An Essay on Quickness
Posted by jtbourne on August 28, 2009 · 16 Comments
ShareThis
Physically demanding sports continue to evolve - to quote Daft Punk (not Kanye) - “harder, better, faster, stronger”.
When it comes to quickness, they’re all evolving the exact same way.
Quickly.
Hockey, football, badminton, jai alai - you name it – have all seen “quickness” rise to the top of their list of ”most important athletic qualities”.
Because of this, we’re seeing an increase in the amount of younger players having success at higher levels. Not sure if you’ve noticed, but young punks tend to be quicker than withering geriatrics old punks.
So, as is my job, let’s take a closer look at how quickness is changing hockey:
Not that long ago, hockey was a game dominated by men with man strength. In the era I grew up in, that scintillating era of dump, chase, hook and hold, you needed all the mobility of a bubble hockey player if you were a strong dude.
Hatcher: played during the overpaid, hook n hold era
In my younger days, bigger, more um, adultish men, could simply chuck a stick across my stomach, and I’d huff and puff and pout and pray for one of those big lugs to catch an edge and fall so I could get a scoring chance, which I damn well had to score on if I was gonna be worth anything to my team.
For weaker, more dangly types, the rules made it so scoring chances weren’t created as often as they were waited on.
Then, the NHL (and North American hockey all together), put their heads together and realized “hey, I bet if we phased out big, talentless d-men, hockey would be fun again…”
So, with that simple epiphany, the game started to change.
Suddenly, big d-men were hustling around trying to put a leash on guys like Maxim Afinagenov, Daniel Briere and Marty Havlat, failing, and going home to write FML’s.
Today, I tried to put a bell on Patrick Kane, but when I went to run him through the boards to impress my coach, he put the puck through my feet, and I tripped myself trying to squeeze my skates together. As I fell, I managed to lose my top row of teeth on the dasher. FML.
Those slick, skilled guys are the real talents of the NHL. And, isn’t that what you want, as a league? The guys that’re the best at playing the game to be the most successful?
As a Canadian, I’ll always have some love for the big power forwards, but if the NHL (great idea coming) put together a 5’9″ and under game, and a 6’3″ and over game, I know which one would be more exciting to watch. And that’s not too say the skilled guys are all small (see: Perry, Corey) – but just to point out that we were minimizing the talent the league displayed under the old rules.
{Also, as a bit of a related thought, how great would Pavel Bure have been a decade later? Did this guy just miss the boat on becoming one of the NHL’s all-time most exciting players?}
{These are my new “complete tangent brackets”, btw. Here’s another one – Every team in the NHL should be afraid of Chicago this year- I’ll take them (with the dicey goaltending situation) to win the Presidents Trophy, barring major injuiries. August 27th, 2009}
Under those old rules, players could stay effective as they got older, because quicker players could be slowed down using any number of techniques. I remember, as a player at that time, when a guy would dump the puck, one of the opposing d-men would turn to get it. The other one played you like an offensive linebacker, literally trying to stop you from getting by him in order to give his partner more time.
With the rule changes allowing for quickness to be at a premium, today’s game looks a lot more like “junior hockey” – and I don’t mean that in a bad way. it’s exciting.
Yeah, I'm just gonna go ahead and be faster than everyone, thanks.
In junior hockey, guys over-pursue. They’re petrified of looking lazy, and constantly wondering what they should be doing, and where they should be going. So they just go anywhere.
The professionals of yesteryear tended to stand around, play smart and positional (see: Guerin, Bill), and jump when opportunity presented itself. Half the time, junior hockey players (WHL, USHL, BCHL etc…) skate away from where they’re supposed to be, simply to so they can be skating somewhere.
That waste of energy isn’t a major crisis for a young pup who’s legs and stamina bounce back like a trampoline with a sip of water on the bench, so coaches have found a way to harness this never-ending go-go-go, and use it as an advantage in the new NHL.
They find the smart, coachable ones (a rare quality). Then they spend some real time beating the simple defensive systems into the kids head. Then, the second this Alaskan sled-dog of a player crosses his own blueline into the neutral zone, the coach unhooks the leash.
Running commentary of the d-man backing up: "Shit, crap, shit, shit..."
The NHL isn’t tailored for Chris Chelios’s anymore. I’m not trying to rag on Chris, but sled-dogs really are the best analogy for how the youth movement looks in the NHL now.
“Lemme-go-lemme-go-lemme-go-I-can-run-wanna-run-wanna-run!”
