NHL and league wide scoring

[devlman]

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

Don't fvcking touch the size of the net.

 

Exactly. If they just enforce the current rules of the game properly, and reduce these Michelin men manning the nets, things will be fine. You cant touch the size of the net, it would compromise everything about the game.

[devlman]

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.

 

This is also a fair point

[roomtemp]

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?

Clearly if composite sticks are making players better I shutter to think how low scoring would be if we stayed all wood.

 

Why is the goal sized untouchable? Its as arbitrary as any other rule we have in hockey other then the use of sticks and being on ice. Unless I missed the moment the hockey gods with the unseen hand came down and gave us the unchangable rules like the net size. And please no one wants soccer nets. No one is saying that we need to go back to the 80s level of scoring. If you can't fathom a couple of inches without thinking lacrosse style scores well that's on you not being able to have an argument without going slipperly slope end of days cats and dogs mass hysteria

[cgb6397]

Babcock doesn't really strike me as the guy who'd be advocating for this sort of thing. So there's less goals, yeah whatever who cares. If we want more offense let's expand the ice and make it the same game they play overseas. Less goals doesn't mean there's something wrong with the game 

[Devils731]

Babcock doesn't really strike me as the guy who'd be advocating for this sort of thing. So there's less goals, yeah whatever who cares. If we want more offense let's expand the ice and make it the same game they play overseas. Less goals doesn't mean there's something wrong with the game

Bigger ice probably leads to less goals. The game is played along the perimeter before heading inwards, so putting the perimeter further from the net decreases scoring.

A bigger rink that shrunk the offensive zones vertically while increasing the neutral zone vertically would probably increase scoring though. We can partially already do that without changing the rink dimensions though.

[themightyall]

Clearly if composite sticks are making players better I shutter to think how low scoring would be if we stayed all wood.

 

Why is the goal sized untouchable? Its as arbitrary as any other rule we have in hockey other then the use of sticks and being on ice. Unless I missed the moment the hockey gods with the unseen hand came down and gave us the unchangable rules like the net size. And please no one wants soccer nets. No one is saying that we need to go back to the 80s level of scoring. If you can't fathom a couple of inches without thinking lacrosse style scores well that's on you not being able to have an argument without going slipperly slope end of days cats and dogs mass hysteria

 

Well, my point about it is that goalie pads are the reason for low scoring but necessary only because of the composite sticks.  So whenever I hear smaller pads, it's a fully thought out plan because then goalies would be getting injured unless they go back to wood.

 

Personally, I don't like changing the important dimensions of the game.  Greating a trapezoid, lengthening the O-zones, etc are whatever.  But I just like the reset rink size, goal size, etc and don't think they should be changed.  The NBA can shorten the nets by a couple of inches so more dunks can happen, the NFL can widen the field a couple of feet for the D to cover, and the NHL can add a couple inches to the top of the net (much more reasonable than forcing goalies to have new angles to play with widening it).  I agree they aren't big changes and I agree that it will increase scoring/entertainment value, but it just doesn't sit right to me.

[Derlique]

I think something that really gets overlooked is the systems. There's so much structure in the neutral and defensive zone that it really stifles creativity. Combine that with dump and chase then it really becomes something like trench warfare.

[Devils731]

They actually shrunk the neutral zone twice in the late 80s. I think that hurt the game.

They realized the first shrinking was too drastic so they reverted slightly to a less shrunk neutral zone.

[thecoffeecake]

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.

What do bigger goalies have to do with the goal size? Forwards are bigger and more skilled, the game is policed more heavily. They've done everything they could to offset the increased talent in goal.

What makes you so desperate for more scoring?

[hystyk28]

They actually shrunk the neutral zone twice in the late 80s. I think that hurt the game.

They realized the first shrinking was too drastic so they reverted slightly to a less shrunk neutral zone.

 

 

The 2 line pass was still in play.

[roomtemp]

Well, my point about it is that goalie pads are the reason for low scoring but necessary only because of the composite sticks.  So whenever I hear smaller pads, it's a fully thought out plan because then goalies would be getting injured unless they go back to wood.

 

Personally, I don't like changing the important dimensions of the game.  Greating a trapezoid, lengthening the O-zones, etc are whatever.  But I just like the reset rink size, goal size, etc and don't think they should be changed.  The NBA can shorten the nets by a couple of inches so more dunks can happen, the NFL can widen the field a couple of feet for the D to cover, and the NHL can add a couple inches to the top of the net (much more reasonable than forcing goalies to have new angles to play with widening it).  I agree they aren't big changes and I agree that it will increase scoring/entertainment value, but it just doesn't sit right to me.

