Want more entertainment? Force the goalies to make saves again

[dudacek]

"The clever cat-and-mouse game between goalies and shooters has run its constructive course. The goalies, by winning, have changed the game. Hockey is a game that needs open ice. It is made for open ice. The problem is the goalies. The answer is the goalies."

Hall of Famer Ken Dryden has convinced me that changes must be made to open up the offensive zone, the same way the three-point shot opened up basketball. A must-read for fans of the game.

https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2021/02/hockey-goalies-are-too-big-now/618021/?utm_source=pocket-newtab

[darksabre]

You want to force our goalies to make more saves? 

[Eleven]

Larry Quinn's goal is about to become reality?

[dudacek]

5 minutes ago, darksabre said:

I want to force our goalies to make more saves? 

This isn't about the Sabres, it's about the game.

[#freejame]

10 minutes ago, Let's Go B-Lo said:

start with eliminating the blue lines.

Found Eichel’s account 

[Stoner]

This might help someone — I misread the link as The Athletic at first. But it's The Atlantic. No paywall.

[fiftyone]

I thought this was going to be about shots being blocked before getting to the goalies. Anyone have any idea if more shots are blocked nowadays than it the past? Seems like it's harder than ever getting a shot through because anyone and everyone is willing to take one, but that could be completely untrue. 

[SDS]

Quote

The problem is the goalies. The answer is the goalies.

He literally just said at the end of the article the answer is making the net bigger. 🤦🏻

[mjd1001]

I've changed my mind on one very big thing that has been said for years and years about making the game more exciting/getting more scoring. Rink size.

Conventional wisdom has been for bigger ice rinks. I think it is just the opposite.

Smaller ice surfaces would lead to more scoring and more exciting hockey. Why?

-With more ice surface, there is more space and more time for the defending team to react.  Gifted offensive players will make plays no matter what.....what is needed is to reduce the time and space for the D-unit to react to that.

-End to end rushes take longer to occur, cross rink passes have farther to go...with more time and distance there is more time for the D to react and set up and more chances for the team on the rush to make an error.

-I even think of when the olympics are overseas on the 'larger' ice surface. Everyone said it would lead to more open hockey. It didn't.  Scoring was down.  Teams with the most talented shut-down D-units did the best. Why?  They had more time to react and the larger ice surface benefited the better defensive teams/players more than it did the teams with gifted offensive players.

[steveoath]

Good article thanks for linking it.

[nfreeman]

Good article.  I've been saying for a while that the goalie pads are way too big.  The difference between the amount of net to shoot at in the 1980s vs now is enormous. 

I'd rather make the goalies wear kevlar or similar body armor than enlarge the nets, but I could live with enlarging the nets.  The game has really suffered.

[SDS]

3 hours ago, mjd1001 said:

I've changed my mind on one very big thing that has been said for years and years about making the game more exciting/getting more scoring. Rink size.

Conventional wisdom has been for bigger ice rinks. I think it is just the opposite.

Smaller ice surfaces would lead to more scoring and more exciting hockey. Why?

-With more ice surface, there is more space and more time for the defending team to react.  Gifted offensive players will make plays no matter what.....what is needed is to reduce the time and space for the D-unit to react to that.

-End to end rushes take longer to occur, cross rink passes have farther to go...with more time and distance there is more time for the D to react and set up and more chances for the team on the rush to make an error.

-I even think of when the olympics are overseas on the 'larger' ice surface. Everyone said it would lead to more open hockey. It didn't.  Scoring was down.  Teams with the most talented shut-down D-units did the best. Why?  They had more time to react and the larger ice surface benefited the better defensive teams/players more than it did the teams with gifted offensive players.

I apologize for making this analogy, but this is what I’ve always said to my beer league team many years ago. We have one sheet of ice that is Olympic size and we were a terrible team. Teammates would always complain about being on the larger ice because that meant the better skating opponent would destroy us. It was always the opposite. 
 

Larger ice services just means more junk ice. “keeping things to the outside” always meant there was more outside to keep the puck in. We always did better in reality, but people cling to their cliches. 

[Eleven]

1 hour ago, mjd1001 said:

I've changed my mind on one very big thing that has been said for years and years about making the game more exciting/getting more scoring. Rink size.

Conventional wisdom has been for bigger ice rinks. I think it is just the opposite.

Smaller ice surfaces would lead to more scoring and more exciting hockey. Why?

-With more ice surface, there is more space and more time for the defending team to react.  Gifted offensive players will make plays no matter what.....what is needed is to reduce the time and space for the D-unit to react to that.

-End to end rushes take longer to occur, cross rink passes have farther to go...with more time and distance there is more time for the D to react and set up and more chances for the team on the rush to make an error.

