NHL Scoring Problem

[Sabel79]

One of the best games I think I've ever watched was a 0-0 tie between the Sabres and Colorado in 1996.  Hasek and Roy absolutely dominating the game at each end.  Was something to behold.  Heck, a goal might have spoiled it. 

 

it's not the puck crossing the line, per se, that makes hockey exciting.  It's all in the buildup.  That's the problem now, everyone plays a system devoted to defense first, interference and obstruction are allowed way more than is sane, goalies are both more athletic and dressed up as Bibendum, it's an unholy stew of boredom. 

 

I've read a good deal of snark over the years from the hockey media about the changes to the game after the '04 lockout, but had the league held its nerve and kept the clampdown on interference, hooking, holding, et. al. in place, teams would have had to evolve and players would have learned.  The endless trips to the penalty box would have stopped and the game would be more free-flowing and better for it.  Making the nets bigger will inevitably just lead to more goals scored on point shots deflecting off of 17 people.  More goals would result, but would the product be any better, in all honesty?

[Eleven]

One of the best games I think I've ever watched was a 0-0 tie between the Sabres and Colorado in 1996.  Hasek and Roy absolutely dominating the game at each end.  Was something to behold.  Heck, a goal might have spoiled it. 

 

it's not the puck crossing the line, per se, that makes hockey exciting.  It's all in the buildup.  That's the problem now, everyone plays a system devoted to defense first, interference and obstruction are allowed way more than is sane, goalies are both more athletic and dressed up as Bibendum, it's an unholy stew of boredom. 

 

I've read a good deal of snark over the years from the hockey media about the changes to the game after the '04 lockout, but had the league held its nerve and kept the clampdown on interference, hooking, holding, et. al. in place, teams would have had to evolve and players would have learned.  The endless trips to the penalty box would have stopped and the game would be more free-flowing and better for it.  Making the nets bigger will inevitably just lead to more goals scored on point shots deflecting off of 17 people.  More goals would result, but would the product be any better, in all honesty?

 

Perfectly stated.

[LGR4GM]

70%? How many games do you watch? Seems like an arbitrary number. From the games I watch, compared to watching other sports, the NHL has no more or less "mediocre" games than basketball, football or baseball.  82 games each for 30 teams, they are not all going to be instant classics. 

 

I don't need scores to be 6-5 to enjoy a hockey game. I like that goals actually mean something and that goaltenders are now actual athletes. It makes the game stronger, iMO.  

I hate this counter argument because it is not at all what I am saying. I need more scoring chances to enjoy a hockey game and right now clutch and grab has returned and goalies are massive. The game is slowing down and scoring chances are at a premium. Makes the game boring.  More scoring chances could make more goals but it doesn't have to.  Best hockey game I ever watched ended 3-2. It had more scoring chances than an SEC QB at a sorority party.

Edited March 21, 2016 by LGR4GM

[apuszczalowski]

Lotsa people here who don't get hit by NHL caliber shots with regularity.

 

The extended top of the pad is there to stop the puck as much as it is to protect the top of the knee and thigh while down in the butterfly. I wear my pads with only a +1" riser and I constantly wish I had opted for a +2 or +3.

 

And that big old wrist board is there to, you know, protect your dang wrist. There can be a sizable gap between the end of the pad on the forearm and the start of the glove depending on how the goaltender positioned. You can take that away from me over my cold dead broken body.

who cares about the goalies health, we should be out there playing in net with player equipment on just like the rest of the guys...

 

I don't see anything wrong with the photo of the lightning goalie except maybe the overall length above the knee being a bit big.

 

The game, players and all equipment has evolved over time. Goalies now have to face solid rubber being shot at them at over 90-100mph, yet every argument is that the equipment is too big and that it should be smaller cause the rest of the guys on the ice can't get it by them. Yet if some goalies get hurt by some 95mph shots, will they come back and make the players change back to wood flat blade sticks?

[Patty16]

One of the best games I think I've ever watched was a 0-0 tie between the Sabres and Colorado in 1996.  Hasek and Roy absolutely dominating the game at each end.  Was something to behold.  Heck, a goal might have spoiled it. 

