Fix what's obviously broken, NHL needs more goals

[dammage79]

I can see making the nets a bit bigger. But not much. I'd rather have the Goalie equipment the same size given the increased velocity of shots these days.

It's crazy to me to consider placing size restrictions on the goalies themselves. That's not equal opportunity.

[JohnnySkittles]

Make the posts angled so that when it goes off the post, it's more likely to go in.

[H2SO4(aq)]

I hope they don't change the net size, would be ridiculous for all records going forward to have occurred in "the large net era". Just sounds silly.

Realistically, most regular season games are 4-2, 3-1, 3-2. games that end 8-7 are fun every now and then, but would look like a video game if that became the norm (obviously making the nets slightly bigger wouldn't change the score that radically, but i think you get my point).

I don't think we necessarily need MORE scoring for the league to be exciting. I think you need more skill (which has already been implemented with the 04 rule changes) and more close games (again, this is achieved by parity throughout the league, hence the salary cap, etc.). So I think the league is in a very good place as far as its entertainment value.

Where they aren't doing enough or a good enough job, is selling the product. I think they need to focus on:

1. Fairness in player discipline. League loses credibility the way they just spin a wheel and pick suspension/no suspension/fine/no fine and how many games. consistency is key
2. Rivalry games. This is what sells in any sports league
3. Less gimmicky outdoor games - stop over saturating the outdoor game thing, its not special if there are 6 of these a season. You need it to be a spectacle for casual fans to tune in.
4. Stop trying to ban fighting (I know this is a complex argument) - it attracts more fans that it deters. This sport is built upon violence and violent men.
5. Rig the draft so McDavid goes to Phoenix - We can't sell the game in the South if the games top stars are rotting in the AHL in the North Pole.

[DoubleF]

I think the thing I would like, is:

1. Get rid of trapezoid.
2. Have players serve the FULL time on their penalty. (Huge debate about penalties that end after period 3 and major penalties etc. though).

Increases goals due to more goalie mistakes.
Increases shorthanded goals.

Biggest issue is consistency in officiating in carrying this out.

IMO...

Modding net size is dumb. Screws game. Prefer modding arena size.
Reducing goalie equipment size is worth considering, but better options.
Changing offside rules worth considering, but better options.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by 2macinnis2

forcing goalies to change equipment is sort of unfair given how hard shots are now with better sticks, it may not even be truly safe.

I disagree with this. So much of the equipment goalies wear now doesn't actually cover any part of the body and protects literally nothing.

It's always amazing when you see goalies in their street clothes and you realize how skinny most of them are.

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

I don't have evidence to back this up, but I'd argue the equipment isn't that much bigger. It is bigger, but I'm not sure that is what contributes the most.

It's mostly the goalies who are bigger themselves, have developed better techniques (butterfly), and are far more athletic than the Grant Fuhr's and Mike Vernon's of yesteryear.

Other than my list in post #4, I think the NHL is just fine in terms of goal scored per game.

Some of the equipment has evolved radically to help goaltenders play a more efficient style.



You can't tell me that goalies need pads that extend 2 feet above their knees for protection. They never had them in the old days and I didn't hear of any goalies dying back then.

The thigh rise on the modern pad isn't even thick enough to give much protection if it even was protecting something. Most of them are an inch thick. You could easily have the goalies wear form fitting thigh protecting pads under their pants.

They are only there to close the five hole. I upgraded my own pads from an older style to a butterfly pad, and the amount of five hole goals I allow dropped significantly just from changing equipment.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

I watched hockey in the 80's and it was fun because there were a lot of mistakes. But don't confuse that with 'good' hockey, it was actually pretty bad. Team defense was almost non-existent and the goalies were not great and had minimal padding. And the hooking, holding and interference was out of control. I don't mind trying to come up with ways to make the game better but I also don't think we should be pining for the way the game was played in the 80's.

As for amount of goals scored, I really don't care if a game is 1-0 or 7-6, as long as there are scoring chances. You can have 1-0 games with plenty of scoring chances, a low scoring game doesn't automatically mean it was boring to watch.

[2macinnis2]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

I think the thing I would like, is:

1. Get rid of trapezoid.
2. Have players serve the FULL time on their penalty. (Huge debate about penalties that end after period 3 and major penalties etc. though).

Increases goals due to more goalie mistakes.
Increases shorthanded goals.

Biggest issue is consistency in officiating in carrying this out.

IMO...

Modding net size is dumb. Screws game. Prefer modding arena size.
Reducing goalie equipment size is worth considering, but better options.
Changing offside rules worth considering, but better options.

#2 would put a lot of emphasis on referee performance.

[2macinnis2]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

I watched hockey in the 80's and it was fun because there were a lot of mistakes. But don't confuse that with 'good' hockey, it was actually pretty bad. Team defense was almost non-existent and the goalies were not great and had minimal padding. And the hooking, holding and interference was out of control. I don't mind trying to come up with ways to make the game better but I also don't think we should be pining for the way the game was played in the 80's.

As for amount of goals scored, I really don't care if a game is 1-0 or 7-6, as long as there are scoring chances. You can have 1-0 games with plenty of scoring chances, a low scoring game doesn't automatically mean it was boring to watch.

I don't think you necessarily need great defense to have great hockey. Great defense can be a part of great hockey, but I don't think either team in this Finals played great defense. And don't confuse: watching two excellent offensive teams get chance after chance with no goals is NOT great defense. Is inefficient conversion of scoring chances, that's all.

That's what we saw in this Cup Finals. There's no way a goalie of Crawford's ilk ought to be able to reasonably withstand the onslaught TB put on at the end of game 4. That wasn't great defense. It wasn't great goaltending. It was just TB unable to put the puck past a humongous goalie into the net.

[SuperMatt18]

Need to do something about goalie size/net available to shoot at.

Somewhere along the line

This:



Became this:



And that is one of the less extreme examples. Just used Roy since he was an average sized goalie across both generations.

[CaptainCrunch]

Goals should be hard to get and something that you have to earn.

I get tired of people that keep saying low scoring games are boring, it discredits a lot of what happens on the ice.

If you want track meet hockey, then make the rules like ringette.

Give players a 1 foot bubble that can't be breeched.

Take the goalies out.

[2macinnis2]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Goals should be hard to get and something that you have to earn.

I get tired of people that keep saying low scoring games are boring, it discredits a lot of what happens on the ice.

If you want track meet hockey, then make the rules like ringette.

Give players a 1 foot bubble that can't be breeched.

Take the goalies out.

If scoring average goes from 3-2 to 4-3, you think goals are that much tougher to earn?

We're talking about 1-2 more goals per game. More games ending in OT rather than the stupid shoot out.

And you want to talk about taking the goalies out? Cmon that's not an honest response.

[undercoverbrother]

Is scoring down significantly from prior years?

My recollection is that it isn't.

Is it down from the 80's? Yes, but as many have posted that wasn't "good" hockey.


I like the idea of serving the full 2 mins on a penalty.

[2macinnis2]

Originally Posted by H2SO4(aq)

I hope they don't change the net size, would be ridiculous for all records going forward to have occurred in "the large net era". Just sounds silly.

Realistically, most regular season games are 4-2, 3-1, 3-2. games that end 8-7 are fun every now and then, but would look like a video game if that became the norm (obviously making the nets slightly bigger wouldn't change the score that radically, but i think you get my point).

I don't think we necessarily need MORE scoring for the league to be exciting. I think you need more skill (which has already been implemented with the 04 rule changes) and more close games (again, this is achieved by parity throughout the league, hence the salary cap, etc.). So I think the league is in a very good place as far as its entertainment value.

Where they aren't doing enough or a good enough job, is selling the product. I think they need to focus on:

1. Fairness in player discipline. League loses credibility the way they just spin a wheel and pick suspension/no suspension/fine/no fine and how many games. consistency is key
2. Rivalry games. This is what sells in any sports league
3. Less gimmicky outdoor games - stop over saturating the outdoor game thing, its not special if there are 6 of these a season. You need it to be a spectacle for casual fans to tune in.
4. Stop trying to ban fighting (I know this is a complex argument) - it attracts more fans that it deters. This sport is built upon violence and violent men.
5. Rig the draft so McDavid goes to Phoenix - We can't sell the game in the South if the games top stars are rotting in the AHL in the North Pole.

I SO agree with #4. Fighting has a real place in hockey. It's entertaining. It helps players police head-hunting shenanigans. It's an important compliment to the game and I believe we're missing out right now.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by 2macinnis2

I don't think you necessarily need great defense to have great hockey. Great defense can be a part of great hockey, but I don't think either team in this Finals played great defense. And don't confuse: watching two excellent offensive teams get chance after chance with no goals is NOT great defense. Is inefficient conversion of scoring chances, that's all.

That's what we saw in this Cup Finals. There's no way a goalie of Crawford's ilk ought to be able to reasonably withstand the onslaught TB put on at the end of game 4. That wasn't great defense. It wasn't great goaltending. It was just TB unable to put the puck past a humongous goalie into the net.

I am sorry the bold part confuses me.


So it isn't the goalies that are the problem it is the offensive players that are the problem? Is it a lack of skill or desire to score. I mean if Crawford the that average a goalie, without great defence I can only assume the TB didn't really want to score.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by 2macinnis2

I don't think you necessarily need great defense to have great hockey. Great defense can be a part of great hockey, but I don't think either team in this Finals played great defense. And don't confuse: watching two excellent offensive teams get chance after chance with no goals is NOT great defense.

I never said otherwise, was just commenting on how bad team defense was in the 80's. It wasn't great hockey. Entertaining, absolutely. But bad defense led to inflated scoring. Along with average goaltenders wearing much smaller pads than today.

That's what we saw in this Cup Finals. There's no way a goalie of Crawford's ilk ought to be able to reasonably withstand the onslaught TB put on at the end of game 4. That wasn't great defense. It wasn't great goaltending. It was just TB unable to put the puck past a humongous goalie into the net.

I think you're selling Crawford a bit short here, he's not garbage he's pretty good. Tampa had no problems scoring all season long on goalies with similar padding. And I also disagree that a Hawks defense with players like Keith and Seabrook among others wasn't/isn't good. They probably have the best top 3 or 4 in the league.

I agree about the padding though, it's a little much. If they are going to tinker with anything it should start there.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by 2macinnis2

I SO agree with #4. Fighting has a real place in hockey. It's entertaining. It helps players police head-hunting shenanigans. It's an important compliment to the game and I believe we're missing out right now.

Again, I am sorry, but how does increasing players that are in the league to punch people in the head increase the skill level and thereby increase the scoring chances.

[cannon7]

Read an article from Scottie Bowman, can't seem to find it, where he makes an excellent case for moving the blueline back to where it was pre-2005. Removing the red line should have been enough. Because the offensive zone is so large now, teams are just collapsing in front of their nets and blocking shots from the point. They no longer challenge the point man because it's such a low shooting percentage with all the bodies collapsed in front of the net.

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by OILFAN #81

Game 6 last night was 2-0 but there were so many chances!! Chances are exciting hockey, not just goals. I get just excited when a goalie makes a great save then when a goal happens.

Agree with this completely.

Making hockey more exciting centers around increasing chances, and that has a lot to do with the speed of the game. Players are faster now, which makes the game much more exciting imo. I think any changes to the game need to center around allowing players to keep skating, and removing the center line was a great example of this.

[2macinnis2]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Is scoring down significantly from prior years?

My recollection is that it isn't.

Is it down from the 80's? Yes, but as many have posted that wasn't "good" hockey.


I like the idea of serving the full 2 mins on a penalty.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/stats.html

Here are the numbers. 97-2004 and 2010-2015 are eras of offensive futility the likes of which the league hasn't seen since the 1950s. So if you loved the scoring in the 50s I guess you have a legitimate argument. Arguments against 80s hockey alone are moot, look at 1960-1995.

The really telling number there though is save pct. Look at the steady climb which I would argue has a lot to do with equipment. Save pct has absolutely nothing to do with how the game is played other than how many shots are stopped. Hockey is hockey. But unlike 97-2004, this drought isn't due to boring games or the trap. It's because of massive goalies.

And what's worse, it's not great goalies like Hasek or Roy or even Belfour. It's a lot of arguably average goalies. I mean, look at the Flames. It wasn't much of a disadvantage to have a Hiller. In fact, I'd argue because of equipment and styles most goalies in 2015 are pretty indistinguishable from one another.