-I even think of when the olympics are overseas on the 'larger' ice surface. Everyone said it would lead to more open hockey. It didn't.  Scoring was down.  Teams with the most talented shut-down D-units did the best. Why?  They had more time to react and the larger ice surface benefited the better defensive teams/players more than it did the teams with gifted offensive players.

 

20 minutes ago, SDS said:

I apologize for making this analogy, but this is what I’ve always said to my beer league team many years ago. We have one sheet of ice that is Olympic size and we were a terrible team. Teammates would always complain about being on the larger ice because that meant the better skating opponent would destroy us. It was always the opposite. 
 

Larger ice services just means more junk ice. “keeping things to the outside” always meant there was more outside to keep the park in. We always did better in reality, but people clinged on to their cliches. 

There was a discussion about this on this board years ago, and it convinced me that NHL rinks make for a more exciting game than do Olympic rinks.

[mjd1001]

Just now, Eleven said:

 

There was a discussion about this on this board years ago, and it convinced me that NHL rinks make for a more exciting game than do Olympic rinks.

I realize it won't happen anytime soon, but you can take that one step further...a SMALLER rink than the current NHL one would make the game even more exciting.

[KC Scouts]

I agree.....larger ice surface and a larger net are not necessary 

Smaller Goalie Equipment would dramatically increase scoring, This would be the first place that I would go.

Like any other changes they would have to be enforced.

Edited February 18, 2021 by KC Scouts

[Kruppstahl]

2 hours ago, Let's Go B-Lo said:

start with eliminating the blue lines.

That's pretty radical.

Purists of the game will hate this, but you know what is a fact?

3 on 3 OT hockey is wildly more entertaining and interesting than 5 on 5 hockey.

Even with the teams playing "keep away" and constantly retreating out of the offensive zone to maintain possession, it's still way more interesting than modern 5 on 5 hockey.

Why?  With 3 skaters on the ice, you simply do not have enough bodies to defend your net, all the time, particularly if anyone makes a mistake.

So it becomes critical *not* to make a mistake and positioning and attention to the game become greatly amplified relative to normal.  That creates a tension and drama that for me, is really interesting to watch. 

And there is all kinds of room out there for great players to show you that they are great players.

I find modern regular season NHL hockey to be borderline unwatchable.

Wanna fix it?  Get rid of some players!  

The NHLPA will LOVE this idea.

LOL

 

 

 

 

[dudacek]

I played in a 3-on-3 ball hockey league for a few years that had all its games in small elementary school gyms.

Missed or blocked shots or big rebounds became scoring chances at one end or the other end literally within seconds. Power plays clicked at about 80 per cent.

It seemed like 80 per cent of the time the ball was within high-danger range of one goal or the other and at almost all times, the attacking team only had to beat one defender to get a scoring chance.

Compare that to the NHL where the puck spends at least 80 per cent of the time out of high danger range and you can go whole periods without seeing a puck carrier with just one man to beat.

The more distance to the goal and the more bodies on the ice, the larger the advantage to the defender. It should be obvious to anyone who has played variations of the standard game.

Edited February 18, 2021 by dudacek

[Kruppstahl]

Just finished reading Ken's article.

I agree with almost all of it and have been saying some of these things for years now.  I'm all favor of making goalie equipment streamlined and small; I'm all in favor of making the net bigger, too.

Heck, I'd be in favor of taking players off the ice, which would have the best outcome IMO.

Somewhat related to this conversation is the fact that the NHL should *never* have allowed high tech stick technology and they should go back to wood tomorrow.

Where they need hi-tech is in the goalie equipment, so that it can protect while being small and skimpy.

 

 

[thewookie1]

I don't really understand this problem's severity. This idea of there needing to be 10 goals a game is absurd; though I do agree that goalie equipment needs to be further tweaked.

 

4 minutes ago, Kruppstahl said:

Heck, I'd be in favor of taking players off the ice, which would have the best outcome IMO.

 

Sorry but this is truly the most idiotic take imaginable. 5v5 is how hockey should be played and besides specific circumstances; always played. It provides a solid balance of Forwards and Defense/Goalie. Thankfully the NHLPA would never allow it to happen. 

 

[Norcal]

What about moving the nets forward in the offensive zone giving skill players more area to create behind the net and in the corners.

I'd start by moving it till the current goalline is even with the back of the net. 

[BuffalOhio]

1 hour ago, SDS said:

I apologize for making this analogy, but this is what I’ve always said to my beer league team many years ago. We have one sheet of ice that is Olympic size and we were a terrible team. Teammates would always complain about being on the larger ice because that meant the better skating opponent would destroy us. It was always the opposite. 
 

