The 'NHL' Game

[WildCard]

This whole argument about the ASG and reading the player's tribune with Russian stars such as Kuznetsov glorifying the Russian style of play has me thinking. Is the NHL really just a bad representation of hockey? Is the rink too small, players too confined? Are the average and elite so smushed into such a brute, tiny area that nobody can distinguish between the good and 'holy ######'? 

 

It's undeniable that there is a certain...pride, in being an NHL player. And I don't mean it's because we have the most money, or the best players, but in the sense that we play a 'man's game'. A game where heart >> skill, and at the end of the day it's really about how badly you want it. Really, it's like the great American Dream on ice.

 

But, my question is, is that a good thing? Is suffocating talent into dump-and-chase really that fun to watch? Hamstringing great players in the name of 'effort' really all that glorifying, all because the dude doesn't want to spend 15+ a night grinding in the corners just to get 3 minutes where he can ###### skate with the damn puck?

 

I don't know. I've been thinking about it for awhile, and I'd like to hear your thoughts. I'll never forget watching the doc on the Russian teams of old ('The Bid Red Machine' IIRC) and how they were just so damn elegant. It was ###### poetry on ice, and everything was so selfless, so flawless. And then they came over to play the daunting NHL All-Stars, and ultimately lost in a series because we simply just beat the hell out of them; really, really brutally and cheaply I might add.

 

Has anything really changed? What highlights do you really watch at night? The one where Backes takes a puck in the face from the blue line, or the one where Ovechkin can bounce the puck of the boards to himself, spin-o-rama, and score? 

Edited January 29, 2016 by WildCard

[Kristian]

This whole argument about the ASG and reading the player's tribune with Russian stars such as Kuznetsov glorifying the Russian style of play has me thinking. Is the NHL really just a bad representation of hockey? Is the rink too small, players too confined? Are the average and elite so smushed into such a brute, tiny area that nobody can distinguish between the good and 'holy ######'? 

 

It's undeniable that there is a certain...pride, in being an NHL player. And I don't mean it's because we have the most money, or the best players, but in the sense that we play a 'man's game'. A game where heart >> skill, and at the end of the day it's really about how badly you want it. Really, it's like the great American Dream on ice.

 

But, my question is, is that a good thing? Is suffocating talent into dump-and-chase really that fun to watch? Hamstringing great players in the name of 'effort' really all that glorifying, all because the dude doesn't want to spend 15+ a night grinding in the corners just to get 3 minutes where he can ###### skate with the damn puck?

 

I don't know. I've been thinking about it for awhile, and I'd like to hear your thoughts. I'll never forget watching the doc on the Russian teams of old ('The Bid Red Machine' IIRC) and how they were just so damn elegant. It was ###### poetry on ice, and everything was so selfless, so flawless. And then they came over to play the daunting NHL All-Stars, and ultimately lost in a series because we simply just beat the hell out of them; really, really brutally and cheaply I might add.

 

Has anything really changed? What highlights do you really watch at night? The one where Backes takes a puck in the face from the blue line, or the one where Ovechkin can bounce the puck of the boards to himself, spin-o-rama, and score? 

I don't mind the physical, high intensity North American brand of hockey, but I absolutely freakin' detest the clutching and grabbing.

 

It has NOTHING to do with hockey, neither the elegant or physical style.

 

It's cheap, against the rules, and it slows down every damn game to a crawl, and it's so easy to call.

 

Exhibit A : 2005-2007.

[SwampD]

The NHL will be fine.

 

I love it. I love it all. I have found all the grousing about interference this year both hilarious and exhausting.

 

 

And to watch one of our players getting mugged in the corner and still being able to make a great pass between his legs to set up a goal fills me with joy at the thought of our future in this NHL.

[DirtDart]

The NHL will be fine.

 

I love it. I love it all. I have found all the grousing about interference this year both hilarious and exhausting.

