The point total of the top players is a joke

[TheStranger]

Yep, expansion is going to force teams to play younger players or sign less talented guys to fill out a roster. Should open up things.

Maybe if they were adding 6 or more teams. 2 won't do much. Didn't do anything in 99.

They need to look at obstruction gain. Multiple times per shift there is obstruction today. Pick plays all over the ice and defenders holding forwards with a clear line to the puck.

 

[Bread and Circuses]

The Bruins have no real offensive weapon but are the only team in the NHL with 10 players with 20 points or more.

And I am fine with that.

 

[Bolt32]

I don't really want to make the nets taller because the players shooting high would as a result be at the goalies head level. However I think making the net a foot wider could be the answer to the scoring problems. Just a thought.

 

[StoneHands]

but dont make the shooter work.

Goalies save like 91% of all shots, is that not making the shooter work? Would it really make it too easy if the shooter scores 11% of the time instead of 9%? I wish goalie pads were smaller, I know they've made changes over the last decade or so but they're still massive.

For the record, I'm totally against making the nets bigger because I don't like how it would effect the rest of the hockey playing world. If the NHL increases the net by 6 inches, would they do the same in the AHL and lower minor leagues? What about Europe, Juniors, or the NCAA? How the the Olympics work? If every league doesn't make the change it's going to be a problem for player development. How are you going to convince the next elite Euro goalie to come to the NHL to play in a bigger net? I wouldn't do it if I could make just as much in the KHL and not get shelled every game. That 6 inches would be a huge adjustment for a goalie. These guys know their position in the net so well and they know exactly what shots are on net and what will miss by an inch. They'd have to learn to play in a bigger net after playing in the same 6x4 net their entire lives. Theres a reason why 5 year olds play with the same size net as the NHL does and it's so that they can adapt to the net. Goalies learn their place in the crease and shooters learn how to pick corners while barely glancing at a net because they look at the same exact target for year and years thousands of times. This would make drafting goalies even more of a problem since some would adapt and some wouldn't and there's no way of knowing until their potentially blowing an NHL game.

 

[66871]

I don't know if it's been mentioned, but I think the loser point plays a role in low scoring in that it encourages conservative play. If you had a system that was something like 3 or 4 points for a win and one point for an overtime loss (if you absolutely have to have OTLs -- or overtime/shootouts at all) teams would go all out for the win.

As it is the later it gets in a game the more incentive there is to let a tie game 'drift'.

Personally, I think they should go to the system soccer uses three points for a win and one point for a ties -- with an eight minute overtime.

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

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.

So you're assuming that players won't adjust to stricter obstructions rules, which will open up space 5v5? Sounds reasonable.

 

[StoneHands]

The Bruins have no real offensive weapon but are the only team in the NHL with 20 players with 20 points or more.

And I am fine with that.

I don't know what's more impressive about that, having every skater on your team with 20+ points or having 2 players that can't make the nightly roster with 20+ points.

 

[ort]

Scoring is down because of expansion. Back in the day, there were 21 teams and 16 of them made the playoffs. This turned the entire regular season into a glorified exhibition. It didn't really matter if you won or lost a game. Who cares... so no one played defense and coaching wasn't as strict and everyone was just out there trying to razzle-dazzle all the time. Scoring went down in the playoffs because the games actually mattered.

These days, it's A LOT harder to make the playoffs, so teams can't screw around like they used to. It's a lot tighter and a lot more competitive. Every game means so much more than it used to.

Anyway, I think there are a few easy things you can do to increase scoring. One, switch the long change to be in the 1st and 3rd periods. Second, figure out a way to drastically reduce the amount of offsides calls.

It's funny, because they call icing so loosely... as long as the player is kinda sorta nearish the red line, then whatever, or his stick crosses over the red line in his follow through... no icing... but if an attacking player 45 feet from the puck carriers skate is .25 inches over the line before the puck... the whole play is called dead.

I don't know what the answer is, maybe have a 3 foot wide line and as soon as the puck goes over one end of it, it doesn't matter where the attackers are? That way they can be ahead of the play, and it still stops guys from cherry picking and keeps the spirit of the rule intact, while also allowing for more exciting rushes to actually not get called down.

 

[Bread and Circuses]

I don't know what's more impressive about that, having every skater on your team with 20+ points or having 2 players that can't make the nightly roster with 20+ points.

