Jump to content

NHL and league wide scoring


roomtemp

Recommended Posts

So since the lockout these are the goals per game stats

 

(source http://www.quanthockey.com/TS/TS_GoalsPerGame.php)

 

05-06: 6.05

06-07: 5.75

07-08: 5.44

08-09 5.69

09-10: 5.53

10-11 5.46

11-12: 5.32

12-13: 5.31

13-14: 5.34

14-15: 5.32

 

And this year 5.32 so far. Since about Its weird looking at the dead puck era which was a little bit lower but there was more variance and fluctuation compared to the last 4 years. Also with Babcock's talk about increasing goal size due to goalie size I wanted to get your guys take on the issue since being fans of the Devils we're used to traditionally defensive hockey.

 

I'm all for doing something in order to make goalies work for saves more. Maybe its because I have been watching too many games where us as a team (or us getting bailed out the other way) where you outshoot the other team but there aren't any memorable saves yet a lucky bounce or three deflections and two screens are the only way to beat a goalie but I hate those games. Those are games that make me question why I watch hockey. It just feels like hitting your head against a wall without something spectacular going on the other end.

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do find the overall product of NHL hockey less compelling than I once did.  The Devils being meh-ish is a very small part of it...the Mets were pretty hard to watch from 2009-2014, but I still was all-in.  It does seem like there's too much "and it wouldn't go!" in today's game.  I've told the Rick Vaive story more than once (he scored 50+ goals three straight seasons as a Maple Leaf and finished with 441 goals in the Live Puck Era), but to sum up, he basically said there's so little net to shoot at that there's shots he wouldn't even attempt now. 

 

Yeah, we've gone over the save%s and how much they've gone up...in the 80s, anything .900 and over was a big deal, .890s guys were very good, and even .880s guys were considered to be solid (an .887 save% in 1985-86 helped to win John Vanbiesbrouck a Vezina).  .900 is barely acceptable these days.  The 80s were fun with all of the offense, but it wasn't a golden age in itself, really...there were some pretty crappy goalies and defensemen playing back then, and some of the highlights from those days show just how bad some of them really were.  But when I pop in one of Rockies' DVDs and see the net behind the goalies looking so much bigger than it does now...

 

I agree with you, seems like it's too damned hard to score goals sometimes, that it takes a deflection or a freak bounce or a lucky bounce.  I won't ever turn my back on NHL hockey (it's been a huge part of my life for too long), but something has been lost for me, just a bit.  I don't get as psyched up for games as I used to.  When I do watch games, I don't find myself nearly as locked in as I once did.

 

Now that the World Series is over, I know my enthusiasm will start to build back up in time...but for so long, once preseason began, I was always so excited for hockey...this year I feel almost indifferent, and I don't know why, because I was right back in even after that last lockout, when I couldn't have been more annoyed with the latest millionaires vs. billionaires pissing contest.  I can't put my finger on what's missing...I get tired of the seemingly yearly rule-tweaking as well, but it's not any one thing that screams "That's it!"

 

And I don't want to lack enthusiasm for something I've enjoyed so much through the years.  I just don't know how it comes back up to the level it once was.

Edited by Colorado Rockies 1976
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't see them changing the size of the goal cage for several reasons.  First, increasing the height from the current 4' makes no sense from a safety standpoint, since you do not want pucks being shot any higher as that gets closer to people's heads.  Second, its possible..but unlikely..they'll widen the cage bottom.  This might increase groin injuries, but would have to be studied to see if that were a true correlation.   The third idea of keeping the height & width the same, but bowing out the sides was really goofy and I do not see that happening.

 

You hit the nail on the head on why some don't want to increase the goal size and/or don't want to reduce equipment size...they feel it cheapens the goals.  

Personally, I feel the catching glove circumference should be reduced (since if the keeper doesn't catch the puck it either goes in the net ot against the back wall, so safety is not really decreased by such a change).

I also would like to see the blocker width reduced, for similar reasons.

