Team/Player Chemistry/Matchups

[joefromchicago]

Originally Posted by Javs

Wrong. You must have never played the game.

How can I refute such a compellingly logical argument? You've convinced me!

[Walsh06]

I dont see how you can say that relationships on a team dont affect how people play. If I am not happy with someone I will instinctively be less inclined to pass it to them (which I have done on occasions) and vice versa. Its not everything how people play together is a part of sport.

[joefromchicago]

Originally Posted by Walsh06

I dont see how you can say that relationships on a team dont affect how people play.

I don't see how either. Who said that?

Originally Posted by Walsh06

If I am not happy with someone I will instinctively be less inclined to pass it to them (which I have done on occasions) and vice versa.

You raise a good point. Selfish players who won't pass to their teammates just because they're being big babies about something that happened in the locker room can affect the way the game is played. You can call that "chemistry," I suppose, although I'd be more inclined to say that a player like that isn't particularly skilled at playing a team sport like hockey.

[Walsh06]

chemistry is the how well players function together as players and people. So their relationships play a big part of this.

[Matt Arnold]

There is definitely something, where certain players seem to perform better together than apart. Whatever you call it, it does exist.

But I would say, too that that changes over time. This last season, for Montreal, the Cole/Desharnais/Pacioretty combo worked great together - they definitely had good pixie dust between them. But next year that might change. Hopefully there is some notion in the game that certain players are "clicking" - and hopefully it's semi-obvious (even going so far as to have news stories occasionally of players not playing well together, or players requesting to be paired together on a line).

[RchW]

Originally Posted by UWHabs

There is definitely something, where certain players seem to perform better together than apart. Whatever you call it, it does exist.

But I would say, too that that changes over time. This last season, for Montreal, the Cole/Desharnais/Pacioretty combo worked great together - they definitely had good pixie dust between them. But next year that might change. Hopefully there is some notion in the game that certain players are "clicking" - and hopefully it's semi-obvious (even going so far as to have news stories occasionally of players not playing well together, or players requesting to be paired together on a line).

I'd call that complimentary skills. It's a chicken/egg scenario. The LA Kings are one win away from a Stanley Cup and may go 16-2 in the Playoffs. I can guess that their "chemistry" is as good as any team ever, but, the reason they are winning is talent and performance and good timing with a scoop of chemistry as the icing on the cake.

[damientheomen3]

And Johnathan Quick and an inept-performing Devils defense, of course.

[dave1927p]

Originally Posted by RchW

I'd call that complimentary skills. It's a chicken/egg scenario. The LA Kings are one win away from a Stanley Cup and may go 16-2 in the Playoffs. I can guess that their "chemistry" is as good as any team ever, but, the reason they are winning is talent and performance and good timing with a scoop of chemistry as the icing on the cake.

i keep reading the reference to (what i can only assume as sarcastic) "team chemistry" when it does not exist. We are not talking about team chemistry... sure some teams get along better then others but at this level, it's expected. The discussion is line chemistry and you continue to ignore that. Is there chemistry with certain Defence partners on LA present? I say absolutely. Is there chemistry with certain players on the same line...again i say yes. I've grown quite sick of this back and forth so this will be my last response to this regarding "Team Chemistry". It's clear you won't change your mind, that's certainly your prerogative to voice your opinon, as it is mine. All i will say is there have been plenty of skilled and talented teams beaten out by inferior teams in the past - Call it what you will, but it's present to different extents on all teams...and it's something that GMs prays will develop when making deals for certain players. To ignore an aspect like this is to ignore the difference between playing in a hockey crazed market like Montreal or Toronto versus one where no one knows a thing nor really cares. (Of course pressure exists in all pro markets but certainly in some more than others...i hope that's a feature for a future version )

[joefromchicago]

Originally Posted by RchW

I'd call that complimentary skills. It's a chicken/egg scenario. The LA Kings are one win away from a Stanley Cup and may go 16-2 in the Playoffs. I can guess that their "chemistry" is as good as any team ever, but, the reason they are winning is talent and performance and good timing with a scoop of chemistry as the icing on the cake.

That's a good point. LA was seeded eighth in the Western Conference playoffs. So where was all their "chemistry" during the regular season? If they had it, why didn't it translate into a better regular-season record? And if it developed during the playoffs, how can "chemistry" be distinguished from just playing well over a short span of time? In other words, what's the difference between "chemistry" and a "hot streak?"

[Hoiles]

There's a clear "greater/lesser" than sum of parts aspect in hockey that's not as apparent in a sport like baseball, which has less interactions and more predictability (e.g. a SS would throw to second on a double play regardless of the partner). How that team aspect would be handled in a simulation is a bit complex, more so than matching random "click" ratings like the old EHM. The familiarity aspect mentioned by Malte seems like a good start though.

[GMO123]

What is chemistry in hockey?
I think it's composed of many factors.
The list includes
- how long players have played together,
- whether they think the same i.e. have the same mentality or outlook about hockey and how it's played so that one player will know intuitively where the other player will be or go to,
- friendship will play a small bit in it (if you hate your teammate there will be at least a small reluctance to help the other player),
- complementary skills
- the coaching system/tactics is good for or complements the players (e.g. a very defensive system for very offensive players would reduce the chemistry of the players because it doesn't fit the mentality of the players)

I'm sure there are other factors too.

[Hoiles]

Another factor could be nationality/languages spoken.

[Javs]

Originally Posted by GMO123

What is chemistry in hockey?
I think it's composed of many factors.
The list includes
- how long players have played together,
- whether they think the same i.e. have the same mentality or outlook about hockey and how it's played so that one player will know intuitively where the other player will be or go to,
- friendship will play a small bit in it (if you hate your teammate there will be at least a small reluctance to help the other player),
- complementary skills
- the coaching system/tactics is good for or complements the players (e.g. a very defensive system for very offensive players would reduce the chemistry of the players because it doesn't fit the mentality of the players)

I'm sure there are other factors too.

You my friend have hit the nail on the head!

[Javs]

Originally Posted by joefromchicago

That's a good point. LA was seeded eighth in the Western Conference playoffs. So where was all their "chemistry" during the regular season? If they had it, why didn't it translate into a better regular-season record? And if it developed during the playoffs, how can "chemistry" be distinguished from just playing well over a short span of time? In other words, what's the difference between "chemistry" and a "hot streak?"

Injuries, and most importantly a coaching change. LA players all bought into the system at the right time. They also made a key move for Jeff Carter, which had to take time for him to regain his chemistry with Mike Richards and figure out the new system. After the trade deadline they slowly bought into Sutter's coaching style and from their the chemistry has shown.

And they play in one of the best divisions in the league, if not the best.