Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Bigger nets - almost there, but destined to NOT happen again
36 views
Skip to first unread message
Marty
Nov 12, 2015, 10:37:24 PM11/12/15
to
I've been an advocate of bigger nets for years. Finally, people are
talking about it, seriously. However, instead, it looks like everyone is
saying "as a last resort" meaning we will get another FAILED attempt at
doing stuff that was done before. Ya know, like:
1. Shrink the goalie equipment - Would this be round 3? This seems to be
the one gaining momentum. It is such a joke. Sure, try and regulate out
some of the latest innovations, but hell this is NOT a fix. Stop
pretending it is. They keep talking about this, then they create some new
regulations that always fail in the end. They fail because enforcement
always falls off after a while, and the equipment manufacturers just
innovate something else. Also, you just can't measure every piece of
equipment in every conceivable way. That's just logistics. A goalie glove
or chest protector is not a stick blade. They are wildly shaped and need
to fit guys from 5'10" to 6'8". Because of this, they won't agree to
shrink them enough. No goalie is going out there with Ken Dryden-esque
equipment, I assure you.
2. Penalty crackdown - Seriously, I want to punch anyone in the face who
wants this YET again. God dammit. We've done 4 rounds of this I think.
FYI, no I DON'T want to increase scoring just by having more penalties for
a while. That's how it works. More PP's. More scoring. People are happy
with the goals, but they start screaming when their teams gets a "stick
touches shirt" penalty. Oh, and it vastly encourages diving. Finally, it
always wears off. STOP thinking that it won't. People will ignore that
last statement. They will say stuff like "well, this time they just need
to be serious", or "they need to fire every ref who doesn't hold the
standard" or whatever. Seriously, it's all bullshit. It is a fact it will
wear off. First , they players "adjust" so the PPs go down. First drop in
scoring. Then people freak out more and more when a "barely touched him"
penalty is called against their team because it seems so random. Which, it
is, because barely-touches happen a lot. So the refs start letting the
stuff go that doesn't slow down a guy. Then we slowly coast back to
normal. Now, to be clear a NEW normal was set after the first crackdown.
It is a better normal than the obstruction 90's when to go-to move was to
hook a guy, but the current format is where is should stay. It is just
damn stupid to this ANOTHER crackdown is a long-term solution. I can't
believe I just heard yet another commentator suggest it.
3. Rule changes - No one trying to throw this around yet. Thank God. You
know. Eliminate the two-line pass. Eliminate delayed off-side. Re-instate
delayed off-side. 4-on-4 OT. New icing rules. Penalty for flipping over
the glass. Etc. Hey, not that I mind all these, but they are just tweaks.
They don't massively increase scoring. No one changes their system based
on them.
So back to the nets. Bigger nets will increase scoring. And that is that.
And it will last for a while. It might even be revolutionary, because the
systems that are in place are a direct result of the goalies being able to
stop all the outside shots meaning teams just need to protect the middle
of the ice and always be in a defensive posture to prevent rushes. If
shots from outside are dangerous, even ones that aren't tipped or through
a screen, suddenly you need to defend a lot more territory. That is when
the shift in mentality might happen. If being in you own zone without the
puck is much more dangerous than it is now, there is more reward to think
offensively, do all you can to apply pressure and if need be trade rush
chances.
Anyway, I know I can't convince anyone that is already convince, but I
assure you, 3-5 years from now, after the goalie tweak, maybe a crackdown,
we will be right here again. Goals will go up for a little while, everyone
will shut up for 2 years, and we'll be right back to the same place. I
just wonder if it will be the same thing. "Yeah, let's do bigger nets, but
only as a last resort. Let's do some rule changes first. 4-on-4?"
Why are the nets always stuck as the last resort after the other solution
fail 2 or 3 or 4 times each?
