The point total of the top players is a joke

[Beatnik]

I'm so sick of these threads. Change the channel if you don't like it

Don't read it if you don't like it.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Evidence is the KHL. Not a humongous scoring differential (besides Radulov scoring almost 2PPG) but it's flashier and more exciting.

Evidence = Olympics

 

[bert]

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

This and interference it's basically stopped.

 

[Bee Sheriff]

Evidence = Olympics

Bingo. Anyone who says NHL Hockey is better than that was is out of their mind. They probably prefer their french fries unsalted too.

 

[RedWingsForPresident]

Don't read it if you don't like it.

When the "National Hockey League" thread has about 3 of these things on it all the time I feel like I have to comment on at least one saying stop these. I don't bother reading them because it's usually someone that is an armchair GM and thinks they could run the league better

Why don't we just make goals worth 6 points, have a penalty shot for an extra point, take away offsides, no face-off after goals just take it out of the net and keep playing, defenseman can't use sticks, goalies have to wear normal players pads. Now every game can be 90-89 and exciting to watch

 

[Tripod]

The single biggest thing driving down scoring is the evolution of goaltending and I'm not even strictly talking about the wholesale adoption of the butterfly, though that's been huge.

Goalies are just so much bigger on average than they used to be. Only 5 goalies under 6' have played a game in the NHL this season, and none of them are under 5'10". The overwhelming majority of NHL goaltenders are 6'2" or taller. Go back to the 80's and that was most definitely not the case. A 6'3" guy like Ron Hextall was a freaking monster back then, size-wise. He'd be thoroughly average today.

If increasing scoring is your goal, you have to look to the nets. There's just a lot less net to shoot at then there used to be. The only way to change that is to increase the size of the nets.

And that's the part I don't get from fans....like the post above mine.

We ALL KNOW the goalies are better.
We ALL KNOW the systems are better.
We ALL KNOW the goalie equipment is bigger.
We ALL KNOW the goalie themselves are bigger.

So with ALL these things going in the goalies favour, why is it such a big deal to increase the size of a net by 2-3 inches?

To me, it shouldn't be.

 

[avsfan09]

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

This x1000!.

Watching my team constantly getting interfered with and slowed down is incredibly frustrating.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

I'd rather see higher point toals too, even the early 00's had more impressive numbers.

Maybe it's because I grew up in the 80s during the offensive explosion period, where having multiple 100 point guys on one team wasn't so out of the ordinary. But I miss the days when the offensive stars put up big numbers. It's part of the reason I lost interest in hockey during the dead puck era.

I just find scoring in hockey more exciting than anything else. Just my preference. So when I see the scoring in today's game, and when I see how even the superstars of this league struggle to reach 100 points, I miss the days when scoring 80 points likely meant you finished 3rd or 4th on your team in points.

*Sigh*

Maybe one day they'll do something to increase scoring. Something as simple as making the nets even a fraction bigger or goalie equipment that doesn't make goalies look twice as wide as the 1980's and early 90's.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

Bingo. Anyone who says NHL Hockey is better than that was is out of their mind. They probably prefer their french fries unsalted too.

Actually the last Olympics was a low-scoring and boring affair on bigger ice, but.

 

[kingsholygrail]

Get rid of the salary cap and you will see more scoring guaranteed. You'll get your dynasty teams back too which is another complaint that pops up here.

 

[SladeWilson23]

Increasing net size or decreasing goalie pad size is another option, but I can't see the either of those happening.

If a thorough scientific study shows that players on average are 2-3 inches taller today than they were say 20-30 years ago, then I might be willing to make the nets bigger.

My favorite possible solution would be to allow players a certain amount of leeway when it comes to offsides. Basically, if it's a close play at the line, don't call it. Only blatant off-sides (more than 4 or 5 feet offside, or a player that failed to properly tag-up) would be whistled down. That would make carrying the puck into the zone a lot easier, which has been found to be the most effective way of getting scoring chances. Players would be free to make moves at the line without having to worry about putting their teammate offside. I think this rule would make players less likely to dump and chase and you'd see more creative rush plays. It would also make it harder to defend, as holding the line in order to make the attacking team go offside would be harder to do.

I've been saying this for a while.

Exactly... It takes a "real fan" to appreciate ugly deflection goals. Last night Pens vs Flyers. Flyers first goal, deflection, second goal deflection and third goal, scrum in front knock in a loose puck.

