PromoTheRobot Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 Gotta hand it to the Sabres, they are thinking of ways to improve hockey. First blue ice, now this... http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...hkn_bigger_nets PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 The idea behind the curved-post design is that it not only expands the net opening, but the rounded shape makes it more difficult for goalies to hug the posts to block short-angle shots. I thought that the first time I saw it. That could really be cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corp000085 Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 Keep the nets the way they are, keep white ice, keep 2 line offsides. Remove the instigator rule. Hockey is a rough game, and the goons indirectly keep the skaters skating. no more instigator rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 I dont know how any professional hockey person (or team) could come up with such a moronic idea. Man with creative thought like this no wonder the Sabres suck. Like increasing the scoring automatically makes the game exciting? Just look at basketball. An incredibly boring game with lots of scoring. Idiots are too numb to realize you have to give the players more skating room. Enforce the rules that already exist and the game will be fine. Call holding and interference and maybe take out the center line. That will gradually weed out the clutch and grab/trap teams like the Devils and make the game watchable again Nice article here lays it out. Good read. http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Columnists/Fries.../30/976819.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 I'm not a huge hockey fan, so forgive my ignorance, but it always seems like there's more scoring in Olympic hockey. Why is that? Wider ice? What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 I havent looked at stats or anythng but I havent really noticed any more scoring in Olympic hockey. At times there can be outrageous scores becasue of lopsided matchups. Like Switzerland vs Canada for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corp000085 Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 I'm not a huge hockey fan, so forgive my ignorance, but it always seems like there's more scoring in Olympic hockey. Why is that? Wider ice? What? 293957[/snapback] it's a product of many factors. Wider ice, national teams, tighter officiating. The wider ice leads to more passing and setting up for a perfect shot. National teams leads to all 6 guys speaking the same language and fighting for the same goal. The officiating is better because they don't tolerate the clutching and grabbing, and stupid holding penalties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 I disagree. Some of the most dead ass games ive had the displeasure to watch have been games which featured two euro teams playing a soccer like trap game on the big ice. Big ice does by no means is related to more exciting or wide open hockey. Good officiating makes a difference though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawk Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 If This takes place, your going to see the goalies that play more of a stand up style, vs a hasek style butterfly goalie, rise to the top of the GAA standings. Scoring is down because they over expanded. With teams have only a couple superstars on their teams, with the rest a bunch of muckers and grinders trying to score on elite goalies. The result no goals. Remember the power play we had before the last 2 expansions. Lafontaine,Hawercuk,Mogilny, with Z and Bodger at the points. It was awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 This doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out. In 1980 there were 21 teams, made up of the best 400 players in the world. These teams scored approximatly 300 goals per team. Today there are 30 teams made up of the best 600 players in the world. Scoring averages 200 goals per team. Bottom line is that there are now 200 players (or 1/3 of the league), who would not have been good enough to step foot on the ice if the league was still at 21 teams. It is not a coincidence that scoring has also declined (also by 1/3!!). Dilution is the reason. Lets get rid of some of these teams and watch scoring pick right back up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 This doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out. In 1980 there were 21 teams, made up of the best 400 players in the world. These teams scored approximatly 300 goals per team. Today there are 30 teams made up of the best 600 players in the world. Scoring averages 200 goals per team. Bottom line is that there are now 200 players (or 1/3 of the league), who would not have been good enough to step foot on the ice if the league was still at 21 teams. It is not a coincidence that scoring has also declined (also by 1/3!!). Dilution is the reason. Lets get rid of some of these teams and watch scoring pick right back up. 294000[/snapback] I just heard the exact same logic regarding baseball and the number of homeruns hit each year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 This doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out. In 1980 there were 21 teams, made up of the best 400 players in the world. These teams scored approximatly 300 goals per team. Today there are 30 teams made up of the best 600 players in the world. Scoring averages 200 goals per team. Bottom line is that there are now 200 players (or 1/3 of the league), who would not have been good enough to step foot on the ice if the league was still at 21 teams. It is not a coincidence that scoring has also declined (also by 1/3!!). Dilution is the reason. Lets get rid of some of these teams and watch scoring pick right back up. 294000[/snapback] The logic is flawed. Dilution not only effects offence it waters down defence and goaltending as well. So wouldnt the quality of that(or lack there of) offset any offensive decline? Plain and simple. Its no numbers game in regards to the lack of scoring. Interference, holding and obstsruction are allowed and the talented plalyers are nutralized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crows57 Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 Bottom line is that there are now 200 players (or 1/3 of the league), who would not have been good enough to step foot on the ice if the league was still at 21 teams. It is not a coincidence that scoring has also declined (also by 1/3!!). Dilution is the reason. Lets get rid of some of these teams and watch scoring pick right back up. 294000[/snapback] How many Europeans and Russians were playing in the NHL in 1980? How much larger is the population today than it was in 1980? ---- Look at the goalie pads from years ago and today. There's a big part of it. There just isn't as much room to shoot at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 If Larry Quinn want to focus on blue ice and curved goal posts, I encourage him to apply for a position with the NHL in marketing/public relations. It would be a tep forward for the Sabres and their front office. This guy is truly an A$$clown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 Bottom line is that there are now 200 players (or 1/3 of the league), who would not have been good enough to step foot on the ice if the league was still at 21 teams. It is not a coincidence that scoring has also declined (also by 1/3!!). Dilution is the reason. Lets get rid of some of these teams and watch scoring pick right back up. that is a bad argument. More kids play hockey today than before, and as someone just said, there are a ton of europeans and russians playing today. Also - dillution could potentially improve scoring - good forwards vs dilluted defensemen or goalies would increase scoring, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Wheels Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 It's called rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 NHL All-Star Game Final Scores 2000 9-4 2001 14-12 2002 8-5 2003 6-5 2004 6-4 These games feature the best defensemen, best offenses and best goalies in the world. This proves, without a doubt that when the talent is even on all sides of the game (offense, defense and goaltending), offense prevails. Since NHL games rarely end up with 8-5 scores, one can conclude that the talent on all sides of the game is not even. The defenses and/or goaltending are better than the offenses. If they werent, NHL scores would more closely represent those of the all star game. Thus one can logically conclude that there is a greater quality supply of defensemen and/or goalies than there are forwards and centers. So, while expansion does dilute all positions, it does so unevenly. There are simply too many teams in the NHL today. The NHL needs to contract teams for a number of reasons (dilution being just one). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 NHL All-Star Game Final Scores2000 9-4 2001 14-12 2002 8-5 2003 6-5 2004 6-4 These games feature the best defensemen, best offenses and best goalies in the world. This proves, without a doubt that when the talent is even on all sides of the game (offense, defense and goaltending), offense prevails. Since NHL games rarely end up with 8-5 scores, one can conclude that the talent on all sides of the game is not even. The defenses and/or goaltending are better than the offenses. If they werent, NHL scores would more closely represent those of the all star game. Thus one can logically conclude that there is a greater quality supply of defensemen and/or goalies than there are forwards and centers. So, while expansion does dilute all positions, it does so unevenly. There are simply too many teams in the NHL today. The NHL needs to contract teams for a number of reasons (dilution being just one). 294159[/snapback] Don't they have altered rules in the All-Star game? Something about checking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 you are trying to make an argument using ALL STAR GAME STATS???? have you ever watched an all star game in any sport? People have fun. They laugh, they don't hit each other, and they certainly don't try as hard or play the same game they do day in day out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corp000085 Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 It's called rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic..... 294132[/snapback] First time i've heard that... I think i'm going to use that analogy for a lot of things now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazyDingo Posted April 2, 2005 Share Posted April 2, 2005 I have a suggestion that would make the game better for small-market teams and fans and the sport in general: PLAY SOME FRICKEN HOCKEY YOU GREEDY PLAYER PUKES AND YOU STUPID OWNER PUKES! See how the boys in maketing like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester43 Posted April 3, 2005 Share Posted April 3, 2005 Call holding and interference and maybe take out the center line. correct. that's all you need to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts