OT: Hockey Strategy
The discussion below RE: Dominique Ware (5'7'', 250 lbs) got me thinking about one of my favorite unexploited hockey strategies.
Can someone please tell me why some team does not go and sign some morbidly obese, 700 lb guy to play goalie, give him a crave case of White Castles, and tell him to go sit in front of the net for a couple of hours? He wouldn't even need to get off the ice for intermission...the zamboni could just drive around him.
Is there something in the rules that prohibits this (equipment size, etc.)? If so, I see a winnable discrimination lawsuit waiting to happen.
Also, we need to come up with a fancy description of this goal-tending style (i.e., stand-up, butterfly). Suggestions?
August 26th, 2009 at 4:37 PM ^
Even if you put such a guy in net there would be no way he could cover the whole net which means forwards could take advantage of the free spots expecially up top since ur 700 lb guy would never be able to get there in time to block the shot. Im hoping this was supposed to be a joke topic and you dont seriously think some team would actually do that
August 26th, 2009 at 4:51 PM ^
it is a toungue in cheek topic. I don't think a team will ever try it, mainly due to the integrity of the game, but it is not that far out of the realm of possibility. A hockey net is hardly gigantic, at 4' x 6'. A VERY large person wearing hockey equipment could most likely almost completely cover it, or at least leave only very small holes to shoot at.
I notice you have accumulated many negative points...McFarlin?
August 26th, 2009 at 4:37 PM ^
taking slap shots at Charlie Weis. that is all.
August 26th, 2009 at 4:49 PM ^
A regulation size hockey net is 48"x72". Unless the goalie is six feet wide (there are limitations on goalie equipment size) and above four feet tall, you actually need someone who can move around, which like, Montezuma can't do. I don't think you really thought this one through.
August 26th, 2009 at 4:56 PM ^
I have thought it through more that I would like to admit to. When the puck is in the defensive zone, you put a large defenseman on each side of 'montezuma' and just have them crouch down, sticks on the ice, to cover as much of the net as possible.
I haven't actually drawn a diagram of this yet, but perhaps I will work on it at some point.
August 26th, 2009 at 6:20 PM ^
scotty bowman, is that you?
August 26th, 2009 at 4:53 PM ^
People largely underestimate the accuracy of NHL/D-I college players. If there is an opening the size of the puck, they'll hit it probably 50% of the time. Plus, hockey nets are 6' x 4'. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone 6-feet wide (I know there are these people, but they are bed ridden and there are very very few of them).
edit: Posted at the same time. What he said.
August 26th, 2009 at 4:59 PM ^
is true, then how come in the all-star skills competition it routinely takes NHL All-Stars (other than Ray Borque) 8-10 shots to hit four targets the size of a large pizza with no defensive pressure?
I am not saying it would guarantee a shutout every game, but there is a pretty good chance it would result in less than 2 or 3 goals per game. And you could pay this guy minimum salary.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:04 PM ^
this would be an interesting experiment but which team would actually waste money on such a player. with the salary cap being in place most teams would spend that kind of money on other players not experimet players
August 26th, 2009 at 5:18 PM ^
Four targets. Eight shots. That's 50%, right? The size of those targets is 15 inches in diameter (what kind of large pizza are you eating?). Pucks are 3 inches in diameter. So possibly a little less than 50% would be an accurate estimation. However, that challenge is as much about speed as it is accuracy. Everyone in the NHL can hit those targets. But it's how fast they can hit them--this is what largely causes the misses.
In any case, you need to trust me when I tell you that NHL players would pick those goalies apart. You give them a clean look to the net that they know you can't get to quickly and they will not miss. As someone whose played with D-I players recently (a few from Bowling Green and MSU, to be exact) who never made the pros, I can assure you that the pros are that good.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:35 PM ^
trying to be a dick, but I think we just disagree here.
Using your numbers, you say that the elite NHL All-Stars can hit a 15'' target, with absolutely no defensive pressure and a clear shooting lane (forget about speed as a factor, because it is at least as much of a factor in a real game situation as it is in the skills challenge) approximately 50% of the time.
The area of a 15'' circle (pie times radius squared) is roughly 177 square inches. The area of a 3'' circle is roughly 7 inches. The NHL skills target is 25 times larger than the puck sized target. The hit rate would be way less than 50%, not a little less.
Add in the fact that all NHL players are not elite-level, and it would go down even more.
Again, I am not saying it is a great strategy, but it should not just be dismissed as an assinine rambline.
August 26th, 2009 at 6:10 PM ^
Also, how often do hockey players take rapid fire shots from a stand-still position? Sure, on the surface it seems like a much easier task, but it's not what they're getting paid to do and have spent decades practicing. Instead of having their momentum behind them and the ability to fully follow through, they have to generate all the power themselves while limiting their follow through so they can recover to the same position to take another shot. I'd expect considerably better numbers if instead of doing stationary rapid-fire, they just circled around and shot at the hash marks on a mini-breakaway.
And yes, the idea really should be dismissed as asinine rambling.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:15 AM ^
have you ever played hockey? You think that a player is more accurate on the fly than from a standing position? Trust me when I say they are not. I have played hockey all my life and at a high level as well (QMJHL at my peak. I have played with guys who now play in the NHL and none shoot more accurately on the fly. You get more speed on your shot but what you gain in velocity, you lose in accuracy. Some are still very accurate on while moving, there is no question about that, but to say they would be more accurate is simply wrong.
Also, the other gentleman who is arguing said these guys could hit a hole the sixe of a puck 50% of the time. That is as absurd as thinking a 700lb man could be better in net than an average size goaltender who has played hockey all his life.
