Examining Guelph Grand Slam wrinkles
The recent Masters Grand Slam (of Curling) played at Guelph, Ont. added a few wrinkles to garner more attention.
The drafting of opponents by top seeds within the brackets, and then by the top seeds in the playoffs, was a fantastic idea which seemed to add to the proceedings. The initial drafts were streamed live on YouTube, and garnered a few thousand views.
One unexpected result was Brad Gushue missing the playoffs before Thursday’s Canadian TV coverage began.
Another outcome was a full slate of blowouts in the quarterfinals.
Saturday was a sleepy affair, except for Rachel Homan’s come-from-behind semifinal win over Korea’s Kim Eun-Jung.
Sunday rebounded with two competitive championship finals, Anna Hasselborg with her seventh title—after a two-season drought—and the first ever slam victory for Scotland’s “other” high performance team, skipped by Ross Whyte.
Between the bullying over brushes and selecting of opponents, a rule change was tested in an attempt to garner more offense and, possibly, viewer eyeballs. Teams could only blank one end in a row.; a repeat pair of zeroes on the scoreboard handed last rock advantage over to the other team.
If a skip chose to clear the rings of granite with their last stone they were highly motivated to generate offense in the following end. Not surprisingly, a team never blanked two ends in a row during the week in Guelph. Whenever a team had blanked the previous end, they scored or were scored upon, and a hammer was never actually flipped by the rule.
Retaining hammer with a blank end is an integral part of curling strategy and not simply an outdated rule from a bygone era. I’ve long asserted if you eliminate the option to blank an end to retain hammer, “chess on ice” becomes checkers. Deciding how to balance aggressive and conservative tactics based on score and ends remaining is a critical component which makes (traditional four-player) curling unique and interesting.
The notion that trading hammers each end could generate more interest in the sport is misguided. The mixed doubles discipline took this approach and though its speed of play and teams of x and y chromosomes has garnered appeal, it hasn’t been difficult to buy a ticket at the gate. The only struggle is finding it on a streaming service because broadcasters don’t see enough demand for it to appear on television.
Despite my perspective, I applaud the GSOC for trying something new. If they had attempted to use the mixed doubles approach, I would still have watched eagerly to test my premonition it leads to a less inspiring sport for those engrossed in strategy rather than scoring.
In allowing one blank end, but not two in a row, the permutations of tactics appeared to increase. As the remaining ends dwindle, a team is not just concerned about the score differential, but also how a blank end may impact play.
Consider one down with hammer and two ends remaining. Under this rule, there are two scenarios, one with and without a blank the previous end. If the team with hammer blanked the sixth end, they have no choice but to score and could be forced to a single (15% Win Probability) instead of blanking and holding hammer (40% Win Probability). In fact, they may instead give up a steal intentionally.
Working backwards, the team should have tried harder to score in the sixth end to avoid this unenviable position.
Do I think this rule is better than the traditional? I’m not sure. For now, it seems neither is better or worse, just different.
Other than scrambling some common thinking on how to approach the last half of a game, it shifts the requirement for higher precision to the hammer team. Mike Harris of Sportsnet (and Brent Laing of the GSOC livestream crew) both highlight an example of this situation during the men’s final, which can be seen in the cued video below.
[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gdymtumsx8[/embed]
The first stone for Robin Brydone of Team Whyte in the second end is an attempt to remove two Team Jacobs stones sandwiching their yellow rock.
Under standard rules, the non-hammer team (Whyte) would prefer to keep their shooter in play to sit three. They may even choose a more delicate shot requiring high precision. However, knowing Jacobs cannot blank, they play a simpler shot with more weight and less concern for their shooter.
This demonstrates how the non-hammer team can shift focus from a draw game to blasting rocks out of play, leaving an opponent no choice but to score a single.
This does not increase scoring or excitement for fans, it simply shifts the emphasis away from the non-hammer team to create a force. The hammer team instead is encouraged to maximize their opportunity before their last rock advantage is taken away.
In a close game with traditional rules, a team without hammer must play offensively and risk giving up a big end. They will try to jam up the middle, keeping rocks in play and attempting precise shots in order to “force” their opponent.
Under this rule, it does not appear the hammer team has the same level of urgency. Being forced to one in a tie game, though not ideal, still leaves the hammer team ahead, in a position to wait out their opponent who now have two ends to try to make something happen.
This all feels like a counterpunching strategy which, if you know boxing, can interest hardcore fight fans but lacks the electricity of Hearns vs Hagler or Gatti vs Ward.
I paused in digging into the data to produce a Curl With Math analysis. It was simply one event, and more games are needed to really look at how this approach changes odds and shifts advantages from the standard rules. It’s not yet apparent this rule increases chances for the team that begins a game without hammer.
If there is a next time, I’ll be looking for how much risk teams are willing to take after they’ve blanked an end. At least in the beginning, we may see a wider contrast in strategy amongst what is commonly becoming a more similar approach by top skips.
Is this version of the Roaring Game more entertaining? I’m not convinced, but will watch again if it returns.