The point total of the top players is a joke

[StronGeer]

More power plays is not the answer. They need to find a way to increase 5on5 scoring. I swear half the games I watch are so boring until there's a penalty. It shouldn't be that way.

Then choose to watch a better team.

 

[Draft Guru]

Longer changes on 1st and 3rd periods. Pretty simple.

Huge fan of this.

 

[Frosty415]

as the game becomes more about skill, teams are learning to be more defensive.

I hate this argument.

And they didn't learn to be more defensive the last 100 years?

what makes this generation the best? because of the modern medicine? the mentality is the same.

Goalies are bigger, that's a fact, they need to increase the net size by a few inches in my opinion, nothing too dramatic, but make the goalie work for that top shelf glove save.

 

[Claypool]

Goalies are bigger, that's a fact, they need to increase the net size by a few inches in my opinion, nothing too dramatic, but make the goalie work for that top shelf glove save.

I love how goalies today can go into the butterfly and their shoulders are still above the crossbar.

 

[Cult of Hynes]

I hate this argument.

And they didn't learn to be more defensive the last 100 years?

what makes this generation the best? because of the modern medicine? the mentality is the same.

Goalies are bigger, that's a fact, they need to increase the net size by a few inches in my opinion, nothing too dramatic, but make the goalie work for that top shelf glove save.

but dont make the shooter work.

 

[SladeWilson23]

but dont make the shooter work.

Shooters have to deal with defenders too. Also they have to skate up and down the ice.

 

[Fanned On It]

When pitchers became too dominant MLB lowered the mound.

When defenses got bigger, faster, stronger the NFL made it illegal to touch WRs and QBs without fear of flags.

When basketball defenses get too good...the NBA flat out just makes them illegal to run.

...the NHL is also, I'm told, a sport of note.

Yeah but 2 of those examples actually HURT the integrity of their sports.. and I'm not talking about the mound, obviously.

EDIT: I mean.. those were the worst examples you could use. The fact that NFL corners/safeties can't play actual defense anymore makes it too easy to catch the ball. Same goes for the NBA.. defense is literally nonexistent in the NBA these days which makes the NBA unbearable to watch. I truly don't understand how anyone could actually enjoy watching the NBA the way it is today.

 

[Timeless Winter]

The Dead Puck Era is back. To me the NHL has been very boring the last few years.

 

[Cult of Hynes]

Shooters have to deal with defenders too. Also they have to skate up and down the ice.

Oh boo hoo. Goalies have to deal with obstructed views from their own players as well as the opposing teams.

The offensiveness players have had the game changed to help them out how many times now? from the trapezoid which stops the goalie from being able to play the puck and help out the d, to the no red line pass, and the clutching and grabbing being cut down on big time (thankfully, that **** was annoying).

Also, you can barely hit offensive players if they put their heads down because "they are in a dangerous position" even if they put themselves in that position. basically, coddling the offense is getting a bit ridiculous.

So what, point totals arent like they were, omg, get over it.

 

[Cult of Hynes]

Yeah but 2 of those examples actually HURT the integrity of their sports.. and I'm not talking about the mound, obviously.

EDIT: I mean.. those were the worst examples you could use. The fact that NFL corners/safeties can't play actual defense anymore makes it too easy to catch the ball. Same goes for the NBA.. defense is literally nonexistent in the NBA these days which makes the NBA unbearable to watch. I truly don't understand how anyone could actually enjoy watching the NBA the way it is today.

The NBA was so much more fun to watch when defenders were allowed to play physical.

The NFL is a pass happy joke league now.

The Dead Puck Era is back. To me the NHL has been very boring the last few years.

The dead puck era is not back haha. Stop watching if it is boring then? some of the best games have happened recently, especially in the playoffs. close games with scores not being 7-6 like a 1980s offensive shoot out are much more enjoyable because you get to appreciate how well the goalie is playing, how good the defense is, and how good the offensive players are when they score. a run and gun game is so boring.

 

[bambamcam4ever]

Go watch Rangers and Canucks game 7 in 1994 and then tell me it's as bad now as the DPE. The Rangers and Canucks played an NFL football game that night.

1994 was before the dead puck era and after watching a bunch of that game on Youtube, it is nowhere nearly as bad as you describe. Probably comparable with the level of obstruction a couple years ago.

 

[rumrokh]

Stepping away from the factually incorrect junk about lack of 5-on-5 scoring, it's weird to me to see people say there's an awful lot of obstruction going on. There's certainly some. It's almost always in the form of picks/interference and I think the league should definitely crack down on interference. But it's absolutely nothing like the dead puck era.

