My brother is LH but shoots right. I'm RH but shoot left. I used to be able to shoot either way, but haven't been able to for some time. Probably because of golf as I decided on left after a few years of being able to do both
If you ask me right handed people that shoot left are weirdos.
I actually think it's more common that way, but it's still wrong.
I am surprised at all the people saying that 'when they were kids RH people shot right" It isn't so. In hockey you want your dominant hand in the control position at the top of the stick. I'm left-handed and I shoot right. And when I was a kid in the 70s and 80s there were always far more LH sticks available at Canadian Tire than RH. Way more.
It is because of this that Canada has by far the highest percentage of LH golfers. Kids grew up shooting left in hockey and gravitated to LH clubs
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to N26 For This Useful Post:
I don't get this logic. The top hand guides the stick while the bottom hand exerts more strength in virtually any movement...stick handling, shooting.
It doesn't depend on the type of player you are (kids don't have a "type"), but it can effect the type of player you become. The top hand allows you to control the blade of the stick, so it can be beneficial to use your dominant hand there for quicker blade movement.
Nothing is written in stone, and as a kid you just do what's comfortable. But generally, players using their dominant hand at the top of the stick are superior stick handlers while players using the dominant hand at the bottom are better shooters. It's not black and white, just a trend.
The problem I have the post you quoted from N26 is nobody "wants" anything. You play how you're comfortable and kids have no clue what they "want" as player when they are 3 years old and learning how to play.
That said, I have two brothers, both play with their dominant hands on the bottom (one RH one LH) and they are both excellent stick handlers.
I'm a left handed dude who shoots RH. Made Goaltending very weird for me as I caught left handed. So I had to learn to shoot LH as well. I feel like my shot is okay LH but stickhandling is far better when I am playing right handed.
There are some right shooting RWers available but how much of a priority do you put that over BPA? It just seems like most Canadian kids these days shoot left handed. Interestingly enough I believe I read once US players are the opposite.
I am personally in the BPA camp and if it's close then maybe you go RH because the organization is lacking in that department. Given the number of picks the Flames have, I am sure you could find a RH shooting RW with a later pick if you wanted. Same reason I wouldn't be too worried about LH or RH shooting dman when drafting. Although once you start to form the team, it does become more of a priority to diversify imo. I really like Svechnikov though so I wouldn't be at all disappointed if we picked him up.
I'm 100% for BPA regardless of position. You do all this work to rank these guys so pick the guy you think is the best and has the greatest chance to succeed. You can always trade from areas of strength to address areas of weakness.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hackey For This Useful Post:
I'm 100% for BPA regardless of position. You do all this work to rank these guys so pick the guy you think is the best and has the greatest chance to succeed. You can always trade from areas of strength to address areas of weakness.
I disagree, you can't always trade for areas of weakness. We found that out with centres. If we want a franchise centre we have to draft and develop one. In these days the same goes for a franchise defencemen, so that would be my focus.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Vulcan For This Useful Post:
The thing that intrigues me a bit is how the Flames used Bennett in the playoffs as a LW. If they make that permanent, there is one player that has been mentioned that would make a ton of sense.
Jansen Harkins plays a similar game to Monahan. He doesn't have one skill that is spectacular but everything is a notch or two below that.
If the Flames were to draft him, he would be a good option to have a center because he is bigger than Bennett and is a good set up guy. That would allow the Flames to have two lines that are very similar with a steady two way center with a flashy offensive left winger.
I like Harkins as well but I think our focus should be on a defenceman.
As for Bennett IIRC he played centre the last two playoff games. I expect him to probably slot into our third line centre spot next season.
I'm 100% for BPA regardless of position. You do all this work to rank these guys so pick the guy you think is the best and has the greatest chance to succeed. You can always trade from areas of strength to address areas of weakness.
I'm for BPA as well but I'd argue that if you have a group of players ranked very closely together, then there is a good case to go with organizational need if the difference between the players in the group is minimal.
Also the best player and the one with the greatest chance to succeed are not the same so sometimes you make a decision between risk/reward.
I'm 100% for BPA regardless of position. You do all this work to rank these guys so pick the guy you think is the best and has the greatest chance to succeed. You can always trade from areas of strength to address areas of weakness.
Except we're seeing that high-quality defencemen are so coveted that you have to overpay for them in trades and free agency. It's very costly for teams to patch that particular hole.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
It doesn't matter if it's a high quality defenceman/forward/goalie you always have to pay a premium at trade deadline or FA. BPA is always the best way to go.
It doesn't matter if it's a high quality defenceman/forward/goalie you always have to pay a premium at trade deadline or FA. BPA is always the best way to go.
Like centres, the best ones just aren't available. Even a young secondary prospect defenceman isn't easy to acquire. There seems to be a shortage at the moment and that's why we had to go to Europe to sign a 27 year old who we hope can fill a spot.
and luckily for us there a few defencemen right at our #15 pick, so it isn't a stretch to take one.
Even for pro scouts, the qualitative difference between two players (eg. who is "better"? or, more precisely, who will become "better") is sometimes so minuscule that organizational need wins out. This is especially true when the same team's scouts disagree.
__________________
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to OBCT For This Useful Post:
Like centres, the best ones just aren't available. Even a young secondary prospect defenceman isn't easy to acquire. There seems to be a shortage at the moment and that's why we had to go to Europe to sign a 27 year old who we hope can fill a spot.
and luckily for us there a few defencemen right at our #15 pick, so it isn't a stretch to take one.
I think that "had to go to Europe to sign a 27 year old who we hope can fill a spot" is a tad overstated. And I don't think Nakladal and who we should take In the draft are at all correlated. We added a sought-after commodity for free. Due to injury our lack of NHL-ready defencemen was exposed, but that's not who we're drafting.
