Quote:
Originally Posted by 2macinnis2
And some very intense fans are a little too close to the forest to see the trees some times.
As more than a casual fan who watched the majority of the Final, I actually think the better team did NOT win. I picked Chicago to win the series in 6, but after watching the games I thought TB owned the majority of the play, was the faster, more creative, and more deep team. The thing is TB just didn't finish chances, and I think a lot of it was more Crawford 'getting in the way' of good chances more so than poor finishing or truly great/athletic goaltending. So then it becomes more of a toss up. And Chicago got a couple better bounces here and there and end up winning 1 goal games in which less than 4 non-EN goals are scored.
I get there's an element of luck involved in hockey and it's part of what makes the game fun. But in a 2-1 or 1-0 game the lesser hockey TEAM has a much better chance of winning regularly.
|
Basically your last sentence negates your opening post to this thread. The NHL obviously doesn't need more goals if on any given night, the lesser team can pull out a victory.
The NHL wanted parity, and they got it. And now they are rolling in dough. Gary, the owners & the players. I don't think tweaking the rules at this point will increase the NHL's profit. Moving Phoenix and Florida would.
I do have my own pet rule changes I'd like to see implemented, but it's not supposed to directly increase scoring. The trapezoid and other minor things. Reshaping the posts, bigger nets, forcing goalies into smaller gear or fundamental rule changes = phooey to me.