Interesting Goalie Pad Concept

[www.boston.com]

personally, i like it ... props to this kid for using his noggin. it'd be interesting to see if this actually has any effect on the outcomes of more than just his games.

I've always wondered why goalies don't all use black pads. I would think it is easier to pick up a black puck against a light background. So black pads might make it just a hair harder for attacking players to see rebounds.

Of course this kid is taking a completely different approach, hoping to encourage a shot at the pads instead of at the net. But I'd be interested in the thoughts of those of you that actually play hockey with respect to whether or not black pads might make it harder to track rebounds.

I don't know whether it'd actually provide any improvement in practice, but it's certainly clever.

Maybe you'd get a few more whistles to stop play on a loose rebound that was close enough that the ref loses sight of the puck?

andyw2100
I've always wondered why goalies don't all use black pads. I would think it is easier to pick up a black puck against a light background. So black pads might make it just a hair harder for attacking players to see rebounds.

Also harder for defending players looking to clear rebounds.

RichH

Also harder for defending players looking to clear rebounds.

Agreed, but I think it would make more of a difference for the attackers. The defenders would often be more to the side or behind, so would not be viewing the puck against the black background. So on the whole, I think the attackers are going to be more affected by the black background than the defenders would be.

From what I have read in the past and from playing some myself, I think white pads do give a more ambiguous target to shoot around. Darker pads provide the shooter with easily defined lines. This story takes the concept a step farther by actually making the white pads look like the net. I am confident that white is a little trickier for shooters, I just don't know if it makes enough difference to quantify.

andyw2100

RichH

Also harder for defending players looking to clear rebounds.

Agreed, but I think it would make more of a difference for the attackers. The defenders would often be more to the side or behind, so would not be viewing the puck against the black background. So on the whole, I think the attackers are going to be more affected by the black background than the defenders would be.

YMMV, but I find that when there's chaos in front of the net (eg, nobody's exactly sure where the puck is), the advantage goes to the attackers. Loose pucks can move in strange ways when there's chaos, and it's much more dangerous for the defenders/goalie to lose track of the puck for a moment as it's moving toward the net than for the attackers to lose track of it for a moment as it moves away. As a defender, I almost always prefer being able to see the puck to not, even if it means the attacker also sees it.

ftyuv
As a defender, I almost always prefer being able to see the puck to not, even if it means the attacker also sees it.

I appreciate the feedback. I have never played hockey, so insight from those that have is certainly adding to my knowledge.

As someone who has played, though, wouldn't you agree that it's easier to defend when not seeing the puck than it is to attack when not seeing the puck? I mean if you are defending, you can stick check the attacker or otherwise mess with his ability to get his stick on the puck and get a shot off, without actually seeing the puck. Whereas the attacker is pretty unlikely to get his stick on the puck if he can't see it.

As an example, think of the situation where an attacker and someone defending are trailing the play, with the attacker trying to put home a rebound. The defender can defend without even seeing the puck, but the attacker has to see it. So in a situation like this, goalie pads that make it harder for the second attacker to pick up the rebound would seem to favor the defense. Again, I'm just floating ideas. I could obviously be wrong.

andyw2100

ftyuv
As a defender, I almost always prefer being able to see the puck to not, even if it means the attacker also sees it.

I appreciate the feedback. I have never played hockey, so insight from those that have is certainly adding to my knowledge.

As someone who has played, though, wouldn't you agree that it's easier to defend when not seeing the puck than it is to attack when not seeing the puck? I mean if you are defending, you can stick check the attacker or otherwise mess with his ability to get his stick on the puck and get a shot off, without actually seeing the puck. Whereas the attacker is pretty unlikely to get his stick on the puck if he can't see it.

As an example, think of the situation where an attacker and someone defending are trailing the play, with the attacker trying to put home a rebound. The defender can defend without even seeing the puck, but the attacker has to see it. So in a situation like this, goalie pads that make it harder for the second attacker to pick up the rebound would seem to favor the defense. Again, I'm just floating ideas. I could obviously be wrong.

I should preface by saying that I'm not a very good player.

Your point is taken, but the thing to remember is that when there's chaos, the puck goes in and out of sight -- at any given point, some people are going to see it while others don't.

If there's a brief moment where a defender sees the puck and the attacker doesn't, the worst case scenario for the attacker is that the puck gets cleared. But if there's a brief moment where an attacker sees the puck and the defender doesn't, the worst case scenario is a goal.

So while you could argue that a hard-to-see puck creates an equal amount of opportunities for both sides, the potential effect coming from those opportunities is fairly heavily weighted to the attacking team.

Everybody continues to forget the ref. If he loses sight of it, there's a whistle and a faceoff in the defensive zone. Not good for the D.

TimV
Everybody continues to forget the ref. If he loses sight of it, there's a whistle and a faceoff in the defensive zone. Not good for the D.

I dunno that I'd say categorically that that's the case; there are plenty of times that a quick whistle helps the D.

As a goalie, I can assure you that I absolutely need to see the puck. It can easily get lost against my pads or in among a bunch of sticks and skates. If I can't see the puck I stay still so I don't accidentally knock it in. Unfortunately for me, if it is still loose and I don't realize it, an opposing player will often see the puck and poke it by me.

If you watch most college and pro teams, you will notice that the goalies and defense use white tape, while the forwards use black tape. I have always been told this is to help their own goalie see the puck better while making it more difficult for the opposing goalie to pick it up.

Josh '99

TimV
Everybody continues to forget the ref. If he loses sight of it, there's a whistle and a faceoff in the defensive zone. Not good for the D.

I dunno that I'd say categorically that that's the case; there are plenty of times that a quick whistle helps the D.

Ask Trent Andison or anyone at the 1990 ECAC semis. (I'm sure that there is a more recent example.)

as another sieve, you're right on about seeing the puck, although i've never cared that much about what tape an opponent uses. one important fact about goalie equipemtn is that white gear stays white for roughly a week. you can already see the blocker is all marked up and the pads are most likely even worse, diminishing the physical effect. so while it's a novel idea, i think if there's an effect it's primarily mental. which can have a greater effect on skaters...

i think tape color has more to do with look, feel, and superstition - though most goalies use white. personally, i've always used white because i thought it felt better, which led to me playing better. i've had teammates who will switch things like tape if they are in a rut. if you look at cornell the break-down is not all forward/defense, as seminoff usually sports black, while riley nash uses white.

Feh. Put big old crosshairs or a bull's eye target on the pads instead and watch goal-oriented shooters instinctively work to hit those marks.

I think someone should design goalie pads in


conjunction with Japanese scientists.

ftyuv
I think someone should design goalie pads in


conjunction with Japanese scientists.

That might be the worst place to wear your invisibility cloak.

Trotsky

ftyuv
I think someone should design goalie pads in


conjunction with Japanese scientists.

That might be the worst place to wear your invisibility cloak.

Not if done correctly. Make the front of the blocker invisible-enabled, but not the back or side... that way the shooter won't be able to see where your blocker is as easily, but when you're down scurrying for the rebound it's just like any other blocker.

Or give the D the cloak, but only for their backs -- that way they won't screen the goalie.

ftyuv

Trotsky

ftyuv
I think someone should design goalie pads in


conjunction with Japanese scientists.

That might be the worst place to wear your invisibility cloak.

Not if done correctly. Make the front of the blocker invisible-enabled, but not the back or side... that way the shooter won't be able to see where your blocker is as easily, but when you're down scurrying for the rebound it's just like any other blocker.

Or give the D the cloak, but only for their backs -- that way they won't screen the goalie.

I assume Trotsky meant standing in traffic.

cth95
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/01/25/teen_goalie_designs_pads_to_trick_shots/?page=2

Whatcha think?

From that angle, the ball disappears into the foul line. On the TV replay, it was very obvious that the ball was not only fair, but fair by a pretty good margin. I really couldn't figure out how the ump missed that since he was standing on the line. From his angle, I think the ball would have been to the right of the foul line, and in constant contrast with the dirt behind the ball.

The ump choked under pressure.

I think he lost it in the pinstripes, honestly. It was too bad of a call to just be choking.

LaJollaRed
I think he lost it in the pinstripes, honestly. It was too bad of a call to just be choking.

The ghosts obscured his vision. They did cross the street.

After spending half a billion in the offseason, I'm sure the Yankees kept a few mill in reserve to make sure the calls went their way

DeltaOne81
After spending half a billion in the offseason, I'm sure the Yankees kept a few mill in reserve to make sure the calls went their way

Listening to bitter Yankee haters never ceases to amuse me.

DeltaOne81
After spending half a billion in the offseason, I'm sure the Yankees kept a few mill in reserve to make sure the calls went their way

Yeah, but how much did they have to pay to get the Twins to botch up their base running? If it costs a few mill to pay off the umps, how much must it cost to pay off the other team? Maybe it would be cheaper to just pay off all the other owners, rather than to buy other owners ballplayers.

Jim Hyla
Maybe it would be cheaper to just pay off all the other owners, rather than to buy other owners ballplayers.

Gawd, I promised myself I would never get baited into a baseball discussion on this forum again (and this being the hockey sub-forum of all places), so I'll try to just brush the subject on the business side.

Read or skim (or don't) these two articles:
[umpbump.com]
[www.e-sports.com]

I don't think these articles are very well-written, but the main take-aways:

1) Big Stein is worth $1.6B. The Pohlad family of the poor David vs. Goliath Twinkies has a worth of $3.6B. The Nationals' owner: $3.5B. (All according to Forbes).

2) The Yankees post an operating deficit just about every year. Teams like the Nationals routinely turn an operating profit in excess of the team payroll.

Many teams have the resources to compete, but choose not to because it's good business in the "line the pockets" sense. The fans of those teams don't see any benefit except when they happen to develop a young phenom who will be traded away when he becomes eligible for free-agency (e.g. Miguel Cabrera). Owners of teams you see often in the playoffs (and those with the higher payrolls): Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, Mets on the other hand chose to build their brands and deliver a quality product to their paying customers. They operate in the theory that a stronger brand means more long-term benefits. They get a huge fanbase (bandwagon or otherwise) buying merchandise, tickets, and concessions every year, and enough interest to make revenue positive team-owned cable networks like YES, SNY, or NESN a possibility. These are the teams that have been slapped with the luxury tax that gets redistributed to owners claiming poverty. Like the Nintendo-owned Mariners.

I used to buy into the guilt-trip of the "payroll payroll payroll" screamers. On the surface, it's easy to explain to your fans "the big bad Yankees outspent us again!" When you look deeper at the situation, it's really not that simple and more of a scapegoat explanation to deflect attention away from the profits the owners are taking home.

Jim Hyla

DeltaOne81
After spending half a billion in the offseason, I'm sure the Yankees kept a few mill in reserve to make sure the calls went their way

Yeah, but how much did they have to pay to get the Twins to botch up their base running?

That was free. All they needed was see that the Twins were playing a former Mets prospect, and the baserunning blunder was in the bank.

RichH

Jim Hyla
Maybe it would be cheaper to just pay off all the other owners, rather than to buy other owners ballplayers.

Gawd, I promised myself I would never get baited into a baseball discussion on this forum again (and this being the hockey sub-forum of all places), so I'll try to just brush the subject on the business side.

I hope you don't think I was against the Yankees. I hoped my first line

Yeah, but how much did they have to pay to get the Twins to botch up their base running?

would give it away that I thought the Twins did enough to lose by themselves.

In summary I agree with you.

FWIW, 5 of the playoff teams are in the top 10 of payroll spending: Yanks, Red Sox, Angels, Phils, and Dodgers. You want a consistent winner, you spend the money. You want the occasional hot season, so you can then sell your players for a profit, you go low buck.

There's no question which type of team I prefer to root for.

Jim Hyla
I hope you don't think I was against the Yankees.

Oh, no. That wasn't my point at all...in fact I recognized and enjoyed your comment. I don't really care who is fer/agin whatever teams, since this is a CU hockey board. The reason I quoted your post was because I was going to make a snarky one-liner about the luxury tax and revenue sharing, but instead fell on a soapbox instead.

Upon further review, my post should have been in reply to DeltaOne81.

RichH

Jim Hyla
I hope you don't think I was against the Yankees.

Oh, no. That wasn't my point at all...in fact I recognized and enjoyed your comment. I don't really care who is fer/agin whatever teams, since this is a CU hockey board. The reason I quoted your post was because I was going to make a snarky one-liner about the luxury tax and revenue sharing, but instead fell on a soapbox instead.

Upon further review, my post should have been in reply to DeltaOne81.

Will the league office be sending out an official letter of apology?

Rita

RichH

Jim Hyla
I hope you don't think I was against the Yankees.

Oh, no. That wasn't my point at all...in fact I recognized and enjoyed your comment. I don't really care who is fer/agin whatever teams, since this is a CU hockey board. The reason I quoted your post was because I was going to make a snarky one-liner about the luxury tax and revenue sharing, but instead fell on a soapbox instead.

Upon further review, my post should have been in reply to DeltaOne81.

Will the league office be sending out an official letter of apology?

I suspect they will in 2014. Oh sorry, wrong thread.

RichH
1) Big Stein is worth $1.6B. The Pohlad family of the poor David vs. Goliath Twinkies has a worth of $3.6B. The Nationals' owner: $3.5B. (All according to Forbes).

2) The Yankees post an operating deficit just about every year. ... and enough interest to make revenue positive team-owned cable networks like YES

The relative worth of the owners is a bit of a red herring when the guy crying poverty gets to abbreviate the value with a "B." It is further a red herring when you consider that none of the owners (except the eternally stupid Tom Hicks) dip into their personal piggy banks to run the team. (Caveat: while Minnesota is a relatively poor market for baseball, I'll concede the point that Carl Pohlad is a tightwad of historic proportions and the Twins could spend more money if they wanted to win road games in the playoffs.)

The Yankees only have an operating deficit because they converted the gobs of money that they used to receive for local broadcasting rights and converted them into a network that is off-balance sheet entity AND a license to print money. As you said, YES is a function of spending money to make money but the Yankees have ALWAYS been more profitable than the competition because they are blessed to be the big dog in a market that once did, and easily could, support three teams.

The Yankees spend their money more wisely than other rich teams and that is to their credit as well (look to Queens for proof that money can be spent very poorly) but less well-heeled teams looking to yield the same operating profits will be spending significantly less money. You can chip away at the edges but you will get nowhere trying to significantly undermine the huge advantage that the Yankees bring to bear over most if not all of the league.

KeithK

Rita

RichH

Jim Hyla
I hope you don't think I was against the Yankees.

Oh, no. That wasn't my point at all...in fact I recognized and enjoyed your comment. I don't really care who is fer/agin whatever teams, since this is a CU hockey board. The reason I quoted your post was because I was going to make a snarky one-liner about the luxury tax and revenue sharing, but instead fell on a soapbox instead.

Upon further review, my post should have been in reply to DeltaOne81.

Will the league office be sending out an official letter of apology?

I suspect they will in 2014. Oh sorry, wrong thread.

But I thought the world was going to die in 2012.

Jim Hyla

KeithK

Rita

RichH

Jim Hyla
I hope you don't think I was against the Yankees.

Oh, no. That wasn't my point at all...in fact I recognized and enjoyed your comment. I don't really care who is fer/agin whatever teams, since this is a CU hockey board. The reason I quoted your post was because I was going to make a snarky one-liner about the luxury tax and revenue sharing, but instead fell on a soapbox instead.

Upon further review, my post should have been in reply to DeltaOne81.

Will the league office be sending out an official letter of apology?

I suspect they will in 2014. Oh sorry, wrong thread.

But I thought the world was going to die in 2012.

Then it would behoove Cornell Hockey to win in Detroit *this year*

RichH
Owners of teams you see often in the playoffs (and those with the higher payrolls): Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, Mets on the other hand chose to build their brands and deliver a quality product to their paying customers.

Oh sure, kick me when I'm down disgusted so disgusted with ownership and management that I've stopped paying attention to my team entirely, why don't you?