Larger ice services just means more junk ice. “keeping things to the outside” always meant there was more outside to keep the park in. We always did better in reality, but people clinged on to their cliches. 

Ah yes, the Laurel Gardens Ice House.  As a D-Man, I NEVER chased anyone into those corners.  Too far to recover.  Hiya Scott!

[PerreaultForever]

Changes to hockey rules always remind me of the Dr. Suess  kid's book, I forget the title but I'm sure you all read it or had it read to you once upon a time. The king has a mouse problem so he gets cats then he has a cat problem so he gets dogs etc etc and then he needs mice to get rid of the elephants. Hockey went like that imo. 

Way back the nets were on big spikes and didn't come off easily so people were reluctant to crash the net cause they'd get hurt. To stop the injuries they made the nets come off easier and then they crashed in and goalies got hurt so they protected the goalies more. So much that the goalies started to come out and stick handle (almost) and so they had to limit goalie movement area but they still got huge pads and big creases. There was more with icings and D men getting hit which reduced aggressive dump ins and forechecks and I won't bore you with the whole history, but one change leads to adaptation and not all changes lead to what they wanted.

You want more goals and more entertainment shrink the crease back, shrink the goalie equipment back, allow more contact in front (both ways) and the problem will be fixed (for everyone except the Sabres who don't go anywhere near that area). We might even lose the word "cycling" which is the worst thing that ever happened to hockey after the trap. 

[KC Scouts]

12 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

 

You want more goals and more entertainment shrink the crease back, shrink the goalie equipment back, allow more contact in front (both ways) and the problem will be fixed (for everyone except the Sabres who don't go anywhere near that area). We might even lose the word "cycling" which is the worst thing that ever happened to hockey after the trap. 

Right!

Cycling=Boring and reminds me of soccer. The D gets mesmerized watching the puck waiting for a turnover instead of trying to take it from the other team.     

[DarthEbriate]

31 minutes ago, KC Scouts said:

Right!

Cycling=Boring and reminds me of soccer. The D gets mesmerized watching the puck waiting for a turnover instead of trying to take it from the other team.     

I dunno. If you're an opposing fan you love to see it when your third or fourth line cycles the puck against the Eichel line. It usually ends with your team scoring a goal and the Sabres folding.

Whereas when we cycle the puck (was it last game?) for a minute, then change lines to the Eichel line with the puck still in the attacking zone...  it ends with 0 SOG and an offsides whistle, against us.

[DarthEbriate]

Fun article. And it's nice to hear it from a goalie. Ways to make the game more entertaining?

1) unrelated to ice size: make each game worth 3 points. 3 to win, 2 to win in OT, 1 to lose in OT, 0 to lose in regulation. OT is continuous 3 on 3, no shootout. GMs and coaches whose jobs are buoyed by false .500 records are happy for loser points. Get the incentive to win, not to get to OT.

2) shrink the neutral zone and extend the goal out from the boards. I would keep offsides as a call lest you have a forward just parked full-time between the o-zone faceoff dots waiting for a bomb pass. That'd be like lacrosse forwards and...  that's boring if your team stinks.   This does pose a problem with the bench spanning the blue line even more than today and the whole "d-man waiting step off the ice is now offsides" when the puck gets turned around quickly. But that could be managed. One way would be to put the benches on opposing sides/ends of the ice and splitting the penalty boxes to opposing sides as well. That would also be messy.

3) Dryden mentions how basketball created the 3-point shot. I don't like the idea of a 2-goal shot in hockey... because there isn't that vertical aspect that there is in basketball. Keep the plane at the current level.  But wow -- think of how space might open up if a screened shot that managed to get through from the point without being deflected by an offensive player would be worth 2 goals. Insanity.

4) But, like Dryden, I am good with increasing the size of the nets. Hockey purists be darned. The goalies are so big, so well coached, and their equipment so well-designed... make them cover just a bit more ice and vertical space. Just think how many posts/crossbars are in a game now. 3-4 per game? Some will still bounce away, but what if 2-3 of those go in each game? Think back before the COVID break... there was a game where... Hall? Skinner? had two in just the span of minutes. And then we had another later on. Even the Sabres would score more. And that might mean defenders stepping out just a bit, which opens pressures to the slot. Don't worry! We'd still be a bad team, because the opposition would also get an extra goal per game. But there'd be more of a threat to score. And the best goalies would still be the best goalies. And some of the littler more athletic guys would still be great (relatively), too.

Edit: I forgot to mention. The nets don't have to drastically change to make a difference. 4'2" by 6'2" would probably result in an extra goal or two per game.

 

Edited February 18, 2021 by DarthEbriate