Clay Satow responds:

>> [UNH History Lesson]
>
> Thanks.  One example I might take mild exception to is Krog, who I think could
> play in a telephone
> booth.  I thought he was better than others in confined areas, but a LOT
> better on open ice.  The
> others I defer to your much more informed view.

Agree on Krog. I don't know if his soul was sold to the devil in '99, but I
have always been flabbergasted that he never produced in the NHL. Maybe a
question of speed I guess.
>>
> [. . . ]
>
>> My observation is that there is clutching and grabbing on the big sheet,
>> maybe not as much as on the small sheet, but it is there.  After all, most
>> teams' north/south game is played in the middle of the rink. Where it makes
>> a difference is on power plays. It's a lot easier to maintain control of the
>> puck on a sheet with wide corners like those at the Whit than on small
>> bandboxes like the one UNH played on last night at Merrimack.
>
> I mentioned my son hated playing point on the power play on big ice, because
> it was more width to
> cover to prevent icing.  However that was a summer league, so the power play
> wasn't particularly
> organized.  I suspect one reason that a power play can maintain control of the
> puck is that they
> can spread out farther, so if the PK concentrates, as most do, on protecting
> the slot, the PKers
> have farther to go to contest possession.  I personally don't care that much
> for power plays; the
> play is too static, and for the most part played on only a third of the ice.
> My worry is that on
> big ice, some teams would start to play that way even strength -- conceding
> the perimeter and
> contesting only the middle.

The only response I have is that you can play shinny out in the corners but
you can't score from there. UNH has done a very good job over the years of
playing with the puck on the perimeter, then getting it to the middle pretty
quickly. They have a lot of set plays for the big sheet that, surprisingly,
opponents have not caught up to.
>
>
>> I will say that speed still makes a big difference and, through the years,
>> UNH's speed has allowed them, by and large, to succeed at the Whit
>> (123-30-15) since it opened.
>
> An interesting statistic would be UNH's away record big ice/small ice.  If
> there's a disparity,
> and if the sample size is large enough, that may indicate that their game and
> personnel are better
> suited to big ice or small ice.

Well I just looked it up.  Away from the Whit, to date, they are 94-71-21.
Not sure how that disparity compares to other school's but it sure shows the
importance of home ice in UNH's success. It's why I was adamantly opposed to
plans to reduce the size of the rink when they came up a couple of years ago
at UNH. Fortunately, due to money, those plans have been scrapped.
>
>> I'd hate four on four and, let's face it, the player's union would never go
>> for it.
>
> Agreed on the second point, but I'd be interested to know why you don't like
> 4:4.

I think it would take the physical part out of the game. Not so much because
of the increased ice surface per man, but my guess is teams would be fearful
of a body check taking their man out of position and creating odd-man
rushes. No extra man to cover for an open wing, etc.
>
>> At 200 x 85, today's rinks have 17,000 square feet of ice surface. A
>> 200 x 100 would have 20,000. Don't you think that the extra 3,000 square
>> feet just might make a difference?
>
> This question isn't all that conjectural.  Is it your observation that the
> 3000 square feet makes
> a difference?

Clay, I notice from your e-mail that you are at MIT. Given that I needed a
Gentleman's B to pass a required stat course for my masters, I will pass on
the question. But it would appear that the more space there is to skate, the
more the game would open up, no?

Greg