Archive for the ‘Systems Analyst’ Category

Today’s not your typical Systems Analyst post in which I break down a play that led to a goal or scoring opportunity. Earlier in the week I wrote this post that goes over the “Bruins’ defensive system” that you always hear about, and explained that they use layers to stop the opposition from cashing in after a single defensive breakdown. That was last Wednesday.

That night the Stanley Cup Final opened, which saw Chicago win the game in triple overtime by a score of 4-3. I thought the Hawks did a good job at times of making quality support passes to soft areas in the Bruins layers, so when I did my 10 takeaways from Game 1, I wrote this:

3. Blackhawks passes to soft areas in the offensive zone

One thing I noticed early (and I wrote this note about 10 minutes into the game) was Chicago creating opportunities by finding the soft areas in Boston’s coverage, and making great passes. And to be clear, I don’t mean the usual soft areas, this was different. It’s something elite teams can do that the dregs can’t. Use vision and skill to pass to areas you don’t usually see players. It was pretty clear they’ve taken a long, hard look at how Boston defends and decided to make the conscious effort to avoid the normal “set” offensive spots.

I don’t love how I worded that, because when I wrote it I was really thinking about a few three-to-five foot passes the Hawks made to get the puck to dangerous areas, and it was effective. Read the rest of this entry »

Not an image from the play in question, but hey, it’s Doughty at the point, good enough.

Last night I was watching the Los Angeles Kings’ top powerplay unit of Kopitar, Richards, Carter, Doughty and Muzzin threaten the Sharks net a couple times before ringing the puck off the post when a couple things stuck out to me. The Sharks’ penalty killing unit of Burish, Desjardins, Stuart and Hannan were often forced to make tough decisions, and that’s how the Kings got the opportunity that led to the very-near goal.

I wanted to break down the play and explain just what happens as I do in most Systems Analyst posts, but here’s the thing: to break it down as I usually would, I’d have to explain the role of all nine players in some depth, and that would take a couple chapters in a book.

SO. I guess what we’re left with is somewhat of an advanced post. You’ll likely need some basic positional knowledge to understand the points I’m making.

Here’s the play, and below we’ll look at the tough decisions penalty killers have to make.

Read the rest of this entry »

I really didn’t want to do up another Systems Analyst on the Leafs’/Bruins, because frankly, there are plenty of other great series going on right now that are worthy of attention. Unfortunately, the other two OT winners last night don’t provide any spectacular teaching points, and I’m mired in a city where I’m surrounded by hockey and it’s easier to provide a link to my opinion than to rehash it a dozen times a day.

So, here we are. I’ll make it quick and easy.

The video: Read the rest of this entry »

There was an interesting sequence in last night’s game between the Boston Bruins and the Toronto Maple Leafs.

Rich Peverly skated in on a shorthanded 2-on-2, got run over, the Leafs’ transitioned to offense, promptly turned the puck over and saw it sent back into their own end. They then started a powerplay breakout, turned the puck over again, and gave up a shorthanded goal. This was all in a span of about 20-25 seconds, and came within a couple minutes of the Bruins goal to go up 3-1 (which came minutes after the Leafs had made it 2-1). It wasn’t quite everything, but a lot of things were happening.

In a nutshell, Dan Paille’s shorty was the back-breaker for the Leafs, so let’s take a look at it and figure out just what the hell went on here.

***

Start at the 11:45 mark for the full meal deal (thanks to @HBAdventure for the video): Read the rest of this entry »

Last night after Alex Steen stole the puck from Jonathan Quick behind the Kings’ net in overtime and iced the game for the Blues, CBC cut to their panel of hockey minds to get some reaction and opinion on the game-deciding goal.

The lone ex-goalie on the panel, Kevin Weekes, described what had just happened with Jonathan Quick behind the net as a “miscommunication.” Kevin Weekes was wrong. And so, PJ Stock disagreed with him, and Weekes offered little more follow up then head shakes and disagreeable mutterings. He stuck to his guns on this one.

Occasionally, miscommunications (and thus, bad things) happen; this is a real thing in hockey. Also, sometimes that label is used as a copout for a bungled play by a goalie. But like skaters, sometimes they just doof up with the puck, and Jonathan Quick did.

Here’s what he had to say about the play:

“It’s exactly what it looked like. I tried to make a pass. He blocked it and scored. I don’t have an option to the left; you try to make him make a decision. And he got the stick on it.”

That should be all the confirmation we need, but whatever, I want to look at what went wrong in Los Angeles. Join me, won’t you?