Thankfully, Ovechkin happened to come into the league right when d-men weren’t allowed to jump on his back, grab him with a free hand and limit the fans entertainment.
His quickness (and the quickness of other young stars) has forced the NHL to re-arrange the priorities of what makes a D-man good, and it’s not just size anymore.
We’re finally being allowed to see, not only see which forwards are truly quick, but also how defenseman can break the mold and still be great. We have a whole new generation of d-men on the rise: Alex Goligoski’s, Matt Carle’s, and Duncan Keith’s, who can fly around and keep up with dangly forwards.
Quickness has made it so as GM, I’d rather have a slightly more mistake-prone young buck on my team than a plotting, plodding veteran.
These changes are happening, and it the transition hasn’t been very gradual. Fittingly, it’s been happening quickly.
I'm a hockey player turned writer. After playing for Alaska Anchorage in the WCHA (NCAA), I carried on with an NHL tryout (New York Islanders in 2007) before spending a couple seasons in the AHL/ECHL (last year was 2008-09). My father, Bob Bourne, won four Stanley Cups with the Islanders in the '80's, as did my fiancee's dad, Clark Gillies. I'm now the web editor for theScore's hockey blog "Backhand Shelf."
Question for you: do Gretzky’s numbers go up or down in today’s NHL?
He made monkeys out of the big idiots in the mid-80s. With quicker players and better puck movement in today’s game, does he score 150 goals a year? Or do more mobile d-men and positionally smarter forwards make him seem more human?
Interesting question, because I did the same exercise in my head with Bure. My best guess:
Gretzky’s number go down (Bure’s do too). I’m 100% confident in that part.
But it’s impossible to compare this stuff obviously – the game has changed so much, what with goaltending forcing scoring down (Gretzky would’ve scored 50 using a field hockey stick with guys like Peter Ing in net), skates and sticks have gotten so much better, and a lot of big guys can really skate now (aside from my Dad during that era, it was rare to by 6’4″ and nimble). A bunch of variables make it impossible to imagine plugging Gretzky as he was into the NHL today. He’d probably be considered slow by comparison, but with new skates… who knows?
But, if a guy with his gifts grew up to play in this era, I’m sure he’d be an absolute thriller. His mind was so far ahead of the game it was scary – even Crosby and Ovechkin don’t think the game like Wayne did; the game now is more reactionary than plotting.
That’s always the question when it comes to these scenarios – is it a “plug the guy in as is” question, or “let him be raised to play in that era with that gear” question? Because can you imagine plugging Alex Ovechkin into the ’80′s as is? With his light skates, and a huge curve on his composite sticks? He’d score 170 goals a year. I mean that. I think Alex Ovechkin in the early ’80′s might score damn near 200 goals.
But yeah, based on goaltending and opponent ability, Gretzky’s numbers would go down, but I’m not trying to take away from WayneO. He’d be absolutely deadly still, and it’d be a thrill to see what he could do with a couple of these young dazzlers on his line. Even though he may seem more human playing today, he’d probably still own the “Plays of the Day” all year with the amount of sick plays he could work with today’s improved passing.
Wow – that’s like two blog posts in one
and I’m with you on Gretzky, he’d be amazing but not *quite* so ahead of the curve.
I think the national hockey organizations also saw what was happening in Europe and Russia and started wondering if maybe they needed less Eric Lindros and more cowbell. Some of the international games from even 5-10 years ago featured enormous North Americans painfully chasing tiny guys around a big ice surface.
As much as I love the Gretzky point, it rests on the theory that maybe it was actually harder to score back then because of the hook-n-hold defense, but looking through the leading goal scorers each year shows that guys were having no problem putting up 50+ goal seasons (which makes me think Bourne’s previous points about fairly bad players sneaking into the NHL back then is true, those old games look like rugby on ice sometimes).
You’re so right about Bure, so many guys have had their careers rejuvinated by the rule changes (from Teemu all the way to the newer guys you mentioned like Briere or Perry) and you gotta wonder how fast Bure was if he was 150lbs and no one could grab him. Plus, come on, breakaway goals off your skate? Let’s see AO throw that down….
Ha, I knew you’d comment on this blog, you always like the more serious hockey ones.
First, great point on the Lindros thing. That wasn’t pretty to watch in international play (“What? 7th place again? Shocking.”)
I think I kind of muddled my point (so let me muddle it some more) – the hook and hold era, I think, was more towards Gretzky’s later years, and after his career ended in the early ’00′s. Hockey got bad when the goaltending got way better and men got bigger (both of which make for less room to score), and we didn’t limit the big men from grabbing the quicker guys. The trap was just a small part.