I see plenty of speed and flow to the game. And even though there was more speed and space eight years ago, the game is better now. Before, players just lifting their opponents' sticks would get hooking calls all the time because their sticks were near horizontal and in the vicinity of another player. They adapted and the game opened up, but they also reached a limit. Defenders had to do something, so there were still a lot of insignificant calls that made the game feel cheap.
That's also when a new wave of complaints about diving took hold. In the 90's, I remember diving as a bit of gamesmanship. It was a cheap tactic, but now by comparison, divers are reviled. And that's because embellishment drew way too many calls at a time in our very recent memory.

It's not like they just let everything go. I regularly see referees make multiple overzealous calls per game. When a defender has one hand on his stick and gets too close to an attacking player, officials frequently call holding when there was no such thing.

Nearly everyone, from the biggest hockey fan to casual fan, prefers the playoffs. And even when ticky-tacky penalties ruled the day, refs let a lot of stuff go in the playoffs. And nearly everyone, from the most bloodthirsty to the casual fan, is glad to see way fewer high-speed checks to the head. This is the compromise we got, and what I see, while not perfect, is an era of damn good hockey.

If there's one change that I think would satisfy the complaints here and people who think the league is good as it is, it's a more significant restriction on goalie gear. I'd love to see shots go in under a goaltender's arm and fivehole goals on plays other than breakaways and deflections.

 

[Cult of Hynes]

Stepping away from the factually incorrect junk about lack of 5-on-5 scoring, it's weird to me to see people say there's an awful lot of obstruction going on. There's certainly some. It's almost always in the form of picks/interference and I think the league should definitely crack down on interference. But it's absolutely nothing like the dead puck era.

I see plenty of speed and flow to the game. And even though there was more speed and space eight years ago, the game is better now. Before, players just lifting their opponents' sticks would get hooking calls all the time because their sticks were near horizontal and in the vicinity of another player. They adapted and the game opened up, but they also reached a limit. Defenders had to do something, so there were still a lot of insignificant calls that made the game feel cheap.
That's also when a new wave of complaints about diving took hold. In the 90's, I remember diving as a bit of gamesmanship. It was a cheap tactic, but now by comparison, divers are reviled. And that's because embellishment drew way too many calls at a time in our very recent memory.

It's not like they just let everything go. I regularly see referees make multiple overzealous calls per game. When a defender has one hand on his stick and gets too close to an attacking player, officials frequently call holding when there was no such thing.

Nearly everyone, from the biggest hockey fan to casual fan, prefers the playoffs. And even when ticky-tacky penalties ruled the day, refs let a lot of stuff go in the playoffs. And nearly everyone, from the most bloodthirsty to the casual fan, is glad to see way fewer high-speed checks to the head. This is the compromise we got, and what I see, while not perfect, is an era of damn good hockey.

If there's one change that I think would satisfy the complaints here and people who think the league is good as it is, it's a more significant restriction on goalie gear. I'd love to see shots go in under a goaltender's arm and fivehole goals on plays other than breakaways and deflections.

this.

 

[Daishi]

f you want to increase goal scoring - and I'm not necessarily of that line of thinking - then you'd need to increase and/or alter the nets. Making them an inch or two higher and/or wider is pretty much the only logical solution.

So basically your response to what I wrote is "I don't care, NHL hockey can be different than hockey anywhere else in the world and in juniors".

That's just so bush league. I can't imagine global super sports like soccer having different size goals varying from country to country, or different size football fields, or differing rules regarding offsides or what type of equipment the players are allowed to wear. Similarly I can't imagine any self-respecting sport like hockey doing that either. Changing the size of the goal is a ridiculous solution to a problem people don't even agree if it exists or not. Messing with the fundamentals is just wrong. To me the whole discussion seems to stem from people who aren't real hockey fans, or are bored of the sport for other reasons, and just want to spice things up by changing the whole game into a different sport.

 

[StrangeVision]

The only reason goalies can be so effective with the "butterfly" is the huge equipment. The five hole is gone and the other equipment is so large, the goalie can just sit there and be a target because there is no net to shoot. The tall pads cover the entire bottom of the net up to 11" high and the massive catching glove and shoulder pads cover up almost everything else.

Goalies appear better because of the bigger, lighter equipment. Give today's goalies 80s equipment and they wouldn't look so good anymore.

Glenn Hall. Tony Esposito. Vladislav Tretiak. Patrick Roy.


Give me some similarities between those four goalies.

