The Great NHL Regression

[Hugo Stiglitz]

One thing I really notice this past season was how scoring has dropped off. After the Pens were eliminated I read comments by Sid about the "clutching and grabbing" that they seem to let go. Those of us who are old enough remember those issues being voiced by Mario.

One of the big things the NHL really tried to create after the big lockout was opening up the game to create more scoring. One of those ways was making sure that refs didn't "let them play" as much. So, I decided to look into some stats:

2005-2006
8 players with 100+ points and 7 players with 90 to 99 points.

2006-2007
7 players with 100+ points and 7 players with 90 to 99 points.

2007-2008
2 players with 100+ points and 6 players with 90 to 99 points.

2008-2009
3 players with 100+ points and 4 players with 90 to 99 points.

2009-2010
4 players with 100+ points and 3 with 90 to 99 points.

2010-2011
1 player with 100+ points and 5 with 90 to 99 points.

2011-2012
1 player with 100+ points and 2 with 90 to 99 points.

2012-2013
Doesn't really count due to a shortened season, but nobody was on pace for 100 points.

2013-2014
1 player with 100+ points and ZERO with 90 to 99 points.

You can see that scoring has dropped off SIGNIFICANTLY after the NHL made a real effort to open up the game with more Power Plays. Here's the next interesting stat. I didn't look at each season because it's a lot of numbers, but here's the significant ones:

Total Power Plays in the NHL
2006-2007 - 11,935 PP chances
2009-2010 - 9,137 PP chances
2010-2011 - 8,715 PP chances
2013-2014 - 8,054 PP chances

Again, you can see the trend here. Less PP chances, lower scoring... refs letting more garbage go. The clutching and grabbing NHL has returned and something needs to change.

[mikey287]

Scoring != Excitement.

I don't want to watch a bunch of power plays, power plays aren't exciting really. I'm interested in quality hockey. The no touching! no touching! hockey wasn't all that good really. In fact, at times, it was downright annoying. I don't mind the game being a little more open, but it was artificially done. Comparing raw numbers provides incomplete analysis. If you're just worried about scoring to produce excitement, well, then I'd look at even strength goals per game from 2006 to present to see if any significant trend exists. My guess without looking into it would be: limited differences. Maybe that first season there was a slight uptick, but nothing like 0.75 ESG/GP or anything like that...

If you want more scoring chances, there's other areas to be looking at that creating stationary plays in one-third of the rink. One, I would look into ways of slowing the game down to increase scoring. Seems counter-intuitive, but that's where I'd begin. One slight anecdote on that, think about Gretzky and his famous Gretzky turn. It's 1985, a jersey that always looked a size too big for the bones underneath it tucked into the right side of his pants...got it? Ok, now fast forward to this season. Graceful Gretzky criss-crosses with Jari Kurri, gains the line, he digs in and turns, his head peeking over his shoulder to see if Paul Coffey's stick blade has perforated the lead edge of the blueline...and then, bam! Ryan Callahan takes his head clean off on the backcheck...

Game is too fast for its own good...

[Desiato]

The league has regressed too far. I didn't love 2006 hockey, but it was better than the crap we had in 2004 and 2014.

What's the point of rules if they're only selectively enforced? What's the actual enforcement criteria used by officials? And because it's so secretive, how do we know that the league, at some level, isn't influencing results? We can't.

As a fan, I have very little trust for the league right now.

[Hugo Stiglitz]

Scoring != Excitement.

I don't want to watch a bunch of power plays, power plays aren't exciting really. I'm interested in quality hockey. The no touching! no touching! hockey wasn't all that good really. In fact, at times, it was downright annoying. I don't mind the game being a little more open, but it was artificially done. Comparing raw numbers provides incomplete analysis. If you're just worried about scoring to produce excitement, well, then I'd look at even strength goals per game from 2006 to present to see if any significant trend exists. My guess without looking into it would be: limited differences. Maybe that first season there was a slight uptick, but nothing like 0.75 ESG/GP or anything like that...

If you want more scoring chances, there's other areas to be looking at that creating stationary plays in one-third of the rink. One, I would look into ways of slowing the game down to increase scoring. Seems counter-intuitive, but that's where I'd begin. One slight anecdote on that, think about Gretzky and his famous Gretzky turn. It's 1985, a jersey that always looked a size too big for the bones underneath it tucked into the right side of his pants...got it? Ok, now fast forward to this season. Graceful Gretzky criss-crosses with Jari Kurri, gains the line, he digs in and turns, his head peeking over his shoulder to see if Paul Coffey's stick blade has perforated the lead edge of the blueline...and then, bam! Ryan Callahan takes his head clean off on the backcheck...

Game is too fast for its own good...