MLB lowered the mound. NBA added a shot worth an extra point. Again things change if they need it. To take something off the table just because "that's the way it is"  is absurd and shortsighted.

[NJDevs4978]

MLB lowered the mound. NBA added a shot worth an extra point. Again things change if they need it. To take something off the table just because "that's the way it is"  is absurd and shortsighted.

 

 Baseball fields are all different sizes and dimensions too, at least the NHL doesn't have different sized nets and rinks in every arena.

[roomtemp]

 Baseball fields are all different sizes and dimensions too, at least the NHL doesn't have different sized nets and rinks in every arena.

 

No but the idea that we can't change the nets because that's what the size has always been is a fallacy. We could disagree on other issues pertaining to other ways to increase scoring or the effect not being what was desired but to say we can't change it because we never changed it before like its something given to us on golden plates from the unseen hand is a bad argument.

[thecoffeecake]

No but the idea that we can't change the nets because that's what the size has always been is a fallacy. We could disagree on other issues pertaining to other ways to increase scoring or the effect not being what was desired but to say we can't change it because we never changed it before like its something given to us on golden plates from the unseen hand is a bad argument.

The NBA didn't lower the net and MLB didn't add an extra base. The argument is that the game was designed to be played a certain way, and changing the size of the goals, unlike rule changes, trapezoids, whatever, fundamentally changes it.

[Devils731]

The NBA didn't lower the net and MLB didn't add an extra base. The argument is that the game was designed to be played a certain way, and changing the size of the goals, unlike rule changes, trapezoids, whatever, fundamentally changes it.

There have been other fundamental changes to hockey, some larger than the net size being changed.

Heck, we are really just talking about reverting back to the shooters having the same amount of open net to score on as they used to. The larger net can be viewed as both a radical change and a return to a more traditional form of hockey.

[roomtemp]

The NBA didn't lower the net and MLB didn't add an extra base. The argument is that the game was designed to be played a certain way, and changing the size of the goals, unlike rule changes, trapezoids, whatever, fundamentally changes it.

If we really wanted to be pedantic the game was designed 9 on 9 and played outdoors with snow banks as the edges of the game. We've changed so much to the game how come this size of net is so sacrosanct? Unless there was some unchangeable reason they made it this size at one point why can't we change it again?

 

There have been other fundamental changes to hockey, some larger than the net size being changed.

Heck, we are really just talking about reverting back to the shooters having the same amount of open net to score on as they used to. The larger net can be viewed as both a radical change and a return to a more traditional form of hockey.

 

Exactly. Its not like people are talking about getting rid of sticks and ice

[thecoffeecake]

If we really wanted to be pedantic the game was designed 9 on 9 and played outdoors with snow banks as the edges of the game. We've changed so much to the game how come this size of net is so sacrosanct? Unless there was some unchangeable reason they made it this size at one point why can't we change it again?

Exactly. Its not like people are talking about getting rid of sticks and ice

In the early stages of any sport, the game goes through significant changes. Most sports were created organically and underwent formalization before evolving to their modern forms. This was the way the game standardized, this is how the game become popular, and it's the way it's been played for the vast majority of its history.

Can someone who's for all of these changes please tell me why you're so desperate for more scoring?

[capo]

I appreciate the close game regardless of of the equipment, net sizes, calls, noncalls. The 1-0, 2-1 game is far more exciting than any night where the home team goes and blows out the visitor. Anything can happen in those tight games. Which is exciting! The only change I would make is that equipment is proportionate to the size of the goalie. Therefore, the queen can't have the same size equipment as Bishop.

[MadDog2020]

People won't be happy until we change the game into basketball on ice where every final score is 8-7 or 10-9. Then those same people will complain that there's too much scoring, and that scoring is too easy. This is because people generally aren't happy unless they're bitching about something.

[Mike Brown]

The game right now is great.  But goalies in general are big.  League wide SV% is almost 92%.  That's insane.

[roomtemp]

People won't be happy until we change the game into basketball on ice where every final score is 8-7 or 10-9. Then those same people will complain that there's too much scoring, and that scoring is too easy. This is because people generally aren't happy unless they're bitching about something.

And you hockey elitist won't be happy til most games end 1-0.

 

See I can do extremes that blow what you want out of proportion too.

Edited November 8, 2015 by roomtemp

[NJDevs4978]

MLB has changed the baseball any number of times, the first time before Babe Ruth started breaking HR records...talk about a fundamental change.