It was definitely easier to score in Gretzky’s day, but offense starting grinding to a halt (for the above reasons) before the NHL cleaned the filth out of the cogs and let the machine run smooth again.
I feel like in the early days of Gretters career, guys didn’t hook and hold as much because when they did, in those days, they had to fight to answer for playing “cheap”. Both of my “dad’s” claim that a lot more guys are playing scared than you can tell, only in their day, you had a better idea who it was because a good stern look could get a guy’s stick off your stomach.
I feel like this is an in-person backyard-with-a-beer conversation. Maybe next time we get together we can lock it up for long enough to have a normal conversation.
Didn’t AO kick it up to his stick last year before scoring a falling backhand in playoffs last year? Maybe not pre-meditated, but, ya know… decent.
I’m not sure how much the clutch and grab era hurt Bure, by the late 90′s his knee ligaments had already exploded 37 times. (That happens when you have 3% body fat and squat musk ox regularly) I would love to see Bure circa 1994 play in today’s nhl but Ove is just Bure 2.0 he has most of the same skills, bomb of a shot, dangles, faster than just about anybody with the puck, and every time either one has/had the puck it’s a scoring chance. Ove’s probably not as fast as Bure was but he’s 4 inches taller, 45lbs heavier and runs people with a smile on his face.
I disagree Ovechkin is the new NHL’s Bure. Ovechkin has the size and physicality that Bure lacked, making him less vulnerable to the cheap stuff, assuming he was playing in the scenario Pavel did. Like, switch them and Ovechkin would still be a monster, but Bure would be just the slickest forward out there. Not the best, but the most nimble and crafty. Ovie would have definitley fared better in that era, but besides the impossibility of time travel the comparison is irrelevant because of the aforementioned ‘raised during the era’ idea. Ovechkin growing up watching a different era would have influenced his game and he might have lacked the instinct to barrel through defenders, where Bure would try to dance around you, because that’s just how the Russian national team rolled back then.
Gretz however would be unstoppable. There is an air of creativity brewing amongst younger players that in the past was snubbed in favor of working your bag off. That’s still really important, but now that you don’t have to be a beast to make the league, the whole NHL style is undergoing a paradigm shift for the better. It’s pretty exciting.
With all the discussion about Wayne’s goal productivity, lets not forget that (perhaps) Gretzky’s greatest attribute was his ability to make other people look great. He had more than double the amount of assists (1963) than he did goals (894). If you could score, Wayne could’ve been in the popcorn stand and found a way to put the puck on your stick. Size and speed weren’t ever things Gretzky had in large quantities, but he made what he had work for him (and everyone around him). I imagine his adaptability would play over, even into today’s game. I agree that with better goaltending, better equipment, training, etc etc, that his goal production may not reach 100+ a season, but I can’t see his assist totals wavering, considering the likes of which he would get to play with these days. And with an equally large defenceman (skill and ability now included) surely still looking out for him, I do believe Wayne would find a way to still be a difference maker. I don’t think Bourne would be a big fan of his interviews though!
http://davecunning.wordpress.com
I too have to comment on this one. I think that rule changes are overrated. I do not think it has changed the game “that much.” Sure it frees up some time and space, but not enough to change the type of players that are the best. Gretzky’s numbers are inflated because goalies were awful. In the 90′s, goalies gear got out of hand, and yes, there was alot of trapping. Many people argue that the smaller player will emerge now that rules have changed, I still dont see it. Danny Brierre, Scott Gomez, etc are not guys that I would take when it is on the line. And as for dmen, you mention some good dmen, Keith, Gologoski, and Carle (Carle I feel is still a mess defensively and dont see being an All Star during his career) but these guys would have still been good dmen in any era, keith especially. Quick, puck moving dmen have always been in demand.
Im losing my train of thought… the point that I was going to make was that if I had to pick 6 Dmen on my team, Id prolly go with Chara, Lidstrom, Pronger, Bowmeester(spelling?), Phaneuf, and Green. All of these guys fit the bill for the typical stud in any era. They will always be the best, the game has not changed that much that a guy like Chara will not be in demand because he is not as quick as say Gionta… All of these dmen are also 6’2 plus.
