The point total of the top players is a joke

[mandiblesofdoom]

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.

I don't know - watching Gretzky highlights from the 80s the thing that stands out is how bad some of the defenders were. It looks nothing like today.

Also, how much space there was to shoot at.

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 agree with this. If you want to increase scoring, this is the way to go.

 

[mja]

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.


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.


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 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'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.

You've played hockey all of your life and you can't come to terms with bigger nets. That's pretty much exactly what I said.

There's so much more wrong with the rest of this. First there are all the contradictions you offer up. There are no differences from league to league, except there are, but they're either minor or rooted in tradition. (BTW, I'm reasonably certain that if the NHL changed the size of the nets, everyone else would quickly follow suit, so would that erase your objections? Somehow I think not.) Making the nets bigger wouldn't change things that much, but despite that is something you can't come to terms with.

Also, pray tell, what are the supposed drawbacks of increasing the size of the net, aside perhaps from making it easier to score? Are skaters going to be bumping into the net somehow more frequently, causing an increase in injuries? Are goalies going to go on strike to protest this change? Will the increase in the net obstruct the views of spectators to such an extent that class-action lawsuits will be filed? Really, what's the bad thing that's going to happen if you make the nets bigger?

 

[CarpeNoctem]

It's not as entertaining as it once was, granted, but the game still has excitement/entertainment value for sure. The top-end speed and strength we see today is greater than ever before. There will have to be some moves taken, specifically disallowing interference on o-zone chip ins and more to allow some additional chances.

 

[habsterr]

Increasing the net size or making goalie gear smaller is a bad idea, maybe if the offensive player stopped sucking and worked harder they could produce more.

Another thing if the NHL takes out the salary cap and remove the offside rule; that could increase scoring too.

 

[Tough Guy]

It's beyond a joke.

Dead puck hockey is back and has been for several years. This stuff is boring as sin. I can't even watch it.

 

[Bending and Tending]

I don't hear too many NHL players blame lack of scoring on goalie equipment, net size, etc

 

[Topgoon]

I don't know - watching Gretzky highlights from the 80s the thing that stands out is how bad some of the defenders were. It looks nothing like today.

While there is no doubt overall defense has improved a lot, using a goal scoring highlight reel to gauge an entire era's defense is going to be biased (especially if you use Wayne's due to his unique play style).

Kids 2 decades from will easily think of today's defensemen as pylons and goalies as slow, bloated michelin-men if they judged our defense today with a Datsyuk highlight. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-zh3I7vZJ0

My personal hypothesis (verification required) is that a large chunk of goals is scored during the transition game, and there are less and less of these transitional attack moments exist now in hockey games since teams are either possession driven in the offense, while defense focuses more on denying zone entry.

 

[byrath]

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.

This is the only good argument against making the nets (a little) bigger that I've seen.

 

[mja]

This is the only good argument against making the nets (a little) bigger that I've seen.

Except it's not a good argument. It makes an assumption that shouldn't be made, i.e. that if the NHL changed the size of the nets, it would be the only league to do so. If most leagues around the world also changed the size of the net, then he'd be ok with it? Somehow I doubt it.

I'm not even necessarily in favor of making any changes to increase scoring, I'm completely fine with 2-1 games and a guy leading the league in scoring with a sub-100 season, but if they move each post out another inch or so and move the crossbar up a couple of inches it won't ruin anything and it is the only meaningful way to really increase scoring.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

the only thing worse than low scoring DPE 2.0 hockey is the posters on HFboards saying "you're not a true fan if you cant see the beauty in a 2-1 game blah blah blah".

Obviously we all love hockey and still watch these games, but we know it can be better.

 

[Windy River]

Change hockey to 4 on 4 maybe

 

[Shrimper]

Change hockey to 4 on 4 maybe

NHLPA would never agree to that.

 

[Love]

Maybe if holding and hooking were called like they're written in the rule book...

And just 11 posts in, we have the correct answer to this thread.

The last time the rule book was correctly enforced in the NHL was the 05/06 season. That is what the league should be like today, but instead we're having a season where the Art Ross winner will probably be under 100 points.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I don't hear too many NHL players blame lack of scoring on goalie equipment, net size, etc

They are all too young to know any better. Are there any players active that played back in the '92-'93 season? Jagr is about it and it takes talent like his to be able to score with any consistency these days. All most players know is dead puck hockey with huge goalie equipment and stifling defensive systems. Whey you are born in the 90s, you really don't know what good hockey was like 1970 through 1994.

Add to that player pride. Who wants to be the guy that speaks out saying it is too hard to score? They all keep their mouths shut and cash their paychecks.

 

[Frenchy]

Change hockey to 4 on 4 maybe

If The NHL ever turn to 4 on 4 hockey games , i will stop stop watching hockey for the rest of my life . It's bad enough that i have to Watch shootouts as a way to decide the outcome of a hockey , i'm not gonna Watch 4 on 4 hockey for 60 minutes .