Marty
talking about it, seriously. However, instead, it looks like everyone is
saying "as a last resort" meaning we will get another FAILED attempt at
doing stuff that was done before. Ya know, like:
1. Shrink the goalie equipment - Would this be round 3? This seems to be
the one gaining momentum. It is such a joke. Sure, try and regulate out
some of the latest innovations, but hell this is NOT a fix. Stop
pretending it is. They keep talking about this, then they create some new
regulations that always fail in the end. They fail because enforcement
always falls off after a while, and the equipment manufacturers just
innovate something else. Also, you just can't measure every piece of
equipment in every conceivable way. That's just logistics. A goalie glove
or chest protector is not a stick blade. They are wildly shaped and need
to fit guys from 5'10" to 6'8". Because of this, they won't agree to
shrink them enough. No goalie is going out there with Ken Dryden-esque
equipment, I assure you.
2. Penalty crackdown - Seriously, I want to punch anyone in the face who
wants this YET again. God dammit. We've done 4 rounds of this I think.
FYI, no I DON'T want to increase scoring just by having more penalties for
a while. That's how it works. More PP's. More scoring. People are happy
with the goals, but they start screaming when their teams gets a "stick
touches shirt" penalty. Oh, and it vastly encourages diving. Finally, it
always wears off. STOP thinking that it won't. People will ignore that
last statement. They will say stuff like "well, this time they just need
to be serious", or "they need to fire every ref who doesn't hold the
standard" or whatever. Seriously, it's all bullshit. It is a fact it will
wear off. First , they players "adjust" so the PPs go down. First drop in
scoring. Then people freak out more and more when a "barely touched him"
penalty is called against their team because it seems so random. Which, it
is, because barely-touches happen a lot. So the refs start letting the
stuff go that doesn't slow down a guy. Then we slowly coast back to
normal. Now, to be clear a NEW normal was set after the first crackdown.
It is a better normal than the obstruction 90's when to go-to move was to
hook a guy, but the current format is where is should stay. It is just
damn stupid to this ANOTHER crackdown is a long-term solution. I can't
believe I just heard yet another commentator suggest it.
3. Rule changes - No one trying to throw this around yet. Thank God. You
know. Eliminate the two-line pass. Eliminate delayed off-side. Re-instate
delayed off-side. 4-on-4 OT. New icing rules. Penalty for flipping over
the glass. Etc. Hey, not that I mind all these, but they are just tweaks.
They don't massively increase scoring. No one changes their system based
on them.
So back to the nets. Bigger nets will increase scoring. And that is that.
And it will last for a while. It might even be revolutionary, because the
systems that are in place are a direct result of the goalies being able to
stop all the outside shots meaning teams just need to protect the middle
of the ice and always be in a defensive posture to prevent rushes. If
shots from outside are dangerous, even ones that aren't tipped or through
a screen, suddenly you need to defend a lot more territory. That is when
the shift in mentality might happen. If being in you own zone without the
puck is much more dangerous than it is now, there is more reward to think
offensively, do all you can to apply pressure and if need be trade rush
chances.
Anyway, I know I can't convince anyone that is already convince, but I
assure you, 3-5 years from now, after the goalie tweak, maybe a crackdown,
we will be right here again. Goals will go up for a little while, everyone
will shut up for 2 years, and we'll be right back to the same place. I
just wonder if it will be the same thing. "Yeah, let's do bigger nets, but
only as a last resort. Let's do some rule changes first. 4-on-4?"
Why are the nets always stuck as the last resort after the other solution
fail 2 or 3 or 4 times each?
Marty
Jim Bauch
Nov 13, 2015, 1:10:52 AM11/13/15
to
On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 7:37:24 PM UTC-8, Marty wrote:
> I've been an advocate of bigger nets for years.
True that. I was thinking earlier this week, while reading various articles about bigger nets, that "Marty's been ahead of the curve on this."
> I've been an advocate of bigger nets for years.
> Finally, people are
> talking about it, seriously. However, instead, it looks like everyone is
> saying "as a last resort" meaning we will get another FAILED attempt at
> doing stuff that was done before. Ya know, like:
>
> 1. Shrink the goalie equipment - Would this be round 3? This seems to be
> the one gaining momentum. It is such a joke.
> 2. Penalty crackdown - Seriously, I want to punch anyone in the face who
> wants this YET again. God dammit. We've done 4 rounds of this I think.
> FYI, no I DON'T want to increase scoring just by having more penalties for
> a while. That's how it works. More PP's. More scoring. People are happy
> with the goals, but they start screaming when their teams gets a "stick
> touches shirt" penalty. Oh, and it vastly encourages diving. Finally, it
> always wears off.
I'm rather indifferent on the issue of enlarging the nets. I'm not banging the drum for it yet, because I still find games watchable despite the low scoring in a way that I didn't in the pre-lockout days. But I don't really have a strong objection to it. Certainly the claim that it will "mess up the record book" is silly. Statistics don't mean what they used to already. A save percentage of .900 used to mean you were an All-Star; today it means you're getting demoted to the AHL. Being a 40-goal scorer used to be pretty good; now it's pretty awesome. (It's just as silly as the argument that going to a 3-points-for-a-win system would screw up the record book, like we're supposed to pretend that it's not a little weird that 90 points is "average" now.)
The only objection that carries any weight with me is that changing NHL nets is likely to mean that nets need to be changed all the way down the line. And while the pro leagues can easily afford it, that may not be true of every small-town rink in Canada. Of course, you could have the NHL foot the bill for that for the price of one of Gary Bettman's suits, but ....
Jim
Jim
Chuck
Nov 13, 2015, 11:34:03 PM11/13/15
to
http://www.hockeyinsideout.com/news/habs-notebook-bigger-nets-would-mean-ice-soccer-condon-says
I do not understand his comparison to soccer, if the nets were enlarged, but despite soccer having rather large nets, scoring in their games is often painfully low. Instead you could argue that with the current net size hockey games are a little like soccer when you consider how often the area in front of the net is jammed with defending players more then willing to assist the goalie to block shots and keep closed laneways to the net to prevent players from having any room to take advantage of the huge target soccer nets make
Jim Bauch
Nov 14, 2015, 12:10:17 AM11/14/15
to
On Friday, November 13, 2015 at 8:34:03 PM UTC-8, Chuck wrote:
> What Condon thinks about larger nets
>
> http://www.hockeyinsideout.com/news/habs-notebook-bigger-nets-would-mean-ice-soccer-condon-says
>
> I do not understand his comparison to soccer, if the nets were enlarged, but despite soccer having rather large nets, scoring in their games is often painfully low. Instead you could argue that with the current net size hockey games are a little like soccer when you consider how often the area in front of the net is jammed with defending players more then willing to assist the goalie to block shots and keep closed laneways to the net to prevent players from having any room to take advantage of the huge target soccer nets make
I don't want to beat up on Condon specifically, because his remarks were relatively moderate. But just once, I'd like to hear a goalie say something like "I don't care. Make the nets bigger. You're still going to need someone to stop shots, and I'll still stop more pucks than anybody else in the league -- or at least, I'll try like hell to."
> What Condon thinks about larger nets
>
> http://www.hockeyinsideout.com/news/habs-notebook-bigger-nets-would-mean-ice-soccer-condon-says
>
> I do not understand his comparison to soccer, if the nets were enlarged, but despite soccer having rather large nets, scoring in their games is often painfully low. Instead you could argue that with the current net size hockey games are a little like soccer when you consider how often the area in front of the net is jammed with defending players more then willing to assist the goalie to block shots and keep closed laneways to the net to prevent players from having any room to take advantage of the huge target soccer nets make
Jim
Gerry
Nov 14, 2015, 5:19:32 PM11/14/15
to
Price should have a pretty good perspective.
Maybe it's not on this group, but I have a long track record of being "pro bigger nets" too. My main go-to argument is that I watched the Prospects Tourney (live at the Marlies arena) where they did the test-drive of the bigger nets several years back. Carey Price was up against Justin Pogge as a prospect at the time. (Kyle Chipchura talked to my kids. :) Maybe that's why I always supported him. :)) It _really_ never looked like that much of a difference. John Mitchell picked some top corners that he never has managed to do as a pro. The scores were a bit higher, maybe. But from a visual perspective, it's really nothing to get worried about.
Bigger nets is really the way to go. As a goalie dad myself, I don't really think there's anyplace left to go in terms of "shrinking equipment". It's fine. Goalies are bigger and far better technically, it's just the way it is. You can turn this into a developmental plus in terms of putting the bigger nets in the rinks where older players (and NHLers) are toiling, and recoup a developmental faux pas by keeping all the smaller nets in the community rinks for the kids to play with. No cost to the smaller time.
l8r,
Gerry
Maybe it's not on this group, but I have a long track record of being "pro bigger nets" too. My main go-to argument is that I watched the Prospects Tourney (live at the Marlies arena) where they did the test-drive of the bigger nets several years back. Carey Price was up against Justin Pogge as a prospect at the time. (Kyle Chipchura talked to my kids. :) Maybe that's why I always supported him. :)) It _really_ never looked like that much of a difference. John Mitchell picked some top corners that he never has managed to do as a pro. The scores were a bit higher, maybe. But from a visual perspective, it's really nothing to get worried about.
Bigger nets is really the way to go. As a goalie dad myself, I don't really think there's anyplace left to go in terms of "shrinking equipment". It's fine. Goalies are bigger and far better technically, it's just the way it is. You can turn this into a developmental plus in terms of putting the bigger nets in the rinks where older players (and NHLers) are toiling, and recoup a developmental faux pas by keeping all the smaller nets in the community rinks for the kids to play with. No cost to the smaller time.
l8r,
Gerry
Marty
Nov 14, 2015, 7:16:59 PM11/14/15
to
On Fri, 13 Nov 2015 20:34:02 -0800, Chuck wrote:
>
> What Condon thinks about larger nets
>
> http://www.hockeyinsideout.com/news/habs-notebook-bigger-nets-would-
mean-ice-soccer-condon-says
>
> I do not understand his comparison to soccer, if the nets were enlarged,
> but despite soccer having rather large nets, scoring in their games is
> often painfully low. Instead you could argue that with the current net
> size hockey games are a little like soccer when you consider how often
> the area in front of the net is jammed with defending players more then
> willing to assist the goalie to block shots and keep closed laneways to
> the net to prevent players from having any room to take advantage of the
> huge target soccer nets make
Exactly. Cordon's point makes zero sense on any level really, though he is
>
> What Condon thinks about larger nets
>
> http://www.hockeyinsideout.com/news/habs-notebook-bigger-nets-would-
mean-ice-soccer-condon-says
>
> I do not understand his comparison to soccer, if the nets were enlarged,
> but despite soccer having rather large nets, scoring in their games is
> often painfully low. Instead you could argue that with the current net
> size hockey games are a little like soccer when you consider how often
> the area in front of the net is jammed with defending players more then
> willing to assist the goalie to block shots and keep closed laneways to
> the net to prevent players from having any room to take advantage of the
> huge target soccer nets make
pretending to envision a net that soccer sized. Fact is, any thoughts on
the goalies should be completely ignored. They simply don't like being
scored on, so they are against it, but that is not a legit reason to be
against this change. They would have a more solid argument against over
regulating their equipment because the IS a protection factor. A bigger
net carries no risk except, as Jim pointed out, perhaps it would separate
the wheat from the chaff a bit, which simply will affect some in a good
way and some in a negative way, but it will be balanced.
Marty
0 new messages