Hier ist also das Original in Englisch, das als Grundlage für den Beitrag im Time Out diente.
Mich hat das Ergebnis überrascht und ich finde es faszinierend, wie kurz der Einzelne die Scheibe im Spiel wirklich hat.
Was meint ihr zu diesem Ergebnis?
I sit and stare, dumbfounded, at the ever-increasing baseball-ization of hockey. Mats Sundin, says the expanded NHL game sheet on my desk, took 26 shifts in Game 3, which lasted 66 minutes and one second, and was on the ice for a total of 22:18, one-third of the Stanley Cup playoff game his Toronto Maple Leafs played against the Carolina Hurricanes on Tuesday. He took one shot in the first period, one in the second, none in the third and none in the brief overtime, for a total of two shots. He also missed one shot. He won 14 faceoffs and lost 10 for a winning percentage of 58%. He had one hit, one takeaway and one giveaway. Sounds, on paper, rather dull and unimpressive.
Sundin's captain counterpart on the Hurricanes, Ron Francis, took 27 shifts for 23:42 worth of ice time, had two shots in total, missed a shot, won only one faceoff and lost seven for a dreadful faceoff-won average of 12%, had one hit, two takeaways, one giveaway and blocked one shot. On paper, not much.
Both, however, were key players in Carolina's 2-1 overtime victory. It was Sundin's lovely pass that set up Toronto's only goal, and Francis scored Carolina's first goal and, in overtime, used his foot to remarkable advantage in setting up the winning goal by Jeff O'Neill.
There are, if we may tweak Benjamin Disraeli's famous words ever so slightly, three kinds of statistics: statistics, damned statistics, and lies.
The lie, as everyone who has ever played the game knows, is faceoffs won and lost. About half are neither won nor lost. Nor do the number crunchers seem to know that there is a play in hockey where centres will deliberately move the puck straight ahead -- a "lost" faceoff by this definition.
In the category of "damned statistics," we have the inconsistency with measuring hits and the nonsense of counting "giveaways" and "takeaways" as if they somehow involve but a single player.
But that is not to say the modern NHL game sheet is without some redeeming value.
The total ice time, particularly when broken down by period, is a wonderful indicator of minor injuries, not to mention players and lines falling in and out of favour with their coaches.
But we respectably suggest that the National Hockey League also give consideration to a measurable quantity that should be of even more interest to coaches at the minor hockey level than those at the NHL level.
Puck possession time.
Less than three months after the Salt Lake City Winter Games, we have the results in from a fascinating hockey study. The project, which tracked nothing more than puck possession time, may be the best argument for increased practice time that has ever been produced.
The study -- technically called Measurement of Puck Control Skill Repetition in Olympic Hockey Games for the Purpose of Developing Efficient Use of Ice Time -- was really a modern look at a phenomenon first pointed out by George Kingston 30 years ago.
Kingston, now an assistant coach with the Florida Panthers, did a study in Calgary in the early 1970s that pointed out that the average North American minor hockey player handled the puck less than one minute in a typical hockey game.
Kingston discovered that, in North America, there would be two or three games played for each practice, whereas in Europe it would be two to five practices for each game played, quite the reverse. And this, he contended, was the main reason European players were beginning to show up with such astounding skills -- something that, three decades later, we now take for granted. Kingston further argued that for the average Canadian kid to get one hour of quality work in the basic skills of puck control, he would need to play 180 games.
Thirty years later there are now many converts to Kingston's thinking on the importance of practice-to-game ratio, but still little action. The Canadian Hockey Association, which has long argued in favour of more practice time, is understandably a key supporter of this investigation.
The researchers looked at all 55 games played in the Olympics by both men and women, and in each game they selected three "key performers" to measure each game.
They found that women, playing a slower, less-aggressive game, hold onto the puck slightly longer than men, but the average for a 60-minute game played by the top women players in the world is still only 1:12.
For the best men in the world, it is only 1:08.
