NHL Scoring Problem

[North Buffalo]

We don't have to kill a goalie to get a goal, well a few of us don't think so right D4ark, but if in the 80's 35% of all break always resulted in a goal and today it 5%, maybe it's the size of the human and his pads in the goal that have something to do with it?

 

Decrease goalie equipment (keeping safety a major factor) and increase the net size. Use baby steps till break-aways are at an equal percentage.

Despite his appreciative persistent reping for all goalies; D4rk, I generally am for killing all goalies...as long as they are on the other team. Dont screw with my team's goalie, which can get you in line with audsmell on the other thread...

[drnkirishone]

bigger nets and bigger ice are what need to happen. reducing goalie equipment is only a bandaid. I am also in favor of making big changes to the neutral zone. Something along the lines of making offsides linked to a teams defensive blue line but keeping icing at the center line.

[LGR4GM]

I'm not sure if that's sarcasm or not, but I'll play it straight. Defending player on the ice for whatever reason, attacking player fires the puck into him to draw a penalty. Bonus style points if your teammate "encourages" the defending player with a check, cross check, or subtle trip, or you injure the defending player by drilling a slapper into a lightly-protected area.

First I don't get the lightly protected area quip. You could do that now. If you are saying injuring someone deliberalty so they fall to the ice, really? We honestly don't think that would be an exception? 

Second, just like all penalties the referees will have some leeway.  The point would be to stop defenders or forwards just laying on the ice to block shots, which happens all the freaking time.

Third the helping part.... teams already do illegal stuff like that anyways.

 

Not MattPie in particular but a bunch of posters around here are being negative nancys. I feel like some are deliberately looking at ways not to improve scoring because of being scared of the "unintended consequences".  The current unintended consequences is that scoring has drop at a rapid rate and sub par GT can now rack up sv% in the Dominek Hasek level.  We have to do something and nothing will be perfect.

 

Another idea, put a height restriction on GT's that is grandfathered in. GT born after say 15 years ago can't be 6'5" or taller?  Something like that. 

 

Brainstorm people, come on.

Edited November 19, 2015 by LGR4GM

[darksabre]

bigger nets and bigger ice are what need to happen. reducing goalie equipment is only a bandaid. I am also in favor of making big changes to the neutral zone. Something along the lines of making offsides linked to a teams defensive blue line but keeping icing at the center line.

Bigger ice is an illusory fix. If you move to bigger ice you have to cover more surface with passes and skating. This actually slows the game down because a puck or a player will only ever be able to cover so much area so quickly. You want to keep the ice surface relatively small in order to keep players closer to scoring areas. 

 

If anything, the ice should be made smaller and the number of players on the ice reduced. This would make it easier for players to get to scoring areas. 

[inkman]

First I don't get the lightly protected area quip. You could do that now. If you are saying injuring someone deliberalty so they fall to the ice, really? We honestly don't think that would be an exception?

Second, just like all penalties the referees will have some leeway. The point would be to stop defenders or forwards just laying on the ice to block shots, which happens all the freaking time.

Third the helping part.... teams already do illegal stuff like that anyways.

 

Not MattPie in particular but a bunch of posters around here are being negative nancys. I feel like some are deliberately looking at ways not to improve scoring because of being scared of the "unintended consequences". The current unintended consequences is that scoring has drop at a rapid rate and sub par GT can now rack up sv% in the Dominek Hasek level. We have to do something and nothing will be perfect.

 

Another idea, put a height restriction on GT's that is grandfathered in. GT born after say 15 years ago can't be 6'5" or taller? Something like that.

 

Brainstorm people, come on.

Zero chance they restrict the size of any player. Players have evolved into larger freaks of nature, change the dam rules.

I know one place I would start, and that's with goalies freezing the puck. I would make it a delay of game penalty to freeze the puck outside of the crease. If you watch old games, goalies were always gloving and dumping the puck to an open corner to keep play moving. I'd like to see that happen more.

 

I'd also like to see the trapezoid removed. Goalies playing the puck keeps the game moving. Let them do it anywhere.

 

If we want to get more radical, I would go to full time 4 on 4. Players are too good at clogging up the ice now. Let's unclog it.

 

Make icing illegal on the PK. I don't see any reason the basic rules of gameplay suddenly need to be suspended for a penalty. Increase the value of the power play by reducing the amount of time the team with the advantage spends chasing the puck down in their own end.

 

I like changing offsides. Allow one player to enter the offensive zone before the puck so long as someone else carries the puck in.

This sounds like soccer and the last thing we need is hockey to become more like soccer. Just get rid of offsides altogether. If teams want to send 4 guys into the offensive zone before the puck they will have to live with the consequences.

[darksabre]

Zero chance they restrict the size of any player. Players have evolved into larger freaks of nature, change the dam rules.

