Quote:
Originally Posted by cznTiburon
I respectfully disagree about a hit being valuable.
|
I didn't say they weren't valuable... just that they're not inherently valuable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cznTiburon
Look at ferlands goal against the kings recently, ferland hits muzzin who turns over the puck because of the hit and results in ferland alone in front to score.
...
You can look back to the playoff series against the Canucks too. It isn't one hit but all the hits that won the series. The defence started turning the pucks over like crazy when they knew that ferland/jones/stajan were all bearing down hard.
|
Exactly... you're proving my point. The hit wasn't what was valuable it was the turning over of the puck that resulted from the hit. If the other team retained possession of the puck then the hits had no practical benefit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cznTiburon
Just a couple examples of intangible measures of hits having a significant impact in the results of a game
|
I think it's entirely possible to measure Useful Physicality. It would basically involve taking Shot Suppression Metrics (since hitting is entirely a defensive tactic) + Penalty Differential (physicality that put you down a man... not useful, physicality that draws a retaliation penalty... very useful)+ Post-contact turnover rates (direct and secondary). Determine a common value scale and the proper weighting for each.