NHL Scoring Problem

[darksabre]

Again, you never define "better." If you are talking about how the game is played, then I agree, it won't change that. But it's not just "for the hell of it" either. I think there's something to what I am saying, obviously.

 

 

Be real. You know they are not changing the length of the season for $$$ reasons, and the standings are a separate issue (3-2-1 might actually help because you can actually make up ground faster with a streak).

But yes, people want their teams to win. More goals means more of a chance to win if they fall behind. And to say more scoring doesn't make people buy tickets for bad teams is proved untrue just looking at the NBA. People show up to see the Warriors in every city. When I was a kid it was exciting when the Oilers came to the Aud. Let the stars be stars and people show up. As it is now there is no expectation that McDavid or Crosby or whoever will even score a POINT when they come to town, let alone do something memorable.

 

Yes. I want to increase scoring. If tweaking it won't do it, then drastically alter it. It's 2015. I believe they can be protected just fine. It's not impossible, it's just inconvenient.

I don't think the rest of the league agrees with your assessment about money, for reasons I've already stated. Parity among goalies is not something teams are going to want to give up by reducing their ability to make saves. That's the real $$$ motive. Parity. 

 

What you see as a way for teams to battle back from goal deficits I see as a way to ensure those deficits are insurmountable. 

The game stats suggest otherwise.  Look at the winning percentages for teams that lead after 1 period of play.  

 

You know what else changes about the game?  The stupid bounce shots off the boards and all of the redirect plays start to go away.  Why?  Because snipers actually have a chance at finding a hole.  Perimeter play and slot play becomes more effective.  

If goalie pads have to be made smaller to let a sniper score, are they really a sniper? 

Those things are subjective. Half,... actually about 90%, of all the bitching I've heard about interference this year, I didn't even think was interference, just people whining and really annoying.

 

I'm with True. A ten inch pad can't change because it's the playoffs.

You say that like goalies won't cheat anyway. They do. Just like players cheat with sticks. And none of them call one another on it because they all do it. 

[Samson's Flow]

6-5 games don't have to be clumsy. They just seem that way now because today's NHL is played to end up 2-1. In order for a game to be 6-5 there have to be a ton of mistakes. Put more skill back in the game and maybe 6-5 IS a well played, defensive game.

 

Well, let's be realistic, That's quite a jump. I'll settle for 4-3 or 5-3 being the norm instead of 2-1.

As a supporting point to JJ, if you look at this year's All Star 3 v 3 tournament exhibition, I thought there were plenty of excitement and defense in those games. In fact, the most exciting plays for me were when Bergeron and O'Reilly types made amazing hustling backchecks to eliminate scoring opportunities. The reason they were so exciting? Because each rush the audience felt that there was a legitimate chance of scoring a goal.

 

How many times a game in a normal NHL game do you feel like there is a legitimate chance of your team scoring? Half of the goals are complete surprises that deflect of six guys on their way to the net. It is rare that you see a goalie beat cleanly on a shot, even from the slot within 15 feet. If the NHL goalie can see the shot, they are saving it. That's why I want to change the pad sizes, so skilled players can score clean goals on shots, and that every time the Sabres have the puck in the opponent's zone I feel like there is a legitimate chance of scoring without a triple deflection act of god.

 

Make the goalies smaller, and let the skill players show off the talent they have.

[BetweenThePipes00]

I don't think the rest of the league agrees with your assessment about money, for reasons I've already stated. Parity among goalies is not something teams are going to want to give up by reducing their ability to make saves. That's the real $$$ motive. Parity. 

 

What you see as a way for teams to battle back from goal deficits I see as a way to ensure those deficits are insurmountable.

Sorry but you are still going to convince me that this "parity of goaltending" idea is a thing.

If I am understanding you, your stance is that we can't make the gear smaller because that would expose the not-so-good goalies and give the REALLY good ones, of which you said there were THREE at one point — Roy, Hasek and Brodeur — too big of an edge. Do I have that right? I know it sounds like I am being snarky, I'm not, I really want to understand what you are saying. Because to me it makes no sense.

[SwampD]

As a supporting point to JJ, if you look at this year's All Star 3 v 3 tournament exhibition, I thought there were plenty of excitement and defense in those games. In fact, the most exciting plays for me were when Bergeron and O'Reilly types made amazing hustling backchecks to eliminate scoring opportunities. The reason they were so exciting? Because each rush the audience felt that there was a legitimate chance of scoring a goal.