[Triumph]

In the early stages of any sport, the game goes through significant changes. Most sports were created organically and underwent formalization before evolving to their modern forms. This was the way the game standardized, this is how the game become popular, and it's the way it's been played for the vast majority of its history.

Can someone who's for all of these changes please tell me why you're so desperate for more scoring?

 

I'm not 'desperate for all these changes'.  I would just like for them to experiment with larger nets.  There's less net to shoot at than there was 20 years ago.  Most shbots on goal have almost no chance of going in.  Many of the goals that do go in are lucky bounces.  I don't watch the NHL to see who can win a lucky bounce competition, I watch to see skilled players executing skilled plays to score goals.  I feel that larger nets would allow for some skill plays that have vanished to return.

 

In addition, fewer goals means fewer lead changes, which means that games are less exciting once someone has scored.  There's enough lead changes that it isn't soccer, but it's closer than people think.

[Derek21]

I'm not 'desperate for all these changes'.  I would just like for them to experiment with larger nets.  There's less net to shoot at than there was 20 years ago.  Most shbots on goal have almost no chance of going in.  Many of the goals that do go in are lucky bounces.  I don't watch the NHL to see who can win a lucky bounce competition, I watch to see skilled players executing skilled plays to score goals.  I feel that larger nets would allow for some skill plays that have vanished to return.

 

In addition, fewer goals means fewer lead changes, which means that games are less exciting once someone has scored.  There's enough lead changes that it isn't soccer, but it's closer than people think.

 

 

Why not just reduce the goalie equipment? Something discussed on HNIC. At least there would be more net to shoot at and more chances of shots going through. Honestly, players are much better schooled defensively with systems. The goalies are also much more athletic. Plus you have players going balls blocking shots and getting in passing and shooting lanes. Sometimes, the offenses don't move the puck quick enough. Players are so reluctant to shoot due to worrying over it getting blocked and causing a scoring chance the other way. It's a much different game.

 

The other thing is they have continued to invent new rules to increase scoring. The delay of game. The stick infractions even tho whenever I watch the Rangers, they rarely draw penalties. The 3-on-3 roller derby that is now overtime. It's not hockey. But it is end to end and fast and furious. Yet we're still seeing scoreless 5-minute OT's needing a shootout to decide the extra point.

 

I am not in favor of making nets bigger. It would just feel wrong. It would be like changing the point system from 2 to 3. Something which has been debated in these parts plenty. I am more for rewarding teams who win in regulation. But they opted for the ROW which emphasizes regulation and overtime as first tiebreaker. That at least devalues shootout wins. But it's still 2 points. 

 

The idea that bigger nets should be experimented with I'm not ready for yet. I agree that the games aren't the same. That all these rule changes/adjustments have dumbed the game down. The challenge is good at least. Just don't get why it should cost a timeout if you lose. I've never seen a league try so many different things just to attract a new audience. It isn't like that in baseball or basketball. Football (NFL) has become loathsome due to all the penalties. I liked hockey better when it was just hockey without every year a new rule change. 

[themightyall]

MLB lowered the mound. NBA added a shot worth an extra point. Again things change if they need it. To take something off the table just because "that's the way it is"  is absurd and shortsighted.

 

Again, it's not like I refuse any and all changes.  I like plenty of things they changed and other sports do it too.  But no one is talking about the dimensions of the game.  Did the MLB make the bases 80 ft apart so they could have more baserunners?  We can exchange rule changes that one another finds "absurd and shortsighted" all day.  You may find it completely reasonable to experiment with bigger nets.  There's plenty of people that think that it fundamentally changes a game that has been tweaked earlier in its birth but has been played for decades the same way with regards to its dimensions.  Objectively, I don't see enough people wanting the change for it to happen, that's why it's absurd to argue for bigger nets.

 

I think something that really gets overlooked is the systems. There's so much structure in the neutral and defensive zone that it really stifles creativity. Combine that with dump and chase then it really becomes something like trench warfare.

 

This is obviously the biggest "problem" in regards to scoring.  No one is talking about it because there's no way to make a rule change to force teams to be structurally unsound.  It's not bad for the sport that defense exists, it's just bad that:

 

 

Many of the goals that do go in are lucky bounces.  I don't watch the NHL to see who can win a lucky bounce competition, I watch to see skilled players executing skilled plays to score goals.

 

 I think this is the biggest reason why everyone is talking about more scoring.  It's not about the goals being higher, it's about how those goals are scored.  When a game ends 3-2 and it ends with Ovechkin clearly sniping a corner, it is so much better than the puck pinballing around 4 guys in front of the net to magically go 5 hole and you need 5 replays to see if it goes over the line and another 10 to see what player touched it last.