Bruins v Blackhawks June 22 2013 game recap
Today I met Ed Markey at the Coffee on the Common place on Main St. in Waltham. He expressed his enthusiasm for the Boston Bruins. So when I got home from meeting him, I finished up this report on the Bruins 2-1 defeat at the hands of the Blackhawks yesterday.
I watched most of the game, except for the times when I turned a watermelon into watermelon-juice, and the time when I went out and got 3 mcdonalds hamburgers and 1 value fries, which I brought home and combined with some old cheap tequila, because such seemed the right thing to do while watching a hockey game.
The alcohol-food combination did not work any magic in my mind or in my body; seems with the passage of time the alco-food combo declines in terms of its ability to produce a positive experience.
Watching the first period of the hockey game, I felt that the game was going to be a boring low scoring game. In the end it was 2-1 blackhawks except for a third goal scored on an empty bruins net.
From the beginning it seemed the Blackhawks were skilled, peppy, pretty in their movements-- in their red uniforms and dark helmets they looked like the famous British Changing of the Guards and Trooping of the Colors in London. Indeed their roster shows lots of English and English-Irish surnamed players. The Bruins by way of comparison are in terms of surnames a more ethnic team.
From the beginning, the Bruins did not look as peppy skilled or graceful as the Blackhawks. Compared to the Blackhawks, the Bruins seemed tall, heavy, oafish, clumsy, fatigued. I did not expect the Bruins to score more than a goal during the game; they ended up scoring just one while I was working on the watermelon.
So if I was the Blackhawks coach, I'd be thinking about how to exploit a situation in which you have the advantage in pep and skill but a disadvantage in weight (by 'advantage' here, I mean simply one weighing more than another, which is not necessarily a performance advantage). And if I was the Bruins coach, I'd be thinking how do you approach a situation where you have a disadvantage in pep and skill but an advantage in height and weight.
I was wondering if my perception of the bruins as tall clumsy heavy and the blackhawks as peppy and skilled was correct.
There are 32 Bruins and 27 Blackhawks listed on the rosters. Since 360/32 = 11, and 360/27 = 13, I looked at the Bruins who played at least 11 minutes and the Blackhawks who played at least 13 minutes.
On average, the heights and weights of the players looked at were: Bruins defenders, 6-2, 210 lbs; Chicago forwards, 6-1 200 lbs; Chicago defenders, 6-2 206 lbs; Bruins forwards, 6-1 203 lbs. Hence already it is evident, that the Bruins defenders were 10 lbs heavier than the Blackhawks forwards. This combined with the Blackhawks offense occupying center-stage, produced the impression that the peppy skilled Blackhawks were dominating the heavy sluggish Bruins.
I was wondering, how would the stats in the previous paragraph look if a player's time on ice was weighted in the average, so that the players with more time on ice counted more in determining the average?
Answer:
On average (weighted average), the heights and weights were (in parentheses, weighted-average average-player-weight compared to unweighted-average average-player-weight): Bruins defenders, 6-2, 213 lbs (+3); Chicago forwards, 6-1 200 lbs (+0); Chicago defenders, 6-2 205 lbs (-1); Bruins forwards, 6-1 204 (+1) lbs. Looking at the weighted average, the Bruins defender weight advantage (not necessarily a performance advantage) over the Chicago forwards rises from 10 lbs to 13 lbs; the Chicago defender weight 'advantage' falls from a mere 3 lbs to a mere 1 lb. The heavier Bruins defenders were getting more than their share of playing time.
I feel convinced that the 13 lbs of extra weight carried by Bruins defenders compared to Blackhawks defenders is significant. The difference is proportionately the same as the difference between 180 lbs and 192 lbs. I know that at 192 lbs I am more sluggish in soccer, compared to my peppiness at 180 lbs. I can mentally quantify but not express the difference between 192 and 180 lbs.
The Bruins defense problem could be approached by way of tactics that capitalize on the Bruins weight-advantage compared to the Blackhawks forwards; the Bruins offensive could be improved by way of tactics designed to capitalize upon the fact that the Blackhawks defenders do not outweigh the Bruins attackers.
Alternatively, the Bruins could alter the amount of playing time given various defenders, so as to reduce the time-on-ice weighted-average player-weight of the Bruins defenders, in the hope that a lighter defense could do a better job. And, the Bruins could alter the amount of playing time given various attackers, so as to assert a weight-advantage over the Blackhawks defenders.
