Hitting

[shmenguin]

I've been wondering this all year, but Farnham coming up and doing his seek and destroy thing has taken it up a notch...

So it's not like it takes a rare skill to be like him or Rinaldo, right? Do players frequently lay off when they could otherwise tattoo a guy? Is it a code thing? A self preservation thing? Is it the coaches wanting to keep things under control? Avoiding penalties? Or is it just a more nuanced art than I'm giving it credit for?

Why aren't there more predators out there? What makes a guy skate on by rather than lay into someone? Seems like there could be several giant hits every game that don't happen for some reason.

[mikey287]

I'll try to answer the questions in order if I can...

- No, no skill. This is a new NHL player. What used to be a big goon extra, the guy that can't skate but is 6'5" or whatever is now this guy. A numbers-seeking missile. Crack down on interference, crack down on goalies playing the puck, speed through the neutral zone increased, roster sizes increased, shifts shorter. So these players are wound up and put on the rink to destroy. It's really pretty unhealthy. Look at how retrievals looked in 1987 vs. 2012. Big difference. Many more needless injuries occur now, even with better equipment and the guise of safety on the brain.

- They try to, they're supposed to. It's a fast game though. You really want to have some respect, but some these guys also have to go for it all the time, make a difference. You're Bobby Farnham, you might be up for one game, two games...that could be eight shifts if you get into a lot of special teams play or you fall behind, you might go down and never get another chance. Gotta make it count, right? Just don't want to drill anyone in the numbers...if you can help it...but in a game where you don't have strong hatred for the other side, or you got some buddies on the other team, you call it out...Jack Johnson and Crosby are friends for instance, so if Crosby is coming around the net and JMFJ is gonna tag him and he's not sure if Crosby is aware, he'll tell him, "hey, Sid, heads up here!" - cross-conference games, they'll tell ya sometimes..."heads! heads! heads!" ... "twenty, comin! comin!"

- Code, yeah kind of. There's "professional" hits and there's "amateur" hits, high school hits...certain things you don't do at this level. But - like anything in this game - there's so much context and circumstance involved that people might consider my explanations to be conflicting. Which isn't unfair.

- Guys like Farnham don't care about that really. Guys that have to play a lot of minutes, they don't want to go out there and kill on every shift. It takes a lot out of you.

- Ideally.

- Meh, "nuanced art" is giving it too much credit probably.

- If you get your best player "predatored" you better believe that you're running the risk of getting "predatored" in the next meeting. Most teams won't trade a queen for a queen...

- Depends on the situation. Tough to give one answer there.

- Yeah, there could be more probably. Hits don't win games though. It depends on your goals and a lot of other things. Tough to tackle that with no context, unfortunately.

[MRandall25]

I would say it's more that the other players have actual skill that makes them successful in the league. They don't really need to chase hits because they can contribute in a tangible way (scoresheet, etc.). They'll pick and choose their spots to go for one, but they don't really actively seek out the big hits. Players like Farnham, Rinaldo, and the like have to play on this edge and go for every hit because they don't really have the skill/ability to be meaningful contributors to a nightly lineup. Their sole form of contributing (in most cases) is hitting anything that moves.

[shmenguin]

that's what i was looking for, thanks. it's just strange that it's so limited. if you're willing to have one missile out there, why not have 3? it's not like you're fooling anyone. or is it a thing where the flyers ONLY put rinaldo out there and then say "you're welcome" for showing restraint?

[shmenguin]

Or how about this...you're showing no life in a playoff series. Let's say you're a talented team in, say, 2013 with a stacked roster who is in the middle of a historically inept series against, say, Boston. I'm not saying I like this strategy, but what's stopping a team from plugging in one of these guys for 15 minutes and just have them run around like a maniac?

Is the value of a big hit to turn momentum just something we make up as fans because we like the optics of it?

[Idoit40fans]

If fans make it up, it becomes real. Unless you think that crowds can't add to momentum.

[mikey287]

Or how about this...you're showing no life in a playoff series. Let's say you're a talented team in, say, 2013 with a stacked roster who is in the middle of a historically inept series against, say, Boston. I'm not saying I like this strategy, but what's stopping a team from plugging in one of these guys for 15 minutes and just have them run around like a maniac?

Is the value of a big hit to turn momentum just something we make up as fans because we like the optics of it?

Big hits have some effect on the bench generally, but again, the context will win out. If you're too frustrated with yourselves, your lack of execution, your lack of creativity (or your coach's), the big hit isn't going to do much for you because you're looking up at that scoreboard and you haven't moved the needle on that zero in a while and you know it...

It depends on the psyche of your team. Is it filled with skill guys who play kind of fancy boy game? Well, then certain things resonate with them and certain things don't. Or do you have a bunch of oxmen that love to bludgeon?

Star players are very much different at virtually every level. They're very difficult to motivate from the outside sometimes and their energy, even if it's just frustration in themselves, can loom large on a bench. If the big hit gets the Spaling's, Sutter's, Klinkhammer's and Hornqvist's attention, get sticks bangin', etc. They'll do at least one of two things next (usually both), every time, they'll look up at the clock even if they just looked five seconds prior and they'll look down the bench to see what the reaction is.

If they look down the bench and Crosby is sulking or Malkin is picking his nose, that'll kill it for the quieter guys like Spaling or Sutter. And they'll lose that spark in most cases. If there's another guy, a voice of leadership, whether that's Crosby, or whether it's a guy like Scott Stevens or Shane Doan or what have you, that carries that momentum from the ice and through the bench, and then the next shift is an energy shift...maybe more physical play, maybe a good strong cycle, make 45 seconds of attack time, then the next shift is even better yet and then you start to feel that energy coarse through the bench. That's when momentum turns. It's a tangible feeling on the bench.