The most remarkable performance during the entire games was Joe Sakic's play for Canada in the gold-medal game against the United States, when he scored two goals, assisted on two others and had control of the puck for a 1:19.5.
Many people can hold their breath that long.
Equally astonishing are the statistics on Mats Sundin, thought by many to be the best player in the tournament until Sweden's unexpected debacle against little Belarus. Against Canada, in a game that Sweden won handily 5-2, Sundin had possession for only 40 seconds, yet scored two goals.
Since defencemen tend to hang onto the puck slightly longer, and certain players like Jaromir Jagr of the Czech Republic tend to have puck possession totals in excess of two minutes, the average of 1:08 can sometimes be a bit misleading. Jeremy Roenick of the U.S.A., for example, controlled the puck a mere 39 seconds against Russia, Sakic held a mere 23 seconds against the Czech Republic, and Paul Kariya only 36 seconds in the same match.
If you're going to have it so little, you had better know what to do with it.
The team, writes one of the project leaders, Rob Bruendl, "was continually surprised by the data being collected."
"When you factor in that the Observation Project attempted to choose the players that would potentially handle the puck more than others on the ice," he writes in the introduction to the 68-page study, "you could argue that the averages are actually inflated compared to the average Olympic level player.
"The dilemma that virtually every coach of developmental-aged hockey players is faced with is how much ice time does he devote to practice and how much to games. Ice time is getting more expensive every year. Parents enjoy watching their children play and urge the coach to schedule more games. So coaches and parents try to convince themselves that their players are learning skills during the games."
The European men averaged more ice time, some 17 seconds more of puck possession, and took about 1.5 more shots in an average game than the North Americans. So much for the commonly-held belief that they never shoot.
The North Americans, of course, came away with gold and silver, which might argue slightly in favour of holding on a little less.
But the point here was merely to show how precious little time those who are the world's best actually have the puck in a typical game.
And how even less time they have to do the right thing with it.
So they'd better practice early, in order to be ready when needed.
Quelle: www.faceoff.com
Mich hat das Ergebnis überrascht und ich finde es faszinierend, wie kurz der Einzelne die Scheibe im Spiel wirklich hat.
Was meint ihr zu diesem Ergebnis?
I sit and stare, dumbfounded, at the ever-increasing baseball-ization of hockey. Mats Sundin, says the expanded NHL game sheet on my desk, took 26 shifts in Game 3, which lasted 66 minutes and one second, and was on the ice for a total of 22:18, one-third of the Stanley Cup playoff game his Toronto Maple Leafs played against the Carolina Hurricanes on Tuesday. He took one shot in the first period, one in the second, none in the third and none in the brief overtime, for a total of two shots. He also missed one shot. He won 14 faceoffs and lost 10 for a winning percentage of 58%. He had one hit, one takeaway and one giveaway. Sounds, on paper, rather dull and unimpressive.
Sundin's captain counterpart on the Hurricanes, Ron Francis, took 27 shifts for 23:42 worth of ice time, had two shots in total, missed a shot, won only one faceoff and lost seven for a dreadful faceoff-won average of 12%, had one hit, two takeaways, one giveaway and blocked one shot. On paper, not much.
Both, however, were key players in Carolina's 2-1 overtime victory. It was Sundin's lovely pass that set up Toronto's only goal, and Francis scored Carolina's first goal and, in overtime, used his foot to remarkable advantage in setting up the winning goal by Jeff O'Neill.
There are, if we may tweak Benjamin Disraeli's famous words ever so slightly, three kinds of statistics: statistics, damned statistics, and lies.
The lie, as everyone who has ever played the game knows, is faceoffs won and lost. About half are neither won nor lost. Nor do the number crunchers seem to know that there is a play in hockey where centres will deliberately move the puck straight ahead -- a "lost" faceoff by this definition.
In the category of "damned statistics," we have the inconsistency with measuring hits and the nonsense of counting "giveaways" and "takeaways" as if they somehow involve but a single player.