I get where you're coming from but I wasn't suggesting an extreme. This is more to point out that "clutching & grabbing" era is quickly returning and while I agree with you about too many PP chances, there is a happy medium. The precedent is set and players avoid taking penalties therefore opening up the game.

The problem is that after that precedent was set the refs let up on the reigns TOO much. Again, I believe there is a happy medium to opening up the game without an obscene number PP chances.

[shmenguin]

Scoring usually = excitement to most of us common folk

I've never been bored by a 6-5 game. I've been bored by countless low scoring games. But achieving goals through excessive power plays isn't much fun, I admit. 2005-2007 was kind of a joke. And then the games start to matter and nothing gets called as usual. Fun.

Goalies are too good. Teams are too disciplined. Defensemen are too athletic. I don't know the answer, but slowing the game down sure as s*** doesn't seem like it. The Gretzky example is one way to look at it. The other way is the steady stream of patty cake in the neutral zone with teams just taking turns handing the puck over.

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

Get rid of offsides at the blue line but bring back the 2 line offside pass to prevent extreme cherry picking.

[nocera]

The idea shouldn't be more penalties = more power plays = more goals. The idea should be more penalties = players learning they can't obstruct = less obstruction = more 5 on 5 goals.

[offsides]

The idea shouldn't be more penalties = more power plays = more goals. The idea should be more penalties = players learning they can't obstruct = less obstruction = more 5 on 5 goals.

Makes sense to me. Just don't see it happening any time soon.

[the wicked child]

The idea shouldn't be more penalties = more power plays = more goals. The idea should be more penalties = players learning they can't obstruct = less obstruction = more 5 on 5 goals.

Makes sense to me. Just don't see it happening any time soon.

Yep to both of these.

I don't want to see the 20 PPs a game again, but it has gone TOO far. I'm sorry, but it's just not entertaining to watch star players "shut down" through cheating.

[DelPen]

Show me the numbers for 50+ point scorers. Do we see an increase in the middle meaning teams are rolling more skilled 3rd lines or has all scoring dropped from everywhere?

I also think this is partially due to a salary cap. The best players in the NHL all aren't playing with each other for 80 games a year anymore. I'm sure if you could Give Crosby Ovechkin and Hossa as his wings all three would be well over 100 points, one at least pushing 130. You would also have insane top 4 defense on just a few teams which means those teams would give up less goals. With no cap our 3rd line could be Kunitz, Sutter and Dupuis.

Make 4 really good teams made of of recent UFA's with cap totals of $90 million, there are teams out there that would spend to that easily.

[Hugo Stiglitz]

The idea shouldn't be more penalties = more power plays = more goals. The idea should be more penalties = players learning they can't obstruct = less obstruction = more 5 on 5 goals.

This is what I was trying to get at. It has to start with an extreme until players realize they can't get away with the all the garbage going on now.

[Hugo Stiglitz]

The three season proceeding the 06-07 saw a decline in scoring, but not TERRIBLE and a decline in PP chances. That was a happy medium.

[Desiato]

Here's the theory I've heard for years: The commissioner in the NHL has little power and therefore league policy is constantly in a state of flux as a perpetually dysfunctional ownership group battles in the background.

Basically, guys like Jacobs and Snider keep dragging the game back into the gutter.

[IanMoran]

Show me the numbers for 50+ point scorers. Do we see an increase in the middle meaning teams are rolling more skilled 3rd lines or has all scoring dropped from everywhere?

Average goals scored by a team, league wide

2005-06 3.08, 1.03 on PP
2006-07 2.95, 0.85 on PP
2007-08 2.78, 0.76 on PP
2008-09 2.91, 0.79 on PP
2009-10 2.84, 0.68 on PP
2010-11 2.79, 0.65 on PP
2011-12 2.73, 0.57 on PP
2012- 13 2.72, 0.61 on PP
2013-14 2.74, 0.59 on PP

So basically... there's actually more even strength scoring. PPO are just so down

Also of note. The last 5 years have been the highest save % in NHL history (only kept track of since 1982 though.

2005-06 NHL save % - .901.. This year.914

[mikey287]

Scoring usually = excitement to most of us common folk

I've never been bored by a 6-5 game. I've been bored by countless low scoring games. But achieving goals through excessive power plays isn't much fun, I admit. 2005-2007 was kind of a joke. And then the games start to matter and nothing gets called as usual. Fun.

Goalies are too good. Teams are too disciplined. Defensemen are too athletic. I don't know the answer, but slowing the game down sure as s*** doesn't seem like it. The Gretzky example is one way to look at it. The other way is the steady stream of patty cake in the neutral zone with teams just taking turns handing the puck over.

Of course it wouldn't seem like it. But what do you do when the game slows down? You effectively open up ice, when ice is opened up, what shines through? Skill. More skill = better play = more excitement.