Haha...woops...fixed.

 

[Ogopogo*]

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


Give me some similarities between those four goalies.

They all played behind stellar defenses for good parts of their careers and wore red jerseys. Is there a point?

 

[Ogopogo*]

Patrick Roy used the Butterfly with his 80's equipment. In the 80's...
Both his gloves (and everyone else's at the time) were longer than what is allowed today.
His Pads (and almost everyone else's) were also wider.

The reason goalie's look bigger now is
1. They are bigger 3-5" taller
2. They position many times better
3. Pads are cut more flat to control rebounds and seal along the ice

Not because the current smaller gear with many more restrictions is somehow bigger.

I know you are likely too young to have actually seen Roy play in the 80s but, the Canadiens played a very tight, defensive style. Roy saw less quality shots than any other goalie the NHL and that is why he saw success. The team sacrificed offense to play defense and they were successful with that strategy.

If you honestly think today's equipment is smaller than what it was in the 80s, you need to do better research.

 

[rumrokh]

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.

There's a lot of truth to this, but it's a little extreme. The league hasn't had a Mario Lemieux since, surprise, Mario Lemieux retired. Ovechkin in his first couple of years is the closest thing. Even with reduced goalie equipment and more room in the slot, the style of guys like Crosby and Stamkos is speed and straight lines, not insane creativity and making impossible plays look easy. It's unreasonable to stack it up like that and imply that's why we don't have another Mario Lemieux.

Furthermore, that doesn't address my question very well because you're basically saying flow and scoring chances do exist, just not the ones that excite you. I appreciate that and cannot argue with it, but I also think your description is a bit less ubiquitous than you say. I do watch other teams, but I guess I'm spoiled watching the Blues. They have a great breakout and guys like Tarasenko, Schwartz, Oshie, Steen, and Lehtera make clever plays in the middle of the ice and beat goalies clean all the time. I see the same things happening with several other teams, but I admit I watch almost twice as many Blues games.

One thing I'll add is that I think the league may have screwed up by increasing the size of the offensive zone. Maybe it was absolutely essential, but when the blue line was closer, point shots were way more dangerous, turnovers at the opposing blue line had a different effect, and there was more room to maneuver in the neutral zone. I'd be interested to see an exhibition with the goal moved closer to the boards and the blue line closer to the goal again.

 

[StrangeVision]

They all played behind stellar defenses for good parts of their careers and wore red jerseys. Is there a point?

Come on. Surely someone with your extensive knowledge of hockey history and goaltending technique can offer a better answer than that.


Also, you like to attribute lower scoring to increasing goalie equipment, but wouldn't the drop in scoring also coincide with the rise of trapping strategies in the mid-90s?


I'll wait to elaborate on my reason for listing those four goalies after you offer up some kind of analysis on them.

 

[KingsFan7824]

Scoring is down because of expansion. Back in the day, there were 21 teams and 16 of them made the playoffs. This turned the entire regular season into a glorified exhibition. It didn't really matter if you won or lost a game. Who cares... so no one played defense and coaching wasn't as strict and everyone was just out there trying to razzle-dazzle all the time. Scoring went down in the playoffs because the games actually mattered.

These days, it's A LOT harder to make the playoffs, so teams can't screw around like they used to. It's a lot tighter and a lot more competitive. Every game means so much more than it used to.

Can't say I ever thought of quite like that. Makes sense though. 76% of the league made the playoffs, and on top of that it was 4 from every division, which resulted in Toronto making the playoffs one year with the 2nd worst record in the league.

 

[SladeWilson23]

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.

I agree.

But that's only a problem if you want more scoring. I don't necessarily feel the league needs more scoring.

So yes, while goaltending and fewer powerplays are the biggest factors for the lower goal totals, I don't see it as a problem per se.

What I would like to see is them put more of a restriction on thigh rises though. I do think the goalie position has become boring to watch. I miss the acrobatic saves, and the reflex saves that made the position fun to watch in the 90's.

 

[Snapdragin]

Anyone notice how the people who enjoy scoring are actually putting ideas out there and having discussions, while the people who pretend to enjoy terrible hockey use hyperbole to mask their lack of any convincing narrative?

Hockey is as boring as I have seen in it my admittedly short tenure as a fan.

Must mean I don't like the game since I don't blindly accept its faults as if literal hockey gods crafted the game perfectly.

