Is this the turning point???

[nutman]

Nik Nik Nik..... Don't Reimers Quote count, after all he is a player on our team. If he is on the ice for our team, and says the noisey fans give the players a lift, then why would you doubt it.  I would take your opinion a bit more seirous if it wern't for the fact our #1 goalie disagrees with you.
Evidence is undeniable when comming from the mouth of a guy who is there every game, and one of the players in question.

Linguo...is...dead...

Its a shame when your argument is squashed like that, ha ha ha.  changing the subject just dont cut it Nik.

 

[nutman]

Nik...Why when someone makes a good point do you make fun of them.

 

[Corn Flake]

Sure fans can give the team a lift. But the team has to give the fans something to cheer about, as they did in the 3rd period of that game after putting up two pretty lousy periods before that. 

Chicken and the egg.  the fans in the ACC get loud when they are given an on-ice reason to.  It's always been that way.  Lull them to sleep with two crappy periods and sure when you come out for the 3rd finally ready to play they will get excited.  Duh.

 

[Champ Kind]

Nik...Why when someone makes a good point do you make fun of them.

You do make a good point, Nutman.  But really, what would you expect Reimer to say?  That the home fans - the ones paying the bills, after all - have no impact at all?  That the play would be the same even if the building was empty? 

Fact is, a loud building can be motivation for both the home and visiting squad.  I agree a lively crowd can help build momentum for the home team, but it can just as much provide the visiting squad with added energy and drive in trying to "shut the home crowd up".   

Nik has pointed out some important facts and yet you're simply focused on Reimer's opinion that, while valid, can be easily explained away.

 

[Kin]

I think there's probably some truth to the idea that a loud and raucous atmosphere in an arena gives a jolt to players. I think, though, there are two problems with the way that advocates of crowd noise try and present that though:

1) I don't necessarily think that a "pumped up" player plays better.

2) By far more important is that I think the atmosphere affects all players. Home and away. I think I could find hundreds of quotes from athletes saying something along the lines of "The crowd was really jumping tonight and it got us pumped up for the game" from visiting players. Lots of basketball players have said that the atmosphere at Madison Square Garden inspires them to especially bring it when they play the Knicks. ESPN essentially made an entire documentary about how Reggie Miller felt that way.

I don't really know what the counter point to that would be. People say that crowd noise inspires some sort of visceral reaction in players but then think that it's a conscious enough effect that a player can rationalize it as "Oh wait, all of that noise is for the other team. I guess I should be intimidated rather than energized"? That just doesn't make any sense.

So can crowd atmosphere raise the level of play? Sure. Does it give one team the advantage over the other? Again, there's just nothing in the way of any actual fact that supports the idea.

 

[nutman]

Nik...Why when someone makes a good point do you make fun of them.

You do make a good point, Nutman.  But really, what would you expect Reimer to say?  That the home fans - the ones paying the bills, after all - have no impact at all?  That the play would be the same even if the building was empty? 

Fact is, a loud building can be motivation for both the home and visiting squad.  I agree a lively crowd can help build momentum for the home team, but it can just as much provide the visiting squad with added energy and drive in trying to "shut the home crowd up".   

Nik has pointed out some important facts and yet you're simply focused on Reimer's opinion that, while valid, can be easily explained away.

So tell me if you were out on the Dimond and ready to bat, and all the fans were chanting your name, would it not charge you up.

 

[Kin]

You do make a good point, Nutman.  But really, what would you expect Reimer to say?  That the home fans - the ones paying the bills, after all - have no impact at all?  That the play would be the same even if the building was empty? 

Well, sorry to call BS on your first sentence there but being as the central premise here is that there's a problem with the atmosphere at the ACC the "point" you're referring to is actually contradictory to that. Whatever Reimer said, and I have yet to see an actual quote, seems to be operating under the premise that whatever positive impact the fans can have on a home team, the ACC fans were fully capable of providing on a Monday night game against the Devils, "empty" platinum seats and all.

Regardless of the fact that I think the basic underlying argument, that fan noise impacts a game, is bunk the Reimer "quote" stands in direct contrast to the idea that the ACC crowd isn't a good one.

 

[nutman]

I think there's probably some truth to the idea that a loud and raucous atmosphere in an arena gives a jolt to players. I think, though, there are two problems with the way that advocates of crowd noise try and present that though:

1) I don't necessarily think that a "pumped up" player plays better.

2) By far more important is that I think the atmosphere affects all players. Home and away. I think I could find hundreds of quotes from athletes saying something along the lines of "The crowd was really jumping tonight and it got us pumped up for the game" from visiting players. Lots of basketball players have said that the atmosphere at Madison Square Garden inspires them to especially bring it when they play the Knicks. ESPN essentially made an entire documentary about how Reggie Miller felt that way.

I don't really know what the counter point to that would be. People say that crowd noise inspires some sort of visceral reaction in players but then think that it's a conscious enough effect that a player can rationalize it as "Oh wait, all of that noise is for the other team. I guess I should be intimidated rather than energized"? That just doesn't make any sense.