 

[SladeWilson23]

Oh boo hoo. Goalies have to deal with obstructed views from their own players as well as the opposing teams.

The offensiveness players have had the game changed to help them out how many times now? from the trapezoid which stops the goalie from being able to play the puck and help out the d, to the no red line pass, and the clutching and grabbing being cut down on big time (thankfully, that **** was annoying).

Also, you can barely hit offensive players if they put their heads down because "they are in a dangerous position" even if they put themselves in that position. basically, coddling the offense is getting a bit ridiculous.

So what, point totals arent like they were, omg, get over it.

No reason to be rude first of all.

Anyways I DO NOT disagree with you. The game today is very open, and lack of scoring chances isn't the problem. On average there's just shy of 60 shots on net per game. That's about where it was even during the 80's. What IS comparable to the DPE is the number of goals we are seeing we game. it's about 5.4 goals per game that we're seeing today.

Here's the numbers.

DURING DPE
Shots per game: between 54 and 56
Goals per game: between 5.2 and 5.5

TODAY
Shots per game: between 58 and 60
Goals per game: between 5.4 and 5.6

So we're basically seeing a blend of the DPE goal totals and the 80's scoring chance and shots totals.

 

[rumrokh]

No reason to be rude first of all.

Anyways I DO NOT disagree with you. The game today is very open, and lack of scoring chances isn't the problem. On average there's just shy of 60 shots on net per game. That's about where it was even during the 80's. What IS comparable to the DPE is the number of goals we are seeing we game. it's about 5.4 goals per game that we're seeing today.

Here's the numbers.

DURING DPE
Shots per game: between 54 and 56
Goals per game: between 5.2 and 5.5

TODAY
Shots per game: between 58 and 60
Goals per game: between 5.4 and 5.6

So we're basically seeing a blend of the DPE goal totals and the 80's scoring chance and shots totals.

Again, the big difference here is goaltending and powerplays. More speed & offensive freedom and better goaltending more or less cancel each other out, but there are fewer powerplays now. 5-on-5 is the same as it has been for 20 years.

 

[amnesiac]

expansion will fix all that over the next 4-5 years

thats said I wish they would reduce the goal equipment again

 

[Moops]

Ehhhhh...there are plenty of shots, shot attempts and scoring chances. Goalie sv% is at an all time high though, and has been for years. There's no reason why an average goalie should let in any less than one goal per ten shots.

Make the goals bigger, until scoring averages level off at about 6 goals per game (both teams obviously). Everything else in the game is entertaining enough.

 

[mja]

So basically your response to what I wrote is "I don't care, NHL hockey can be different than hockey anywhere else in the world and in juniors".

That's just so bush league. I can't imagine global super sports like soccer having different size goals varying from country to country, or different size football fields, or differing rules regarding offsides or what type of equipment the players are allowed to wear. Similarly I can't imagine any self-respecting sport like hockey doing that either. Changing the size of the goal is a ridiculous solution to a problem people don't even agree if it exists or not. Messing with the fundamentals is just wrong. To me the whole discussion seems to stem from people who aren't real hockey fans, or are bored of the sport for other reasons, and just want to spice things up by changing the whole game into a different sport.

First of all, I'm not necessarily advocating for the increase in the size of the nets, I'm merely pointing out that it is the only real way to increase scoring. To be honest, I enjoy hockey games just fine nowadays, low-scoring games don't bother me, but then I've already lived through the DPE.

Second, there are already differences in the same sports internationally. There are plenty in hockey. The dimensions of the rinks are already different. There are already differences in equipment standards, which change practically every other year. The NHL didn't have overtime, then it did, then it went to a 4-on-4 and the shootout. Do you think the world was marching in lockstep on all of those decisions. Do they do the 4-on-4 overtime outside of NA? I have no idea.

Hell, MLB has different rules between the National & American leagues, which would be the equivalent of the Eastern and Western conferences having different rules.

The reason you find changing the size of the nets so repulsive is not based on you being a real hockey fan trying to defend the game against fake fans who are easily bored and who want to spice things up. It is an irrational reaction that doesn't take changing reality into account and is based on the non-argument of "Well, that's just always the way things have been done."

Once upon a time, 1929 to be exact, there was assuredly a 'real' hockey fan or two who lost his **** when the league made the fundamental change of allowing the forward pass, which led to an explosion of goals, as well as offsides and other new-fangled rules. I'm sure those real fans took to writing broadsides against this abomination in letters to the editor of their local paper, and argued with both friends and strangers alike in their corner pub. How silly they look now.