It's not hard to watch games from the 1980's. Sure, goaltending is different now than it was then. But it wasn't because they had a lightpost in net that Gretzky scored 200+ points four times. The problem that people have with goaltending from that era, if they didn't witness themselves, is that they judge it off of highlight reels of goals. There aren't many saves to be found on the Wayne Gretzky highlight reels...so yeah, of course goaltending looks bad...it looks bad on Alexander Ovechkin highlight reels too...

The game is too fast for its own good. It's the evolution of the game from the removal of the center line. Whereas you could defend a line, turn, pick and retrieve and then exit before. Now, with no line to defend, there is more ice to cover. So out goes Derian Hatcher, Mike Rathje, Marcus Ragnarsson, in comes more fluid skaters and also in comes players in the NHL just because they work hard and are fast...Tyler Kennedy, Jim Slater, even Andrew Cogliano could probably fit this mold despite the season he had...why? Not because they are of great skill, but because they shrink the ice for skill, they take away time and space for skill...

I'll elaborate more after work...

[dodint]

Ken Dryden wrote about this in The Game, when talking about the evolution of the sport. Went back from before the forward pass to when he wrote the book noting that the game will continue to get faster and faster until it can't sustain itself. The 40 second shifts w/4 lines is another radical change from the early years when you only subbed when someone was injured. Hockey is an evolutionary game and that hasn't really bothered me until now that my viewership can be described as "decades" instead of "years." I kind of want them to just sort it out and then leave it alone for a while. I feel the same way about Formula 1 though (stop tinkering and freeze the rulebook) so maybe the problem is with me and not the game.

[Avyran]

It's interesting, because I find games from the 80s & 90s VERY hard to watch now. The amount of clutching & grabbing is absurd, and I despise it.

But to each their own. I'm sure Mikey understands the subtleties of it much more than me. I will also say, though, that the current constant-scrumming and subtle-interference nature of the game is becoming annoying for me to watch as well.

[shmenguin]

Of course it wouldn't seem like it. But what do you do when the game slows down? You effectively open up ice, when ice is opened up, what shines through? Skill. More skill = better play = more excitement.

It's not hard to watch games from the 1980's. Sure, goaltending is different now than it was then. But it wasn't because they had a lightpost in net that Gretzky scored 200+ points four times. The problem that people have with goaltending from that era, if they didn't witness themselves, is that they judge it off of highlight reels of goals. There aren't many saves to be found on the Wayne Gretzky highlight reels...so yeah, of course goaltending looks bad...it looks bad on Alexander Ovechkin highlight reels too...

The game is too fast for its own good. It's the evolution of the game from the removal of the center line. Whereas you could defend a line, turn, pick and retrieve and then exit before. Now, with no line to defend, there is more ice to cover. So out goes Derian Hatcher, Mike Rathje, Marcus Ragnarsson, in comes more fluid skaters and also in comes players in the NHL just because they work hard and are fast...Tyler Kennedy, Jim Slater, even Andrew Cogliano could probably fit this mold despite the season he had...why? Not because they are of great skill, but because they shrink the ice for skill, they take away time and space for skill...

I'll elaborate more after work...

that's a little more interesting than the abridged example from earlier. i'm listening...

though i don't agree with this...

There aren't many saves to be found on the Wayne Gretzky highlight reels...so yeah, of course goaltending looks bad...it looks bad on Alexander Ovechkin highlight reels too...

i see ovechkin hitting corners and shooting a zillion miles an hour. in those 80's highlights, i see gaps in goalies that don't exist anymore 99.999% of the time.

[pronovost19]

Goalie pads are made by Omar the Tentmaker. Players faster and bigger. They have outgrown the ice surface. Retool all surfaces to the International width and you will see more scoring.

[meow]

Goalie pads are made by Omar the Tentmaker. Players faster and bigger. They have outgrown the ice surface. Retool all surfaces to the International width and you will see more scoring.

I think the Olympics dispelled the notion that bigger ice equals more scoring. And ask some NHL owners to take seats away. Good luck

[Hugo Stiglitz]

Goalie pads are made by Omar the Tentmaker. Players faster and bigger. They have outgrown the ice surface. Retool all surfaces to the International width and you will see more scoring.

I think the Olympics dispelled the notion that bigger ice equals more scoring. And ask some NHL owners to take seats away. Good luck

The Olympics are a very small sample size. It would be better to look at Int'l leagues and see what they're average scores are in comparison to the NHL and I would have to believe scores are larger as a whole.

The positives of a larger rink are also not simply giving more room for skill players to score,but it makes the game SAFER. The NHL is unlike many other pro sports in that it's playing field as greatly affected by the size and speed.

