Crowd Noise @ Blues Game

[Thorny]

4 hours ago, SwampD said:

What if they already do, thus my different ways to win comment. Weave already showed that some good teams are hit leaders. What if those teams are winning because they are more physical and hit? What if the other good teams are winning a different way and don't need to hit.

Correlation isn't causation,... except when talking advanced stats in sports.

The stats are indeed saying this, though. Outliers to what's common don't disprove the general principle. You are correct that it's certainly possible to hit and win, but the stats bear out that it's not a common occurrence relative to other forms of winning, in today's day and age. 

If you gave me a blind decision between a team that hits a lot and one that does not, and that's all the information I had, I think you have to take the non-hitting team, if picking only for the goal of winning.

But to your point, there's certainly evidence to suggest that this Sabres roster, at least as currently constructed, could be a team that benefits from a larger hitting component. I don't think it would be a fair or accurate generalization to say that all teams winning while hitting are doing so in spite of said hitting.

Edited March 19, 2019 by Thorny

[SwampD]

15 minutes ago, Thorny said:

The stats are indeed saying this, though. Outliers to what's common don't disprove the general principle. You are correct that it's certainly possible to hit and win, but the stats bear out that it's not a common occurrence relative to other forms of winning, in today's day and age. 

If you gave me a blind decision between a team that hits a lot and one that does not, and that's all the information I had, I think you have to take the non-hitting team, if picking only for the goal of winning.

But to your point, there's certainly evidence to suggest that this Sabres roster, at least as currently constructed, could be a team that benefits from a larger hitting component. I don't think it would be a fair or accurate generalization to say that all teams winning while hitting are doing so in spite of said hitting.

And some maybe even because of it.

[LTS]

Since I came back from a hiatus to discuss Swedish games.. I perused the board and found this.

I was at this game with my son (his birthday present). 

The hitting, by the checking line, certainly brought the crowd to life.

The following shift, by the "skilled" players, kept up the level of intensity and the crowd fed off that.

It was stated somewhere in here, it's not the hitting.  The hitting should be done by those who are supposed to hit.  The skill players should be playing tenaciously.

It was probably PA who said something about "giving a ****".  That I agree with.  I think it's hard for them to care right now.  They know they are going nowhere, pride or otherwise.

This team has to learn how to play with about 3 levels more intensity than it does now. 

And yes, the atmosphere inside the arena was pretty special at that moment.  It harkened days of watching the Sabres route the Bruins, or watching them slap the Flyers in the playoffs.  Sure, the players feed off the energy of the fans.  The fans feed off the energy of the players.  It's a symbiotic relationship.  But only the players can play the game... they are the spark.