It also must be said, that anecdotally, a lot of people in the thread who are saying that scoring is not needed are sporting avatars of boring teams.

 

[Ogopogo*]

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.

Quoted for truth.

A lot of people have argued in favor of scoring levels the way they are and many others have argued that there is a lack of scoring. Clear away all of the noise and it comes down to one thing: the way the game is played today, hockey is boring.

The post I quoted outlines it nicely. Hockey used to be beautifully creative and great snipers could score on a clean shot from the top of the circle. As C77 stated, most goals today bounce in off someone's leg or are the result of a rebound. A "good" offensive play today is considered getting a shot on goal that results in rebound. That is pathetic. I miss what the game used to be. 30 years ago hockey was incredibly fun to watch, today it just isn't. I watch more basketball than hockey these days. What people refer to as scoring chances really are not. There is no room to sneak one past the goalie and, even if there is, four players are blocking the net anyway.

Argue about the appropriate level of scoring all you want, the reality is, the entertainment value is just not there anymore. The game I used to love is now just some sport that I used to know. I feel sorry for those too young to have experienced the 70s, 80s and early 90s first hand. Back then, watching hockey was fantastic. Today, I can't be bothered most of the time.

The game is dying and that is sad.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Come on. Surely someone with your extensive knowledge of hockey history and goaltending technique can offer a better answer than that.


Also, you like to attribute lower scoring to increasing goalie equipment, but wouldn't the drop in scoring also coincide with the rise of trapping strategies in the mid-90s?


I'll wait to elaborate on my reason for listing those four goalies after you offer up some kind of analysis on them.

Honestly I don't really care. The game is just not entertaining anymore because of the huge goalie equipment and stifling defensive systems. Until the NHL has a product that resembles what we had back in the 70s, 80s or early 90s, I suspect I will be spending a lot of winter nights watching basketball.

 

[SmellOfVictory]

Anyone notice how the people who enjoy scoring are actually putting ideas out there and having discussions, while the people who pretend to enjoy terrible hockey use hyperbole to mask their lack of any convincing narrative?

Hockey is as boring as I have seen in it my admittedly short tenure as a fan.

Must mean I don't like the game since I don't blindly accept its faults as if literal hockey gods crafted the game perfectly.

It also must be said, that anecdotally, a lot of people in the thread who are saying that scoring is not needed are sporting avatars of boring teams.

"Pretend"? Nice that you seem to have mind-reading capabilities.

Why would higher scoring necessarily be a good thing? The NBA has a crapton of scoring and basketball is boring as hell to watch.

 

[Analyst365]

If hockey is so boring then one needs to ask one's self what one is doing here. Here.

 

[Ogopogo*]

If hockey is so boring then one needs to ask one's self what one is doing here. Here.

Reminiscing about the old days when hockey was the greatest sport on the planet.

 

[Analyst365]

Reminiscing about when hockey was the greatest sport on the planet.

Yeah it really reads like reminiscing. So much warmth in this room.

 

[rumrokh]

"Pretend"? Nice that you seem to have mind-reading capabilities.

Why would higher scoring necessarily be a good thing? The NBA has a crapton of scoring and basketball is boring as hell to watch.

Bingo. The idea that someone else is pretending to like something just because you, yourself, don't like it is stunningly arrogant. People enjoy different things because they have different values and tastes. There's no objective reality to frame as it concerns personal pleasure.

 

[Whambino]

Honestly, I enjoy less scoring. Sie the highlight reels aren't as impressive, but it makes for much more competitive hockey. I enjoy watching 2-1 hockey games more than 6-5 games. A point I don't think people are looking at is the coaching. Teams are much more structured and play like a unit more than just a few good guys taking control every night. It also makes big moments, like a hat-trick, that much more impressive.

 

[StrangeVision]

Honestly I don't really care. The game is just not entertaining anymore because of the huge goalie equipment and stifling defensive systems. Until the NHL has a product that resembles what we had back in the 70s, 80s or early 90s, I suspect I will be spending a lot of winter nights watching basketball.

I just don't get it. You claim to be or at least seem to favor yourself as some kind of hockey sage and yet you can't provide any real thoughts on four goalies who had profound effects on the development of goaltending (and thus hockey history as a whole) and who are extremely relevant to your argument. I'm not asking for detailed analysis on each individual goalie, I'm really just asking for a generalized analysis on them as a single group.