The point total of the top players is a joke

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

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.

Goalie equipment has nothing to do with how entertaining a game is, lol. It's scoring chances that matter, which lead to more goals, not the fact that a goal went in. No one wants to see a game where 50% of the shots taken go in the net.

 

[Ragamuffin Gunner]

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.

This. More bad goals doesn't make the game exciting.

 

[Passchendaele]

Goalie equipment has nothing to do with how entertaining a game is, lol. It's scoring chances that matter,

That's where you're wrong.

If goalie equipment were smaller, more shots would be considered "scoring chances"

Back in the 70s, you'd see Lafleur skate all the way to the offensive zone and score with a blast from the faceoff circle.

Nowadays, how many goals are actually scored that way? Almost none.

 

[Ugene Magic]

Pretty much this, although I don't see it as a negative. Yes, the best teams aren't that much better than the below average teams, and the best players aren't that much better than the below average players, there's a lot of parity in the league now. For me, though, it makes for exciting, unpredictable games, where any team can win, and any player can be the difference maker. I'd personally rather watch this than a league with way less parity, i.e. the NBA where the elite players like LeBron are virtually unstoppable, and the top teams win 65 games while the worst teams win 15.

I do think the intrigue around stars probably has the most commercial appeal, but for me personally I like to watch tight competition between really evenly matched players/teams.

That's it in a nutshell, but it shouldn't be manufactured by way of leveling the playing field by punishing better teams for being better.

They're not in the business to feel sorry for poorly run teams. If a team creates more infractions they should get more PP's. The "even up calls" shouldn't even be in their vocabulary. There are bad teams out there, why do they see the need to award them?

The league is only what they make it. There's a fine line from actual parity and making teams look better for sake of parity.

 

[Ugene Magic]

That's where you're wrong.

If goalie equipment were smaller, more shots would be considered "scoring chances"

Back in the 70s, you'd see Lafleur skate all the way to the offensive zone and score with a blast from the faceoff circle.

Nowadays, how many goals are actually scored that way? Almost none.

Hate to tell you but if a puck hits the goaltender it a scoring chance. If you're talking great scoring chance...? What you describe is what most would consider a goalie should have easily. Goalies get beat like that for various reasons like off their angle, whether or not they're in the butterfly or standing up, or if they're deep in their net or out to cut the angle down.

Players are bigger and better then the old 70's, but I do agree the equipment is larger than it needs to be for your overall premis.

 

[613Leafer]

Goalie equipment has nothing to do with how entertaining a game is, lol. It's scoring chances that matter, which lead to more goals, not the fact that a goal went in. No one wants to see a game where 50% of the shots taken go in the net.

Basketball fans probably would! In fact, they'd probably prefer no goalies at all.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Goalie equipment has nothing to do with how entertaining a game is, lol. It's scoring chances that matter, which lead to more goals, not the fact that a goal went in. No one wants to see a game where 50% of the shots taken go in the net.

Goalie equipment has LOT to do with the entertainment value. What people call scoring chances really aren't because there is no realistic way to get the puck past the wall of equipment.

There was no need to increase save % from .880 averages but, with the equipment explosion of today, we have seen save % average about .910. What is the benefit of that? Boredom.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

I am likely in the minority here, but I find old clips of the 70s and 80s painful to watch on a given average. Even the 90s is guilty of this. To me, the goalies were just so bloody awful back then, it's hard to feel excited, Scoring could stand to go up a bit, however not to the point where skating into the offensive zone virtually unopposed and slapping the puck is an easy goal.

 

[Passchendaele]

I am likely in the minority here, but I find old clips of the 70s and 80s painful to watch on a given average. Even the 90s is guilty of this. To me, the goalies were just so bloody awful back then, it's hard to feel excited, Scoring could stand to go up a bit, however not to the point where skating into the offensive zone virtually unopposed and slapping the puck is an easy goal.

The look awful because they actually had to move and use their reflexes to stop pucks. Goaltenders didn't depend on "looking big" in front of the net.

Most goaltenders of today would also look awful if you threw them in the 80s (with 80s gear).

Goaltending has gotten better, but not that much better.

 

[haveandare]

Goalie equipment has LOT to do with the entertainment value. What people call scoring chances really aren't because there is no realistic way to get the puck past the wall of equipment.

There was no need to increase save % from .880 averages but, with the equipment explosion of today, we have seen save % average about .910. What is the benefit of that? Boredom.

Except for all those times that players do get the puck past the "wall of equipment." You talk as if it's a rare occasion when there's literally one team in the entire league that averages less than 2 goals a game.

Are you not excited on a 2 on 1 because you think it's too hard to score?

And again, I don't know how many people need to say this how many times, but you being bored doesn't mean everyone is bored. Your opinions are perfectly valid, but you cannot speak for everyone.

 

[haveandare]

I am likely in the minority here, but I find old clips of the 70s and 80s painful to watch on a given average. Even the 90s is guilty of this. To me, the goalies were just so bloody awful back then, it's hard to feel excited, Scoring could stand to go up a bit, however not to the point where skating into the offensive zone virtually unopposed and slapping the puck is an easy goal.

You're not alone. I cringe at some of the goals from back in the day. I don't want to go back to a slapshot from half-way out without any traffic being a legitimate scoring threat.

There's something to be said for scoring being more exciting when it's more rare. Look how crazy a soccer arena goes after a goal, then watch a few dozen people stand up and clap after a basket in an NBA game. It's a flawed example in ways, but it illustrates what I'm talking about.

 

[C77]

Except for all those times that players do get the puck past the "wall of equipment." You talk as if it's a rare occasion when there's literally one team in the entire league that averages less than 2 goals a game.

Are you not excited on a 2 on 1 because you think it's too hard to score?

And again, I don't know how many people need to say this how many times, but you being bored doesn't mean everyone is bored. Your opinions are perfectly valid, but you cannot speak for everyone.

A 2 on 1 is great...one of the few real "quality scoring opportunities" in today's game because the goalie has to move side to side on the pass. The problem is that there are too few odd man rushes up the ice...too much trapping in the neutral zone.

 

[Offtheboard412]

That's where you're wrong.

If goalie equipment were smaller, more shots would be considered "scoring chances"

Back in the 70s, you'd see Lafleur skate all the way to the offensive zone and score with a blast from the faceoff circle.

Nowadays, how many goals are actually scored that way? Almost none.

Those types of goals are definitely not as common but its definitely not that rare. Lafleur was one of the greatest players of all time, of course not many players are going to be capable of doing that. Great players can still do that though, we all watched Ovechkin destroy the league by skating into the zone and beating goalies with wrist shots from the wing over and over again.

Heck, Brandon Sutter scores almost all of his goals off the rush in the same manner. Beats goalies far side from the circles.

 

[seafoam]

Personally, I find a 2-1 game with tight checking a big saves a lot more interesting than a 6-5 goal fest.

I'm not really sure how to explain it, but I feel like the stakes are higher for the players when goals are at more of a premium, or more difficult to come by. That energy from the players flows to me, the fan.

 

[CartographerNo611]

Parity and low scoring are a packaged deal. Only way to change that is to change hockey into a different sport... Which most of hf seems intent to do with all these stupid rule threads popping up.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Except for all those times that players do get the puck past the "wall of equipment." You talk as if it's a rare occasion when there's literally one team in the entire league that averages less than 2 goals a game.

Are you not excited on a 2 on 1 because you think it's too hard to score?

And again, I don't know how many people need to say this how many times, but you being bored doesn't mean everyone is bored. Your opinions are perfectly valid, but you cannot speak for everyone.

Agreed. There are many too young to know any better and the modern game is all they know. Those who have seen both understand how much better the game used to be.

 

[rumrokh]

Agreed. There are many too young to know any better and the modern game is all they know. Those who have seen both understand how much better the game used to be.

I've been a hockey fan since the 80's and I just don't agree. There were some better things about the game before, but there are some better things about it now. You have a preference and that's fine, but you sound pompous and foolish when you assume that people with the same information must have the same preference.

 

[haveandare]

Agreed. There are many too young to know any better and the modern game is all they know. Those who have seen both understand how much better the game used to be.

That's almost word for word the caricature of the old person nostalgic for past times.

"Kids today are too young to know any better and modern movies/music/art/sports/lifestyle/culture etc are all they know. Those who were alive back in my day understand how much better everything used to be."

Time changes all facets of human life.

And it's not like young people today can't access NHL games from days past. Some people, dare I say many, many people, know what the game used to be like and just prefer today's game.

 

[rumrokh]

That's almost word for word the caricature of the old person nostalgic for past times.

