with hitting ! namely an underperformance of the more spectacular team.

By giving a place to a hitter, you may hold a good player on the bench ... resulting into icing an inferior team than what you could !! Therefore and underperforming team.

Not to say that the hitter may simply bring less value added on a group level than a good player.

Yet if the task of the hitter is to demotivate another hitter in the oponing team that is tough on your good players ... his value will be measure relative to his capacity to stop the other goon to do his job.

But as an international observer ... who watches many leagues ... i strongly believe that hitting is seriously counterproductive. The best/most extreme example being Vitiaz in the KHL. A real shame to Russian Hockey ... and they are ... good last !

torero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2010, 06:40 PM
  #14
Modo
Global Moderator
Mo'Benn
 
Modo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Etobicoke
Country: Canada
Posts: 41,890
vCash: 582
Hits = turnovers = puck possession = goals.

Not every time, but I'd imagine most of the time this is true.

__________________
If you're telekinetic and you know it, clap my hands!
Modo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2010, 06:43 PM
  #15
Big McLargehuge
Global Moderator
HFBoards: Night's Watch
 
Big McLargehuge's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Country: Iceland
Posts: 55,124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by invictus View Post
Craig Patrick says yes.
Ugh.


Nothing like Alexandre Daigle on the fourth line.

Big McLargehuge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2010, 06:45 PM
  #16
msm29
Was htsportplaya
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Buffalo, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,967
vCash: 500
I'd like to see some stats of how "high-hitting" teams do in a playoff series. Seems like it'd help more then than in any random game.

msm29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2010, 06:54 PM
  #17
Lard_Lad
Registered User
 
Lard_Lad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Kelowna
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,678
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGARV View Post
Why the facepalm, this is logical
Not to mention that the guy who originally came up with these numbers said the same thing later in his thread on canucks.com.

And that doesn't even get into the issue of the significant variation in how often hits are recorded around the league. Trying to draw conclusions from raw hit numbers isn't very useful.

Lard_Lad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2010, 06:58 PM
  #18
Briere Up There*
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Žďár nad Sázavo
Posts: 2,868
vCash: 500
The Ducks won in 2007 with a brand of hockey that made Ken Campbell, Adam Proteau and other latter day NHL fans cringe. Puck possession is the most important thing, but if you don't have the puck, why not hit? Milan Lucic often has the corners to himself because defensemen will opt out of physical contact with him.

The earlier post about this being more of a reflection of teams who do not possess the puck is correct. Not to mention hitting stats are useless.

Briere Up There* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2010, 07:01 PM
  #19
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,378
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGARV View Post
Why the facepalm, this is logical
He couldn't think of a rebuttal so he was hoping everyone would follow suit in brushing it aside and not giving it any thought.

kmad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2010, 07:02 PM
  #20
Briere Up There*
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Žďár nad Sázavo
Posts: 2,868
vCash: 500
Flint Ironstag

Briere Up There* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2010, 07:04 PM
  #21
SayNoToStim
Registered User
 
SayNoToStim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Korea. FTA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,402
vCash: 500
a poke check and a body check do the same thing if done right.

except one shortens your career every time you do it, then again it does fire your team up a little...

SayNoToStim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2010, 07:07 PM
  #22
Briere Up There*
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Žďár nad Sázavo
Posts: 2,868
vCash: 500
Gordie Howe played for 30 years.

Picking your spots is better than just doing one or the other.

Briere Up There* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2010, 07:09 PM
  #23
Montreal Shadow
Registered User
 
Montreal Shadow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tree444 View Post
Those stats might indicate that teams that spend less time with the puck (and thus are more likely to lose a game) will spend more time hitting, since they are pursuing the puck carrier.

Like any academic will tell you, correlation does not imply causation. I can't think of another metric that might be used to measure physicality, but regardless, that would be my first explanation of your results.
His post focuses on hitting and not physicality, two entirely different things. People fully know a physical, low-hitting team will do better than a not-so-physical, high hitting team.

Montreal Shadow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2010, 07:10 PM
  #24
Wooty
Registered User
 
Wooty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Harbor City, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,024
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Modo View Post
Hits = turnovers = puck possession = goals.

Not every time, but I'd imagine most of the time this is true.
I doubt this is true 95% of the time unless you mean it as a series of events. Even then, I doubt it is that meaningful

Wooty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-24-2010, 07:11 PM
  #25
Jigger77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,216
vCash: 500
Finish your checks kids.

Jigger77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:14 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.