But it's delicate. What if you go for the big hit and the officials decide it was done illegally...? Now, you're considered to have taken a "stupid" penalty and your team is short and they feel bad about themselves for it and you really tucked them in for the night...like a lot of things in this game, it's a difficult balance.

[MRandall25]

Or how about this...you're showing no life in a playoff series. Let's say you're a talented team in, say, 2013 with a stacked roster who is in the middle of a historically inept series against, say, Boston. I'm not saying I like this strategy, but what's stopping a team from plugging in one of these guys for 15 minutes and just have them run around like a maniac?

Is the value of a big hit to turn momentum just something we make up as fans because we like the optics of it?

What would the point of it be? What does it add aside from a guy throwing his body around?

If your team can't get past a defense for whatever reason, how is hitting someone going to change it?

I don't really think it does, and there's no guarantee running around and hitting everything is going to change momentum, because picking the wrong spot to finish your check can put your team shorthanded, or you miss the hit, or you end up getting the worst of it.

It's like the "momentum changing" fight. Yeah, Max Talbot did it once and the Pens came back and won and everyone loved it, but somehow (this is looking at it in a vacuum, admittedly, a bunch of Pens getting into fights in the 2012 Flyers series does nothing but make people think they're losing their composure. Which I guess leads credence to the timing aspect of it?

However, I think it's kind of hard (for me, anyway) to imagine a situation where a hit is going to change momentum prior to it actually happening. The only way I think most people notice that the hit/fight changed momentum is after the fact. And there's never a guarantee that a hit (or two over the course of a game) is going to change anything aside from a mark in the hit column on the scoresheet.

I see what you're trying to get at, but I just can't really picture the situation in my head. I'm sure guys like you're describing have value in their role, but I'm not sure their role is one that can affect the game at all times, if that makes sense.

[meow]

So it's not like it takes a rare skill to be like him or Rinaldo, right?

It is a skill, but not a rare skill. Crosby has no idea how to properly deliver a body check because he's never had to learn how.

Do players frequently lay off when they could otherwise tattoo a guy?

Depends what your meaning of frequently is. I'd say yes to this. Lots of players will let a guy off the hook if it would be a wasted hit. Like a defensive winger moving out to his D man who is on the wall. Could you hit him? Absolutely, he is standing still and you have your wheels turning, but what purpose does that hit serve?

Is it a code thing?

Most likely not. Throwing a check doesn't feel great, so why add to the abuse your body is going to take if you don't have to.

A self preservation thing?

I would like to think so.

Is it the coaches wanting to keep things under control?

Eh, in very rare cases.

Avoiding penalties?

I believe that the Farnhams and Rinaldos of the world don't really care about avoiding penalties.

Or is it just a more nuanced art than I'm giving it credit for?

Not really.

What makes a guy skate on by rather than lay into someone?

Basically all your above questions. Coaching, self-preservation, pointless hits, etc...

One final thought. The hockey world, especially in the pro ranks, is a tight knit group. Look at Edmonton. That place is so inbred at this point, but the ring leaders are all boys, so the cycle continues and continues and continues. Most of the players are connected in some way. I played 30 junior games with him. We were on that 16 year old selects team together. I dated his sister for a year. His wife and my wife were college roommates. You don't want to scramble your wifes best friends husbands brain, do you? Imagine the next double date. Yeesh.

[Tico Rick]

Really thoughtful comments here. One thing I would add is the cumulative effect of hits. If you're Jaromir Jagr and you're constantly getting plastered by Brooks Orpik, you might hold up a bit the next time you cross the blue line.
Also, I think hitting usually takes less of a toll on the body than getting hit does. So there is some truth to the "grind those beeatches down" strategy.

[mikey287]

Early in a playoff series especially, Tico, this is often referred to as "investment hockey" - put in some hard, thankless work now in exchange for a bruised and battered opponent as this thing winds down.

Like arguing with a ref over a call, the hit you make in the first period of game 1 isn't for right then and there, it's for next time...

[meow]

I will say this: as a player, when you see one of your teammates obliterate a guy with a good, clean hockey hit, it gets you going a bit. You see the effort and battle level and it kind of makes you proud. Makes you question whether you are giving that much effort...

[mikey287]

Yup, bang on.

[shmenguin]

But in the "investment" scenario where it's game one in the first round and you're against a team that could get rattled if they start getting banged on, give me the thought process of why a GM/coach doesn't bring in 3 missiles to set the tone.

[meow]

But in the "investment" scenario where it's game one in the first round and you're against a team that could get rattled if they start getting banged on, give me the thought process of why a GM/coach doesn't bring in 3 missiles to set the tone.

What if those missles are each a -3 and you lose the first game? How are your typical 4th liners, guys that have bled, sweated, and cried for 82 games to get you into the playoffs going to take the healthy scratches? That is basically the gamble.

[meow]

Yup, bang on.

Coaches love that scenario. "Did you see Smitty just about kill that guy? And what did you do that period? Nice try with the toe drag at the offensive blue that went the other way."

[no name]

This comes down to Newtons 3rd law. Every action has a equal and opposite reaction. In other words... If you are going to go out there and "light up" the competition, you had better be ready to handle the other team coming after you. Farnham is more than ready and far more than willing to accept the consequences of his actions.

Not every player is ready to accept the other teams re-action to their physical sytle of play.

Plus some coaches want these type of guys on their team if you go out there and "I hate to say this" prove your smart enough to play this way its a big bonus. But some coaches want this some don't. If Farnham can play a regular shift I like having him out there. But usually you want a guy on the 4th line to bring something else like PK duty.

Vs Colombus, Boston and Philly I would be more than happy to give him the call up every now and again.