Finally they could experiment with reducing the width of the keeper's blade and/or shaft.  

 

 

To increase scoring I feel the long-change of the 2nd period should be in effect for both the 1st & 2nd periods.  This makes it harder for the D to change lines and perhaps will increase scoring and/or scoring chances.  The 3rd period is really the only period needed for the goalie to be close to their bench so they can be pulled at the end of the game.  In reality, pulling the keeper on a delayed penalty doesnt produce more than a handful of goals all season.

 

Other tweaks could be shortening the maximum D-man's stick length. 

Experiments would have to be done on eliminating icing during the PK.  Perhaps such a change might actually reduce offense if the PP team can't change its forwards...because the PK team has control of the puck.

 

They could double the width of the blue line, which makes the O-zone larger.  

But the most effective change will be in reducing the keeper's pads, while still offering the same protection.

 

There's a few other tweaks that could be tried, and should be tried before they ever change the size of the cage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make every penalty a 2-minute major. Call more interference. Regulate goalie pads.

Don't fvcking touch the size of the net.

 

I do agree with this...it wouldn't feel right to go to bigger nets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make every penalty a 2-minute major. Call more interference. Regulate goalie pads.

 

 

Yep, we all can remember this was the rule, until the Canadiens of the late 70s had such PP success they reduced it to 1-goal per minor.   Of course, some will argue that allowing multiple goals on a minor may result in the Refs calling less minors, since they do not want to feel like they're influencing the game's outcome 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, there are too many luck based goals and not enough skill based goals. This does likely lead to more league parity and less teams seeming awful, so maybe the owners/GMs secretly like that.

 

If you're after pretty goals, then the only way to go is to reduce the pad/stick size of both D & Goalie.  The dilemma there is how to offer the same protection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take is the game is fine and I'm sick and tired of people complaining there isn't enough scoring. The end. Babcock can fvck off if he thinks the nets need to be bigger.

 

My beef is that 20% of NHL games end regulation tied.  I also feel that after 1-2 years the benefits of the 3-on-3 OT will diminish, and we'll see a return to more shootouts.

Maybe then the league will look at how to increase scoring via reducing pad/stick size

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, do soccer fans, coaches and executives bitch and moan and cry for rule changes to increase scoring as much as hockey fans, coaches, and executives? This discussion takes place every fvcking year. Stop changing the rules every other season and leave the damn game alone. It's fine.

My beef is that 20% of NHL games end regulation tied. I also feel that after 1-2 years the benefits of the 3-on-3 OT will diminish, and we'll see a return to more shootouts.

Maybe then the league will look at how to increase scoring via reducing pad/stick size

Reducing the size of goalie pads is fine. Anything other than that is non-negotiable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the product on the ice. We've had a playoff team for the better part of 2 decades. Now we don't. Of course your interest is waning

EDIT: and by "you" I mean "fans", because I've heard this from a million people. If we had the Blackhawks roster hockey would be just as exciting as it was

 

For me, that's a very small part of it, but that's definitely not it.  I'm not one to go into hibernation when my team isn't as good as it's been.  Like I said, I'm always all-in on the Mets even when ownership seems to be doing everything in its power to drive me away.  As an 18-year-old freshman at Montclair State College in 1988-89, I went to at least 15 games that year (and went by myself most of the time), despite that team not being terribly good.  I never bailed on 2010-11 or the last couple of meh seaons. 

 

I used to be so into hockey that I would watch ANY two teams play...along with the Devils games, I'd watch the Rangers vs. whoever, the Islanders vs. whoever...and anywhere else I might catch a game where two out-of-towners were playing against each other.  731 really summed it up for me in that I'd like to see more skill goals and less lucky goals, but I also agree with MD2020 in that I'm really getting tired of the constant rule changes (though I don't think it'd be the end of the world if goalie equipment was shrunk down). 

Edited by Colorado Rockies 1976
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My beef is that 20% of NHL games end regulation tied.  I also feel that after 1-2 years the benefits of the 3-on-3 OT will diminish, and we'll see a return to more shootouts.

Maybe then the league will look at how to increase scoring via reducing pad/stick size

How is it a beef if the number is just 20%?  How low do you want that number to be?  You realize by saying that, 8 out of 10 games do NOT end in regulation with a tie score.  I would think that's pretty fvcking good...

Edited by NJDfan1711
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're after pretty goals, then the only way to go is to reduce the pad/stick size of both D & Goalie. The dilemma there is how to offer the same protection.

It's not totally about being pretty but right now, for me, too much of hockey is just throwing pucks towards the net and hoping it deflects off somebodies leg in a way that benefits your team. Dave Andreychuk didn't score a lot of pretty goals but he was scoring more than others due to his unique skills

I would like a larger gap in goals and points between the best and worst players maybe is a better way to say how I feel.

Edited by Devils731
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, do soccer fans, coaches and executives bitch and moan and cry for rule changes to increase scoring as much as hockey fans, coaches, and executives? This discussion takes place every fvcking year. Stop changing the rules every other season and leave the damn game alone. It's fine.

Reducing the size of goalie pads is fine. Anything other than that is non-negotiable.

Gotta agree, I'm sick of it to. It seems like every year they are changing a few things. I'd love to see a comparison to other sports as to which league changes the most rules every year. It feels like the NHL would easily win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goalies pads for the most part have to stay the same if we are going to keep composite sticks.  The much more extreme shots that players are able to create with those sticks necessitates these goalie pads.  I always find it interesting when something that was supposed to create more offense actually suppresses it.  Faster shots led to bigger pads for safety which led to goalies relying on position rather than athleticism.  Now even an average goalie is an allstar. 

 

I sort of like the idea of going back to wooden sticks for other reasons too.  No more shots from the point with a stick exploding or a small stick check that turns into a slashing penalty.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goalies pads for the most part have to stay the same if we are going to keep composite sticks. The much more extreme shots that players are able to create with those sticks necessitates these goalie pads. I always find it interesting when something that was supposed to create more offense actually suppresses it. Faster shots led to bigger pads for safety which led to goalies relying on position rather than athleticism. Now even an average goalie is an allstar.

I sort of like the idea of going back to wooden sticks for other reasons too. No more shots from the point with a stick exploding or a small stick check that turns into a slashing penalty.

Going back to wood sticks would be fvcking awesome, because that is bringing back some of the purity of the game to me, and it would eliminate the random disintegration of sticks upon receiving a pass or taking a shot, which is beyond annoying. It's never going to happen of course though, because you can't charge $350 for a wood stick, among other reasons.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going back to wood sticks would be fvcking awesome, because that is bringing back some of the purity of the game to me, and it would eliminate the random disintegration of sticks upon receiving a pass or taking a shot, which is beyond annoying. It's never going to happen of course though, because you can't charge $350 for a wood stick, among other reasons.

We agree constantly. There might be something to this.

 

But seriously, I also hate the constant cries for rule changes every single year to increase scoring. The game is fine. I would, however, be totally in support of reducing goalie pads. The beefy pads have really turned goaltending into a positional/odds playing position first, and raw skill/athleticism position second. Reducing pads enables and requires more mobile and athletic play. That's how goaltending is meant to be played, and we all know it just evolved into what it is because of safety concerns. Leave the stick size alone, but reduce leg pads and chest protectors as much as possible, and I wouldn't hate tweeking blockers and gloves.

 

Going back to wood sticks would be fantastic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been on the bigger nets train for a while - the 1 on 1 shot in the NHL is simply gone.  That's the one where a player is coming down the wing and is basically solo on the goalie but can't force the goalie to move laterally.  Sometimes guys score on this shot but it is really rare, and usually involves the goalie being off his angle or the scorer picking a puck-sized location to shoot at, or both.  The goalie just takes up too much of the net.   If you made the net bigger, the goalie has to come out farther to stop the shot, exposing the possibility of wrap-arounds, another play that was once in favor but is gone because of the athleticism of the goalies/size of the net.  Both of these are skill goals, like 731 said - I hate the idea that goals in hockey are the only scoring plays I can think of in the 4 major sports where frequently you cannot initially figure out how they scored.

 

I mean, at first, propose cutting down on the pads, but the goalies will never go for that - they'll cite safety concerns and so on.  Bigger nets are the way to go.

 

Any cosmetic changes - full 2 minute PPs, etc. aren't likely to do much.   Wood sticks would of course reduce scoring and are never coming back.

Edited by Triumph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going back to wood sticks would be fvcking awesome, because that is bringing back some of the purity of the game to me, and it would eliminate the random disintegration of sticks upon receiving a pass or taking a shot, which is beyond annoying. It's never going to happen of course though, because you can't charge $350 for a wood stick, among other reasons.

 

I argue this point so much and everyone seems to be so against it; I'm excited that others see the value of it.  Obviously it won't change for so many other reasons but I always just saw it as the source cause of the lack of scoring.  Baseball took a stand that said players were too good for metal bats, it could/should have been the same thing in hockey.

 

Regardless, they didn't decide to ban composite so overall I would say change nothing too.  Modifying the goal size is just sacrilegious.  Why not just make it basketball on skates and have no goaltenders at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is it a beef if the number is just 20%?  How low do you want that number to be?  You realize by saying that, 8 out of 10 games do NOT end in regulation with a tie score.  I would think that's pretty fvcking good...

 

Maybe 1 in 10 games.  1 in 8.  But not 1 in 5

 

 

Here's more:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/to-make-the-playoffs-hockey-teams-play-not-to-win/

Edited by BlueSkirt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

in a way it sucks cause the game changed so much that the "results" are really different if you compare eras. Its already hard to compare say... Maurice Richard to Ovechkin cause god knows what the rocket would have done with better equipment and better training and all for example. But clearly the goalies and overall systems are better now. You don't see sh!tty goal from the blueline with no screen like before. That famous goal MTL vs Boston with Don cherry. Lemaire dropping the puck to lafleur, take a slapper that stays on the ice and buddy in net just do the star and it goes in lol goals like that would never ever ever go in now even on the worst backup of the league. No wonder so many guys were scoring over 50 back then. and for awhile the PP would go on even if youu'd score so you could score a bunch of goals on one PP. there was no drafts, no parity.

 

but what sucks is that its hard to compare records cause its so different. Even Marty... Goalies now have way more chance to get more wins cause they played their whole career with SO and OT. So as we change the rules its becoming harder and harder to compare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bust out your tinfoil hats, but I truly believe the butterfly style really killed hockey, in terms of scoring.

 

It sure seems like goaltending has gone from a position of skill to one of size and percentages.  You have these huge goalies today that aren't objectively very skilled (Ben Bishop, anyone?) that can block a huge percentage of the net just by.. being there.  I mean, look at the picture below.  It's cherry picking a bit - Pang is probably one of the shorter goalies to ever play - but the freakin leg pads Bishop uses cover over half of Panger's height.  The amount of net these freakish goalies can cover just by playing the angles and percentages is insane.

 

What's the solution though?  Do you impose a height restriction on the goaltending position?  You can't do that - you have huge 18 year olds who have trained their whole lives to play goalie.  Smaller pads?  I dunno.  I don't think it's an easy fix, but something has to be done. I personally have no problems with proportionately larger nets.

 

BkpHePIIUAA54ge.jpg

Edited by Devilsfan118
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing about the people who say the net should never be changed well how do you nullify the size advantage goalies have over their counterparts twenty and thirty years ago? And don't say reduce equipment size cause that's not happening.

Midgets like Chris Terreri would never make the NHL now much less be a starter and have a 12 year career, goalies even a little bigger make a huge difference with the size of the current net.

Edited by NJDevs4978
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.