 

 

And to watch one of our players getting mugged in the corner and still being able to make a great pass between his legs to set up a goal fills me with joy at the thought of our future in this NHL.

Jack is Fine....

[mjd1001]

What I wish we could see in the NHL that we had back in the 1990's and earlier.....different sized rinks.  Remember Montreal had a really big surface compared to Buffalo, Boston and Chicago? 

 

In baseball we have different size and shaped parks..and we USED to in Hockey.  Maybe it would help scoring...when teams played in different rinks...everything wouldn't be 'standard', maybe coaching 'systems' would have to be tweaked or wouldn't be as 'perfect' as they are now. Players would rely on skill more and less on 'positioning'...and maybe it would just lead to a better game with more scoring?

[That Aud Smell]

This is a good original post and topic, WC.

 

I'm going to give this some more thought, and post later.

 

I especially like your subtext that seems to mourn the fact that the poetic USSR was defeated by the brutal North Americans.

[mjd1001]

I know a bit off topic, but speaking or rink size...and about what is wrong with the game "players getting too big and too fast" check out this article that is almost 30 YEARS OLD where people were saying the same things as they are today:

 

Full article here:  http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-10-18/sports/8703190117_1_hard-checks-and-fights-bigger-rink-nhl-fans

 

 

Some interesting parts of it: (remember, this was from 1987, there are some quotes from Sabres coach Ted Sator:

 

NEW YORK — Mark Messier says the evolution of National Hockey League players has rendered the league`s rinks obsolete.

``The NHL doesn`t have any choice but to go to a bigger ice surface, and I feel the sooner the better,`` the Edmonton Oilers center said. ``The game is just too fast now, and the players are too big.``It`s like a pinball game out there. You`d see a lot better hockey on a bigger rink, and the fans would enjoy it more. There would be more of the skill-control game. Players are getting hurt too often on the small ice surface.`

 

 

The only elements of the game that draw as much fan reaction as goals are hard checks and fights. The league has been slow to institute measures to curb fighting, so why should it want to reduce collisions?

``I think you see better hockey on smaller rinks,`` Boston Bruins General Manager Harry Sinden said. ``You see more contact. A lot more. You see a lot more goal-mouth action and not nearly as much open-ice play, which creates a different game.``

 

 

 

``In my opinion, NHL fans would be bored to death by Christmas,`` Sinden said of watching games on larger rinks. ``Having gone over there (Europe) and watched a number of games, that`s exactly what happened to me. Occasionally, if the Soviets are playing, you`ll see a hell of a game, but to try to watch that kind of hockey for two weeks, you`d be bored to death.``

Bobby Clarke, who played for and now is general manager of the Philadelphia Flyers, agrees with Sinden. As a player, Clarke made a living mucking in the corners.

``If you`ve ever watched European hockey, it`s boring hockey,`` Clarke said. ``Nothing happens. There`s very few shots on net, and there`s a lot of fooling around in midzones.

``My feeling is that we could make the midzones smaller and bring the goal line out farther and not have offsides for a two-line pass. That might open it up some.``

 

 

 

Edited January 29, 2016 by mjd1001

[Samson's Flow]

 

I know a bit off topic, but speaking or rink size...and about what is wrong with the game "players getting too big and too fast" check out this article that is almost 30 YEARS OLD where people were saying the same things as they are today:

 

Full article here:  http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1987-10-18/sports/8703190117_1_hard-checks-and-fights-bigger-rink-nhl-fans

 

 

Some interesting parts of it: (remember, this was from 1987, there are some quotes from Sabres coach Ted Sator:

 

NEW YORK — Mark Messier says the evolution of National Hockey League players has rendered the league`s rinks obsolete.