So can crowd atmosphere raise the level of play? Sure. Does it give one team the advantage over the other? Again, there's just nothing in the way of any actual fact that supports the idea.

Very good points. myself I think if the chanting is pointed your way it will give you just a bit more drive. and sure the other team will or should get a lift as well. is this not the reason home ice advantage comes in to play, other then you know the rink better, and such.

 

[nutman]

Reimer made the comment in an interview on the ice after the game.

 

[louisstamos]

Nik...Why when someone makes a good point do you make fun of them.

You do make a good point, Nutman.  But really, what would you expect Reimer to say?  That the home fans - the ones paying the bills, after all - have no impact at all?  That the play would be the same even if the building was empty? 

Fact is, a loud building can be motivation for both the home and visiting squad.  I agree a lively crowd can help build momentum for the home team, but it can just as much provide the visiting squad with added energy and drive in trying to "shut the home crowd up".   

Nik has pointed out some important facts and yet you're simply focused on Reimer's opinion that, while valid, can be easily explained away.

So tell me if you were out on the Dimond and ready to bat, and all the fans were chanting your name, would it not charge you up.

To be fair, people respond to it in different ways - in your example, if I'm up to bat (or kick, as a regular kickball player ) and people are chanting my name, depending on the situation in the game, it could potentially make me more nervous. (i.e: afraid of screwing up, letting those people down).  If they're chanting my name after I've hit a double, then it would for sure charge me up - but at that point, I've already done what I've needed to do (this second one could apply to Reimer's situation - the crowd went ballistic after he made his huge save.  I'm sure it felt great for him, but it wasn't the reason he made that huge save).

And I do agree with Nik - I don't think there's a quantifiable measurement that a professional athlete plays better when they're "pumped up."  The only situation that I can think of where it could have an effect is if the player is not giving their all due to fatigue/injury/some other reason, and the crowd cheering him on or pumping him up causes him to try harder and play at their best.  But, you would expect a professional athlete to have the drive to try their hardest all the time on their own, no?

 

[rdowdall]

Nik...Why when someone makes a good point do you make fun of them.

You do make a good point, Nutman.  But really, what would you expect Reimer to say?  That the home fans - the ones paying the bills, after all - have no impact at all?  That the play would be the same even if the building was empty? 

Fact is, a loud building can be motivation for both the home and visiting squad.  I agree a lively crowd can help build momentum for the home team, but it can just as much provide the visiting squad with added energy and drive in trying to "shut the home crowd up".   

Nik has pointed out some important facts and yet you're simply focused on Reimer's opinion that, while valid, can be easily explained away.

So tell me if you were out on the Dimond and ready to bat, and all the fans were chanting your name, would it not charge you up.

To be fair, people respond to it in different ways - in your example, if I'm up to bat (or kick, as a regular kickball player ) and people are chanting my name, depending on the situation in the game, it could potentially make me more nervous. (i.e: afraid of screwing up, letting those people down).  If they're chanting my name after I've hit a double, then it would for sure charge me up - but at that point, I've already done what I've needed to do (this second one could apply to Reimer's situation - the crowd went ballistic after he made his huge save.  I'm sure it felt great for him, but it wasn't the reason he made that huge save).

And I do agree with Nik - I don't think there's a quantifiable measurement that a professional athlete plays better when they're "pumped up."  The only situation that I can think of where it could have an effect is if the player is not giving their all due to fatigue/injury/some other reason, and the crowd cheering him on or pumping him up causes him to try harder and play at their best.  But, you would expect a professional athlete to have the drive to try their hardest all the time on their own, no?

Well it looks like we are going to have to do another study where we hook electrodes up to someones brain.  I'll go get the jumper cables....

 

[bustaheims]

Reimer made the comment in an interview on the ice after the game.

Of course he did. Years and years of watching hockey and having coaches/the media/fans tell him that fans are supposed to energize the players have conditioned him to believe it. That doesn't make it true - especially when there's no objective evidence to back it up.

 

[Champ Kind]

You do make a good point, Nutman.  But really, what would you expect Reimer to say?  That the home fans - the ones paying the bills, after all - have no impact at all?  That the play would be the same even if the building was empty? 

Well, sorry to call BS on your first sentence there but being as the central premise here is that there's a problem with the atmosphere at the ACC the "point" you're referring to is actually contradictory to that. Whatever Reimer said, and I have yet to see an actual quote, seems to be operating under the premise that whatever positive impact the fans can have on a home team, the ACC fans were fully capable of providing on a Monday night game against the Devils, "empty" platinum seats and all.

Regardless of the fact that I think the basic underlying argument, that fan noise impacts a game, is bunk the Reimer "quote" stands in direct contrast to the idea that the ACC crowd isn't a good one.

The point Nutman makes is relevant, Nik, in so much that he accurately reported Reimer's quote.  He's also right in saying that the player's opinion should be accepted over that of us Monday morning quarterbacks and retrospective analyzers.  What I'm saying, though, is very much along the lines of what Busat said in his lat post - what on earth do you expect Reimer to say in that situation, post game, in a live 30 second interview while he's still on the ice in front of fans happy theLEafs pulled out the win?  That the crowd noise had nothing to do with it?

