3 on 3 OT/GMs recommend

[mikey287]

Defenses already don't defend lines like they once did because the red line was already removed. Additionally, no sport besides baseball (the only sport where defense cannot become offense) does not mark the center point of its playing surface. But in any event, teams are just going to continue to defend their net. Making the offensive zone bigger does not create a larger area in which to score from, ya know what I mean? It's like the people that want to make the rink international size. Ok, there's 7.5 more feet on each side that no one has to worry about defending because you can't score from there. Maybe you get some more offensive zone time, maybe, but you don't better the game any I don't believe...

[no name]

Yeah your right actually forwards won't move than 20 feet from their goal no matter how big the ice surface is.

[interstorm]

Where is the consideration for new fans in any of this? As they try to understand a game -- imagine that it goes to overtime and then the following conversation transpires:

New fan: "Hey -- am I missing something or is each team missing a player?"

Old fan: "Nope. In overtime we play 4 on 4."

"4 on 4 as in when a penalty is called? I mean, um, a penalty that takes players from the ice - thanks for explaining that earlier by the way as I didn't understand that some penalties change the number of players on the ice and some didn't."

"Correct."

"Correct as in there are penalties? Who is sitting on each side? I don't see their numbers up on the scoreboard."

"Sorry -- no penalties. They just play 4 on 4 in order to open up the ice for more scoring."

"Oh, that makes sense". Watches game for a couple minutes. "Hey - this is more exciting, why don't they do this for the whole game?"

"Well, that's not really hockey."

"If it's not hockey then why are they doing it now?"

"Uhh - I don't know."

A minute or two later as they shift to 3 on 3: "Whoa - wait a minute. What just happened? Each coach is stupid because they forgot to send a player out."

"No - that's how overtime is."

"What do you mean, 'how overtime is'."

"Well, after a certain time playing 4 on 4, they shift to 3 on 3."

"What?? Why?"

"Opens the game up more so someone scores and there aren't ties."

"Ok. Do they ever play 2 on 2?"

"Nah - that would be silly."

"I don't get it and none of this makes sense to me. Hey, have you been watching basketball, can you believe......"

Fix the real problem and stop making the game harder for new fans to understand. The NHL is turning them off before they have a chance to get into it.

[shoeshine boy]

"floating blue lines" are why I get frustrated watching soccer.
as for taking the blue lines out entirely, have you ever watched roller hockey? sorry but that's not real hockey.

[no name]

Keep OT 5 mins of 5 on 5 like the olden days. Just replace the nets.

[interstorm]

Keep OT 5 mins of 5 on 5 like the olden days. Just replace the nets.

While I am not a fan of these goal designs, anyone who has read a post of mine in the last year knows I'm 100% in favor of making the goals larger as I believe that will cure many of the ills of the (NHL) game.

[MRandall25]

Every time no name posts that picture, a small part of me dies inside.

That just looks absurd and would never fly in real life.

[no name]

There is just no where to shoot at on goalies now. Goalies are just bigger overall now. I was playing EA sports looking for a goalie to trade for and I wanted a goalie under 6 foot just for fun, I had a hard time finding one under 6'2.

Their is no way to really tweak the NHL to get more scoring without changing a major fundamental aspect of the game.

[interstorm]

There is just no where to shoot at on goalies now. Goalies are just bigger overall now. I was playing EA sports looking for a goalie to trade for and I wanted a goalie under 6 foot just for fun, I had a hard time finding one under 6'2.

Their is no way to really tweak the NHL to get more scoring without changing a major fundamental aspect of the game.

I agree 100% and as I've noted recently, adding 3 inches to both the width and height of a goal increases the area to shoot at by around 10%. I don't think the NHL has to go crazy and use these odd-shaped goals (which if I remember correctly weren't necessarily larger but just used the space differently). The way I see it -- the players have radically changed and the game needs to stay in conjunction with it and that by increasing the size of the goal, we're actually better honoring the history of the game by keeping shooting area closer to what it traditionally has been.

While I say adding 3 inches in width and height would be a good start, I'd take a look at the size of goaltenders in the 80's (one can start by the player's height but getting a number that includes pads may be a bit more arbitrary) and what they are now. Whatever the 80's ratio is (maybe it is 4 inches higher/wider -- maybe it is 2) should be used to determine how large the goals are. I'd even say such a review should be done by the NHL every 5 years to ensure we're tracking to some standardized available shooting area.

[no name]

There is just no where to shoot at on goalies now. Goalies are just bigger overall now. I was playing EA sports looking for a goalie to trade for and I wanted a goalie under 6 foot just for fun, I had a hard time finding one under 6'2.

Their is no way to really tweak the NHL to get more scoring without changing a major fundamental aspect of the game.

I agree 100% and as I've noted recently, adding 3 inches to both the width and height of a goal increases the area to shoot at by around 10%. I don't think the NHL has to go crazy and use these odd-shaped goals (which if I remember correctly weren't necessarily larger but just used the space differently). The way I see it -- the players have radically changed and the game needs to stay in conjunction with it and that by increasing the size of the goal, we're actually better honoring the history of the game by keeping shooting area closer to what it traditionally has been.

While I say adding 3 inches in width and height would be a good start, I'd take a look at the size of goaltenders in the 80's (one can start by the player's height but getting a number that includes pads may be a bit more arbitrary) and what they are now. Whatever the 80's ratio is (maybe it is 4 inches higher/wider -- maybe it is 2) should be used to determine how large the goals are. I'd even say such a review should be done by the NHL every 5 years to ensure we're tracking to some standardized available shooting area.

The standard goal is 3x6 in feet so by that ratio you would add 4 inches to the width and 2 inches to the height to keep the ratio the same. That seems fair.

The bubble net added 13% more shooting area.

[mikey287]

4x6. And you're just treating a symptom, not the disease. Having goalies giving up bad goals to the upper-reaches of the net just adds artificial scoring. You're just promoting a more defensive game because now you have to make it harder to gain the zone all together. So, now you really have to tighten up those neutral zones, really keep those lines and really protect the house. Full well knowing that you don't really need to counter-punch too, too much because goals will be easier on the power play. After a few years of adjustment, my feeling is that would actually drop ES scoring and scoring chances overall...

[no name]

4x6. And you're just treating a symptom, not the disease. Having goalies giving up bad goals to the upper-reaches of the net just adds artificial scoring. You're just promoting a more defensive game because now you have to make it harder to gain the zone all together. So, now you really have to tighten up those neutral zones, really keep those lines and really protect the house. Full well knowing that you don't really need to counter-punch too, too much because goals will be easier on the power play. After a few years of adjustment, my feeling is that would actually drop ES scoring and scoring chances overall...

Damn your right, how did I forget 4x6.

We have been over this though Mikey, how do you increase scoring while keeping the integrity of the game in place. Not arguing, the owners haven't found a way either.

I think there are 3 major factors.

1, Goalie equipment getting bigger and taller goalies playing the position.
2. The advent of the athletic butterfly goalie or as I like to say Blowfishing. Just puff yourself up and take up as much net as possible. Lets face it as long as you take away the bottom 1/3rd of the net you will stop half the shots.
3. coaches deciding to go with defensive systems. Most coaches can't find a way to beat defensive systems so if you can't beat them join them. Part of a good defensive system seems to be clutching and grabbing, slowing the other team down. I put this under the coaching or defensive systems since the players get the directive from the coaches to do this.

Now how do you go about adding more offense without addressing these issues? You just make the net a little bigger. Its the only way I can figure out.

[MRandall25]

A bigger net will end up making hockey like soccer. It'll just become a defensive bore fest.

So basically what Mikey said.

[interstorm]

So, now you really have to tighten up those neutral zones

This is already happening. We're not picking between non-existing choice 'A' and non-existing choice 'B' here -- there already is a fair amount of defensive strategy centered around clogging the middle of the ice. I'm in complete disagreement here...

[no name]

So, now you really have to tighten up those neutral zones

This is already happening. We're not picking between non-existing choice 'A' and non-existing choice 'B' here -- there already is a fair amount of defensive strategy centered around clogging the middle of the ice. I'm in complete disagreement here...

I agree you can't make the teams play anymore defense than they already are. You can't call the game any worse than it is. The nets are the key to keeping the game play the same without any major changes to goalie safety or putting on restrictions on coaches.

I just wonder, will adding more scoring make the game more entertaining? I think the owners and GMs don't want to lift a finger to make it entertaining. Heck I even think they will resist raising scoring any since they like every game being a one goal game which has created the parity around the league. Parity is the key to making a lot of money in a gate receipt driven league. Keep as many teams competitive for as many games during the season and you will sell more tickets.

[MRandall25]

So, now you really have to tighten up those neutral zones

This is already happening. We're not picking between non-existing choice 'A' and non-existing choice 'B' here -- there already is a fair amount of defensive strategy centered around clogging the middle of the ice. I'm in complete disagreement here...

And making bigger nets would just add to it.

The game could be much more defensive than it already is. Making bigger nets would lead to an increase in 1-3-1, 1-4, and 1-1-3 systems. Forechecks as we know it would more or less be eliminated because zone entries would be impossible. Any dump and chase would be a free turnover.

Just look at soccer and see how big nets lead to more scoring (hint, it doesn't).

[mikey287]

So, now you really have to tighten up those neutral zones

This is already happening. We're not picking between non-existing choice 'A' and non-existing choice 'B' here -- there already is a fair amount of defensive strategy centered around clogging the middle of the ice. I'm in complete disagreement here...

I agree you can't make the teams play anymore defense than they already are. You can't call the game any worse than it is. The nets are the key to keeping the game play the same without any major changes to goalie safety or putting on restrictions on coaches.

I just wonder, will adding more scoring make the game more entertaining? I think the owners and GMs don't want to lift a finger to make it entertaining. Heck I even think they will resist raising scoring any since they like every game being a one goal game which has created the parity around the league. Parity is the key to making a lot of money in a gate receipt driven league. Keep as many teams competitive for as many games during the season and you will sell more tickets.

- That's not true. Neither is that. And neither is that.

- No, it won't. The last part is the only part that I would really subscribe too...at least, there's merit to that.

[mikey287]

So, now you really have to tighten up those neutral zones

This is already happening. We're not picking between non-existing choice 'A' and non-existing choice 'B' here -- there already is a fair amount of defensive strategy centered around clogging the middle of the ice. I'm in complete disagreement here...

That is happening, but a lot more of the concentration is around the rink within the rink. Preventing quality chances. Now, it will be preventing any chances because now less dangerous chances become threatening. The goal will be to neutralize teams in the NZ and to force players to go offside as much as possible...

There's almost no chance you'd get what you want out of bigger nets...unless you're clamoring for bad power play goals on as-a-result-worsening butterfly goalies...

[interstorm]

Just look at soccer and see how big nets lead to more scoring (hint, it doesn't).

Really???

I'm thinking the low scoring in soccer has a lot more to do with the number of players on the field, the speed at which they can move from one end of the playing area to another and the floating offside line than anything. Taking your logic that soccer is low scoring due to the size of the goal -- do you HONESTLY think you would have a lot more goals if you cut the size of the soccer goal in half? This IS what you're saying .

[mikey287]

The point isn't that bigger nets lead to less scoring...I'm not sure why anyone would try to construe that point out of that series of statements...it's troubling and disappointing...

[interstorm]

So, now you really have to tighten up those neutral zones

This is already happening. We're not picking between non-existing choice 'A' and non-existing choice 'B' here -- there already is a fair amount of defensive strategy centered around clogging the middle of the ice. I'm in complete disagreement here...

That is happening, but a lot more of the concentration is around the rink within the rink. Preventing quality chances. Now, it will be preventing any chances because now less dangerous chances become threatening. The goal will be to neutralize teams in the NZ and to force players to go offside as much as possible...

There's almost no chance you'd get what you want out of bigger nets...unless you're clamoring for bad power play goals on as-a-result-worsening butterfly goalies...

Mikey -- are you trying to make my point for me (you're doing a good job). If you're saying we have to pick between A) currently boxing out players to prevent quality chances or B) the 'possibility' of teams clogging the neutral zone (more) to prevent zone entry -- who in their right mind would take option A? As we all know a lot of trapping is done to prevent clean zone entries so it is a fallacy to believe that much is given up with option B. As for only increasing bad goals (power play -- which I agree we want 5-on-5 increase, not PP) -- I just don't think your assumptions are correct. I believe teams will shoot more -- 5 on 5 -- and be rewarded for that. How many times do we see players pass up opportunities? How often do people scream at the screen/ice saying "Shoot the puck"? The truth is that the fan in the seats (or on the couch) doesn't see what the players see -- that there ISN'T something to shoot at -- so they wait, they pass, they cycle -- and maybe, just maybe this equates to a scoring opportunity and maybe just maybe it allows a shot on goal. Give the players more goal to see and they'll take it. As for costing opportunities because the zone entry is now gone -- again, I just don't think we'd see much degradation in "exciting" play because we're already so far gone in this department.

The only reason I see for keeping the system as it is centers around the NHL's desire for parity and that they want tight races at the end (be them playoff or scoring races). Trouble with that thinking is that we're being brought down to the lowest common denominator and that skill is easier to destroy than create. We're left with the wreckage of a league that already rewards conservative play instead of enticing players (and coaches) to take risks. Too many goals are already the result of someone's (defensive) mistake instead of a person's (offensive) creativity.

[interstorm]

The point isn't that bigger nets lead to less scoring...I'm not sure why anyone would try to construe that point out of that series of statements...it's troubling and disappointing...

Hey - I wasn't the one drawing the comparisons -- it's troubling and disappointing that you can't see that...

[mikey287]

So, now you really have to tighten up those neutral zones

This is already happening. We're not picking between non-existing choice 'A' and non-existing choice 'B' here -- there already is a fair amount of defensive strategy centered around clogging the middle of the ice. I'm in complete disagreement here...

That is happening, but a lot more of the concentration is around the rink within the rink. Preventing quality chances. Now, it will be preventing any chances because now less dangerous chances become threatening. The goal will be to neutralize teams in the NZ and to force players to go offside as much as possible...

There's almost no chance you'd get what you want out of bigger nets...unless you're clamoring for bad power play goals on as-a-result-worsening butterfly goalies...

Mikey -- are you trying to make my point for me (you're doing a good job). If you're saying we have to pick between A) currently boxing out players to prevent quality chances or B) the 'possibility' of teams clogging the neutral zone (more) to prevent zone entry -- who in their right mind would take option A? As we all know a lot of trapping is done to prevent clean zone entries so it is a fallacy to believe that much is given up with option B. As for only increasing bad goals (power play -- which I agree we want 5-on-5 increase, not PP) -- I just don't think your assumptions are correct. I believe teams will shoot more -- 5 on 5 -- and be rewarded for that. How many times do we see players pass up opportunities? How often do people scream at the screen/ice saying "Shoot the puck"? The truth is that the fan in the seats (or on the couch) doesn't see what the players see -- that there ISN'T something to shoot at -- so they wait, they pass, they cycle -- and maybe, just maybe this equates to a scoring opportunity and maybe just maybe it allows a shot on goal. Give the players more goal to see and they'll take it. As for costing opportunities because the zone entry is now gone -- again, I just don't think we'd see much degradation in "exciting" play because we're already so far gone in this department.

The only reason I see for keeping the system as it is centers around the NHL's desire for parity and that they want tight races at the end (be them playoff or scoring races). Trouble with that thinking is that we're being brought down to the lowest common denominator and that skill is easier to destroy than create. We're left with the wreckage of a league that already rewards conservative play instead of enticing players (and coaches) to take risks. Too many goals are already the result of someone's (defensive) mistake instead of a person's (offensive) creativity.

So the answer is: well, they're going to shoot more because there are bigger nets.

Sounds good. Except you have to get to an area where you can reasonably shoot from...with the extra premium put on shot blocking, in addition to the points that I already mentioned, you're looking at a clog that a gallon of boiling Drano could not clear...so more shots sounds awesome and all, but shots on net are the ones that score...which I have trouble imagining a scenario where shots on net increases just because the net is larger...shot generation, more topically: organic creation of offense. That's where the game is hurting. Bigger nets doesn't solve anything, unless people just want useless goals tacked on...in which case you can just go back to the 2006 method of calling every single touch...or you can just do the football method and count your scores as 7 and hope that no one notices that games end 3.5 to 3 typically...

[interstorm]

Trying to fire a puck on net in the NHL these days is like trying to thread an arrow through the forest to hit a target behind two trees.

Shot blocking has evolved to the point that a shooter needs luck as well as accuracy.

"It's like the other team has six goalies on the ice," Philadelphia Flyers winger Wayne Simmonds joked.

Over the last 10 seasons, shot blocking has increased by roughly five a game. That means that there are about 6,000 more shots a season blocked today than there were in 2003-04.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nh ... /19687535/

Mikey -- again -- it isn't like shot blocking doesn't happen already. The problem I have with your points is that you are stating a negative side effect to increasing the size of the goals and all I see is that we're already virtually saturated (in today's game) with the point you make.

Clogged NZ -- yeah, we've already got it.
Shot blocking -- yup, we got a ton of that too.

[mikey287]

Ok, so these things are binary...they are checkboxes?

NZ clogged...check. Will not vary.
Shots are blocked: check. Will not increase or decrease.