Jump to content

NHL and league wide scoring


Recommended Posts

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 post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular 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 1

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

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 equ

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 post
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 post
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.

 

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.

Link to post
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.

 

This is also a fair point

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
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.

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by roomtemp
Link to post
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.