Bigger Nets

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

And before people chime in with reducto absurdum claims that about 7-5 games, the proposals out there are about tweaking the game, not radically remaking it.

Originally Posted by CroFlames

If people want scoring so badly, why not just remove goalies and make the nets twice as big? Remove offside too.

Originally Posted by Locke

Do you think the average human has actually gotten that much bigger over time? I think its just that back in those days any idiot could play in the NHL if they were willing to withstand the abuse and the punishment for low pay.

Calling it a 'Professional League' in the 80s was being incredibly generous.

Its come a long way since then.

Don't be daft. More Canadians played hockey back then, and NHLers were drawn from the elite and earmarked for their talent at a young age. And NHLers were rich, they just weren't mega-rich.

What has changed, for hockey and all sports, is dramatically improved training, and a more ruthless and thorough winnowing process brought about by piles and piles of money. When it comes to goalies, it's all about body type now. Is the NHL better because only 5 per cent of the male population has a body type suited to being an NHL goalie? Maybe. But it doesn't make the era when people with normal physiologies played in the NHL a joke.

Originally Posted by Igottago

If you don't find hockey exciting enough already maybe its just not the sport for you. There are sports like Lacrosse and Basketball with lots of scoring. And they aren't for me.

For me, the entertainment value of hockey varies by era, by season, by game. I find a lot of hockey games pretty dull. I miss the era of odd men rushes. I don't think the game is perfect, and I'm happy enough try tweaks to make the game more entertaining. Fortunately, the people who run the NHL share my outlook, which is why they review the rules every year and make changes to try to improve the game.

A 1-0 game can be a great. It can also be dull. A 4-3 game can be great. It can also be dull. But all else being equal, with equal skill evident in both games, I'll take the 4-3 game. Because goals are fun - so fun that people usually stand up and cheer when they happen. And no, that doesn't mean 7-5 games would be better. Because a 7-5 game is evidence of sloppy pay and poor goaltending.

And let's not pretend this is only an issue with hockey. Soccer is the most popular sport in the world, but FIFA and various leagues have been experimenting with various ways to increase scoring for years.

[CroFlames]

With the apparent huge need to increase scoring in the NHL (according to many of you), what is the ideal goals/game where you will finally be satisfied and stop tinkering around with the rules?

[Finger Cookin]

Some kind of goals per game average that is consistently over 6 would be good IMO. So an increase between 0.5-1.0 goals per game would be just great.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

With the apparent huge need to increase scoring in the NHL (according to many of you), what is the ideal goals/game where you will finally be satisfied and stop tinkering around with the rules?

Eric Duhatschek wrote an article about the issue a few weeks ago:

How can the NHL boost goal scoring? Bigger nets may be the answer

I'd say that mindless dolt who cares nothing for the integrity of the game, David Poile, has it about right.

Now, so many NHL goals are scored in a right-place-right-time sort of way, deflections pin-balling into the net off skates, shin pads and favourable caroms. Goals scored on the rush, on open ice or on a clear breakaway are rare.

Leagues know that scoring helps sell the game better than suffocating defences. Basketball and football have all taken turns tweaking the rules to generate more offence.

Among the NHL general managers, coaches and players interviewed, a surprising number were prepared to at least discuss the notion of making nets bigger to enhance scoring.

“We’re into a 3-2 league now,” Nashville Predators long-time general manager David Poile said. “I would personally prefer a 4-3 league. That’s a big difference, though – that’s two goals per game. How do you find two more goals?”

...Generally, the complaint against larger nets on fan boards is that hockey doesn’t need 10-7 games or soccer-style nets. But, Poile stresses, that isn’t what they’re pondering anyway. The changes would be subtle – prototypes developed from an NHL research and development camp, with one exception offered up by the Buffalo Sabres, do not look appreciably different to the naked eye.

If larger nets are ever implemented, Poile believes “we need to go wider because the goalies are taller and their legs are longer and they can go post to post. It would seem to be a fair thing to do. And they would have to go higher because a lot of goalies virtually play the game on their knees right now. I for one don’t think that was ever meant to be. It doesn’t have to be a lot, but it has to be wider and it has to be taller.”

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

For me, the entertainment value of hockey varies by era, by season, by game. I find a lot of hockey games pretty dull. I miss the era of odd men rushes. I don't think the game is perfect, and I'm happy enough try tweaks to make the game more entertaining. Fortunately, the people who run the NHL share my outlook, which is why they review the rules every year and make changes to try to improve the game.

