I think after reading everyone's posts my preference is to move the blue lines back. Put them at the edge of the centre ice circle. This shortens the neutral zone and creates more space in the attacking zone. It would be the simplest thing to try first anyway.
Teams should be able to keep the puck in the o-zone a bit more easily, but also gives them more space to vary how they dump it in to retain possession. I'd still want the goalie equipment streamlined a bit though. A point shot from further out should have a chance to go in without a screen or deflection now and then. The equipment is unnecessarily large, and I'm all for the safety of the keepers. Making the net bigger just doesn't sit right with me the way other rule changes would (they would become the norm/accepted much more quickly in my opinion).
Net bigger is the easiest solution with the fewest unforeseen consequences, and I'd be fine with it. It's not about increasing scoring, it's about increasing mano-a-mano plays where a goalie 'makes' a save instead of getting hit by a puck, and a player is shooting to score, not to get a tip/bounce through a crowd.
While rectangular is probably easiest and most visually appealing, I'd explore a trapezoid where the bottom is 8 feet wide and top crossbar is still 6ft wide. Keep eyes/teeth/heads a bit safer with incentive to keep pucks lower.
Don't know if there's a more updated graph to indicate what scoring was in the most recent season, but it's interesting how much closer the goals per game is to the dead puck era for the 2015 season, than the high scoring 80s.
Also noticed with the graph...
Funny enough, when this Sports Illustrated cover came out, that's when the NHL begun heading into it's dead puck era.
The Following User Says Thank You to Joborule For This Useful Post:
Don't know if there's a more updated graph to indicate what scoring was in the most recent season, but it's interesting how much closer the goals per game is to the dead puck era for the 2015 season, than the high scoring 80s.
Also noticed with the graph...
Funny enough, when this Sports Illustrated cover came out, that's when the NHL begun heading into it's dead puck era.
All this tells us is the game has averaged between 5.3 and 5.9 goals per game for 25 years. And outside the 70s and 80s, it looks like those numbers hold all the way back to the aftermath of World War 2, when presumably all the good players (or at least a large chunk of them) died fighting the Nazis.
To me, that indicates the game is what it is. You either like it for that, or you don’t.
__________________
Mom and Dad love you, Rowan - February 15, 2024
So pretty much they need to put an asterisk next to Ken Dryden HHOF entry... indicating freak of nature size.
They need to stop counting the Canadiens 5 Stanley Cups that they won mainly because he was bigger than basically anyone else on the ice.
Billy Smith 5-10 175
Grant Fuhr 5-10 184
I think that Dryden should watch some of his old games. The players were smaller and slower and shot the puck significantly slower with less accuracy.
The skill level has gone up exponentially. Go back and compare the number of tape to tape passes from Dryden's "golden" era to what you see every game from all teams.
Bobby Hull and Bernie 'Boom Boom' Geoffrion shot the puck better than 90% of todays shooters even with wooden sticks, Maurice Richard and Guy Lafleur had killer accurate wrist shots again with wooden sticks, Yvan Cournoyer, Sid Abel, Gilbert Perreault, Henri and Maurice Richard, Frank Mahovlich, Stan Mikita, Jean Beliveau and of course Gordie Howe and Bobby Orr all had crazy skill....some of those old guys were legends for a reason
Since this is essentially the current rules change thread, here's an idea:
it's only icing if the puck makes it to the trapezoid behind the net. It still penalizes teams who just rocket the puck out of their zone, but eliminates some of the dubious icing calls. Bring back some more puck races, and they shouldn't be as dangerous since it's not just about touching the puck.
That chart ends at 2014-15. Here's what came after...
2015-16: 5.34
2016-17: 5.45
2017-18: 5.86
2018-19: 5.96
2019-20: 5.96
2020-21: 5.80 (so far)
Thanks for the data.
Good to see the rate has actually progressed the past several seasons. I think if NHL could get into that 6-7 goals per game range the product should be consistently exciting.
However, I did ask earlier in the thread if the goal is to increase goals to bring in more excitement, or to increase excitement that should lead to more goals. While reducing goalie equipment more should make the net open up just a bit more to encourage more shots, I would like for changes around the neutral zone play to occur to reduce the amount of play stoppages that happens.
The NHL over the past couple of decades I feel has made tweaks to the offsides rule to allow the play to continue, and allow goals to stand. I think that the league has the appetite to negate offsides even more, and make changes to the rule that play stoppages from that decrease drastically. Offsides kill the flow of the game, and is a rule I would like to changed to expand the attack zone and bring more pace and opportunities to the game.
Bobby Hull and Bernie 'Boom Boom' Geoffrion shot the puck better than 90% of todays shooters even with wooden sticks, Maurice Richard and Guy Lafleur had killer accurate wrist shots again with wooden sticks, Yvan Cournoyer, Sid Abel, Gilbert Perreault, Henri and Maurice Richard, Frank Mahovlich, Stan Mikita, Jean Beliveau and of course Gordie Howe and Bobby Orr all had crazy skill....some of those old guys were legends for a reason
The counter to this is that back then the number of players that could really hurt you as a goalie were small and you could be more cognizant of when they were on the ice or in a scoring position. But now with modern equipment everyone can bring a pretty dangerous shot. The difference between a Chara slapper and Al Iafrate 20+ years ago isn't too much, but all of a sudden you can catch a good one from say Cody Eakin that you might not have had to worry about with say Paul Ysebaert. (just two andom forwards that popped into my head form now vs the 90s)
I'm personally for shrinking equipment, but that seems like a reasonable counter argument from the gear enthusiasts.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
This individual is not affluent and more of a member of that shrinking middle class. It is likely the individual does not have a high paying job, is limited on benefits, and has to make due with those benefits provided by employer.
