Fix what's obviously broken, NHL needs more goals

[Coach]

How about hitting the post is worth 5 goals. I mean, come on. It's pretty hard to hit the post.

Scoring increases = more fun!

[undercoverbrother]

What if you give an incentive to score more goals?

What if you get a bonus pt for scoring more than 4 goals?

What if if you get this bonus pt even if you don't win.

7-6 game, means 3 pts for the winner and 1 for the loser.

[flambers]

League will try to keep challenging the goaltenders equipment.

Personally I don't believe for a second that the equipment has to be that large due to safety.

Especially with shooter's in the 80's such as Brett Hull, Al MacInnis etc........Goaltenders equipment was dramatically smaller (Pad's, glove, shoulder pads.. etc).

League will either address the equipment or the net will increase in size. (my guess)

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

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?

There was a lot of loose hockey back in those days though. You can't really point to an all-star series as an example of the norm.

A lot has changed since that period. Players are more fit, the talent pool has increased in quality and the equipment for all positions has allowed players to become more effective. Reducing goalie size without also changing back everything else would seem too punitive.

Maybe it is a chicken/egg scenario, but I don't see it as a situation where the goalies increased equipment size, then players adjusted by becoming fast, stronger and acquiring better sticks. As soon as players started taking slap shots at goalies, the race for goalie equipment to keep pace with skaters started. What we have now is a culmination of strategy and equipment adjustments that started 70 or 80 years ago. For this reason, I don't see reducing equipment as anything more than nerfing goals.

Maybe goalie equipment is starting to outpace other aspects, but I haven't seen anyone prove that. All I see are circumstantial arguments (i.e., scoring is lower, goalie equipment is larger; therefore larger goalie equipment is responsible for lower scoring). But really, there are so many moving parts to this. The bigger factor IMO is that most players are simply trained to play on both sides of the rink now. One-dimensional offensive players are just not tolerated as much as they used to be (no matter what Don Cherry thinks).

[The Voice of Reason]

Rather than drafting new rules regarding blocking shots or messing with the size of the nets, it'd be much easier to more strictly enforce the rules we already have. Especially the ones regarding interference.

[The Ditch]

I don't really think that it's a huge deal, I think the goalies are taking up so much net but I'm still really enjoying hockey.

For arguments sake though I guess you could include a time violation like the NBA has with the defense in the paint, but you could do it as the slot in hockey. I would have no idea how it would work but it would clear out the slot opening for more high quality chances.

[CroFlames]

Didn't they recently reduce the length a goal pad is allowed to extend over the knee, thereby increasing five-hole goals?

Didn't it not really have an effect?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Didn't they recently reduce the length a goal pad is allowed to extend over the knee, thereby increasing five-hole goals?

Didn't it not really have an effect?

From the looks of the pads, they didn't reduce it (and other parts) enough.

Knees don't need to go that high. Gloves have a blocker under the wrist that certainly doesn't need to be there. Even goalie pants have big blocks on each hip that stick out an inch or so; don't need those. Basically, anything that is supposedly for protection, but extends the actual size of the goaltender, can be minimized. If a bullet proof vest can fit under a regular shirt, those vulnerable areas can be protected with thinner equipment.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Just say no to bigger nets. It changes the game...
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...

Let me turn that around on you. These goal sizes were thought up when the average player/goalie was 5'5", wore no facial protection, and had form hugging pads. Now the players/goalies are 6'1" (I think goalies are even bigger) and wear "Michelin Man" gear. So, in fact, we have shrunk the nets (by 20-25% - maybe more). All I am saying, the proportion of the goalie to the net area should be restored.
And it would help your 2nd point - the more area a goalie has to cover, the more exciting he becomes and more of a "star"/feature player. I don't recall Bishop making any exciting saves - he is just big. How many teams have been winning with interchangeable journeymen in net? Niemi, Emery, Crawford, Bishop, Andersen (almost). The fact that you can win with average spares in goal argues against your very point. Vernon, Fuhr, Hasek, Roy, Smith, Hextall were all stars (you can debate how good or bad they were, but they were featured and they were exciting). Now you just need a decent goalie. Make the nets bigger ---> goalies become more exciting and higher profile. Just like soccer/football - the goalies are huge stars.