A 1-0 game can be a great. It can also be dull. A 4-3 game can be great. It can also be dull. But all else being equal, with equal skill evident in both games, I'll take the 4-3 game. Because goals are fun - so fun that people usually stand up and cheer when they happen. And no, that doesn't mean 7-5 games would be better. Because a 7-5 game is evidence of sloppy pay and poor goaltending.

And let's not pretend this is only an issue with hockey. Soccer is the most popular sport in the world, but FIFA and various leagues have been experimenting with various ways to increase scoring for years.

It sounds like you find hockey pretty dull a lot of times. That's unfortunate. I disagree.

With any sport you are going to have games that don't live up to their billing. Sometimes players don't perform, sometimes coaching strategies cancel each other out, sometimes the game just has a lower energy level. Where is this mythical sport where every instance of the game is a classic? It doesn't exist. You can have a terrible NFL game, a terrible boxing match, a bad baseball game, a boring tennis match. This is not something isolated to the NHL and that they should, or even can rectify.

I would also say, to your soccer example -- the amount of experimentation is a drop in the bucket compared to the obscene amounts that happens in hockey. And you generally don't have fans clamoring for "more goals" all the time, because they respect what the sport is.

[troutman]

You can really increase scoring by making the rink smaller.

No more neutral zone!

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Igottago

And you generally don't have fans clamoring for "more goals" all the time, because they respect what the sport is.

Read the article I linked to. Do you think Eric Duhatschek, David Poile, Patrick Roy, Lindy Ruff, and Joe Sakic don't respect what hockey is?

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Read the article I linked to. Do you think Eric Duhatschek, David Poile, Patrick Roy, Lindy Ruff, and Joe Sakic don't respect what hockey is?

I think a lot of people involved with hockey seem to think back to some bygone era of high scoring as the peak of what the game should be (generally the 80's and early 90's.) If I played in that era I'd probably be nostalgic about it too.

The game has evolved into something else, and I don't think that's a bad thing.

If we had to watch floppy technically inept goalies let in wrist shots from the side boards today, we'd be losing our minds.

I dunno, I'm just not seeing any massive issues with the game, not enough to need a fundamental change like net size increasing. I think its fair enough to keep an eye on equipment sizing for goalies.

Also, with taking out the red line, cracking down on clutch and grabbing, 4 on 4 and now 3 on 3 situations, how much more needs to be done? Its not like players haven't had anything done to help them have more space out there. I don't want to see a point where goal just become a given. I like that players have to battle, make passes, make the goalie move. That's how it should be.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by croflames

with the apparent huge need to increase scoring in the nhl (according to many of you), what is the ideal goals/game where you will finally be satisfied and stop tinkering around with the rules?

7.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I have never understood this concept of increasing the net size because goalies are twice as big as they used to be.

Just restrict goalie equipment to get the same dimensions.

It's just ass backward thinking. Are goalies being hurt by shots? Besides a goalie taking a puck in the neck, have we had any injuries in the last 20 years to goalies from shots?

If no, why on earth is the padding so big?

That's never going to happen so the next logical step would be to make the nets bigger.

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Yeah, noting compared to what it was, honestly.



A hook in the 5th minute of the game is a hook in overtime.



Explore this more please.

I agree it was worse, a time when cheap shots to the head way after the puck was gone was called a good hockey play, not exactly a high bar.

I disagree, how many sports do you here the play by play guys mention that the refs are really letting them play? That's code for the refs aren't calling flagrant penalties.

There needs to be a way to penalize the cheap shots, how many times have we seen a skill guy sitting on the bench shaking his hand out or hunched over from a dirty shot behind the play? Seems like one a game for Johnny now, yes it's a physical game but the refs miss so many penalties it's a major factor in why the offense is minimized so much, go to the net and you're guaranteed a stick in the back.Protect the puck with your body in the corner and you'll surely take a few chops to the hands. NFL doesn't allow cheap stuff like that, Rugby doesn't and those sports are supposedly way more brutal.

I'd prefer an eye in the sky watching for the cheap shots to eliminate all the non hockey stuff, keep the big hits and the physical level just cut back on the garbage. That will let the skill guys play with more creativity.

[sketchyt]

Number one reason why goalies have gotten so good is because of coaching and a dramatic shift in perspective in how the position is supposed to be played over the last 1-2 decades. From training, flexibility, angles, depth, systems, puck tracking, emphasis on mobility coupled with size, etc... goalie gear comes in way after those things.

Anyone who says the equipment isn't for protection has never played goal, has little insight into it, or is heavily biased. No matter how much gear you wear, something will sneak through every once in a while. You just hope it doesn't hit anything important... it's just something goaltenders accept.

I've had broken fingers, bone bruises on knees, ribs that felt soft like a rotten tomato... etc. I've seen much worse. In BEER LEAGUE with good gear. I can't imagine what that looks like at a pro level.