 

it's not the puck crossing the line, per se, that makes hockey exciting.  It's all in the buildup.  That's the problem now, everyone plays a system devoted to defense first, interference and obstruction are allowed way more than is sane, goalies are both more athletic and dressed up as Bibendum, it's an unholy stew of boredom. 

 

I've read a good deal of snark over the years from the hockey media about the changes to the game after the '04 lockout, but had the league held its nerve and kept the clampdown on interference, hooking, holding, et. al. in place, teams would have had to evolve and players would have learned.  The endless trips to the penalty box would have stopped and the game would be more free-flowing and better for it.  Making the nets bigger will inevitably just lead to more goals scored on point shots deflecting off of 17 people.  More goals would result, but would the product be any better, in all honesty?

 

 

Yea i think the thing with this is that the goalies in that game had to make some crazy saves to keep it 0-0, not just be butterfly marshmallow shot blockers. 

 

There are a few ways to protect the goalie without taking away too much of the net with fluff. The pads are insane. Was there a flurry of goalie injuries with the old pads? because if there was i certainly missed it. 

 

 

 

IS this really necessary? 

Edited March 21, 2016 by Patty16

[spndnchz]

Yea i think the thing with this is that the goalies in that game had to make some crazy saves to keep it 0-0, not just be butterfly marshmallow shot blockers. 

 

There are a few ways to protect the goalie without taking away too much of the net with fluff. The pads are insane. Was there a flurry of goalie injuries with the old pads? because if there was i certainly missed it. 

 

 

IS this really necessary? 

 

If I'm taking shots at 100 mph hell ya!

[TrueBlueGED]

One of the best games I think I've ever watched was a 0-0 tie between the Sabres and Colorado in 1996.  Hasek and Roy absolutely dominating the game at each end.  Was something to behold.  Heck, a goal might have spoiled it. 

 

it's not the puck crossing the line, per se, that makes hockey exciting.  It's all in the buildup.  That's the problem now, everyone plays a system devoted to defense first, interference and obstruction are allowed way more than is sane, goalies are both more athletic and dressed up as Bibendum, it's an unholy stew of boredom. 

 

I've read a good deal of snark over the years from the hockey media about the changes to the game after the '04 lockout, but had the league held its nerve and kept the clampdown on interference, hooking, holding, et. al. in place, teams would have had to evolve and players would have learned.  The endless trips to the penalty box would have stopped and the game would be more free-flowing and better for it.  Making the nets bigger will inevitably just lead to more goals scored on point shots deflecting off of 17 people.  More goals would result, but would the product be any better, in all honesty?

 

1) 11-goal games will not inherently be great, but they will inherently be more entertaining than an equivalent product that produces 4-goal games. Goals are snapshots of excitement, more of them means more excitement, all else equal. The advantage of targeting goals is that it's a lot easier, in theory anyway, to increase scoring than it is to increase game flow.

 

2) I don't think anyone really disagrees that calling the game as the rules are on the books would improve the product, and for many it's the preferred solution. But why should you, I, or anyone else have even the slightest bit of confidence that the NHL will make the mandate to start calling more penalties and stick to it? We've been down this road before, and it took less than two full years for refs to start reverting back without the league caring that it was happening. They could start calling the games like in 05-06 tonight and for the rest of the year, and I'd still say the game is broken simply because I'd fully expect a regression to happen.

[Sabel79]

1) 11-goal games will not inherently be great, but they will inherently be more entertaining than an equivalent product that produces 4-goal games. Goals are snapshots of excitement, more of them means more excitement, all else equal. The advantage of targeting goals is that it's a lot easier, in theory anyway, to increase scoring than it is to increase game flow.

 

2) I don't think anyone really disagrees that calling the game as the rules are on the books would improve the product, and for many it's the preferred solution. But why should you, I, or anyone else have even the slightest bit of confidence that the NHL will make the mandate to start calling more penalties and stick to it? We've been down this road before, and it took less than two full years for refs to start reverting back without the league caring that it was happening. They could start calling the games like in 05-06 tonight and for the rest of the year, and I'd still say the game is broken simply because I'd fully expect a regression to happen.

