Reasons for the abrupt scoring decline in 1993-94

[Nylanders]

Typically the 80's are thought of as high scoring and the 90's are known as the low scoring Dead Puck Era, but in reality what is normally thought of as "90's hockey" happened in the mid to late 90's, the early 90's was basically a continuation of the 80's with the highest scoring season of all time occurring in 92-93 where 15 teams scored 300 or more goals, at least one team in every division as well as the entire Patrick division. Just one year later though high scoring abruptly came to a stop with only three teams scoring 300 or more goals. I know the various reasons for the DPE, but why such an abrupt drop? I know Hasek and Brodour both came into their own, but I don't see how this explains such a radical drop and while NJ was one of the better teams that year, it was still a year before they won the Cup, which ultimately lead to the Trap being implemented by more teams, kicking the DPE into high gear.

 

[goawaygary*]

Well the trap started to rise that year. It wasn't only the Devils playing it, but the Florida Panthers played it as well (they were an 1st year team that year and competed right out of the gate) Tampa trapped quite a bit as well. You also had Constantine in San Jose implementing a defensive system

But overall 1992-1993 was the outlier. 1991-1992 wasn't a super high scoring season either.

 

[PRMan]

Clutching and grabbing was at an all-time high in the Kings/Montreal 92/93 playoffs. And unlike most seasons, they didn't make it a point of emphasis the next season. So all teams started immediately clutching and grabbing to death.

 

[Hammer Time]

Expansion was a big part of the spike in scoring - the 1992-93 Senators and Sharks were two of the worst teams in history. Hartford was also horrible defensively. So there were basically 3 teams that you could run up the score against on a regular basis.

There was another expansion in 1993, but the two new teams - Florida and Anaheim - both managed to land good goaltenders in the expansion draft (Beezer, who was a Vezina finalist, and Hebert). Also, the Sharks added Larionov, Makarov, and Ozolins in the same season, which got them from basement to the 2nd round in one year (new coach Constantine also should get some credit for getting the defence in order). Hartford drafted Chris Pronger and immediately made a big difference.

So basically, the new expansion teams managed to not bleed goals against, and two of the teams that were so terrible in 1993 improved drastically.

Then there's some important player changes. You have Hasek and Brodeur playing their first seasons, and we all know how good they would become. Lemieux and Lafontaine, the two leading scorers of the 1992-93 season, both were injured for almost the entire 1993-94 season. Yzerman and Selanne, who were right behind them, also missed significant time. So two of the greatest goalies ever had a starting job for the first time, and coincidentally a whole bunch of players who had torn in up in 1992-93 all had injury trouble.

Finally, officiating was unusually strict in 1992-93.

Power plays awarded per game
1991-92: 10.0
1992-93: 10.6
1993-94: 9.7

Power play goals scored per game
1991-92: 1.94
1992-93: 2.06
1993-94: 1.80

So basically, there was just a perfect storm of reasons - expansion teams' seasons going horribly wrong combined with a lot more penalties being whistled - for the 1993 spike, but it only lasted one year. Then the refs let a lot more go the next season, the new teams managed to not suck, and there were an unusual number of star forwards with severe injuries.

 

[revolverjgw]

, the early 90's was basically a continuation of the 80's with the highest scoring season of all time occurring in 92-93

The stars aligned for the stars that year, because it actually wasn't anywhere near as high scoring as 80-86, and was a bit lower than the remainder of the 80s. Whether it was the expansion, the Euro influx, the officiating or whatever, the leaderboards looked INSANE while the actual scoring level was lower compared to a couple years prior.

 

[Mayor Bee]

I'd argue that a more even distribution of goaltending around the league (via Phase II of the expansion draft, and the development of a couple of young players) had an immense impact.

Tampa Bay went from allowing 332 goals to 251. I'd argue that a big part of it was going away from the IHL-caliber trio of Pat Jablonski, Wendell Young, and JC Bergeron to a legitimate starter in Daren Puppa.

San Jose went from 414 goals allowed to 265, as Brian Hayward (well past his prime) and Jeff Hackett (not there yet) gave way to Arturs Irbe.

Ottawa made a lateral move, replacing Peter Sidorkiewicz with Craig Billington. They somehow allowed two goals more than the disastrous 1992-93 campaign.

The Rangers allowed 77 fewer goals, as Mike Richter became the full-time starter instead of splitting time with John Vanbiesbrouck.

