righty/lefty

hi,

can someone post who is right-handed and who is a lefty on the team? thanks.

Moulson, Cam Abbott, Knoepfli, Pokuluk, Scott, Pegoraro, Glover, Downs, Varteressian.

[Q]calgARI '07 Wrote:

Moulson, Cam Abbott, Knoepfli, Pokuluk, Scott, Pegoraro, Glover, Downs, Varteressian.[/q]


...are lefties.

D's switch sides sometimes. Do wings? Do our wings?

Also McCleod (21) and McKeown (16). IIRC, Salmela is too.

Hockey is different because even if you write or throw right you may shoot left. And you may shoot left but still be right defense. There's an advantage to being a left-shooting left defenseman to keep the puck from coming out along the boards at the blue line, and to take a crossing pass on power play. A left-shooting left wing has a worse angle on the net (all other things being equal) but can deflect a puck more naturally.

Players playing their natural wing can catch a pass on their forehand while skating up the ice or waiting for a breakout pass. The only negative is that its tough to cut into the middle of the ice and shoot.

I wonder if there ever was quantitative testing of curved vs. straight sticks. Does the quality, speed, accuracy (?) of the shot outweigh its drawbacks on the backhand side?

[Q]billhoward Wrote:

I wonder if there ever was quantitative testing of curved vs. straight sticks. Does the quality, speed, accuracy (?) of the shot outweigh its drawbacks on the backhand side? [/q]

Without question. How much more do you use your forhand than backhand?

It could also be effect and cause. Once you're using a curved stick, you may alter your style of play so more of the things you do are forehand. I'm speculating here.

[q]Without question. How much more do you use your forhand than backhand?[/q]Bill asked about quantitative testing. You're relying on qualitative arguments. You're probably right, based on the fact that curved sticks are the norm. But sometimes people do the "wrong" thing based on a perception. Maybe a real quantitative study shows that the optimal curvature, that balances forehand advantages with backhand disadvantages weighted by frequency of use, is less curved than typical today. Or not, I don't know. (The answer would depend on the player too... position and playing style).

For what it's worth CalgAri'07 is right handed and has always shot left. Even as a little boy in youth hockey, he naturally shot left. I always thought that his shooting left in hockey helped his tennis backhand (he holds a tennis racket in his right hand) which is stronger than his forehand. Now that I've embarrassed him...

Larry '72

[Q]billhoward Wrote:

I wonder if there ever was quantitative testing of curved vs. straight sticks. Does the quality, speed, accuracy (?) of the shot outweigh its drawbacks on the backhand side? [/q]

I'm at a total loss as to how one could do this quantitatively. At first I thought that it might be straightforward to compare speed and accuaracy of shooting with curved and straight sticks because at least you could measure those. But the only meaningful comparison would be a real player shooting, and a real player today will have grown up with one or the other and only be able to perform optimally with the familiar one. Even if you could make speed and accuracy quantitative (forget the abstract "quality ... of shooting", how can you measure the drawbacks? And how would you measure the relative weights of the factors? I also remember claims at the time that a puck shot with a curved stick had a tendancy to move vertically in a less predictable way, giving goalies additional difficulty.

Still, it's an interesting question worth asking. You might be able to do the equivalent of an epidemiological study. For every player who switched in mid-career, did his line score more points per minute played before or after switching? Or better yet, look at the +/- goals. In the end that's all that counts. It folds in better shooting, maybe better passing, and any loss in pass receiving and puck handling.

It's easier to pose questions than answer them about sports and sports equipment performance. Sometimes the conventional wisdom isn't what it seems. I recall (switching sports) that corked bats really don't help batters.

Some hard-core motorcycle fanatics say helmets are actually dangerous because they reduce your hearing and to some extent your vision and because in an accident they make your head weigh more and put more stress your your neck and you have more mass hitting the pavement or a bridge abutment, thus the helmet increases your chances of being injured. I think that's been debunked but it's not unreasonable to test out the hypothesis. (Debunked to the satisfaction of scientists, not necessarily to some of the Ride Free bikers.)

You could have a slapshot machine and wrist shot machine that could help measure puck speed and loft with X amount of force applied to the stick, straight and curved. I don't know how you'd measure confidence in stickhandling or the effect on backhand shots. And machines aren't people.

Mostly I got to thinking about this watching peewee hockey seeing kids unable / unwilling to take backhand shots and in some cases pivotiing 270 degrees in order to come about for a forehand shot (assuming they didn't lose the puck while rotating). It ain't college or pro hockey, and you have 10, 15, 20 seconds of free time as the kids mount a charge up ice before they're all safely in the attacking zone.

Oh, I certainly agree that it's generally easier to pose a question than answer it, sports or otherwise. I've judged quite a few science fairs over the last 15 years and have seen some ingenious attempts middle school and elementary school students to measure the behavior of baseball bats and balls and such. Some had a better understanding of a controlled experiment than others. I think that it is easier to get relevant answers to those baseball questions to than hockey stick questions. It seems to me that there is a closer interaction between technique and tool with a hockey stick than with a baseball bat, but in both cases the optimum tool depends on how it is being used - the slugger versus the singles hitter, for example.

Even if it is not quantitative, I think that over the years the tool that gives an advanatge will win out if the rules aren't amended to ban it. The younger players will emulate the pros and adapt to whatever equipment is available. But the pros can get what they want and their career depends on getting an edge. For some it may just be psychological, but that's OK. With time the superior design will win out. It is interesting how various sports react to technical advances - embracing, limiting, or banning them.