 

[1865]

As someone who was a soccer fan long before he was a hockey fan, I like the lower goals totals. Every goal means more, blow-outs are rarer and therefore a bit more special and the best players really shine through. I'd never want it to get to 2 goal games being the norm, but it's more exciting to have a 3-2 than a 6-5 every night.

 

[Trottier]

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.

"Critical thought". Look it up. It's a pretty basic concept.

Takes just a bit of effort to challenge one's own assumptions and trying to take the opposing point of view in order to achieve clarity and the truth.

Like this: those who find the game dull and want more scoring have every right to those opinions. And, as you stated, many have provided recommendations that merit consideration.

Likewise, those of us who are more apt to hesitate to make changes to the game and who enjoy, perhaps, other aspects of the games outside of scoring, think otherwise.

That's not "pretending", Sparky.

Disagree all you want. Challenge the opinion.

However, how dare you challenge the legitimacy of anyone's stated opinion? Simply because it doesn't align with yours.

 

[haveandare]

All this net talk is extremely silly. It's not about goals and points IMO - I couldn't care less about the point totals - it's about the flow of the game. People want to see more back and forth, more chances off the rush and more good sequences of real scoring chances.

I don't want to see more people picking corners because there's extra room there now - the game itself before and outside of the goals needs to improve, and calling obstruction again is the best way to do that without making this game into some joke to appeal to a more general audience.

 

[Viktri]

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.

Very true. A 2-0-1 system changes the payout of different coaching systems - a game that goes 0-0 or 1-1 to OT most games is just (or more) effective as one that wins 8-1 and loses 4-3 the next (both teams end up with 2 points after 2 games).

 

[Trottier]

All this net talk is extremely silly. It's not about goals and points IMO - I couldn't care less about the point totals - it's about the flow of the game. People want to see more back and forth, more chances off the rush and more good sequences of real scoring chances.

I can buy into that premise entirely.

That said, there are indeed "people" in this very thread whose stated benchmark of a better game is "more goals". Again, their prerogative, but I, and others, don't concur.

I have my own opinions of how to tackle this issue, and have stated them, but they do not resonate on this particular board, only elsewhere. So I'll continue to read others' opinions with interest.

 

[BobDobolina]

Cut the teams down to 24 to improve the quality, so many teams are too watered down with AHL-level talents.

 

[middletoe]

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.

It does do that for sure. But I miss the 5 goal games like when Gretzky scored 5 goals to reach 50 goals in 39 games. Would absolutely love to have been in the arena that night. You?

 

[jskramer83]

I'm on the other end of the spectrum, there is just more talent in the NHL then their has been in the past.

Because of the depth in talent, a teams 1st line can no longer just dominate other teams 2nd and 3rd lines. See the Philadelphia Flyers and Dallas Stars, also has greatly to do with the Salary Cap. Back in the 80's a team like the Pittsburgh Penguins would be able to sign all-star caliber wingers to play with Crosby and Malkin and just dominate. Now they have to resort to solid players like Hornquist and trading for a guy like Perron since they need to be cap compliant

Not to mention Goaltenders are also a lot more talented, having watched hockey for over 30 years this is as enjoyable as it has been for me. But guess I'm in the minority here, the choice I guess comes to would you rather have parity, or guys putting up 160 pts.

 

[jskramer83]

Cut the teams down to 24 to improve the quality, so many teams are too watered down with AHL-level talents.

Cutting teams down would just give teams more depth, both offensively and defensively, not to mention the quality of goalies each teams. Scores may be the same or even go down

 

[haveandare]

I can buy into that premise entirely.

That said, there are indeed "people" in this very thread whose stated benchmark of a better game is "more goals". Again, their prerogative, but I, and others, don't concur.

I have my own opinions of how to tackle this issue, and have stated them, but they do not resonate on this particular board, only elsewhere. So I'll continue to read others' opinions with interest.

They're free to have whatever opinions they want. I wonder how many of them just want more exciting play and are thinking of their desires in the simplest terms, aka, "more goals." I personally don't want more goals if the goals are easier to come by. If they come from more exciting play, that's another thing entirely.

Soccer is among the most popular games in the world, and games often have 1 or 2 goals total. Some sports just aren't scoring fests. I believe hockey is one of those games and shouldn't become something else entirely because a subgroup of fans desires it.

It does do that for sure. But I miss the 5 goal games like when Gretzky scored 5 goals to reach 50 goals in 39 games. Would absolutely love to have been in the arena that night. You?

Sure, I would have loved to be there. But, should a Gretzky feat by achievable by any great scorer in the game at any given time just for the sake of excitement? Also, Gabby scored 5 on NYR years back and there've been a few 4 goal games by individual players the last few years, no?