 

How many times a game in a normal NHL game do you feel like there is a legitimate chance of your team scoring? Half of the goals are complete surprises that deflect of six guys on their way to the net. It is rare that you see a goalie beat cleanly on a shot, even from the slot within 15 feet. If the NHL goalie can see the shot, they are saving it. That's why I want to change the pad sizes, so skilled players can score clean goals on shots, and that every time the Sabres have the puck in the opponent's zone I feel like there is a legitimate chance of scoring without a triple deflection act of god.

 

Make the goalies smaller, and let the skill players show off the talent they have.

Great point.

 

 

 

I think I'm done. Daddy didn't raise no fools and he told me to never discuss rationally about an irrational topic.

 

Religion, politics, and apparently goalie equipment with d4rk.

 

:lol:

Edited February 25, 2016 by SwampD

[darksabre]

Sorry but you are still going to convince me that this "parity of goaltending" idea is a thing.

If I am understanding you, your stance is that we can't make the gear smaller because that would expose the not-so-good goalies and give the REALLY good ones, of which you said there were THREE at one point — Roy, Hasek and Brodeur — too big of an edge. Do I have that right? I know it sounds like I am being snarky, I'm not, I really want to understand what you are saying. Because to me it makes no sense.

I think it makes perfect sense. GMs are having a heck of a time accurately determining whether goalies are that "next-level" good because they all look pretty good. The elite ones still stand out, but not as obviously. Lundqvist is elite, but Cam Talbot was just fine. Quick is good enough to be in the conversation for elite when maybe he shouldn't be. People were fooled on Bernier. And most backups aren't a guaranteed loss. You can go to the playoffs riding two goalies all season. 

 

And it's good that it's this way. Even if your goalie doesn't end up elite, they're probably still good enough to win with. The butterfly is how we got here. And the league and the players wont want to let that go just so they can notch a few more goals on their stats page. 

[Samson's Flow]

Great point.

 

 

 

I think I'm done. Daddy didn't raise no fools and he told me to never discuss rationally about an irrational topic.

 

Religion, politics, and apparently goalie equipment with d4rk.

 

:lol:

As an add to my point...

 

The way to replicate the nature of the 3 on 3 without actually limiting the team to 3 skaters is to weaken the defense. In the 3 on 3, the goalie can have standard goalie equipment because they need all the help they can get since the scoring opportunities are prime. In 5 on 5 play, the defensive skaters should limit these prime scoring opportunities. On the off chance the offense makes a play or is positioned in a prime scoring area, I want this to result in a goal at least half the time, rather than the current 5-10% rate for scoring chances.

 

The team that wins in scoring chances should win the game.

I think it makes perfect sense. GMs are having a heck of a time accurately determining whether goalies are that "next-level" good because they all look pretty good. The elite ones still stand out, but not as obviously. Lundqvist is elite, but Cam Talbot was just fine. Quick is good enough to be in the conversation for elite when maybe he shouldn't be. People were fooled on Bernier. And most backups aren't a guaranteed loss. You can go to the playoffs riding two goalies all season. 

 

And it's good that it's this way. Even if your goalie doesn't end up elite, they're probably still good enough to win with. The butterfly is how we got here. And the league and the players wont want to let that go just so they can notch a few more goals on their stats page. 

But a square-to-the-shooter butterfly goalie saves the puck most of the time just be being there in the butterfly. When Hasek was playing, a butterfly goalie could be scored on high by going down too early, but now most shots just end up hitting the goalie like a wall was there. No reaction, no extra movement, just butterfly and rebound control.

 

I'm asking to make it a skill position again. It's currently leaning more towards fat guy in the net IMO.

[pi2000]

I don't see how anyone can claim that giving NHL shooters more net to shoot at (which is the inevitable result of shrinking the goalie pads) will not increase scoring. 

 

I think the argument is not wether or not scoring will increase with smaller goalie gear... it will.   The question is will the style of play change to a more exciting up tempo game?    

 

If all you want to do is increase scoring, then yeah make the goalies take up less net.    However, I don't think that alone will change the way the game is played.    Teams will still try to get pucks back to the point and hope pucks find their way in through crowds, etc...    

 

If you want to change the style of play, then you need to make the ice surface wider.   Just add another 5ft of width (200x90)...

 

http://www.tsn.ca/burke-on-a-mission-to-increase-size-of-nhl-ice-surfaces-1.425938

 

NHL: 200x85

hybrid: 200x94

OLY: 200x100

 

The new arena going up in Detroit will support the proposed 200x90 rink size.   IMO that will make the most difference in game play.

[BetweenThePipes00]

I think it makes perfect sense. GMs are having a heck of a time accurately determining whether goalies are that "next-level" good because they all look pretty good. The elite ones still stand out, but not as obviously. Lundqvist is elite, but Cam Talbot was just fine. Quick is good enough to be in the conversation for elite when maybe he shouldn't be. People were fooled on Bernier. And most backups aren't a guaranteed loss. You can go to the playoffs riding two goalies all season. 

 

And it's good that it's this way. Even if your goalie doesn't end up elite, they're probably still good enough to win with. The butterfly is how we got here. And the league and the players wont want to let that go just so they can notch a few more goals on their stats page. 

But you haven't explained the horrific effects of what happens if we change that. Before the butterfly, did we just have 3 or 4 teams winning 65 games a season and stealing Stanley Cups because they had the best goalies and all the teams with the "average" goalies were just doomed? Because that's not how I remember it. I remember the Penguins and Oilers winning Cups with league-average goaltending at best. The Pens were 18th out of 22 teams in SVPCT in 1991-92. Those teams were about the SKATERS, which you say is what you want. 

I just can't believe that the best offensive hockey players in the world PREFER to NOT be able to score just because it makes them feel better that their goalie who may or may not be that great can make saves too and keep them in the game. These guys are the BEST IN THE WORLD. I think they'd prefer to be able to do what they do best and if the other guy scores one, I'll go and get it back.

[darksabre]

But you haven't explained the horrific effects of what happens if we change that. Before the butterfly, did we just have 3 or 4 teams winning 65 games a season and stealing Stanley Cups because they had the best goalies and all the teams with the "average" goalies were just doomed? Because that's not how I remember it. I remember the Penguins and Oilers winning Cups with league-average goaltending at best. The Pens were 18th out of 22 teams in SVPCT in 1991-92. Those teams were about the SKATERS, which you say is what you want.

I just can't believe that the best offensive hockey players in the world PREFER to NOT be able to score just because it makes them feel better that their goalie who may or may not be that great can make saves too and keep them in the game. These guys are the BEST IN THE WORLD. I think they'd prefer to be able to do what they do best and if the other guy scores one, I'll go and get it back.

Slippery slope if you want to ask the players what they want. I think a good player would prefer the current system because it means their goals are worth more money.

Also, I think what you guys are all looking for already exists. Here, let me guide you to your new favorite sport.

 

[Weave]

 

If goalie pads have to be made smaller to let a sniper score, are they really a sniper? 

 

 

Ugh.  you know damned well that pads today cover the entire on ice area in butterfly, and most of the upper portion of the net.  There just aren't holes when a goalie is in position.  Todays' game is deflections and rebounds to catch goalies out of position, because there are no holes anymore.  The game needs holes in coverage, just like it had before Garth Snow became a thing.

[BetweenThePipes00]

Slippery slope if you want to ask the players what they want. I think a good player would prefer the current system because it means their goals are worth more money.

 

 

It's all relative to the rest of the league. The guys with the most goals will always be worth more money. The guys with 12 now might have 20, but the big money is still going to the guys with 50 or 60. The cap is still the cap. Stamkos and Ovechkin are not suddenly going to make less money just because Marcus Foligno has a fluke 18-goal season.

 

I think it's clear you like things the way they are, and that is fine. Hell, I watch as much hockey as I ever have. I just don't think it HAS to stay this way because the league is protecting the "parity of goaltending." I think you have put way more thought into the subject than the NHL has.

[MattPie]

Slippery slope if you want to ask the players what they want. I think a good player would prefer the current system because it means their goals are worth more money.

Also, I think what you guys are all looking for already exists. Here, let me guide you to your new favorite sport.

 

If I wanted to watch Jonas Enroth highlights, I'd have just gone to NHL.com. :) I'd note though that the goalie in the video seems to have far slimmer pads than NHL-average, but it's tough to tell with all the scale issues going on there.

 

FWIW, I look at it this way: we're the hockey %1 of fans, and we're here debating whether more goals would be good or bad at the cost of goaltenders; and it seems like the "more goals" crowd is ahead but that may be my confirmation bias. I can tell you what the other 99% of hockey fans probably aren't saying: man, I love these low scoring games, where guys skate up and down the ice shooting pucks into crowds in hopes that a couple go in". Personally, I liked the hockey of 2005-06 a lot better than the hockey of 2015-16.

Edited February 25, 2016 by MattPie

[darksabre]

Ugh.  you know damned well that pads today cover the entire on ice area in butterfly, and most of the upper portion of the net.  There just aren't holes when a goalie is in position.  Todays' game is deflections and rebounds to catch goalies out of position, because there are no holes anymore.  The game needs holes in coverage, just like it had before Garth Snow became a thing.

Trimming a little bit off of goalie gear isn't going to solve this problem for you. As long as players can't actually navigate the offensive zone and generate scoring chances it doesn't really matter what you do to goalies. 

[BetweenThePipes00]

Trimming a little bit off of goalie gear isn't going to solve this problem for you. As long as players can't actually navigate the offensive zone and generate scoring chances it doesn't really matter what you do to goalies. 

But you JUST said that the league and the players WANT it this way to prop up the crappy goalies. Which is it? Based on this statement, it doesn't matter one way or the other what the crappy goalies are wearing, so why are you so dead set against trimming the gear?

[SwampD]

Trimming a little bit off of goalie gear isn't going to solve this problem for you. As long as players can't actually navigate the offensive zone and generate scoring chances it doesn't really matter what you do to goalies.

 

So that video you posted is actually that kind of hockey you want to see, no interference or hitting. Gotcha.

[darksabre]

So that video you posted is actually that kind of hockey you want to see, no interference or hitting. Gotcha.

Let's not exaggerate what I'm suggesting the NHL should do to increase scoring.

 

As has been mentioned, I personally have no issue with the current state of the game. 

But you JUST said that the league and the players WANT it this way to prop up the crappy goalies. Which is it? Based on this statement, it doesn't matter one way or the other what the crappy goalies are wearing, so why are you so dead set against trimming the gear?

 

I said earlier that trimming the gear is what I would favor. I also said I don't think it'll do anything. I'm not contradicting myself here. 

 

And I'm not arguing that the league is propping up crappy goalies, I'm arguing that teams like goalies not being a liability because it increases their chances of winning even if their goalie isn't top tier. 

[SwampD]

Let's not exaggerate what I'm suggesting the NHL should do to increase scoring.

As has been mentioned, I personally have no issue with the current state of the game.

 

I actually don't have that much of an issue either. I think it would be nice to see more goals but I'm not going to lose sleep over it. I just think that you are crazy if you don't think that a couple of fractions of inches here and there wouldn't change the number of goals allowed.

[darksabre]

I actually don't have that much of an issue either. I think it would be nice to see more goals but I'm not going to lose sleep over it. I just think that you are crazy if you don't think that a couple of fractions of inches here and there wouldn't change the number of goals allowed.

I just don't think it'll matter. Everyone seems to have forgotten that the width of leg pads was reduced by an inch back in 05. It didn't change anything. How many more minute changes can we make that wont change anything? Let's go crazy. 

[BetweenThePipes00]

Let's not exaggerate what I'm suggesting the NHL should do to increase scoring.

 

As has been mentioned, I personally have no issue with the current state of the game. 

 

I said earlier that trimming the gear is what I would favor. I also said I don't think it'll do anything. I'm not contradicting myself here. 

 

And I'm not arguing that the league is propping up crappy goalies, I'm arguing that teams like goalies not being a liability because it increases their chances of winning even if their goalie isn't top tier. 

Again, it's all relative. Even though all goalies are stopping way more shots than 30 years ago, some are still going to be liabilities. The Stars' goalies were a liability last season and they missed the playoffs because of it. Whether they wear the current gear or we put them in stuff from 1974, there are going to be great ones and bad ones and a bunch in the middle.

I see no reason why any of this should come into play when discussing whether increasing scoring is NECESSARY. I think it is, you think it's not, and we are arguing basically because we both like to argue. I hope we are at least entertaining. 