Outside of these, many teams remained roughly equal. Team, 1992-93 goals allowed, 1993-94 goals allowed, differential:
Boston - 268, 252, -16
Buffalo - 297, 218, -79
Calgary - 282, 256, -26
Chicago - 230, 240, +10
Dallas - 293, 265, -28
Detroit - 280, 275, -5
Edmonton - 337, 305, -32
Hartford - 369, 288, -81
Los Angeles - 340, 322, -18
Montreal - 280, 48, -32
New Jersey - 299, 220, -79
NY Islanders - 297, 264, -33
Philadelphia - 319, 314, -5
Pittsburgh - 268, 285, +17
Quebec - 300, 292, -8
St Louis - 278, 283, +5
Toronto - 241, 243, +2
Vancouver - 278, 276, -2
Washington - 286, 263, -23
Winnipeg - 320, 244, +24

Hartford is the one that I just can't explain. I'd guess that it would have to do with the additions of Chris Pronger and James Patrick, but that's a huge swing with a goaltending group that remained intact from one year to the next.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

I'd argue that a more even distribution of goaltending around the league.

Team, 1992-93 goals allowed, 1993-94 goals allowed, differential:
Boston - 268, 252, -16
Buffalo - 297, 218, -79
Calgary - 282, 256, -26
Chicago - 230, 240, +10
Dallas - 293, 265, -28
Detroit - 280, 275, -5
Edmonton - 337, 305, -32
Hartford - 369, 288, -81
Los Angeles - 340, 322, -18
Montreal - 280, 48, -32
New Jersey - 299, 220, -79
NY Islanders - 297, 264, -33
Philadelphia - 319, 314, -5
Pittsburgh - 268, 285, +17
Quebec - 300, 292, -8
St Louis - 278, 283, +5
Toronto - 241, 243, +2
Vancouver - 278, 276, -2
Washington - 286, 263, -23
Winnipeg - 320, 244, +24

Hartford is the one that I just can't explain. I'd guess that it would have to do with the additions of Chris Pronger and James Patrick, but that's a huge swing with a goaltending group that remained intact from one year to the next.

Buffalo and NJ - The breakthrough years for Hasek and Brodeur.

 

[Big Phil]

I think the biggest reason just might be that 1993 was a year where no one was hurt other than Gretzky. Stars, I mean. Mario did play just 60 games, but he still racked up 160 points. This was just one of those years where players stayed very healthy for whatever reason.

Take a look a the difference between 1993 and 1994:

Mario missed most of 1994
Lafontaine missed almost all of 1994
Mogilny missed some time
Yzerman was injured for part of the season
Kevin Stevens was never the same high scorer after 1993's injury
Selanne missed half the season

Check out those names, those are among the top scorers in the NHL in 1993. Even Turgeon played in just 69 games.

Throw in the fact that the Pens' method of wide open hockey all of the sudden didn't work in 1993 while a more conservative approach from Montreal and Toronto worked well in the playoffs. There is a copycat lifestyle in the NHL.

That being said, there were still 6.5 goals per game in 1994. Not bad. There was still a lot of excitement that year.

 

[revolverjgw]

I think the biggest reason just might be that 1993 was a year where no one was hurt other than Gretzky. Stars, I mean. Mario did play just 60 games, but he still racked up 160 points. This was just one of those years where players stayed very healthy for whatever reason.

Take a look a the difference between 1993 and 1994:

Mario missed most of 1994
Lafontaine missed almost all of 1994
Mogilny missed some time
Yzerman was injured for part of the season
Kevin Stevens was never the same high scorer after 1993's injury
Selanne missed half the season

Check out those names, those are among the top scorers in the NHL in 1993. Even Turgeon played in just 69 games.

Throw in the fact that the Pens' method of wide open hockey all of the sudden didn't work in 1993 while a more conservative approach from Montreal and Toronto worked well in the playoffs. There is a copycat lifestyle in the NHL.

That being said, there were still 6.5 goals per game in 1994. Not bad. There was still a lot of excitement that year.

That's a factor but I don't think stars missing time matters much at all in the grand scheme of things. If they missed time in 93, other scorers would replace some of their production, and take advantage of the circumstances. Teams whose cores remained pretty much stable from year to year still saw BIG drops in production. So there was something much bigger than injuries at play here.

Just as silly a thought exercise, take out the four 150 point players from 1989 completely and I bet the league scoring level would not be anywhere near what the drop between 93 and 94 was. Chop 50-75 goals off their teams total to account for the zero games between them and the league scoring level goes from 7.48 to 7.2-7.3 If you think that's is too conservative, chop off a really huge total like 100 off each of their teams and it's still 7.12. Completely remove 4 of the most insane offensive seasons ever and you're still only looking at a third of a goal off the leaguewide total, MAX (I think it would be lower), compared to the unprecedented .75 GPG in 94.

