NHL Scoring Problem

[nfreeman]

Goalies were definitely injured more often in the past. They also suffer worse health problems later in life. The standup style is a much more abusive style to play. Goalies wont want to go back to that.

 

You also set off a chain reaction if you do something like drastically change how goalies play the game. Reducing parity among goalies puts you back to where the league was when guys like Roy, Brodeur and Hasek were around. The elite are truly elite and the middle drops out. So maybe you push scoring up because goalies aren't stopping as many shots, but the extra good goalies are so good you have to do things like invent the Trapezoid to contain them. You give too much advantage to the teams who have mythical creatures in net. 

 

I think the league likes where the balance is at, with the focus being tipped more towards how good the best skaters are, rather than how good the best goalies are. If you make it easier for everyone to score you lose some of that appeal with your stars. 

 

And for me, at the end of the day, they game isn't about the goalies. It's about the skaters. I see no reason to deliberately reduce parity among goalies. 

 

 

Well, I think the league wants more scoring, and has wanted this for quite some time.

 

And the point of changing the equipment isn't to drive a change in goaltending style -- it's to increase scoring by reversing the trend of ever-increasing goalie equipment size.  If goalies have smaller equipment, they will figure out what style they want to play on their own.  I'd guess that many will stick with the butterfly.  They will still be physically much larger than they used to be.

[darksabre]

I'm still skeptical of your take. Advances in medicine can explain why goalies long term health is better. Even with the smaller gear, the butterfly would still be the preferred method. It came about when there was smaller gear, so I think that is a non-starter.

 

How does opening up the five hole force a goalie to make a more athletic save?

 

Another thing is that the NHL wouldn't have to do every change in that video to create more scoring. Of the changes suggested, which do you find least offensive to your bubble-wrapped snowflake goalie sensibility ( :nana:) that you could live with?

I'm skeptical of this, to start.

 

Remember that the advent of the style was the important thing at the time, not the gear size. The size and shape of the gear has been driven by the style. The science behind the goaltender position inherently dictates that if coverage by positioning isn't the best option then you have to perform coverage by reaction. Reducing the size of pads will force goalies to use the butterfly less. 

 

The question in my opinion, is do we want to do that? Do we want to suppress the butterfly style? My belief is that we don't. 

 

Regarding the five hole, your last question relates. I actually have no problem with shortening the thigh risers. I hate tall thigh risers personally and I don't really see the need for them to be so large. It's not a safety issue at all and it will force goalies to keep their feet a little closer together, which reduces the coverage on the outside of the pads without reducing the width of the pads. The mechanics of that doesn't bother me much. 

I am really really opposed to reducing padding on the arms, wrists, torso, etc. I could see enforcing the height of the pads off the tops of the shoulders, but that is something they technically already do. 

 

More players are shooting harder shots with greater ease and from all angles now. I don't like exposing joints to those shots by reducing things like the glove wrist guard and the gap coverage on the chest arms. 

[darksabre]

I also think focusing on goalies is misplacing the blame. I think the focus should be on increasing scoring opportunities.

[SwampD]

I'm skeptical of this, to start.

 

Remember that the advent of the style was the important thing at the time, not the gear size. The size and shape of the gear has been driven by the style. The science behind the goaltender position inherently dictates that if coverage by positioning isn't the best option then you have to perform coverage by reaction. Reducing the size of pads will force goalies to use the butterfly less. 

 

The question in my opinion, is do we want to do that? Do we want to suppress the butterfly style? My belief is that we don't. 

 

Regarding the five hole, your last question relates. I actually have no problem with shortening the thigh risers. I hate tall thigh risers personally and I don't really see the need for them to be so large. It's not a safety issue at all and it will force goalies to keep their feet a little closer together, which reduces the coverage on the outside of the pads without reducing the width of the pads. The mechanics of that doesn't bother me much. 

I am really really opposed to reducing padding on the arms, wrists, torso, etc. I could see enforcing the height of the pads off the tops of the shoulders, but that is something they technically already do. 

 

More players are shooting harder shots with greater ease and from all angles now. I don't like exposing joints to those shots by reducing things like the glove wrist guard and the gap coverage on the chest arms. 

You keep coming back to this. Is it the size (thereby exposing more net, thereby changing style of play) or protection that you are opposed to reducing, because if it's protection, I really don't think that is an issue. With the materials used today, pads could easily be reduced in size without reducing the protection they offer.

[TrueBlueGED]

I also think focusing on goalies is misplacing the blame. I think the focus should be on increasing scoring opportunities.

 

I've always agreed with this, but the problem is in the real world, refs can just arbitrarily choose to ignore whatever changes get made on this front. I'm officially on board with making changes that refs and/or the league can't reverse on a whim because it's late in an important game/series.

[nfreeman]

As for reducing the size of goalie pads vs increasing scoring chances:  why not both?

 

I think both are needed.

[darksabre]

You keep coming back to this. Is it the size (thereby exposing more net, thereby changing style of play) or protection that you are opposed to reducing, because if it's protection, I really don't think that is an issue. With the materials used today, pads could easily be reduced in size without reducing the protection they offer.

It's coverage. Closing gaps. You have a combination of soft and hard foams, where the soft foams provide flexibility and some protection and the hard foams cover gaps and are intended to do the bulk of the protecting. Goalies use every part of their body now to stop shots so it's not like blocking the puck with the inside of your elbow is an accident. It's a regular occurrence. 

Edited February 25, 2016 by d4rksabre

[SwampD]

It's coverage. Closing gaps. You have a combination of soft and hard foams, where the soft foams provide flexibility and some protection and the hard foams cover gaps and are intended to do the bulk of the protecting. Goalies use every part of their body now to stop shots so it's not like blocking the puck with the inside of your elbow is an accident. It's a regular occurrence. 

I'll just ask one more question. Can you honestly tell me that every aspect of a goalies equipment (shape, size, etc) is only for protection of the goalie, and that not one part has to do with gaining an advantage over the shooter artificially?

 

It seems like you just want big bubble hockey goalies sliding back and forth covering as much net positionally as possible. We had that with Miller. It's boring.

[darksabre]

I'll just ask one more question. Can you honestly tell me that every aspect of a goalies equipment (shape, size, etc) is only for protection of the goalie, and that not one part has to do with gaining an advantage over the shooter artificially?

 

It seems like you just want big bubble hockey goalies sliding back and forth covering as much net positionally as possible. We had that with Miller. It's boring.

I don't want goalies to be giants. But I think your perception of equipment size is kinda off. I don't think goalie equipment is really too big. I think there are some features of it that are a little over kill, but it seems to me you'd like to see goalie gear drastically reduced in size. I simply don't see it as an option or as a valuable pursuit.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Maybe it's been pointed out already and I have no #fancystats to back this up (in other words I am very possibly talking out of my ass, or farting out of my mouth here), but I think the SOG are way down compared to a few years ago.

[SwampD]

I don't want goalies to be giants. But I think your perception of equipment size is kinda off. I don't think goalie equipment is really too big. I think there are some features of it that are a little over kill, but it seems to me you'd like to see goalie gear drastically reduced in size. I simply don't see it as an option or as a valuable pursuit.

I notice you didn't answer the question.

[darksabre]

I notice you didn't answer the question.

I think there are things you could tweak. The width of pants, the cheater on the glove, the height of the shoulder risers. But some of the things our washed up goalie friend was advocating are just dumb.

[SwampD]

I think there are things you could tweak. The width of pants, the cheater on the glove, the height of the shoulder risers. But some of the things our washed up goalie friend was advocating are just dumb.

So your answer is no, then.:lol:

 

Tweaks are all we are looking for and probably all it would take. I miss the "seeing eye" shot.

[Taro T]

It's coverage. Closing gaps. You have a combination of soft and hard foams, where the soft foams provide flexibility and some protection and the hard foams cover gaps and are intended to do the bulk of the protecting. Goalies use every part of their body now to stop shots so it's not like blocking the puck with the inside of your elbow is an accident. It's a regular occurrence.

 

Couple of thoughts.

 

At a minimum, for leg pads, cut down on the height of the "cheater" to at absolute most 2", & ideally 1" or none. Additionally, don't let any portion of the leg pad project more than 1/4" beyond the adjoining surface(s) (I.e., that nice square rectangle at the outer edge can still be squared (maybe we adjust that down the line as well) but can't be raised in front of the rest of the pad face. These changes open up the 5 hole & allow shots that weren't stopped clean to deflect into the net rather than away from it w/ the 2nd deflection off the pad.

 

Upper body: there is room for reduction in bulk w/out compromising safety. Not a lot, but it is there.

 

A larger %age of reduction in goalie injuries was due to making them off-limits anywhere on the ice than was due to butterfly/hybrid becoming the norm. They both took hold around the same time. And a big part of them becoming the norm (& why butterfly lowered injuries) was due to the riser pad under the knee. There were butterfly goalies, but very few, going back to the '60's (Esposito & Crozier as 2 examples) because butterfly was brutally tough on the knees.

 

Provided the equipment doesn't remove items like the risers, going away from butterfly won't substantially increase goalie injuries.

 

And IMHO, arguing for rules that let goalies be less athetic is akin to Milbury's arguments in favor of less-athletic skaters. Why not make the rules conducive to getting the best doing what they do - making extremely entertaining plays?

[darksabre]

So your answer is no, then.:lol:

 

Tweaks are all we are looking for and probably all it would take. I miss the "seeing eye" shot.

You'd get more seeing eye shots if there were more shots :p

Couple of thoughts.

 

At a minimum, for leg pads, cut down on the height of the "cheater" to at absolute most 2", & ideally 1" or none. Additionally, don't let any portion of the leg pad project more than 1/4" beyond the adjoining surface(s) (I.e., that nice square rectangle at the outer edge can still be squared (maybe we adjust that down the line as well) but can't be raised in front of the rest of the pad face. These changes open up the 5 hole & allow shots that weren't stopped clean to deflect into the net rather than away from it w/ the 2nd deflection off the pad.

 

Upper body: there is room for reduction in bulk w/out compromising safety. Not a lot, but it is there.

 

A larger %age of reduction in goalie injuries was due to making them off-limits anywhere on the ice than was due to butterfly/hybrid becoming the norm. They both took hold around the same time. And a big part of them becoming the norm (& why butterfly lowered injuries) was due to the riser pad under the knee. There were butterfly goalies, but very few, going back to the '60's (Esposito & Crozier as 2 examples) because butterfly was brutally tough on the knees.

 

Provided the equipment doesn't remove items like the risers, going away from butterfly won't substantially increase goalie injuries.

 

And IMHO, arguing for rules that let goalies be less athetic is akin to Milbury's arguments in favor of less-athletic skaters. Why not make the rules conducive to getting the best doing what they do - making extremely entertaining plays?

I'd like to see rules that promote entertainment. I just don't think turning goalies into sieves gets us there.

[Taro T]

You'd get more seeing eye shots if there were more shots :p

 

I'd like to see rules that promote entertainment. I just don't think turning goalies into sieves gets us there.

Why does opening the goalies up necessarily have to make them sieves?

[pi2000]

Goalies were definitely injured more often in the past. They also suffer worse health problems later in life. The standup style is a much more abusive style to play. Goalies wont want to go back to that.

 

This is flat out false.    Butterfly goalies have long term knee, back and hip problems from dropping down and popping up.... pushing side to side on one knee, etc...   Stand-up is much easier on the lower body. 

[darksabre]

Why does opening the goalies up necessarily have to make them sieves?

I think the moment you make it harder to take away the low shots you're going to inflate scoring to an unreasonable level. NHL shooters aren't getting enough credit here.

This is flat out false. Butterfly goalies have long term knee, back and hip problems from dropping down and popping up.... pushing side to side on one knee, etc... Stand-up is much easier on the lower body.

Sorry. You're wrong.

[SwampD]

You'd get more seeing eye shots if there were more shots :p

 

I'd like to see rules that promote entertainment. I just don't think turning goalies into sieves gets us there.

They already were sieves. We just want to go back to before they started using FlexSeal.

[Taro T]

I think the moment you make it harder to take away the low shots you're going to inflate scoring to an unreasonable level. NHL shooters aren't getting enough credit here.

Did taking away the webbing on sweaters, the shingles on chest protector shoulders, and width of leg pads increase scoring to unreasonable levels?

 

These tweaks won't either.

[pi2000]

I agree with Hirsch on the chest protector, arm and pants.   The leg pad height needs to be reduced as well.    I don't agree on changes to stick , blocker or glove.     How many saves do you see goalies make with the cheater portion of their glove that would've otherwise been a goal?   Maybe 1 every 6 or 7 games? 

 

Something he didn't mention was jersey size.    It needs to be more form fitting.   So many saves are made just by the puck catching a lose part of the jersey.... many saves per game.   Even if nothing else was changed, making the jersey form fitting would have the most impact IMO.

[darksabre]

They already were sieves. We just want to go back to before they started using FlexSeal.

Why go back? Players used to score the lamest goals. That's not any fun.

Did taking away the webbing on sweaters, the shingles on chest protector shoulders, and width of leg pads increase scoring to unreasonable levels?

 

These tweaks won't either.

We're talking past each other. I've already noted the adjustments I think will work. I don't see the point in going any further unless the goal is to change the whole game.

[pi2000]

I think the moment you make it harder to take away the low shots you're going to inflate scoring to an unreasonable level. NHL shooters aren't getting enough credit here.

 

Sorry. You're wrong.

 

Nope.   I played competitively when the butterfly style was becoming popular.    The butterfly goalies I've played with (and still play with) always complained of knee, hip and back issue because of dropping on their knees all game long.    In fact, when their knees were aching they were less likely to drop down and would play a stand-up style to relive the pressure on their lower body.

 

Show me some evidence that butterfly style is the healthier alternative to stand-up.

[darksabre]

I agree with Hirsch on the chest protector, arm and pants. The leg pad height needs to be reduced as well. I don't agree on changes to stick , blocker or glove. How many saves do you see goalies make with the cheater portion of their glove that would've otherwise been a goal? Maybe 1 every 6 or 7 games?

 

Something he didn't mention was jersey size. It needs to be more form fitting. So many saves are made just by the puck catching a lose part of the jersey.... many saves per game. Even if nothing else was changed, making the jersey form fitting would have the most impact IMO.

Right. I think some of his ideas are common sense. But I think others go too far. You and I mostly agree on the 'what'.

Nope. I played competitively when the butterfly style was becoming popular. The butterfly goalies I've played with (and still play with) always complained of knee, hip and back issue because of dropping on their knees all game long. In fact, when their knees were aching they were less likely to drop down and would play a stand-up style to relive the pressure on their lower body.

 

Show me some evidence that butterfly style is the healthier alternative to stand-up.

I don't think you're accounting for the advances in knee pad tech since your playing day. Literally anyone can play butterfly with modern gear and do so with little pain or injury.

[Taro T]

Why go back? Players used to score the lamest goals. That's not any fun.

 

We're talking past each other. I've already noted the adjustments I think will work. I don't see the point in going any further unless the goal is to change the whole game.

You proposed AN adjustment (supporting enforcement of something already on the books doesn't constitute an adjustment IMHO ;)) which we are in agreement on. But there are several more things that could be done to make the game better.