But that is not to say the modern NHL game sheet is without some redeeming value.
The total ice time, particularly when broken down by period, is a wonderful indicator of minor injuries, not to mention players and lines falling in and out of favour with their coaches.
But we respectably suggest that the National Hockey League also give consideration to a measurable quantity that should be of even more interest to coaches at the minor hockey level than those at the NHL level.
Puck possession time.
Less than three months after the Salt Lake City Winter Games, we have the results in from a fascinating hockey study. The project, which tracked nothing more than puck possession time, may be the best argument for increased practice time that has ever been produced.
The study -- technically called Measurement of Puck Control Skill Repetition in Olympic Hockey Games for the Purpose of Developing Efficient Use of Ice Time -- was really a modern look at a phenomenon first pointed out by George Kingston 30 years ago.
Kingston, now an assistant coach with the Florida Panthers, did a study in Calgary in the early 1970s that pointed out that the average North American minor hockey player handled the puck less than one minute in a typical hockey game.
Kingston discovered that, in North America, there would be two or three games played for each practice, whereas in Europe it would be two to five practices for each game played, quite the reverse. And this, he contended, was the main reason European players were beginning to show up with such astounding skills -- something that, three decades later, we now take for granted. Kingston further argued that for the average Canadian kid to get one hour of quality work in the basic skills of puck control, he would need to play 180 games.
Thirty years later there are now many converts to Kingston's thinking on the importance of practice-to-game ratio, but still little action. The Canadian Hockey Association, which has long argued in favour of more practice time, is understandably a key supporter of this investigation.
The researchers looked at all 55 games played in the Olympics by both men and women, and in each game they selected three "key performers" to measure each game.
They found that women, playing a slower, less-aggressive game, hold onto the puck slightly longer than men, but the average for a 60-minute game played by the top women players in the world is still only 1:12.
For the best men in the world, it is only 1:08.
The most remarkable performance during the entire games was Joe Sakic's play for Canada in the gold-medal game against the United States, when he scored two goals, assisted on two others and had control of the puck for a 1:19.5.
Many people can hold their breath that long.
Equally astonishing are the statistics on Mats Sundin, thought by many to be the best player in the tournament until Sweden's unexpected debacle against little Belarus. Against Canada, in a game that Sweden won handily 5-2, Sundin had possession for only 40 seconds, yet scored two goals.
Since defencemen tend to hang onto the puck slightly longer, and certain players like Jaromir Jagr of the Czech Republic tend to have puck possession totals in excess of two minutes, the average of 1:08 can sometimes be a bit misleading. Jeremy Roenick of the U.S.A., for example, controlled the puck a mere 39 seconds against Russia, Sakic held a mere 23 seconds against the Czech Republic, and Paul Kariya only 36 seconds in the same match.
If you're going to have it so little, you had better know what to do with it.
The team, writes one of the project leaders, Rob Bruendl, "was continually surprised by the data being collected."
"When you factor in that the Observation Project attempted to choose the players that would potentially handle the puck more than others on the ice," he writes in the introduction to the 68-page study, "you could argue that the averages are actually inflated compared to the average Olympic level player.
"The dilemma that virtually every coach of developmental-aged hockey players is faced with is how much ice time does he devote to practice and how much to games. Ice time is getting more expensive every year. Parents enjoy watching their children play and urge the coach to schedule more games. So coaches and parents try to convince themselves that their players are learning skills during the games."
The European men averaged more ice time, some 17 seconds more of puck possession, and took about 1.5 more shots in an average game than the North Americans. So much for the commonly-held belief that they never shoot.
The North Americans, of course, came away with gold and silver, which might argue slightly in favour of holding on a little less.
But the point here was merely to show how precious little time those who are the world's best actually have the puck in a typical game.
And how even less time they have to do the right thing with it.
So they'd better practice early, in order to be ready when needed.
Quelle: www.faceoff.com