A handful of stars missing some time in a league with 600 players would have a relatively negligible effect on scoring league-wide. Last year, Stamkos and Tavares go from full seasons to missing a ton of time between them, top 10 scorer Datsyuk misses half the season, scoring goes UP. Shortened season, yeah, but more than a big enough sample size, season scoring levels are more or less established by then. It just shows that it really doesn't matter too much who's hurt from year to year.

 

[Sadekuuro]

But overall 1992-1993 was the outlier.

Yep. 1993-94 looks an awful lot more like regression to the mean than anything else.

 

[Big Phil]

That's a factor but I don't think stars missing time matters much at all in the grand scheme of things. If they missed time in 93, other scorers would replace some of their production, and take advantage of the circumstances. Teams whose cores remained pretty much stable from year to year still saw BIG drops in production. So there was something much bigger than injuries at play here.

Just as silly a thought exercise, take out the four 150 point players from 1989 completely and I bet the league scoring level would not be anywhere near what the drop between 93 and 94 was. Chop 50-75 goals off their teams total to account for the zero games between them and the league scoring level goes from 7.48 to 7.2-7.3 If you think that's is too conservative, chop off a really huge total like 100 off each of their teams and it's still 7.12. Completely remove 4 of the most insane offensive seasons ever and you're still only looking at a third of a goal off the leaguewide total, MAX (I think it would be lower), compared to the unprecedented .75 GPG in 94.

A handful of stars missing some time in a league with 600 players would have a relatively negligible effect on scoring league-wide. Last year, Stamkos and Tavares go from full seasons to missing a ton of time between them, top 10 scorer Datsyuk misses half the season, scoring goes UP. Shortened season, yeah, but more than a big enough sample size, season scoring levels are more or less established by then. It just shows that it really doesn't matter too much who's hurt from year to year.

I'm not sure who the other stars would be that would replace all of those goals though. There were 21 players with 100 points. Where else would we get these scorers? We saw the same type of thing from 1996 to 1997. That was a season with a lot of injuries to players while 1996 wasn't. Now, I agree there are other factors at play here such as 1993 having two of the weakest teams in NHL history in the same season. People say Ottawa in 1993 is the worst team of all-time, right up there with the Capitals of 1975, but you've also got the 1993 Sharks who lost the most games in NHL history in a season.

And I'll reiterate, I think we saw a shift in attitudes in 1994. It wasn't as if 1994 was part of the dead puck era yet, but the Penguins' run didn't continue while there were teams that were more conservative that were successful. Montreal and Toronto in 1993 followed by New Jersey and New York in 1994. I'll bet if the Penguins win the Cup in 1993 after the season they had with the style they had you wouldn't have seen scoring drop much at all. 1993 teams were trying to outgun the other team because Pittsburgh had done that so well. When they lost everyone re-examined their way of thinking.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yep. 1993-94 looks an awful lot more like regression to the mean than anything else.

I don't know about that. 1992-93 was a bit of a spike year, but 1993-94 was the lowest scoring season overall since 1973-74: http://www.quanthockey.com/TS/TS_GoalsPerGame.php

That's a factor but I don't think stars missing time matters much at all in the grand scheme of things. If they missed time in 93, other scorers would replace some of their production, and take advantage of the circumstances. Teams whose cores remained pretty much stable from year to year still saw BIG drops in production. So there was something much bigger than injuries at play here.

Just as silly a thought exercise, take out the four 150 point players from 1989 completely and I bet the league scoring level would not be anywhere near what the drop between 93 and 94 was. Chop 50-75 goals off their teams total to account for the zero games between them and the league scoring level goes from 7.48 to 7.2-7.3 If you think that's is too conservative, chop off a really huge total like 100 off each of their teams and it's still 7.12. Completely remove 4 of the most insane offensive seasons ever and you're still only looking at a third of a goal off the leaguewide total, MAX (I think it would be lower), compared to the unprecedented .75 GPG in 94.

A handful of stars missing some time in a league with 600 players would have a relatively negligible effect on scoring league-wide. Last year, Stamkos and Tavares go from full seasons to missing a ton of time between them, top 10 scorer Datsyuk misses half the season, scoring goes UP. Shortened season, yeah, but more than a big enough sample size, season scoring levels are more or less established by then. It just shows that it really doesn't matter too much who's hurt from year to year.

Not to mention Wayne Gretzky missed much of 1992-93 and came back and won the Art Ross in 1993-94.