I can't argue with anything you've said, and having seen it happen once have no doubts that the league is wholly incapable of managing the big picture in re: actually fixing the product.  The band-aids being discussed really won't stop the bleeding.  The constituent franchises won't do anything about it, it's easier and cheaper (short term) to keep scoring down as much as possible.  It'll eventually bite, but I doubt many in a position to say something now have the wherewithal or the desire to actually push for it.  Parity, conformity, risk-averse possession hockey are now the norm.  I still love the game and will be unable to quit it because I'm an idiot, but it's much less fun now. 

 

It's sad, I sometimes think back to the Lafontaine-Mogilny Axis of Awesome that I grew up watching and loving (for the better part of two seasons anyway) and am now fairly sure I'll never see again.  Even OV and Crosby, who've been the tip of the elite or thereabouts for a decade now, aren't as fun to watch as Lemeiux, Gretzky, and on and on.  Are they every bit as good as those guys?  That argument could last awhile, but overall I'd say maybe.  Are they skating through treacle in comparison to the space and time those guys got? Absolutely; and that was the bad old days of bench-clearing brawls and rampant thuggery. 

[pi2000]

smaller goalie equipment

rinks 5ft wider (200x90, not 200x100 Olympic)

penalties called liked in 05-06

no trapezoid (goalie can't play the puck anywhere behind the goal line)

serve full 2-minutes

2-on-2 OT after 5min of 3-on-3

no shootouts

3 points for regulation win, 2 for OT win, 1 for OT loss or tie

Edited March 21, 2016 by pi2000

[MattPie]

smaller goalie equipment

rinks 5ft wider (200x90, not 200x100 Olympic)

penalties called liked in 05-06

no trapezoid (goalie can't play the puck anywhere behind the goal line)

serve full 2-minutes

2-on-2 OT after 5min of 3-on-3

no shootouts

3 points for regulation win, 2 for OT win, 1 for OT loss or tie

 

I don't know what 2 on 2 would look like, but I'd be game to see it. I'm pretty much with you on the rest. Maybe not the rink if you're actually calling penalties.

[Eleven]

smaller goalie equipment

rinks 5ft wider (200x90, not 200x100 Olympic)

penalties called liked in 05-06

no trapezoid (goalie can't play the puck anywhere behind the goal line)

serve full 2-minutes

2-on-2 OT after 5min of 3-on-3

no shootouts

3 points for regulation win, 2 for OT win, 1 for OT loss or tie

 

A lot of good offense starts with the goalie either passing the puck or settling it down behind the net.  I can't think of how many times Perreault circled back there and carried it up ice after a Sabres goalie left it for him.

[pi2000]

A lot of good offense starts with the goalie either passing the puck or settling it down behind the net.  I can't think of how many times Perreault circled back there and carried it up ice after a Sabres goalie left it for him.

 

They can still do that but they'll have to tap it back there from in front of the line.

 

There's just too many dump ins and puck races where the goalie plays as the 3rd defenseman stopping the puck behind the net.    It would allow the forechecking team to retrieve many more pucks and reward the athletic goalies who can get to pucks before they cross the line.

[Eleven]

They can still do that but they'll have to tap it back there from in front of the line.

 

There's just too many dump ins and puck races where the goalie plays as the 3rd defenseman stopping the puck behind the net.    It would allow the forechecking team to retrieve many more pucks and reward the athletic goalies who can get to pucks before they cross the line.

 

If they call interference, there will be less dump and chase leading to this.  

 

I don't even like the trapezoid; let the goalies fish the puck out of the corner and start play.  I think I see it exactly oppositely of how you do.

[pi2000]

If they call interference, there will be less dump and chase leading to this.  

 

I don't even like the trapezoid; let the goalies fish the puck out of the corner and start play.  I think I see it exactly oppositely of how you do.

 

That was the old rule.    The idea was that the trapezoid would limit where the goalies can play the puck and create more offensive opportunities for the attacking team.    It worked (i think?).   

 

My idea just takes it to another level.    Force the defensemen to skate more, tire them out, creating more offensive opportunities.

[Eleven]

That was the old rule.    The idea was that the trapezoid would limit where the goalies can play the puck and create more offensive opportunities for the attacking team.    It worked (i think?).   

 

My idea just takes it to another level.    Force the defensemen to skate more, tire them out, creating more offensive opportunities.