Look, I think Nutman can take Reimer at his word and he's free - scratch that, probably right - to do so.  His argument in this regard, is not BS.  I guess what I'm saying is that I find Reimer to be either naive, pandering, or a little of both.

 

[Kin]

The point Nutman makes is relevant, Nik, in so much that he accurately reported Reimer's quote.

Just saying "Reimer said X" isn't really a point though, is it? And, with all due respect, I still haven't actually seen a quote so I don't know to what extent it's accurate or not.

  He's also right in saying that the player's opinion should be accepted over that of us Monday morning quarterbacks and retrospective analyzers.

I'm going to have to disagree here. Leaving aside that athletes aren't necessarily the most reflective and introspective sorts at the best of time, that Reimer said that he was inspired by the crowd on Monday night isn't relevant because it doesn't actually address what I was talking about which is the measurable impact of fan noise on a team's actual ability to win a game. With all due respect to James Reimer, his opinion on that subject matter isn't more valid than anyone elses. He is certainly more qualified to say what impact a noise level has on him, even if as busta says he's not necessarily in the best position to, but that's not really the question.

Again, I'm talking about quantifiable data analysis. Teams are hiring lots of people to do that for them and the people they're hiring? Tend not to be ex-players.

 

[nutman]

The point Nutman makes is relevant, Nik, in so much that he accurately reported Reimer's quote.

Just saying "Reimer said X" isn't really a point though, is it? And, with all due respect, I still haven't actually seen a quote so I don't know to what extent it's accurate or not.

  He's also right in saying that the player's opinion should be accepted over that of us Monday morning quarterbacks and retrospective analyzers.

I'm going to have to disagree here. Leaving aside that athletes aren't necessarily the most reflective and introspective sorts at the best of time, that Reimer said that he was inspired by the crowd on Monday night isn't relevant because it doesn't actually address what I was talking about which is the measurable impact of fan noise on a team's actual ability to win a game. With all due respect to James Reimer, his opinion on that subject matter isn't more valid than anyone elses. He is certainly more qualified to say what impact a noise level has on him, even if as busta says he's not necessarily in the best position to, but that's not really the question.

Again, I'm talking about quantifiable data analysis. Teams are hiring lots of people to do that for them and the people they're hiring? Tend not to be ex-players.

If I took a poll of say 1500 people, and then you did the same in another spot at the same time, I'll bet the two polls would be far apart on there results.  so polls are no better then guessing.  I'll take a players comment and trust it first any day.

 

[bustaheims]

If I took a poll of say 1500 people, and then you did the same in another spot at the same time, I'll bet the two polls would be far apart on there results.  so polls are no better then guessing.  I'll take a players comment and trust it first any day.

But, he's not talking about polls. He's talking about legitimate scientific style research. There's an ocean of difference between the two. I agree that polls aren't a great measure of garnering quality information, but, real scientific style research - that's a completely different story. They're about getting as close to the facts as possible, and I'll take that over the biased/conditioned opinion of players every day of the week.

 

[nutman]

If I took a poll of say 1500 people, and then you did the same in another spot at the same time, I'll bet the two polls would be far apart on there results.  so polls are no better then guessing.  I'll take a players comment and trust it first any day.

But, he's not talking about polls. He's talking about legitimate scientific style research. There's an ocean of difference between the two. I agree that polls aren't a great measure of garnering quality information, but, real scientific style research - that's a completely different story. They're about getting as close to the facts as possible, and I'll take that over the biased/conditioned opinion of players every day of the week.
[/quot


Ya I can agree with that. but even scientific style research could be off. I guess we are just digging way to deep into things these days. after all its just a game.

 

[LuncheonMeat]

I got a kick out of Jeff O'Neill on the radio the other day talking about Leaf fans invading other buildings.  He was talking about opposition players playing in their own building, saying let's get out there and score an early goal and take the crowd out of it. 

 

[OldTimeHockey]

Those that say a jacked up home crowd doesn't effect the players on the ice/field have never really played competitive hockey in front of a large crowd.

I'll agree that it can drive some players to fail....On the other hand, it drives some of us to succeed.

No busta and Nik, there is no scientific proof, but does it always have to come down to that with you two? It's great that you can pick up a paper and read the numbers in front of you, but personal experience should also be held valid.


It's a silly argument anyways.

 

[nutman]

Those that say a jacked up home crowd doesn't effect the players on the ice/field have never really played competitive hockey in front of a large crowd.

I'll agree that it can drive some players to fail....On the other hand, it drives some of us to succeed.

No busta and Nik, there is no scientific proof, but does it always have to come down to that with you two? It's great that you can pick up a paper and read the numbers in front of you, but personal experience should also be held valid.


It's a silly argument anyways.

Yaaaay nice post. I couldnt have said it better myself. and your right it is silly.