August 28th, 2009 at 3:15 AM ^
Played my whole life except for 2,3, and 4 years ago since Michigan cut IM hockey, and I didn't have time for club and didn't bother finding a men's league team until senior year.
I disagree about the notion that what you gain in velocity you lose in accuracy. I think of it as the less your arms have to do to put velocity on the puck, the more they can do to guide it. I know I personally find shooting from a standing position to be especially awkward for that reason. Usually when you're standing still and shooting in a game, it's going to be a snapshot/slapshot one-timer, you're not going to be taking time to wind up with a wrister for extreme accuracy. And even when you do take your time, it's always a one-time affair. With the rapid-fire aspect, you really have to focus on controlling your body weight and not follow through fully, so you can quickly recover to the exact same position and then immediately shoot from the same position. The big thing is establishing a rhythm, and I'd imagine shooters have a much better rhythm for the kind of shooting while circling they do before every game and probably during every practice and then during games when they're shooting while skating up ice, rather than something that really only comes up in skill competitions and maybe messing around during practice.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:08 AM ^
Your measurements are good but you lumped Div. 1A players in with NHL players in your post. You are also talking about MHL All Stars who hit it 50% of the time, not the average player. While I agree that putting a 12 sandwich eating lard ass in the net isn't a viable option, your reasoning isn't really accurate.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:07 PM ^
Leg pads can only be 11" wide. No matter how big the guy is, he will give up at least half of the goal down low and since he can't move it will be easy for the players to score.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:17 PM ^
I have thought about this before too, but it just would not work. There is not a person big enough to cover the net, and if there is he would not be able to put on skates and be mobile enough to stop many shots on goal.
Also, goalies do much more than stop the pucks shot at them. They direct the defensive coverages, make break-out passes, and skate off the ice for a 6th attacker during the last minute of a game when their team is down (imagine a goalie big enough to cover the net do this, he'd make it off just in time for the Zamboni to do its final lap of resurfacing).
I guess I'd like to see how this experiment would do, but I guarantee it would end in failure.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:27 PM ^
i am a hockey goalie. so therefore i speak from experience.
a lot of goaltending is moving from side to side. a 700 lb monster would be hard pressed to get from one post to the other, not to mention that when he got there, the momentum would be harder to stop. so either there would be a lot of extremely easy bang-bang cross ice goals, or the goalie would end up sliding into the corners.
verdict: ineffective.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:43 PM ^
The ice would crack resulting in an abyss that officially brings both fatasses and hockey to China.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:44 PM ^
Think of a 700lb. man getting hit by a slap shot! There would be a lot of fat hanging out. I take it you don't play hockey either.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:46 PM ^
and actually, the other big aspect of goaltending is angles. a 700 lb dude 0 ft out of the goal is roughly the same as a 180 lb dude 10 ft out of the goal. the concept is to move with the shooter such that there are fewer and smaller straight-line paths to the net. as you get closer to the puck, the effective gaps get smaller. it's science.
so you're basically deciding between a non-mobile huge goalie or a mobile normal sized goalie. i'd take the mobile one every time. (and so would every hockey player... ever...)
August 26th, 2009 at 5:49 PM ^
i think the nhl's reponse is technically you can but the pads can only be so wide so if you want to have a slow moving 700 lb goalie who will be willing to take slapshots on essentially bare skin then you can have at it
August 26th, 2009 at 6:09 PM ^
As someone that played Junior A, I have to agree with the majority view. A few points:
1.) someone that size would not have the coordination to stand on skates
2.) there are equipment regulations
3.) any high caliber player can pick corners WAY better than you think (note: NHL players DO NOT take 10 shots to hit 4 targets)
4.) lack of mobility, if this person could stand, would be enough to negate the size issue
I have thought of this as well..dont get me wrong...but it just wouldnt work. Also, if it did....the 700lb monster wouldnt be getting the league minimum
August 26th, 2009 at 10:44 PM ^
Is there any rule that states that a goalie must be a human being? If not, someone should put an elephant in goal.
August 26th, 2009 at 10:46 PM ^
700lb monster wrote all over the board just sounds really funny to me
August 26th, 2009 at 11:29 PM ^
but it wuld be sick ... ive always thought of it since that old beer add had it (molson's cnadian i think)
August 26th, 2009 at 11:55 PM ^
I'm somehow reminded of the following story.
On August 19, 1951 the St. Louis Browns were hosting the Detroit Tigers in a double header. In the bottom of the 1st, Brown's manager Zach Taylor, at the behest of owner Bill Veeck, pinch hit Eddie Gaedel for leadoff batter Frank Saucier.
Eddie Gaedel, standing only 3 feet 7 inches, presented a strike zone of less than one foot. Despite advice from his catcher to "keep it low," Tiger pitcher Bob Cain walked Gaedel on 4 pitches, all high. A pinch runner replaced Gaedel after his only major league at-bat, and with an OBP of 1.000, the legend of the "Midget of St. Louis" was born.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:20 AM ^
I remember hearing that story, what an experience for a guy. +1
August 27th, 2009 at 10:19 AM ^
This would not work. A big human being just wouldnt be able to react fast enough. even with a 700 pound guy there would still be open areas
August 27th, 2009 at 8:05 PM ^
Yes, there would be "open areas" when facing the net head on. But at an angle (where often the puck is forced by the defense), I am not so sure there would be a lot of space to shoot at.
Not that I'm advocating such a ridiculous idea; but like the "midget of St. Louis" story I discussed above, its a gimmick and interesting to think about.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:21 AM ^
We already have the standup and butterfly......this should be termed the beached whale.