This sounds like soccer and the last thing we need is hockey to become more like soccer. Just get rid of offsides altogether. If teams want to send 4 guys into the offensive zone before the puck they will have to live with the consequences.

You don't want that. If you eliminate offsides teams will just play the neutral zone trap all over the ice. It'll be the worst hockey you've ever watched. 

[Samson's Flow]

I know one place I would start, and that's with goalies freezing the puck. I would make it a delay of game penalty to freeze the puck outside of the crease. If you watch old games, goalies were always gloving and dumping the puck to an open corner to keep play moving. I'd like to see that happen more.

 

I'd also like to see the trapezoid removed. Goalies playing the puck keeps the game moving. Let them do it anywhere.

 

If we want to get more radical, I would go to full time 4 on 4. Players are too good at clogging up the ice now. Let's unclog it.

 

Make icing illegal on the PK. I don't see any reason the basic rules of gameplay suddenly need to be suspended for a penalty. Increase the value of the power play by reducing the amount of time the team with the advantage spends chasing the puck down in their own end.

 

I like changing offsides. Allow one player to enter the offensive zone before the puck so long as someone else carries the puck in.

As long as the PK icing is amended so that the defensive team can make a line change. Otherwise we will see exhausted players and an increase in injuries due to fatigue. More draws in the offensive zone = good; watching defensemen that can barely move = bad.

[darksabre]

As long as the PK icing is amended so that the defensive team can make a line change. Otherwise we will see exhausted players and an increase in injuries due to fatigue. More draws in the offensive zone = good; watching defensemen that can barely move = bad.

That would be fine with me. 

[woods-racer]

You don't want that. If you eliminate offsides teams will just play the neutral zone trap all over the ice. It'll be the worst hockey you've ever watched. 

 

There will be no neutral zone. Players will use the entire rink to find open spots. Would be more like basketball, always looking for the lay up pass, fast back and forth.

[Samson's Flow]

  

 

Why stop at 1? A few items to increase scoring that could be easily done w/ no transformation of the basic qualities of the game:

 

Call the game like it was in the '06 playoffs & '06-'07 regular season;

 

Move the nets back to 10' off the boards like they were when Gretzky came into the league (the issue about that being too close to the boards to be safe on icing races has been rendered moot by hybrid icing);

 

Bring back 4-3 & 3-3 hockey on coincidental minors;

 

Bring back no icing on attempted "home run" passes; they never waived icing on those calls when they could have, maybe they'd get it right this time (yeah, that goes against the changing objective to subjective always ends badly in the NHL, but it would work if they only did it right ;));

 

Since the league doesn't mind some games being worth more than others (though it is a bad concept, we'll run w/ it, the league does); only give 2 points for a win for a regulation win - if you go to OT, only 1 point is available, and a SO win results in 0 points for either team, BUT SO wins are now the 1st tie-breaker for seeding; and

 

Reduce goalie pads slightly and except for the leg pad width, make it all be strictly geared towards goalie safety, not blocking as much net as possible simply by standing there.

 

That's all w/out even going to increasing the size of the nets. Definitely don't need to do something radical like getting rid of offsides or going to 4 on 4 fulltime.

Taro - good ideas here.

 

I would be all for attempting these minor tweaks before attempting major game changing alterations. I specifically like the 'move the nets back' concept, since it would give more ice in front of the net where goals are actually scored. The lines were initially changed for safety but as you mentioned this is no longer needed.

 

I like ideas which would limit the amount of unnecessary whistles/stoppages of play. the best hockey IMO is when you go 10 minutes+ without a whistle and it is end to end continuous action. The bad games are ones where there are 5 offsides/icing whistles in a 2 minute stretch, there's not way for either team to develop flow. Maybe that is fixed by encouraging linesmen to waive off more icings unless it egregious. I'm thinking of the way that the NFL incorrectly enforces intentional grounding type leniency. 

[X. Benedict]

Bowman says return the blueline to where it was in the 80s making the O zone smaller. 

More room in the neutral zone, less bottled play in the middle, longer passes in transition,  less offsides, faster entries, more shots on the rush. 

[Samson's Flow]

Bowman says return the blueline to where it was in the 80s making the O zone smaller. 

More room in the neutral zone, less bottled play in the middle, longer passes in transition,  less offsides, faster entries, more shots on the rush. 

Makes it seem like there is more ice that there really is, and makes it harder to neutral zone trap (the death of hockey) since there is more ice to cover. Also brings the point shots closer to the net making them more likely to score.

 

Make this move in conjunction with moving the nets back to 10', and see what happens.

[MattPie]

First I don't get the lightly protected area quip. You could do that now. If you are saying injuring someone deliberalty so they fall to the ice, really? We honestly don't think that would be an exception? 

Second, just like all penalties the referees will have some leeway.  The point would be to stop defenders or forwards just laying on the ice to block shots, which happens all the freaking time.

Third the helping part.... teams already do illegal stuff like that anyways.

