It's perfect the way it is. I don't remember a game going into OT at 0-0?
If that's not happening on a regular basis then there is no issue. Sure a 6-5 game might be exciting here and there but I'll take 2-1 on a regular basis over 6-5 on a regular basis any day.
The safety thing about goalies if equipment is shrunk is an odd one. How many goalies crumpled after a shot in the 80s and 90s? We're not saying to shrink them to player size. Back to what they used to be add an inch or two is still far smaller than the current day enormous suits some goalies seem to wear. I may be wrong, but the goalie stick looks thinker than in the past as well.
IMO, I don't mind keeping full sized pads if the catcher and stick are reduced in size.
I don't like changing net size (especially height) as I fear slightly higher shots may slowly add up in players getting hit in the head as average shots slowly increase in height for a "top shelf" goal. Width, maybe.
Posts that have a tendency to redirect into net. Worth looking into if structural issues aren't a problem. I hope we don't lose that PING sound though.
Full 2 minute penalties was supposedly used in the past and actually stopped because scoring was too high. But as already highlighted, the issue is consistency in the calls. Maybe certain penalties can be a "Full 2" rather than being stopped after a goal is scored?
This past season saw the third-lowest GAA average (2.52) in 59 years.
If they got rid of the worst possible goals, then I am fine with that.
Watching players scoring in the 1980s from shots that would be relatively benign nowadays, doesn't look all that exciting in hindsight.
Personally, I like that the value of a goal has increased.
If scoring really needs to be increased, then rather than making it easier to score, they should make it easier to get scoring chances. Easy goals do not equal exciting goals IMO.
I am not against more scoring, but rather just how it is achieved. I like some of the ideas concerning powerplays/penalty killing.
Even the one about angling the posts inwards to direct post-hits into the net would be decent (in those cases, the goalie was beat anyway).
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
I'm all for reducing the size of goalie equipment, not only to increase goal scoring, but also to promote more exciting goal tending like we saw in Calgary with Kiprusoff's great athletic saves and in Dominic Hasek's days. Putting giant equipment on giant goal tenders is boring and in my opinion is a crutch to make up for a lower level of athleticism in net.
Just riffing here, but there may be technological possibilities as well with goalie equipment as well. It seems like it should be possible to make it much smaller and much more form fitting while still preserving player safety considering the types of personal body armour that are out there. If the profile of a safely equipped goalie were significantly smaller, it could even make room to get rid of the frequently-broken composite sticks as the extra shot power may not be needed to blow it by today's bulked up gear since there would be more net to shoot at. Slower shots would also make goal tending that much less hazardous, again reducing the need for larger equipment.
We could also make the puck smaller so it squeaks in easier.
The Following User Says Thank You to ThisIsAnOutrage For This Useful Post:
If they got rid of the worst possible goals, then I am fine with that.
Watching players scoring in the 1980s from shots that would be relatively benign nowadays, doesn't look all that exciting in hindsight.
Personally, I like that the value of a goal has increased.
The best hockey as entertainment that I've ever seen is still the '87 Canada Cup. How many of the players in those Canada-USSR finals went on to the Hall of Fame? 20?
The scores of the Finals? 6-5, 6-5, 6-5.
I don't expect that to be the norm in the NHL anytime soon. But people who are digging in their heels over increasing scoring are cutting off their nose to spite their face. Lots of goals doesn't mean loose hockey or bad hockey.
I guess we'd add close to 2 goals a game if the goalies were simply average sized and wore the same sized equipment they wore in the last 80s. Would that make NHL hockey any less entertaining to watch? Is there something thrilling about watching a puck hit a 6'4" goalie in pads and dropping to his feet - when the goalie hasn't even moved?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
I'm all for reducing the size of goalie equipment, not only to increase goal scoring, but also to promote more exciting goal tending like we saw in Calgary with Kiprusoff's great athletic saves and in Dominic Hasek's days. Putting giant equipment on giant goal tenders is boring and in my opinion is a crutch to make up for a lower level of athleticism in net.
I don't mind the scores of the current NHL. But I think the product would be better if the shots were 25-35 average per game rather than 20 ish?. An additional 10 shots per team per game would be nice.
Smaller stick and catcher IMO would require a bit more athleticism to play goal, or at least a more active upper body so that goalies cannot get away with a totem pole or statue looking style of play. Perhaps even modifying equipment on goalies so that there are more juicy rebounds rather than total energy absorption and falling casually to the ice would be interesting.