3 ugly goals.

Deflection goals are pretty cool to see imo. The hand eye coordination needed to not only make contact with the blade of the stick to the puck, but to direct the puck into a small gap in a goalie's pad is pretty impressive when you consider the fact you have nanoseconds to pull this off. Not to mention you have to do this when a defender is probably battling with you for that area of the ice.

I don't disagree with your point, but I don't agree with you putting deflection goals into the "garbage" category.

I am fine with a number of suggestions as long as it doesn't include making the nets bigger. I think making the rink a bit bigger will help free up some space and allow players to be more creative. It will also help in terms of safety.

IMO, try a different shape tubing for the goalposts. Give any shot that hits the post a better chance at entering the net just from the ricochet of the puck.

Evidence is the KHL. Not a humongous scoring differential (besides Radulov scoring almost 2PPG) but it's flashier and more exciting.

I think going to 92 foot wide rinks would be a nice middle ground instead of using 100 foot wide rinks.

 

[Zaddy]

The first thing I'd look at is bigger ice. Opens up more room for creativity and less players get away with being bad skaters = faster game. Don't know if it would increase scoring but it would probably be more entertaining hockey.

 

[Bee Sheriff]

Actually the last Olympics was a low-scoring and boring affair on bigger ice, but.

USA-Canada was. Not many other games were so tight scoring wise. Besides, it still supports my original point, the scoring on bigger ice doesn't really change but the style of play is much flashier and more exciting. Its pass-shoot-score not grind-shoot-deflect

 

[SladeWilson23]

IMO, Olympic size ice is too big. My solution is to go to 92 foot wide rinks instead.

 

[Bizz]

I blame the lack of scoring on the rise of shot blocking and the neutral zone trap.

 

[Nordique]

I find the game very enjoyable as it is played today. Could it be improved? Yes, but it also could be much much worse if the wrong folks start tinkering with it.

As for league balance, I think we have the right mix of balance now. Fans in all markets can be engaged knowing their team has a shot at building a winner through drafts and free agency regardless of the size of their checkbook.

 

[YukonCornelius 5thOA]

The game has just changed with the advancements of better coaching, better equipment, and bigger, and better athletes. As a hockey fan you just need to live in the now because it's not going back to what we used to see. I don't like lots of it but my love of hockey in general trumps letting me not enjoy it.

 

[SladeWilson23]

Strikeouts are insanely high in baseball, and walks are also down. Not to mention there's been 18 no-hitters since 2008. There was a grand total of ZERO from 2004-2007.

 

[ThatQuietGuy93]

Wait till expansion teams are added and people will say McDavid is better than Gretzky, when he scores 150

This whole sentence makes so sense at all. I read it 5 times and still makes no sense.

 

[KingsFan7824]

forget the top players, a 60pt/season player is considered elite now.

60 points today is different than 60 points in the past. 60 points today would've been like 90 points in the 80's. There's no set standard.

 

[Zorro]

Not sure if it's been said before but if you remove the cap you will most likely see an increase in production. It won't reach 80's gretzky #s but you will see more players reach 100pts more often.

 

[usahockey22flyers]

I love the current NHL...

 

[Devourers]

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.

Within one season more powerplays would increase 5 on 5 goals because players would clutch and grab a whole lot less. Eventually power plays would be reduced just by players being more disciplined. Problem is the league never makes refs do their job.

 

[NYR713]

I blame the lack of scoring on the rise of shot blocking and the neutral zone trap.

The trap was used when scoring was high. Most teams now only resort to trapping with a 2+ goal lead in the 3rd period as compared to a team like NJ in the 90's that rolled with it for 60 mins a game.

Personally I'm pretty happy with the state of the NHL right now. I'd like to see the 3-on-3 OT between 4 on 4 and shootout but otherwise I feel like the changes made in the 04-05 lockout were enough to revamp the game. I like the parity of teams, being that a team can be an 8th seed in their conference and win the cup.

 

[KingsFan7824]

Get rid of the salary cap and you will see more scoring guaranteed. You'll get your dynasty teams back too which is another complaint that pops up here.

The last traditionally defined dynasty team was in the 80's, which was not only before the salary cap, but was before free agency and money really became a thing.

The dead puck era was with no cap too.

Not everything was on video back then either. Now, every little thing players do or don't do, can or can't do, is known, by everyone.

What we need to recreate the 80's are the conditions in the 80's.