 

Yeah I know it was the old rule.  What I mean when I say we see it opposite from one another is this:  you see it as tiring the defensemen to not allow the goalies to play the puck; I see it as denying the defensemen the opportunity to get offensive play moving the other way quickly. 

[pi2000]

Yeah I know it was the old rule.  What I mean when I say we see it opposite from one another is this:  you see it as tiring the defensemen to not allow the goalies to play the puck; I see it as denying the defensemen the opportunity to get offensive play moving the other way quickly. 

 

OK, agree to disagree.    IMO, giving goalies more opportunity to start the play won't help alleviate the goal scoring problem,  I think it just makes it worse by taking away opportunities created on the forecheck.      With the 3-on-3 OT, it would create even more puck races, leading to scoring chances.       

[Neo]

Murray with some good stuff on larger goals, smaller goalie equipment and eliminating the red line.

http://d3efjls8gnbg8i.cloudfront.net/1268191/114160834/3-18-tim-murray-with-schopp-and-the-bulldog-114160834.mp3?rhihttphost=media.wgr550.com

Plus some draft stuff, some Bylsma stuff an assorted other nuggets.

Always a good interview.

Very good listen. I was especially interested in his commentary on quality "hockey play" goals, and the unintended consequences in terms of play and players that resulted from the red line's elimination.

 

Essentially, and in my words, the elimination resulted in more speed, north to south, and puck chipping to get the puck in deep. We see less of the three man, intact line, tic tac toe skill play that we all love. Further, we see more of the north south big bodied player.

 

Correct me or add to my understanding of your take's different!

[Randall Flagg]

Very good listen. I was especially interested in his commentary on quality "hockey play" goals, and the unintended consequences in terms of play and players that resulted from the red line's elimination.

 

Essentially, and in my words, the elimination resulted in more speed, north to south, and puck chipping to get the puck in deep. We see less of the three man, intact line, tic tac toe skill play that we all love. Further, we see more of the north south big bodied player.

 

Correct me or add to my understanding of your take's different!

I loved this part as well. Murray consistently makes me see hockey with a completely new perspective, whether I agree with his conclusions or not. Every time he gives an interview, it's a must-listen.

[Norcal]

Murray with some good stuff on larger goals, smaller goalie equipment and eliminating the red line.

http://d3efjls8gnbg8i.cloudfront.net/1268191/114160834/3-18-tim-murray-with-schopp-and-the-bulldog-114160834.mp3?rhihttphost=media.wgr550.com

Plus some draft stuff, some Bylsma stuff an assorted other nuggets.

Always a good interview.

I wonder who Murray is talking about when he says "we have a couple of guys who have tendency to be lazy or aloof" and that he tells Bylsma to be right behind em poking em in the back between shifts?

I'm thinking Coco is one

Maybe Franson too

[pi2000]

I wonder who Murray is talking about when he says "we have a couple of guys who have tendency to be lazy or aloof" and that he tells Bylsma to be right behind em poking em in the back between shifts?

I'm thinking Coco is one

Maybe Franson too

 

Eichel and Moulson.   

[darksabre]

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/side-goalie-equipment-debate/

[TrueBlueGED]

Really good article from LeBrun on scoring: http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/15051701/nhl-50-goal-scorers-thing-past

 

He talks with Stamkos and Perry, and they cover everything from goalie equipment, to goaltenders, to coaching, and some of the discussed rule changes.

[darksabre]

Really good article from LeBrun on scoring: http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/15051701/nhl-50-goal-scorers-thing-past

 

He talks with Stamkos and Perry, and they cover everything from goalie equipment, to goaltenders, to coaching, and some of the discussed rule changes.

Wow, it's almost like I know what I'm talking about. Weird. 

[SwampD]

Wow, it's almost like I know what I'm talking about. Weird. 

I still think three things would greatly effect scoring, without jeopardizing the safety of the goalie: flatten the blocker, reduce that ridiculous cheater, and remove the outside lip of the pads. Leave everything else the same.

[darksabre]

I still think three things would greatly effect scoring, without jeopardizing the safety of the goalie: flatten the blocker, reduce that ridiculous cheater, and remove the outside lip of the pads. Leave everything else the same.

I know you think it would help. I don't. And apparently guys who get paid to do it for a living don't either.