"Kids today are too young to know any better and modern movies/music/art/sports/lifestyle/culture etc are all they know. Those who were alive back in my day understand how much better everything used to be."

Time changes all facets of human life.

And it's not like young people today can't access NHL games from days past. Some people, dare I say many, many people, know what the game used to be like and just prefer today's game.

Nah, man, don't you get it, everybody's brain has to work just like mine and if they don't have identical priorities and tastes, they're doing it wrong. But that's okay, it's not their fault. They merely have to accept my superior knowledge or my pity.

 

[StrangeVision]

That's where you're wrong.

If goalie equipment were smaller, more shots would be considered "scoring chances"

Back in the 70s, you'd see Lafleur skate all the way to the offensive zone and score with a blast from the faceoff circle.

Nowadays, how many goals are actually scored that way? Almost none.

And how much of an effect will shaving an inch off the shoulder and a couple inches off the top of the pads really have on those long shots? Really, how many shots do you suspect hit those specific areas? I can't believe I actually have to say this again (third thread within a week and half, I think?), have the equipment decreases in the past couple years led to any increase in goal scoring? Goalies will adapt. They had to after the 2004 lockout, they've had to in the past few years with other changes, they will in the future.

And do you know why?

|
|
|
V

The look awful because they actually had to move and use their reflexes to stop pucks. Goaltenders didn't depend on "looking big" in front of the net.

Most goaltenders of today would also look awful if you threw them in the 80s (with 80s gear).

Goaltending has gotten better, but not that much better.

Yes it has. Goaltending has evolved by orders of magnitude in the past 30 years. Goalies of the past moved and looked awful because their technique was, for lack of a better way to put it, for ****. I'm not saying they were flat-out bad -- they were performing as best they could with current conventional wisdom on the position -- but goalie technique has improved by leaps and bounds. And it's not the equipment alone that prohibited them from employing butteryfly techniques.

Goalies in the past have used the butterfly technique. In one of my previous posts I listed four goalies -- Glenn Hall, Tony Esposito, Vladislav Tretiak, and Patrick Roy -- I didn't list them just because I like their names. Each one employed the butterfly (or a hybrid form) and paved the way for future goalies; they used the technique despite having to use old school pads and equipment. So, while the lighter equipment of the modern age does lend itself to the butterfly (as it was designed to do), you can play a modern style in older equipment. One of the significant developments that led to the viability of the butterfly had nothing to do with body coverage. Brownie points to the person who can point it out.

And surely it's just a coincidence that those four goalies are considered some of the best in hockey history.

Agreed. There are many too young to know any better and the modern game is all they know. Those who have seen both understand how much better the game used to be.

All this talk about all the "youngins" and you have yet to show any real knowledge about hockey and especially about goaltending. Like, none...at all.

 

[DuklaNation]

Players are bigger and faster today which makes the rink seem smaller. Some minor adjustments to the rules or physical aspects need to be made.

Someone post the team records when leading after 2 periods. It is sick.

 

[Ogopogo*]

All this talk about all the "youngins" and you have yet to show any real knowledge about hockey and especially about goaltending. Like, none...at all.

The fact is, I don't really give a **** about playing your game and responding to your questions. It doesn't change the reality that hockey used to be entertaining and today it is not. In 1995, the game went to **** because of two things: large goaltending equipment and stifling defensive systems. For both reasons and the entertainment value of the game has absent since.

If you enjoy watching boring hockey, Gary Bettman thanks you. I don't enjoy the crap we are being served these days so I am sure Adam Silver has sent Bettman a thank you card for we who are being turned away from the NHL. When TV ratings get low enough, maybe they will fix the game. Until then, I am not impressed.

 

[Twisted Blue]

Get rid of goaltender interference! That will increase scoring and bring a new element to the game.

 

[Doc Scurlock]

Goalie equipment has LOT to do with the entertainment value. What people call scoring chances really aren't because there is no realistic way to get the puck past the wall of equipment.

There was no need to increase save % from .880 averages but, with the equipment explosion of today, we have seen save % average about .910. What is the benefit of that? Boredom.

You also have to factor in that players block way more shots these days then they ever did back then. A guy firing a shot from a decent length from the net has to hope no d-men block it and that it gets past the goalies big equipment. Hell, the majority of the time those shots go in because it bounces off some other player and gets redirected into the net.

 

[RadimBicanek]

League should call more obstruction penalties, or get rid of offsides.