``The NHL doesn`t have any choice but to go to a bigger ice surface, and I feel the sooner the better,`` the Edmonton Oilers center said. ``The game is just too fast now, and the players are too big.``It`s like a pinball game out there. You`d see a lot better hockey on a bigger rink, and the fans would enjoy it more. There would be more of the skill-control game. Players are getting hurt too often on the small ice surface.`

 

 

The only elements of the game that draw as much fan reaction as goals are hard checks and fights. The league has been slow to institute measures to curb fighting, so why should it want to reduce collisions?

``I think you see better hockey on smaller rinks,`` Boston Bruins General Manager Harry Sinden said. ``You see more contact. A lot more. You see a lot more goal-mouth action and not nearly as much open-ice play, which creates a different game.``

 

 

 

``In my opinion, NHL fans would be bored to death by Christmas,`` Sinden said of watching games on larger rinks. ``Having gone over there (Europe) and watched a number of games, that`s exactly what happened to me. Occasionally, if the Soviets are playing, you`ll see a hell of a game, but to try to watch that kind of hockey for two weeks, you`d be bored to death.``

Bobby Clarke, who played for and now is general manager of the Philadelphia Flyers, agrees with Sinden. As a player, Clarke made a living mucking in the corners.

``If you`ve ever watched European hockey, it`s boring hockey,`` Clarke said. ``Nothing happens. There`s very few shots on net, and there`s a lot of fooling around in midzones.

``My feeling is that we could make the midzones smaller and bring the goal line out farther and not have offsides for a two-line pass. That might open it up some.``

 

 

 

 

Good contribution MJD.

 

It seems the dinosaurs of the game were still just as powerful back then as they are now. I am in favor for any changes that allows for the high skilled players to more effectively showcase their talent. The problem is that there are a lot of conflicting ideas (including a whole SS thread here) as to what is the most effective way to implement that change. I'd much rather see talents like P Kane, Stamkos, Seguin etc. weaving down the ice stickhandling through people than a bunch of muckers spending 30 seconds with their faces pinned against the boards battling for the puck.

[Iron Crotch]

Every team in the league averages between 27 and 32 shots per game except New Jersey (their boring ultra-defensive style only produces 24 shots per game). Every team in the league has a winning record when scoring first. No team has a winning record when giving up the first goal. Average save % is now .917.

 

All teams are basically the same in today's game with the exception of goaltending and special teams. Get a lucky deflection and you win. Give up a soft goal and you lose. That's pretty much today's NHL.

 

Personally, I miss the offensive game of the 80's and 90's. I don't like a game that favors shot blocking and dirty (or lucky) goals over skating and skill. But, defensive and goaltending techniques have evolved to the point where every team is focused first and foremost on limiting opposition scoring chances. I think it would take some major rule changes to open up the game. And, I'm not sure the NHL has to guts to go in that direction. Bettman likes the league this way.

[SwampD]

Didn't we beat Detroit 2-1 after being down a goal?

[MattPie]

Didn't we beat Detroit 2-1 after being down a goal?

 

Losing record, not lose every game.

[SwampD]

Losing record, not lose every game.

What does that even mean?

[MattPie]

What does that even mean?

 

Just pointing out that while we did beat De-twa after being down 2-1, those comebacks are getting fewer and far between. It'd be interesting to see records for teams than at any point in a game trailed now vs. during the days of a more open game (05-07, 80s, 90s). There's only so many games you'll sit through when once your team goes down a goal or two you know there's almost no chance of seeing them come back.

 

If you want to look at numbers and pictures of numbers:

http://www.sportingcharts.com/articles/nhl/average-goals-scored-per-game-in-the-nhl.aspx

Edited January 29, 2016 by MattPie

[LTS]

It means that in all games where a team gives up the first goal they ultimately lose more games than they win.

 

Give up the first goal in 10 games - you lost at least 6 of them.

 

The refs need to call the penalties that cause the ice to appear clogged when its not.

[SwampD]

It means that in all games where a team gives up the first goal they ultimately lose more games than they win.

 

Give up the first goal in 10 games - you lost at least 6 of them.

 

The refs need to call the penalties that cause the ice to appear clogged when its not.