All in all, I like the current style of the NHL. More shots on net and slightly less stoppages in play would add to the excitement IMO.
Create an illegal defense like the NBA has, and I think you would open up the middle of the ice. I'm not sure exactly how to do it but having a square where you can only have 1 player per offensive player in there may help.
The best hockey as entertainment that I've ever seen is still the '87 Canada Cup. How many of the players in those Canada-USSR finals went on to the Hall of Fame? 20?
The scores of the Finals? 6-5, 6-5, 6-5.
I don't expect that to be the norm in the NHL anytime soon. But people who are digging in their heels over increasing scoring are cutting off their nose to spite their face. Lots of goals doesn't mean loose hockey or bad hockey.
I guess we'd add close to 2 goals a game if the goalies were simply average sized and wore the same sized equipment they wore in the last 80s. Would that make NHL hockey any less entertaining to watch? Is there something thrilling about watching a puck hit a 6'4" goalie in pads and dropping to his feet - when the goalie hasn't even moved?
We get it Cliff. Back in your day everything was better made and more enjoyable. You walked in 5 feet of snow up-hill both ways. Hockey teams scored many goals, none of which were bad defensive plays or goaltending.
Must of been quite a time. Now we've got to settle for low scoring, close, nail-biting games over and over. It's tough, but we'll manage.
I'm a goalie and I think it's crazy looking at some of these goalies and how much net they take up. To me though the problem is they're wearing proportional equipment sizes as other goalies but they're just so tall. Look at goalies like Bishop (6'7''), Dubnyk (6'6''), Rinne (6'5''). You look at Bishop in the net and there's nothing to shoot at sometimes I wonder how guys can even score.
But, if you take a goalie that is 5'9'', these tall goalies are wearing proportional gear sizes so I'm not sure if it's fair to say, well because you're tall you can't do this the same as this goalie who is short.
I'm honestly not sure what the solution is, you make the nets bigger you're punishing the smaller goalies, you make the taller ones wear smaller gear, can't blame them for being tall and you might be opening them up to more injuries.
I think the last 2-3 years has been the best hockey I've ever seen.
I would be for smaller equipment. If it's about protection, give them some thin kevlar to put in vulnerable spots (knees, wrists, back of legs, etc...) that doesn't take up as much space. Players are blocking shots with much less equipment, there's no reason why a knee pad under the main pad can't be made with the same material as the chest protector on players' shoulder pads.
Just say no to bigger nets. It changes the game. People though Lou was a whiner when he said he would retire if that happened, but I have no problem with that statement. These guys have spent their whole lives studying and perfecting their style to best protect a 6x4 net. If you change those angles, you change the training and would render almost all goalies in the league inept IMO. It would be like telling players they have to use a ball now, or not allowing curves on sticks. It would completely change the way they play.
Goalies are just as much a part of the entertainment as anyone else. I love watching big saves as much as any other part of the game. Making extreme changes to try and create more goals, IMO, is a slap in the face to these guys who work as hard or harder than anyone on the team. Equipment is a factor, but the biggest factor is that goalies are better, flat out. They adapted their style to be more successful, is that a surprise to anyone?
Maybe the league needs to do a better job of marketing goalies rather than forcing them into a back seat and claiming that doing their job makes the game "boring". Lundqvist, Price and Quick are probably the only tenders that get any significant face time as league stars.
Almost all goalies are some of the best athletes in the world, we should be playing that up, not neutering them.
I'm honestly not sure what the solution is, you make the nets bigger you're punishing the smaller goalies, you make the taller ones wear smaller gear, can't blame them for being tall and you might be opening them up to more injuries.
I think I have it! It's not about giving more net to shoot at, we should be giving more nets to shoot at. Two nets at each end, each one with its own goalie. Twice as much shooting space, net stays the same size. It's a win-win!
I think I have it! It's not about giving more net to shoot at, we should be giving more nets to shoot at. Two nets at each end, each one with its own goalie. Twice as much shooting space, net stays the same size. It's a win-win!
Ice Quidditch?! Don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows Ice Quidditch is played with three pucks and four nets. We'll call it Field Quidditch for clarity. Ice Quidditch! Ha!
The Following User Says Thank You to ThisIsAnOutrage For This Useful Post:
