Shift Length: Bruce Boudreau, Dave Tippett and John Anderson May Be On To Something
"Forty-five seconds is about what the body can handle. A player can go pretty good for 45 seconds. An exceptional player might be able to go for a minute. At 45 seconds, the player can recover and be ready to go back on the ice at a ratio of one in three shifts. If they go longer than that, it can affect them for the rest of the game."
- Ottawa Senators General Manager Bryan Murray
There's been some excellent stuff floating around on shift length the last little while. The Bryan Murray quote above is fairly typical of what most NHL coaches say, with the Detroit Red Wings being especially noted for sticking to a set time:
Detroit assistant coach Paul MacLean is never without his stopwatch, clicking it each time the Wings make a line change. "We use our own time," says Babcock, eschewing the arena stat sheet. For playoffs, he wants short shifts -- 40 seconds, tops -- making sure stars like LW Henrik Zetterberg stay fresh enough to sustain the tempo his two-way game demands.
The ESPN story linked above is a really good one by the way; it's got some excellent quotes from some of the better coaches in the NHL and looks at a tactical side of the game that's often ignored. I only saw it thanks to this article over at Jaspers' Rink; an article that pointed out how Alexander Ovechkin takes incredibly long shifts and compared those to other NHL teams. Most NHL teams don't vary from this much; for example, Oilers forwards under Craig MacTavish had an average shift length of between 39 and 48 seconds for every player; that's actually a tighter range than even the Red Wings (37 - 47 seconds).
Few teams were tighter than the Oilers, but nearly every NHL team fell into a similar, tightly controlled range. The exceptions were Atlanta, Dallas, and Washington.
In Atlanta, Ilya Kovalchuk led all NHL forwards with an average of 66 seconds per shift, and eight different players had average shift lengths exceeding 48 seconds. Dallas had ten forwards topping that 48 second mark, while Washington had only two regulars (David Steckel and Boyd Gordon) play less than 48 seconds per shift.
What difference does it make? I'm not completely sure. Lions in Winter had a great piece on this that's well worth looking at, focusing on the physiological side of things and making a great point on how this became engrained in hockey tradition:
The 45 second shift rule became popular at a time when it was probably more applicable. A time when players' idea of preparing for the season was drinking 12 beers a day instead of 18 for the month of August.
It's a point worth noting. It's also worth noting that the three coaches who have made a habit of breaking the 45-second rule (Dave Tippett, John Anderson and Bruce Boudreau) all had long, successful stints in the AHL or IHL, and all have won championships at that level (eight championships between the three of them). All are exceptional coaches, and I really think they're on to something with this. It may well be that something currently perceived as a weakness (long shifts) is in fact working in their favour; player conditioning has come a long way and perhaps it's time to have another look at this sort of thinking.
0 recs |
9 comments
|
Comments
Great post Jonathan. It’s certainly interesting to see different coaches using different strategies. Unfortunately, it’s the kind of thing that doesn’t have an obvious means for evaluation. I think it might be good to also separate it out into game states since I know that both Ovechkin and Kovalchuk tend to stay out for incredibly long PP shifts. If the phenomenon is apparent at EV as well (I’m sure it is to some degree), the obvious disadvantage is that your team is more likely to get caught with tired players on the ice. The only obvious advantage I can see is that your players have fewer opportunities for a bad line change and you spend more time, as a team, playing hockey and less time skating to and from the bench. This would be especially true in the second period. I’m really not sure how much advantage in terms of expected goals this could possibly make but I’d imagine not much. That said, I’ve been wrong before.
by Scott Reynolds on May 9, 2009 6:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
When Malkin scored his winning goal last night, he had been on the ice for 2 minutes. He was still able to overpower the Caps dman and make a scoring chance. Crosby was on the same amount of time and was able to make the 2 on 1 happen as well. Any other coach, I imagine that goal doesn’t happen.
by James Gunner on May 10, 2009 6:16 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I actually think this kind of long shift length happens with more and more coaches on the PP. Often Ovechkin stays out for the whole PP and certainly Kovalchuk in Atlanta. Apparently Malkin and Crosby last night. There may well be others that aren’t jumping to mind.
by Scott Reynolds on May 10, 2009 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Anyone else notice Bradley grabbing Ovechkin’s junk?
by Jon Kerber on May 10, 2009 7:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
45 seconds according to Bryan Murray
Hi John,
Lions in Winter blogger here. Thanks for the recognition. When did I write that?
Anyway, speaking as a former competitive swimmer, I can tell you the 45 second thinking is very accurate. The problem with applying it in hockey is that it assumes that each player will be sprinting for close to the full 45 seconds.
I think anyone who watches hockey knows that not every player sprints or gives top exertion over a whole shift. In Montreal, for example, Kovalev skates as fast as defenders without even moving his legs. He doesn’t look tired after 45 seconds because he isn’t..
The trick I suppose is knowing when your players are crossing that anaerobic threshold. When Calgary and Edmonton made their respective finals recently, I would say that most players were exrting themselves to the top level and would have built up lactic acid with shifts any longer. My point as with all dogmatic thinking is that 45 seconds is the right approach for every situation. It’s not.
by Topham on May 11, 2009 4:21 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the link… but it’s Japers’ Rink. Japers’! ;-)
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on May 12, 2009 7:57 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Please excuse us Albertans (or Western Canadians)! I noticed a while back that Kent (Flames blogger extraordinaire) was making the same typo. (Jasper is a National Park in northern Alberta – so that’s the excuse)
by Greg.O on May 12, 2009 8:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry!
I’ll get it right in future ;)
It's only my opinion, but it's right.
Writer for The Copper & Blue, OilersNation, and CanucksArmy.
by Jonathan Willis on May 12, 2009 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 





