I have a hard time believing that that is any different than any other year.

[qwksndmonster]

I have a hard time believing that that is any different than any other year.

With less scoring in general, how could it not be true?

[pi2000]

Compared to the 70s and 80s, today's NHL game is boring.    Dump puck, chase, retrieve, pass back to point, cross fingers that shot finds the back of the net... wash, rinse repeat.  

 

Players are too big these days, there's not enough room on the ice, especially on zone entries where players need more room to skate around the defensemen.    I like Brian Burke's proposal to make the ice surface 5 feet wider, but retrofitting arenas would be costly, or impossible in some cases.

[qwksndmonster]

In the last olympics, having the wider ice surface just made it easier for defenders to clear pucks out of the zone. Larger ice surfaces would decrease scoring even more, if anything.

Edited January 29, 2016 by qwksndmonster

[That Aud Smell]

In the last olympics, having the wider ice surface just made it easier for defenders to clear pucks out of the zone. Larger ice surfaces would decrease scoring even more, if anything.

 

fair point. 

 

a larger sheet might improve flow (and change how flow looks), but it might not help scoring.

 

to improve scoring, i think they gotta look at goalie equipment and size of the goal.

 

or just allow flaming sticks.

 

[thewookie1]

I miss 05-07 hockey where you had similar yet different to what we have now.

 

Good riddance to the USSR, what I've seen of it is that it truly fit their country. Everything and everyone is merely a cog in the Soviet hockey machine. In the end our more gritty individualistic style won out. Their system while interesting to watch between our two sides but would of been a real bore if the entire NHL played that way. It would be hardline possession tactics intending on wearing down the opposition and passing 2 minutes for one shot. Mainly because both sides would require extensive patience and even further limiting of creativity.

I'd love more skill but I'm not going to destroy defense to accomplish a higher score. Shrink goalie pads a bit. Don't let them wear puffy torso protection and I'd bet scoring would increase. Nothing radical.

Edited January 29, 2016 by thewookie1

[pi2000]

In the last olympics, having the wider ice surface just made it easier for defenders to clear pucks out of the zone. Larger ice surfaces would decrease scoring even more, if anything.

 

You're talking about a 200x100 Olympic ice surface, 15ft wider than NHL, which is just too much space IMO.

 

Olympic: 200x100

NHL: 200x85

hybrid: 200x(92-94)

Burke: 200x90

 

In fact, the new arena in Detroit will have the ability to expand from 85 to 90ft as Ken Holland is a big proponent of the slightly wider surface.

[SwampD]

How about just banning the use of analytics?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:devil:

[qwksndmonster]

Interesting. Thanks for those numbers, pi. I wonder what that extra 5 feet would do.

[MattPie]

I miss 05-07 hockey where you had similar yet different to what we have now.

 

Good riddance to the USSR, what I've seen of it is that it truly fit their country. Everything and everyone is merely a cog in the Soviet hockey machine. In the end our more gritty individualistic style won out. Their system while interesting to watch between our two sides but would of been a real bore if the entire NHL played that way. It would be hardline possession tactics intending on wearing down the opposition and passing 2 minutes for one shot. Mainly because both sides would require extensive patience and even further limiting of creativity.

I'd love more skill but I'm not going to destroy defense to accomplish a higher score. Shrink goalie pads a bit. Don't let them wear puffy torso protection and I'd bet scoring would increase. Nothing radical.

 

And that's different from today's hockey systems how? We get all the boring calculated play of rigid offensive systems, but none of the excitement of watching skill players have space to play. I guess the question, do teams use the "Soviet" style in the KHL? I haven't watched a KHL game so I don't know what it looks like.

[pi2000]

Interesting. Thanks for those numbers, pi. I wonder what that extra 5 feet would do.

 

Yeah, I wonder too.   Would be nice to see them add the extra 5ft for an outdoor game.   I have a feeling that's not too far away.