Such tactics worked out in reverse might serve the Blackhawks.
I watched most of the game, except for the times when I turned a watermelon into watermelon-juice, and the time when I went out and got 3 mcdonalds hamburgers and 1 value fries, which I brought home and combined with some old cheap tequila, because such seemed the right thing to do while watching a hockey game.
The alcohol-food combination did not work any magic in my mind or in my body; seems with the passage of time the alco-food combo declines in terms of its ability to produce a positive experience.
Watching the first period of the hockey game, I felt that the game was going to be a boring low scoring game. In the end it was 2-1 blackhawks except for a third goal scored on an empty bruins net.
From the beginning it seemed the Blackhawks were skilled, peppy, pretty in their movements-- in their red uniforms and dark helmets they looked like the famous British Changing of the Guards and Trooping of the Colors in London. Indeed their roster shows lots of English and English-Irish surnamed players. The Bruins by way of comparison are in terms of surnames a more ethnic team.
From the beginning, the Bruins did not look as peppy skilled or graceful as the Blackhawks. Compared to the Blackhawks, the Bruins seemed tall, heavy, oafish, clumsy, fatigued. I did not expect the Bruins to score more than a goal during the game; they ended up scoring just one while I was working on the watermelon.
So if I was the Blackhawks coach, I'd be thinking about how to exploit a situation in which you have the advantage in pep and skill but a disadvantage in weight (by 'advantage' here, I mean simply one weighing more than another, which is not necessarily a performance advantage). And if I was the Bruins coach, I'd be thinking how do you approach a situation where you have a disadvantage in pep and skill but an advantage in height and weight.
I was wondering if my perception of the bruins as tall clumsy heavy and the blackhawks as peppy and skilled was correct.
There are 32 Bruins and 27 Blackhawks listed on the rosters. Since 360/32 = 11, and 360/27 = 13, I looked at the Bruins who played at least 11 minutes and the Blackhawks who played at least 13 minutes.
On average, the heights and weights of the players looked at were: Bruins defenders, 6-2, 210 lbs; Chicago forwards, 6-1 200 lbs; Chicago defenders, 6-2 206 lbs; Bruins forwards, 6-1 203 lbs. Hence already it is evident, that the Bruins defenders were 10 lbs heavier than the Blackhawks forwards. This combined with the Blackhawks offense occupying center-stage, produced the impression that the peppy skilled Blackhawks were dominating the heavy sluggish Bruins.
I was wondering, how would the stats in the previous paragraph look if a player's time on ice was weighted in the average, so that the players with more time on ice counted more in determining the average?
Answer:
On average (weighted average), the heights and weights were (in parentheses, weighted-average average-player-weight compared to unweighted-average average-player-weight): Bruins defenders, 6-2, 213 lbs (+3); Chicago forwards, 6-1 200 lbs (+0); Chicago defenders, 6-2 205 lbs (-1); Bruins forwards, 6-1 204 (+1) lbs. Looking at the weighted average, the Bruins defender weight advantage (not necessarily a performance advantage) over the Chicago forwards rises from 10 lbs to 13 lbs; the Chicago defender weight 'advantage' falls from a mere 3 lbs to a mere 1 lb. The heavier Bruins defenders were getting more than their share of playing time.
I feel convinced that the 13 lbs of extra weight carried by Bruins defenders compared to Blackhawks defenders is significant. The difference is proportionately the same as the difference between 180 lbs and 192 lbs. I know that at 192 lbs I am more sluggish in soccer, compared to my peppiness at 180 lbs. I can mentally quantify but not express the difference between 192 and 180 lbs.
The Bruins defense problem could be approached by way of tactics that capitalize on the Bruins weight-advantage compared to the Blackhawks forwards; the Bruins offensive could be improved by way of tactics designed to capitalize upon the fact that the Blackhawks defenders do not outweigh the Bruins attackers.
Alternatively, the Bruins could alter the amount of playing time given various defenders, so as to reduce the time-on-ice weighted-average player-weight of the Bruins defenders, in the hope that a lighter defense could do a better job. And, the Bruins could alter the amount of playing time given various attackers, so as to assert a weight-advantage over the Blackhawks defenders.
Such tactics worked out in reverse might serve the Blackhawks.
posted by David Virgil at 4:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home