[CMPunk]

Just get rid of the goalies and play 6 a side with no one allowed to hang back.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Let me turn that around on you. These goal sizes were thought up when the average player/goalie was 5'5", wore no facial protection, and had form hugging pads. Now the players/goalies are 6'1" (I think goalies are even bigger) and wear "Michelin Man" gear. So, in fact, we have shrunk the nets (by 20-25% - maybe more). All I am saying, the proportion of the goalie to the net area should be restored.
And it would help your 2nd point - the more area a goalie has to cover, the more exciting he becomes and more of a "star"/feature player. I don't recall Bishop making any exciting saves - he is just big. How many teams have been winning with interchangeable journeymen in net? Niemi, Emery, Crawford, Bishop, Andersen (almost). The fact that you can win with average spares in goal argues against your very point. Vernon, Fuhr, Hasek, Roy, Smith, Hextall were all stars (you can debate how good or bad they were, but they were featured and they were exciting). Now you just need a decent goalie. Make the nets bigger ---> goalies become more exciting and higher profile. Just like soccer/football - the goalies are huge stars.

Just curious, but how high do you think scoring would be if those proportions were restored with the talent level that exists today?

I know people like to think that the good ol' days were great, but the quality of players available today would make the game ridiculous IMO.

I would love to see the NHL stage a few games like that to see. It might not end up like lacrosse, but I don't think it would be far off.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Let me turn that around on you. These goal sizes were thought up when the average player/goalie was 5'5", wore no facial protection, and had form hugging pads. Now the players/goalies are 6'1" (I think goalies are even bigger) and wear "Michelin Man" gear. So, in fact, we have shrunk the nets (by 20-25% - maybe more). All I am saying, the proportion of the goalie to the net area should be restored.
And it would help your 2nd point - the more area a goalie has to cover, the more exciting he becomes and more of a "star"/feature player. I don't recall Bishop making any exciting saves - he is just big. How many teams have been winning with interchangeable journeymen in net? Niemi, Emery, Crawford, Bishop, Andersen (almost). The fact that you can win with average spares in goal argues against your very point. Vernon, Fuhr, Hasek, Roy, Smith, Hextall were all stars (you can debate how good or bad they were, but they were featured and they were exciting). Now you just need a decent goalie. Make the nets bigger ---> goalies become more exciting and higher profile. Just like soccer/football - the goalies are huge stars.

What size net are you suggesting?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Let me turn that around on you. These goal sizes were thought up when the average player/goalie was 5'5", wore no facial protection, and had form hugging pads. Now the players/goalies are 6'1" (I think goalies are even bigger) and wear "Michelin Man" gear. So, in fact, we have shrunk the nets (by 20-25% - maybe more). All I am saying, the proportion of the goalie to the net area should be restored.
And it would help your 2nd point - the more area a goalie has to cover, the more exciting he becomes and more of a "star"/feature player. I don't recall Bishop making any exciting saves - he is just big. How many teams have been winning with interchangeable journeymen in net? Niemi, Emery, Crawford, Bishop, Andersen (almost). The fact that you can win with average spares in goal argues against your very point. Vernon, Fuhr, Hasek, Roy, Smith, Hextall were all stars (you can debate how good or bad they were, but they were featured and they were exciting). Now you just need a decent goalie. Make the nets bigger ---> goalies become more exciting and higher profile. Just like soccer/football - the goalies are huge stars.

I get the argument for sure. But of the goalies you mentioned, Roy and Hasek were the only ones who I would consider elite goaltenders (ie, put them into any era, and they dominate). Didn't watch much of Smith, but Vernon and Fuhr, despite very impressive and long careers, I don't think they would even be in the league today with their skill level. Hextall was decent, but a star more because of his extreme persona than anything else.

But your point about soccer only holds if you also make the item used to score (the puck/ball) the same proportional size.

- Soccer: Net is (732cm x 244cm) = 178608 cm^2. Ball is 3848cm^2 as a flat circle. That is 2% of the net size.
-Hockey: Net is (183cm x 122cm) = 22,326cm^2. Puck is 19cm^2 (as a disk) and 45cm^2 as a circle). That's either 0.09% or 0.2% as a flat circle. The puck would need a diameter of 24.76cm in order to be the same ratio of size as a net:ball in soccer. and that's if it was shot on its side, which is pretty rare. Now, the goalies take up much more space in a hockey net than they do in soccer, but size of the item is substantially smaller, and moves much faster.

Yes the soccer nets are bigger and the goalie covers less surface, but there are facets of the game that make it necessary (large field and more players mean less scoring chances, especially those from in close. Game speed and potential for turnovers/counter attacks are higher in hockey). If there are chances from in-tight, it's almost a guaranteed goal. Maybe you think that's the way it should be, which is fine, but not me personally. If you make the nets bigger, I think you'll just see a lot more shots (and goals) from the outside, which to me is not as exciting as guys driving the net trying to bury it. Why would you do that when you likely have a better chance at scoring if you shoot from further away because the goalies can't cover their angles anymore?

[calf]

Introduce illegal defences. 1 or 2 defending players must be between the blue line and faceoff dots. Opens up space and potentially mis-matches in front of the goalie, but could turn into an odd-man rush if the attacking team is all down low and turns over the puck.

edit: this isn't a real suggestion. But when it comes to making nets bigger/equipment smaller, coaches will adapt their systems to make it harder for players to get at the net, and won't make goals that much easier to come by. Open up the ice, allow players and coaches to be creative on offence to make the game more exciting. Don't make the nets bigger under the false assumption that goals=exciting.

[AcGold]

It would be sweet if they figured out how to officiate with consistency. I don't care about more goals, watching the game with bush league subjective calls hurts the game. A hook in one game is fair in another, how about we fix what is broken first. The referees change how they do their job on a night to night basis, playing against LA or Anaheim is painful to watch with how many penalties the refs don't call. Hook, clutch, hook, slash keep playing.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Just curious, but how high do you think scoring would be if those proportions were restored with the talent level that exists today?

I know people like to think that the good ol' days were great, but the quality of players available today would make the game ridiculous IMO.

I would love to see the NHL stage a few games like that to see. It might not end up like lacrosse, but I don't think it would be far off.

I think you can calculate that easily enough. I am not advocating 50's ratios, but as I mentioned earlier, 80's Billy Smith looks good to me. Whether that's 20% bigger, 30 or 15 - I think it's easy enough to calculate, based on average goalie size and average equipment size.

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I get the argument for sure. But of the goalies you mentioned, Roy and Hasek were the only ones who I would consider elite goaltenders (ie, put them into any era, and they dominate). Didn't watch much of Smith, but Vernon and Fuhr, despite very impressive and long careers, I don't think they would even be in the league today with their skill level. Hextall was decent, but a star more because of his extreme persona than anything else.

You missed the part where I said how good they actually were was debatable. Fuhr, Vernon, Smith, Hextall were superstars in their day in part because (like in soccer) the goalies had to be athletic and there was a lot of focus on them. You make the nets bigger, and goalies will be more important.

[codynw]

Just make the nets 20 feet wide like soccer. Who gives a #### if it's possible for the goalie to stop it or not?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

This past season saw the third-lowest GAA average (2.52) in 59 years.

Yes. But goal scoring was lower in 1997–98, 98–99, 2001–02, 02–03, 03–04, 11–12, and 12–13. The highest cumulative goals/game average since the mid-nineties was in the 2005–06 season, and this was a product of the introduction of new rules, a crackdown on enforcement, and a readjustment period for players and coaches following the lockout.

By way of perspective, the difference between that high-water mark in 2005–06 (6.05) and last season's average (5.32) is less than one goal per game—which is the difference between a 3–2 score and a 4–2 score. All things considered, how much more exciting is one additional goal in a game that usually features five goals?

There is nothing wrong with the level of goal scoring in the NHL. The game is faster, the players are in better shape and more skilled, and the distribution of talent is more even than it has ever been.

[GirlySports]

or make the 3rd period 4 on 4, change ends after 10 minutes to make it the long change.