[darksabre]

Again, it's all relative. Even though all goalies are stopping way more shots than 30 years ago, some are still going to be liabilities. The Stars' goalies were a liability last season and they missed the playoffs because of it. Whether they wear the current gear or we put them in stuff from 1974, there are going to be great ones and bad ones and a bunch in the middle.

I see no reason why any of this should come into play when discussing whether increasing scoring is NECESSARY. I think it is, you think it's not, and we are arguing basically because we both like to argue. I hope we are at least entertaining. 

:lol: 

 

The major crux for me is that I just don't think making minor adjustments to goalie gear is going to give people what they want. If we're going to mess with goalie gear, we really have to mess with it. Which is going to mean making it even more expensive for players at all levels (which we have to keep in mind with this). If we want to really slim goalies down, you're not going to get the gear from the old days. You'll be dealing with carbon fiber and all sorts of stuff. And then those changes have to trickle down to the lower levels of the game and of equipment. There's no avoiding that. 

 

Goalie gear on the whole right now is a good mix of materials, durability, flexibility, function and cost. That's not something to take for granted. The pro game isn't the only thing at stake here. 

[Kruppstahl]

Anyone who suggests that a radical reduction in goalie equipment size wouldn't have a drastic impact on goal scoring is out of their mind.

 

Take a look at these highlights of Billy Smith and note how the net appears to be about 1.5 times the size it actually is.  It's not that the net is huge, it's that Smith is wearing old fashioned trim equipment that keeps HUGE amounts of net open.

The league needs to return to this ASAP.

 

[darksabre]

Anyone who suggests that a radical reduction in goalie equipment size wouldn't have a drastic impact on goal scoring is out of their mind.

 

Take a look at these highlights of Billy Smith and note how the net appears to be about 1.5 times the size it actually is.  It's not that the net is huge, it's that Smith is wearing old fashioned trim equipment that keeps HUGE amounts of net open.

The league needs to return to this ASAP.

 

You're never getting this back so stop asking for it. 

[SwampD]

:lol: 

 

The major crux for me is that I just don't think making minor adjustments to goalie gear is going to give people what they want. If we're going to mess with goalie gear, we really have to mess with it. Which is going to mean making it even more expensive for players at all levels (which we have to keep in mind with this). If we want to really slim goalies down, you're not going to get the gear from the old days. You'll be dealing with carbon fiber and all sorts of stuff. And then those changes have to trickle down to the lower levels of the game and of equipment. There's no avoiding that. 

 

Goalie gear on the whole right now is a good mix of materials, durability, flexibility, function and cost. That's not something to take for granted. The pro game isn't the only thing at stake here. 

Not for nothin', but I couldn't care less how much goalies at lower levels pay for their gear. They usually play for free. Over the course of their playing careers I'm guessing they make out on the deal.

 

:nana:

[darksabre]

Not for nothin', but I couldn't care less how much goalies at lower levels pay for their gear. They usually play for free. Over the course of their playing careers I'm guessing they make out on the deal.

 

:nana:

The height of my hypocrisy will be revealed when I confess that I hate wearing big goalie equipment. I wear leg pads with only a 1" riser, player pants instead of goalie pants, and my chest arms are Warrior G2's which were the least bulky ones I could find. I don't like being a bulky goalie but at the same time I recognize that I'm not really wearing anything close to what I would want to wear if I was facing pro level shooters. No NHL goalie would wear what I wear. They'd be crazy to. Which is why I find the calls to have guys look like Billy Smith so crazy. If Billy Smith played the game now he'd call it crazy too.

[skaught]

The height of my hypocrisy will be revealed when I confess that I hate wearing big goalie equipment. I wear leg pads with only a 1" riser, player pants instead of goalie pants, and my chest arms are Warrior G2's which were the least bulky ones I could find. I don't like being a bulky goalie but at the same time I recognize that I'm not really wearing anything close to what I would want to wear if I was facing pro level shooters. No NHL goalie would wear what I wear. They'd be crazy to. Which is why I find the calls to have guys look like Billy Smith so crazy. If Billy Smith played the game now he'd call it crazy too.

 

Well, I'm pretty sure if they switched to less bulky gear, it would be just as protective as it is now. They're not going to be wearing what you're wearing, they'd be wearing top of the line gear designed to protect against NHL caliber shots. Just removing all of the puck blocking (non-protective) bulk is what people are talking about.