 

[MiscBrah]

I just realized Crosby only has 8 ES goals and only 16 ES points this year.

something is wrong.

 

[AD1066]

They do, but not going to happen - at least not soon. Here's why:

Every rink in America would have to follow suit - and thats a lot of money to spend.

Yep. If memory serves many of the current rinks were after 1992-93. Would've been a great opportunity to usher in a rolling change, but the game was still pretty high-scoring back then.

And I'm not advocating a change to Olympic size, which some seem to think is the only possible outcome when someone proposes a size increase. But an extra few feet of width could really open things up for the elite skaters.

 

[Lord Flashheart]

Just call the obstruction penalties more, i.e. enforce the rules strictly. Othwrwise the game is fine.

 

[Daishi]

First of all, I'm not necessarily advocating for the increase in the size of the nets, I'm merely pointing out that it is the only real way to increase scoring.

You don't know if it's the only real way to increase scoring. How many more goals per game would be scored if the goals were an inch wider? What about two inches? Three? 0.1 goals more? 0.05 goals more? 0.5 goals more? Would you be able to notice the difference and say that the game is clearly so much better now that it outweighs the drawbacks?

In short, you don't know what the effect would be, and you have no idea if it's the only way to achieve the same effect.

Second, there are already differences in the same sports internationally. There are plenty in hockey. The dimensions of the rinks are already different.

That stems from tradition. Canadian hockey was played on small rinks, and European (Russian) hockey on large rinks. This is a hundred year old tradition, not a recent development to appease a crowd.

There are already differences in equipment standards, which change practically every other year.

The differences are absolutely marginal, and aren't fundamentally important. A goalie just gets reminded that he shouldn't get the XXXL pads when ordering his new gear because they aren't allowed in pro games.

The NHL didn't have overtime, then it did, then it went to a 4-on-4 and the shootout. Do you think the world was marching in lockstep on all of those decisions. Do they do the 4-on-4 overtime outside of NA? I have no idea.

The key word here is you have no idea. Yes. The world was marching in lockstep, because everyone agreed that there was a problem with the overtime. The only thing that the NHL didn't do is adopt the 3 point system, because more than any other league they want as much artificial parity as possible.

It is an irrational reaction that doesn't take changing reality into account and is based on the non-argument of "Well, that's just always the way things have been done."

It's not irrational at all, and you're wrong about why I find it absurd. I find it absurd because I played hockey all my life and can't come to terms with the idea that a fundamental thing such as the size of the goal would be different from league to league. If we're talking a difference of an inch, I wouldn't object as much, but then again the impact of such a change would be so marginal that it would be better off not changing it at all.

 

[C77]

Shots and 5-on-5 scoring are about the same as they have been for two decades.

I don't believe you're right about 5-on-5 being boring and scoring chances being exceptionally low, but assuming you are correct, how do we explain that? Are players taking worse shots and scoring at the same rate? Is goaltending somehow worse now because goalies are letting in the same number of goals on fewer scoring chances?

I have watched a lot of games with different teams and the only time that most teams look dangerous with in-zone set up is on the PP. The cycle game for most teams 5 on 5 used to provide good scoring chances but it doesn't work anymore because you can't work the puck to the slot which is too crowded and the defensemen don't chase. The result is almost endless perimeter play...dump puck in corner...have winger fish it out and then send it back to the point for a lob shot on net hoping for deflection...but most of the time the puck doesn't get to the net...and even if it does the goalie has the entire angle covered and if a goal is to happen it has to squeak in miraculously or hit someone then bounce to the ice where someone can whack the puck in the net from a spot on the ice that the goalie didn't think the puck would be.

The league has to make it possible for a shooter to cleanly beat a goalie more often and then teams will have to adjust defensively to prevent shots from further out, which should in turn open up the space in the slot. If you watch games from 20 years ago there was never this congestion of the slot in terms of men present and now the goalies are much bigger.

In today's NHL the only realistic way to score is to get the goalie to move side to side by changing the angle of attack or to get a 2nd chance opportunity. And the defense knows this and adjusts accordingly. So unless those two things happen you know for the most part that a goal is not going to occur. And that is the problem, not necessarily that there aren't more goals, it's that the possibility of the puck going in seems hopeless, and then when the puck finally does go it it's most often not the result of a nice play like an Adam Oates assist..it's a lucky bounce.

The issue with the point totals is that in the past if a guy like Mario Lemieux came to your team's building he was going to put on a show for the fans 9 out of 10 times. Maybe every now and then you could shut him down but not bloody likely. In today's game you can't say that about anyone.