You can look even further, what 12 fowards do you go with? Ovi, Crosby (5’10, but an exception), Lecaivilier, Heatley, Iginla, Getzlaf, Datsyuk, Sedin(s), Malkin, Thornton, Nash. You could make a serious argument for Parise, Staal, Toews, Kane, Vanek, and Zetterberg too. The only guys under 6’0 are Crosby, Parise(5’11), Datsyuk(5’11), and Kane(5’10). Size will always be the deciding factor, never quickness. I do not feel the NHL draft has changed much at all. If two players have equal talent, and one is 5’9 and the other is 6’2, the 6’2 guy will go higher 99.9% of the time.
On a side note, as much as I cant stand him for how lazy he got and awful he was with the flyers, if Dallas Stars Darrian Hatcher was available, any team would seek out a big, mean guy like that and pay him big dollars in todays NHL.
Hmmm, very convincing arguments, I like the point about the rule changes being overrated.
For those of you who don’t know, Ciocco played NCAA Div 1 (Hockey East, New Hampshire) and some pro hockey too.
I’m convinced in one aspect. You’re right that you’d still totally take the bigger guys if you were putting together your own team (by the way, ballsy of you to name the 12 best forwards in the league, black and white like that, well done).
But what the minor rule changes have accomplished is eliminate the big skill-less guys, so guys, like the ones you’ve named, can use their size appropriately – that being by using body position to protect the puck without someone reaching in with a free hand, or hooking them to slow them down.
We are seeing a different kind of player be “elite”. No way Parise was in the top 12 in the league if he plays between ’99 and ’05. Because his forte is that little burst of speed, and d-men can’t slow him down when he doesn’t have the puck (or when he does, without legitimate body position), he ends up in dangerous places a lot more.
So to some extent, it’s changed who the top guys are, I think. Which isn’t to say that being big and skilled isn’t still the best formula for success.
I dont want to beat a dead horse here, nor argue, that is not the intention. But the big skilless guys you are referring to may be the “goons”… That is a whole new blog topic… “Tough guy, a dying breed?” What happend was one team got smart and said, “hey, we just arent going to fight all the time, then we dont have to carry these slugs that cant play.” Instead, they called up their top players in their system to play on the 4 line. Then their fourth line went out and played against another line of all goons, they didnt fight them, they just scored against them. The coach on the opposing bench began stractching his head, “maybe these guys are on to something, why do I have 4 goons on my team when I only need one?” There will ALWAYS be 30 jobs for goons in the NHL, but there will not be 100 anymore.
There will always be 30 spots for a goon, but really there should be none. There has to be a difference between a goon, and a toughguy. A lot of people don’t take Hockey seriously because they see guys out there like Mitch Fritz (sorry) who can’t skate or even make a decent pass to keep the play going. If the shift we are seeing continues, there will be no more exclusive fighters, no designated slugger at all. The future of the role lies in guys like Lucic, Carcillo, Eager, guys that can grind it out and put pressure on the other team even if they don’t get on the score sheet every night. OId man Gillies is a good example. I like fights as much as the next guy but it has to be in the context of the game, Brashear vs. Laraque doesn’t really get me excited as much as Asham vs. Fisher would. The NHL has to get back to the scenario where you stick up for your guys by returning the favor, not dogpiling the player and making him sit for five.
Fritz is a bad example. The islanders didnt have many options last season. And with the barage of injuries, that basically paved the way for many AHL’ers to get a few or more games in with the big team.
So, cuz I’m that girl I looked you up Josh and lookie what I found: http://www.hockeyfights.com/fights/39103 heh.
As a long time anti-Rangers fan and follower of shorter-than-average hockey players it made me feel all warm and fuzzy to see 5’10″ you take down 6’3″ Mike Sullivan.
I just read Josh’s comments, those are really good points. You’re right, the goons are generally gone, the one’s left can skate and even score sometimes (what the hell happened with Ben Eager during that two month stretch..!?), D-men are still huge but they have to move fast now, and the best forwards in the game are almost always over 5’10. I haven’t really been watching hockey long enough to know, but were there small guys putting up big numbers in the past?
I can’t remember where I heard it, but apparently Zetterberg talked to Ken Holland about adding some toughness (a goon) to protect the skilled guys (himself), and Ken Holland told him “toughness is 5 guys scoring on the powerplay” or something along those lines.
what a great blog.
i mean, aside from pictures of kittens and tweets about pooping, it’s great to read about hockey from someone who’s played hockey. and high end hockey to boot, not just ankle bending stuff like myself. and to get comments from people who have played hockey, offering great insight. wow. i think i’m in blog heaven.
minus the poop tweets. (poop tweets – great band name, no?)
i’d love to hear what justin/hockey people think of ochocinco kicking extra points. how does marv lewis come out of that unscathed?