OT: Proposed new NHL nets

[billhoward]

It will make every photo look like it's taken with a fisheye lens.

The 6x4 net isn't graven in stone. Maybe if the sport came out of Europe the net would be 2 meters wide by 1.5 tall. With the net size standing still, two other things change: the area that's not covered by the goalie and equipment, and to a degree harder to measure, the area a now-more-able-and-athletic goalie can't reach.

Some may be thinking a defensive team like Cornell would be hurt by a bigger net. Maybe it would be the opposite: Since so few shots get to the goalie, a bigger net would be better for us.

[French Rage]

I dont think scoring or nets are really the big problem with the NHL.  I'd say their biggest problem is the whole not having a season and all.  Work on that first...

[cth95]

     I have to agree with you.  I love big saves and don't have any problem with a 2-1 game as long as there is some good action moving up and down the ice.  Big nets are simply a gimmick.  More goals are not necessarily more interesting.  More rushes up and down the ice are more interesting and exciting.

[Trotsky]

Have European leagues seen the same decrease in scoring as the NHL and college hockey?  I watched Western Hockey League games for 6 years, and scoring is significantly higher there, but then again that league regularly featured 9-8 and 8-7 games in the 80's, so today's 4-3 games are "defensive struggles."

Then there's the Unspeakable Hypothesis: maybe fighting helped scoring?  If you were mugging the other team's sharp shooter, even legally, you suddenly found yourself on the receiving end of "the foil."  I'm not saying bring back fighting, but its absence may be another factor in decreased scoring.

[adamw]

I don't believe big nets are a gimmick at all.  I've written about this numerous times. (FYI: Jack Parker is the biggest proponent of larger nets among college hockey coaches) ... and DeltaOne ... You say that bigger nets fundamentally change the game.  I say that the game is already fundamentally different because goalies are bigger, more athletic and wear bigger padding (it's also lighter, which is really the issue).  Changing the size of the nets is simply an attempt to keep up with the change in the size of goalies, so that, therefore, things *are* indeed the same - and not fundamentally different.

Yes, there are also other factors needed to open up the game - but I believe this one is self-evident.

And, yes, Al, Dryden was/is bigger than LeNeveu - but he was an exception. Goalies were generally much smaller then.  Everything is different about goaltending now.  Bigger equipment, bigger guys, more athletic.   And let's not forget their handling of the puck ... Billy Smith was the first guy able to do it with regularity.  Now, if you *can't* handle the puck, you probably can't play in the NHL.  LeNeveu wasn't very good at it, and he was still better than anyone from 20 years ago.

[Rich S]

Adam,

I agree with most of what you said here but Eddie Giacomin handled the puck frequently and exceptionally well long before Billy Smith was around.  Ther e were other puck handling goalies at the same time but Ed-DIE was easily the best of his era.

In fact, other than Marty Brodeur, I can't think of anyone since who rivals him at the moment.

[Al DeFlorio]

[Q]adamw Wrote:

And, yes, Al, Dryden was/is bigger than LeNeveu - but he was an exception. Goalies were generally much smaller then.

[/q]

You missed my point, Adam.  

Dryden may have been bigger sans padding, etc., but LeNeveu is effectively bigger with all that protective padding everywhere (his chest makes Jayne Mansfield look like Twiggy).  Perhaps step one is to get rid of all that excess padding, making goalies "smaller" the easy way, without resorting to genetic mutation.

[nyiballs]

DiPietro is equal if not better than Brodeur in puck handling...

To address padding...  Chest protectors are bigger... but we forget that shots come in so much harder with these composite sticks.   The point of the body padding (including leg pads) is to protect the goalie, not provide him/her with excess area to make a save.  That being said, I don't think you realize how little excess padding there  really is and how little of a different that would make.  

Look at Marty Brodeur... his equpiment is tiny!!  But smaller equipment gives him better range and motion, so it's a wash.

I'm not saying that making the nets bigger is a terrible thing, but I think it sohuld be a last resort.  I am still firmly in favor of calling every single obstruction penalty.  Again... the stick is for puckhandling, shooting as passing... That is ALL!

[Tub(a)]

http://www.sabres.com/net_design.php

A brief video of the net in action. They show you a comparison with a traditional net, and it really isn't that much larger.

[nr53]

I guess I don't mind the larger size, but frankly i think the new shape looks stupid

[billhoward]

Hasn't the padding changed in two ways - it's both more protective (more depth or more protection per millimeter of thickness) which is okay unless toothless goalies really are a cool thing, and wider to fill up more of the net?

As for the net, the shape screams out "compromise." Or that Chris Bangle designed it. But you could get used to it. Does anybody find lacrosse boring because Cornell beats Princeton 13-12?

A bigger net is going to help Cornell because only shots that are taken and then get past the defense have a chance to go in the net. Unless your goaltender is hung out to dry for one brief and sad moment in overtime.

[Tom14850]

I just have to say that every time I read something of Adam's, it makes sense. I agree with him now, despite the fact that my initial reaction to that curved net was one of repulsion. I think some rules changes are well justified.

Adam, did you go to Cornell?

[Beeeej]

[Q]billhoward Wrote:
Does anybody find lacrosse boring because Cornell beats Princeton 13-12?[/q]

I find lacrosse boring (or at least more boring than hockey) because too much depends on the face-off.  Once you have possession, you generally have to do screw up significantly not to score a goal before the other team gets possession again.

Okay, maybe that's a bit of an overstatement (and I know I'm dead to a lot of people here), but still.

Beeeej

[ben03]

[Q]Beeeej Wrote:
I find lacrosse boring (or at least more boring than hockey) because too much depends on the face-off.  Once you have possession, you generally have to do screw up significantly not to score a goal before the other team gets possession again.
Okay, maybe that's a bit of an overstatement (and I know I'm dead to a lot of people here), but still. Beeeej[/q]
we'll let that be a one time slip up ... ;-)

[cth95]

     After watching the video, the goal doesn't look like it would be as much of a factor as I thought with good defense.  However, I may be wrong, but it looks like it gives a big advantage to a good shooter over the goaltender on a breakaway.