Football, baseball, tennis and golf are not as affected by the size and speed of their players the way that Hockey is. Basketball to some degree is similar, but due to the nature of it not being a contact sport to the degree of Hockey, it is not as greatly affected by the physical evolution of their players.

You put larger faster players in the same size rink as they've been playing when the players half the size and half the speed, the game is not only going to change but become more dangerous, as it has.

[mikey287]

Wider rinks just add a gutter to the playing surface where less action can happen. Scoring areas do not widen. It's remotely sustainable in the Olympics because it's elite talent on elite talent. Not nearly as much skill in the NHL. Scoring would drop. KHL uses international rinks, relies more on technical skill. Go look at their average GPG I bet you it's less than or equal to the NHL's. Better yet...go look at Michael Leighton's save percentage...that should tell you everything...

[mikey287]

Maybe someone can check me on this...but I got 4.98 GPG in the KHL. With the wide rinks and with worse goaltending and more reliance on skill/offense. I got 5.28 for the SHL, which also uses an international-sized rink. Liiga uses a larger rink than the NHL too (better goaltending here than Sweden's league probably, not by a ton though, higher emphasis on straightforward play): 4.94 GPG. ...NHL is 5.34 GPG.

[Desiato]

IMO, we have no idea what NHL hockey looks like on big ice until we see it on big ice. But like on small ice, the owners have different levers they can manipulate (such as officiating) to change the on-ice product.

Referees in the NHL aren't rogue. They're not blind. They're not dumb. They're following orders. In seasons such as 05-06 and 95-96, we've seen the league has the power to dramatically change the on-ice product at will. What happens is by design. Big ice wouldn't change that; it would only make it look different.

My concern is the credibility of the league. Because there is such a disparity between the wording of the rules and what we see enforced, that leaves a lot of room for corruption -- or just as bad, the appearance of such.

[mikey287]

I'll respect your point, but I think you're drastically over-stating the case re: officiating. It's the ultimate case for confirmation bias among fans. 10,000 straight zone entries could be called correctly. You miss one and it's front page news. You call a tight game, you're taking over a game...you don't call it tight, it's "Hudson Bay Rules"

Good players have good games and get praise. Good players make good plays and get praise. Goalies make great saves and get praise. Refs make bad calls and get attacked. Refs make good calls and get ignored...

Discussing officiating among an overwhelmingly majority is just a breeding ground for negativity...again, it's not perfect, but what do we really want? A lot of people complain, but what are the legitimate fixes. You can't video review everything, you can't add any more persons to the ice, you refuse to slow the game down, I doubt you'd find a consensus on how the game should be called...people think this is no good, people think 2006 was no good...there hasn't been any season in any sport where officiating wasn't brought into question...

If it's really that big a problem (it isn't...) shouldn't we be beyond band-aids like "call it right" or be "consistent" those are just vague buzzwords and ideas...that's just not how the game works. You can be consistent in your strike zone maybe...you can be consistent on not calling travelling no matter where a player wants to dunk from...but the game happens so fast, and you have two sets of eyes, it's hard to see it all...I'd love for some of these anti-ref people to ref one game in their life...not even in NHL game, that's way too much, they'd be escorted from the ice crying after five minutes...how about an atom game...how about a high school game...how about your B league house league...something that's super slow, "easy" ---

So, let's make a change instead of "call it right" - let's make it so it can be called right...enhance skill and make the game safer...how? I've been over it a bunch of times here, it goes against conventional wisdom...but you lose hard-capped equipment, you reduce roster sizes and you're most of the way there...

Good luck getting the union to agree to that...but that's the real answer. The game slows down, becomes more respectable because now players are susceptible to pain. Not invincible anymore. You got the concussion helmets, you got the visors now for everyone, you got the linebacker pads and you have a whole 2, 3, 4 more skaters than necessary for an NHL contest. So it allows you to wind up these Zac Rinaldo, Tanner Glass players, you get, 4, 5, 8 shifts per game...they have to make an impact because they're not going back to riding buses from St. John's, NL to Charlotte to Austin, TX...bonus for them, you can't interfere with anyone, so a helpless defenseman tries to get the puck off the kickplate, and here comes Tim Jackman or Ryan Garbutt...and whammo, now he's literally an "impact" player...bring that "energy", get the "energy" line out there...

People think it's the goons, the enforcers that you need out of the game...nah, if anything, you need to lose the instigator, so the players can do some of their own officiating, take some of the game out of the refs hands...but that's another story...

Make the game easier to call, make the game safer, let the game show off its skill more...the players will shoot it down, and that's fine, that's their prerogative...but that's the ultimate answer to most of what ails the game...

Back to reality, what do you want? "Go out there...and...do...better, yes, that's right, do better!"