You could do fire the puck into a down D now, but most of the time the player taking the shot is trying to avoid hitting the player. Now, you're intentionally shooting for the player to draw a penalty.

[dudacek]

You don't want that. If you eliminate offsides teams will just play the neutral zone trap all over the ice. It'll be the worst hockey you've ever watched. 

 

I'm not sure why. Players will be able to stretch the ice vertically, opening bigger holes in the trap, making it easier to break.

 

Bowman says return the blueline to where it was in the 80s making the O zone smaller. 

More room in the neutral zone, less bottled play in the middle, longer passes in transition,  less offsides, faster entries, more shots on the rush. 

 

Doesn't create more vertical space, but it shifts it to the neutral zone where players are more likely to be moving at full speed.

[darksabre]

I'm not sure why. Players will be able to stretch the ice vertically, opening bigger holes in the trap, making it easier to break.

They won't do this. Coaches love defense. You'll end up with three skaters defending and two trying to break through and every game will end 1-0 in a shootout.

[Radar]

Frankly let's just do away with replay. Okay we lose some and we win some calls. Better than scoring and finding out 30 seconds later it's off sides. Just  by the off side challenges to date you can see how many goals in the past would have been negated and big deal what goes around comes around. If it's that far off side than the official should be able to make the call almost every time. As a fan all these rule changes have done nothing for me and the flow of the game is impaired in my opinion.

[Taro T]

Bowman says return the blueline to where it was in the 80s making the O zone smaller. 

More room in the neutral zone, less bottled play in the middle, longer passes in transition,  less offsides, faster entries, more shots on the rush.

 

Not sure what the net effect of a 60' neutral zone would be minus the 2 line offsides, though it would seem to be another way to increase scoring for the reasons mentioned. Would be interesting to see how it would play out at the A on an experimental basis. Especially if they don't get rid of icing on missed "home run" passes, not sure that we'd see the passing open up that much vertically.

 

Interesting.

[inkman]

As a fan all these rule changes have done nothing for me and the flow of the game is impaired in my opinion.

Its not just your opinion. They have quite literally stopped the flow of the game.

Edited November 19, 2015 by inkman

[SwampD]

Bowman says return the blueline to where it was in the 80s making the O zone smaller. 

More room in the neutral zone, less bottled play in the middle, longer passes in transition,  less offsides, faster entries, more shots on the rush. 

That's interesting. I wonder if it would also create more odd man rushes because the D would have to be deeper into the O-zone to hold the blue line.

[MattPie]

That's interesting. I wonder if it would also create more odd man rushes because the D would have to be deeper into the O-zone to hold the blue line.

 

I'm not sure it would, unless the forwards start hanging outside the blue line. I suppose that D would be closer than the defending wingers, so getting caught flat-footed would be more dangerous.

[Randall Flagg]

Bowman says return the blueline to where it was in the 80s making the O zone smaller.

More room in the neutral zone, less bottled play in the middle, longer passes in transition, less offsides, faster entries, more shots on the rush.

I wonder how this would affect offensive zone play. It already feels crowded and like there's not a lot of room to get plays off as it is, would a smaller o-zone be workable when defending players close gaps and get in lanes so well now?

[Samson's Flow]

I wonder how this would affect offensive zone play. It already feels crowded and like there's not a lot of room to get plays off as it is, would a smaller o-zone be workable when defending players close gaps and get in lanes so well now?

That's why the NHL should pair this change with moving the net back to its original 10ft from the boards instead of the current 11. Gives the players a bit more room in front of the net where they can actually score and less room behind the net where they, uh, cant.

[darksabre]

Good feature from NHL.com about goalies and shot volume. This is something I've talked about here before, and I'm not surprised that the pros echo it. 

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=788646

 

 

Teams that give up fewer shots overall are also more likely to give up fewer high-quality chances, and it's hard to imagine any goaltender asking for more of those. Using shot-quality statistics from war-on-ice.com, the Carolina Hurricanes, who are allowing the fewest shots in the NHL at 24.6 per game this season, are also seventh best in the NHL with an average of 9.2 high-danger scoring chances per 60 minutes. The Ottawa Senators give up the most shots in the League (34.7 per game) and the fourth most high-danger chances (12.0 per 60 minutes).

 

Ottawa gives up nearly three more good scoring chances per game based on those metrics, but its goalies also face an average of 7.3 more "less dangerous" shots per game than the Carolina goaltenders.

 

Although it's too simplistic to treat all of those shots the same, the reality is most goalies feel a somewhat steady flow of easier, "feeler" shots keeps them in the game.

[SwampD]

Good feature from NHL.com about goalies and shot volume. This is something I've talked about here before, and I'm not surprised that the pros echo it. 

 

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=788646

 

 

Sooo, that doesn't really tell us anything, then, and something is bad,... unless it's good.

 

 

#fancystatsrock

[Stoner]

Every generation thinks it invented sex.