When I see these discussions, it's always referencing Garth Snow (who was horrible with oversized gear, by the way), linking of old photos before gear reduction rules, and just a general "make it smaller, it's not for protection... goalies are too big" level of argument. For me, it really highlights the longstanding lack of understanding of a fundamental position in hockey. Just look at coaches in youth hockey 'warming up the goalie' and it's pretty clear where we're at with that.

There's plenty of ways to augment the net and gear without changing the fundamental boundaries of the game and Babcocking it up. There was a net design I had heard about that thinned out the posts/crossbar and also angled it into the net. This would create a nightmare for goalies as shooters can now purposely aim for the post in way more situations.

For gear, goalie pants. No one ever complains about these things. It's always the pads and catcher that gets the darts. Those have already been pared down with little to no effect (heck, some of the better goalies don't even wear the max allowable sizing on pads. Also, the 'cheater' on the catcher... a term that's barely even used in today's goaltending are not allowed in the NHL though you do see them in beer leagues quite often).

Goalie pants are massive and is one large piece of equipment that doesn't contour completely to a goalie's body. There's a lot of room there to cut without causing injury. Paring those down further will make the goalie squeeze his arms tighter in a butterfly position and allow more space around the goalie. It will also open up the area under the arms when not in the butterfly. You would see more rebounds, goalies having a way tougher time coralling rebounds, a larger 5 hole and more squeakers that get through.

I'm not opposed to rule changes like this, it should be done. It's just mind-blowing and disappointing to see a guy like Mike Freaking Babcock essentially say, "Blurgh, goalies too big, make nets bigger so more goals. Me want more red lights." Like, put a little thought into it.

[GirlySports]

3 points for a win will increase scoring

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

3 points for a win will increase scoring

But ruin NHL's artificial playoff races.

[Mathgod]

No. The league should look for other ways to increase scoring.

Make the blue line thicker so there's more room for stretch passes.

[genetic_phreek]

This was probably mentioned in another thread at some point in time but I recall Theo saying that the league doesn't have the same talent as the days of Lemieux, Yzerman, Sakic, Forsberg, etc. Also I remember I think it was players tribune with Larionov about not enough guys are allowed to be creative etc.

I think in some ways they both hold true. Years ago, guys would take more risks and try creative moves which would result in more goals for, but with those risks comes turnovers for odd man rushes and more goals against. Essentially it would be like playing the way they do now in OT 3 on 3.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by genetic_phreek

This was probably mentioned in another thread at some point in time but I recall Theo saying that the league doesn't have the same talent as the days of Lemieux, Yzerman, Sakic, Forsberg, etc. Also I remember I think it was players tribune with Larionov about not enough guys are allowed to be creative etc.

I would say it's the exact opposite, the average player in the league is more talented (plus better equipped and conditioned) than those days so the elite players aren't as dominant as before.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by genetic_phreek

This was probably mentioned in another thread at some point in time but I recall Theo saying that the league doesn't have the same talent as the days of Lemieux, Yzerman, Sakic, Forsberg, etc. Also I remember I think it was players tribune with Larionov about not enough guys are allowed to be creative etc.

I think in some ways they both hold true. Years ago, guys would take more risks and try creative moves which would result in more goals for, but with those risks comes turnovers for odd man rushes and more goals against. Essentially it would be like playing the way they do now in OT 3 on 3.

Yeah, you cant have it both ways. In this league people have jobs and assignments. Look at what happens when you just throw offensive talent out onto the ice and say 'do whatever you want!'

It doesnt work. Theres too much discipline and structure now and say what you will but thats how most sports work.

The difference with those guys was that the talent gap between the top-end guys and everyone else was so wide that they could get away with it because if they caused any issues their top Defence pair and goaltender would easily bail them out.

[Daradon]

I used to be a traditionalist on this issue too, but I would not be against slightly bigger nets. I agree that reducing the padding would be the most ideal, but I think like a bigger ice surface, it may be impossible. They already did reduce it a bit years back, (remember Trevor Kidd complaining? haha) I can't see them doing it again. Plus goalies being different sizes, it might be hard to enforce a black and white rule. Making bigger nets might be the easiest and most fair rule change.

[FNL]

A bigger ice surface may not be immediately possible, but perhaps by allowing a range of surfaces from 85' to 100' wide some new arenas could be built to the wider spec. Think of it like baseball, where each field has unique dimensions, and teams are tailored to best suit their home park. A little variety in rink size might make hockey a little more interesting...

Oh, and yes, knock goalie pad size down, and if that's a safety issue still, throw the goalies a bone and reign in the technolgy on sticks a bit too.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk