[OT] NHL Scoring Out of Control!

[Will]

[Q]evilnaturedrobot Wrote:

 I don't really understand the negative responces, some of you actually enjoyed watching 60 minutes of clutch and grab hockey?[/q]

Because, contrary to popular belief, not all defensive-minded hockey is clutch-and-grab.

[Robb]

I have no problem with the NHL enforcing the rules as written.  The problem I have is with the thought process that led to the changes: we need more fans, and we think that people like scoring, so what can we do to increase scoring?  Rather than: gosh, maybe we should enforce the rules for the purity of the game and let the chips fall where they may.

[Josh '99]

[Q]Will Wrote:
Because, contrary to popular belief, not all defensive-minded hockey is clutch-and-grab.[/q]But, to be fair, plenty of the hockey that was played in the NHL *was* clutch-and-grab.

[Steve M]

[Q]Robb Wrote:

 It's called "improving the game."  That or "catering to the lowest common denominator," I forgot which...   [/q]

I guess you never liked watching Wayne Gretzky or Mario Lemiuex play in their prime.  ::rolleyes::

6.4 goals per game is not "out of control," rather it's closer to the type of hockey I loved to watch 15-30 years ago.  Calling interference by the book and making it much more difficult to set up traps is not  "catering to the lowest common denominator."   Just because Cornell plays a defensive style doesn't mean those who enjoy offensive hockey are morons.

[DeltaOne81]

[Q]Steve M Wrote:
Just because Cornell plays a defensive style doesn't mean those who enjoy offensive hockey are morons.[/q]

No, but it's one of those catches. It's not that people who enjoy offensive hockey are morons. But it IS that (hockey) morons enjoy (only) offensive hockey.

So while you may think they're catering to the fans that enjoy offensive hockey (and I try to pretend so to help me sleep at night), really they're probably just catering to the vast population of hockey morons to get revenue up.

[Steve M]

[Q] DeltaOne81 Wrote:

 [Q2]Steve M Wrote:
Just because Cornell plays a defensive style doesn't mean those who enjoy offensive hockey are morons.[/Q]
No, but it's one of those catches. It's not that people who enjoy offensive hockey are morons. But it IS that (hockey) morons enjoy (only) offensive hockey.[/q]

Nah.  Morons go to the games mostly for the fights. :-P

[Q] So while you may think they're catering to the fans that enjoy offensive hockey (and I try to pretend so to help me sleep at night), really they're probably just catering to the vast population of hockey morons to get revenue up. [/q]

Assuming you're right, I'll say that morons are good for something. ;-)

[Robb]

[Q]DeltaOne81 Wrote:
No, but it's one of those catches. It's not that people who enjoy offensive hockey are morons. But it IS that (hockey) morons enjoy (only) offensive hockey.

So while you may think they're catering to the fans that enjoy offensive hockey (and I try to pretend so to help me sleep at night), really they're probably just catering to the vast population of hockey morons to get revenue up.[/q]

I agree completely.  There are plenty of other reasons that scoring is down that have nothing to do with clutch-and-grab (bigger players, better conditioning, bigger goalie equipment, etc).  I don't like clutch and grab any more than anyone else.  But I reject the notion that low scoring is evidence that there must be clutching and grabbing.  By all means call the clutching and call the grabbing, but do so without prejudice for the number of goals that "should" be scored per game.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

Also don't forget "the Gretzky Rule."  During his playing days, both players during offsetting minors sat in the box and they played 4 on 4.  Edmonton was scoring too much, so now they play 5 on 5 (though the players are still out for 2+ minutes).  I mean when's the last time you saw a good 3 on 3 - not too often.

I'd rather they repeal that rule, too, but It probably won't happen.

[KeithK]

Why would better conditioning necessarily lead to lower scoring?  Or are you just mentioning one of the things that is different compared to x years ago that might contribute to a different style of play?

[CowbellGuy]

Actually, when there are offsetting minors during 5x5 play, they do play 4x4. If there are offsetting minors and either team is not at full strength, there's no loss of manpower on the ice.

[Robb]

Actually, I misspoke - I should have said "strength training" as opposed to conditioning.  Yes, I think that having players who are on average stronger would lead to less scoring - I think strength disproportionally favors defense.

[ugarte]

[Q]Steve M Wrote:
Nah.  Morons go to the games mostly for the fights.[/q]While it is true that the morons go to the game for the fights, it isn't ONLY morons that enjoy them.

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

If that's the case, it seems like they apply it inconsistently.  I'm sure they don't, but it does seem that way to me.

I'll have to watch for that once I get back to the states.

[NHS123]

http://www.nhl.com/features/east/east_notebook110805.html

Unbelievable.  This is a product of too many penalties being called.  It maybe more exciting hockey, but it isn't "real" hockey.  Gretzky, Lemieux, and Hull never played in a system like this.  Granted, the goalies were not as athletic and the equipment was not as advanced (or big) in that era.  However, with 3/4 of a game being played on the powerplay, it is creating an over-inflation of stats.

I mean, come on, comparing Simon Gagne with Wayne Gretzky?  ::screwy::

[DeltaOne81]

Rumor mill -- With more players drawing penalties by falling to the ice too easily, there is a movement among the players to have more diving -- and only diving -- penalties called.

Often this season referees have called coincidental minors -- one for hooking, another for diving. Players would like to see referees either call one penalty (diving) or give the diver an extra two minutes for unsportsmanlike conduct. That way, his team is penalized for his actions.

A few years ago players whistled for diving had their names posted in NHL locker rooms as a form of public humiliation. Nothing, however, is more humiliating than seeing your team allow a power-play goal while you're serving a diving penalty.


Amen!

In a very rare few occassions the play actually is half penalty, half-diving, in which case one of each is justified.

It's a shame that college refs aren't good enough (they just aren't) to distinguish between a dive and a penalty. You also need two refs to have a good shot at doing so, so that one is always close to the play. There was at least one dive in the Yale game that was called a penalty, and it's a shame.