Hockey goalies are too big now(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
Hockey goalies are too big now
https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2021/02/hockey-goalies-are-too-big-now/618021/
275 comments
I totally get you, but maybe the better conclusion is just that the article isn't for you? I mean that in the opposite of a judgy way; think for a second about just how much knowledge there is out there. Even if you leave out stuff that goes infinitely deep like the sciences, there's way more details to all the topics you might come across in life than anyone can learn in a lifetime.
For example, sometimes I'll watch videos of snooker games on YouTube. Chances are you know absolutely nothing about snooker, but the thing is, I don't really either. I can't keep the rules straight because I so rarely pay attention to it. I can't name more than one professional snooker player. It's fun to watch and can relieve a few minutes of boredom, but that's about it for me. And ... I think that's okay? Some sports, like lacrosse, I know absolutely nothing about, and that seems okay too!
I guess what this comment boils down to is that I don't think I understand what you would get out of a "bullet points" version of an article like this. Do you need to know anything about hockey? Preparing for a Jeopardy tournament or something? Despite not really enjoying hockey myself, what I got out of this article was some pleasure inherent to reading the thoughts of someone who has obviously thought very hard about a specific subject, and writes about those thoughts in a clear way.
For example, sometimes I'll watch videos of snooker games on YouTube. Chances are you know absolutely nothing about snooker, but the thing is, I don't really either. I can't keep the rules straight because I so rarely pay attention to it. I can't name more than one professional snooker player. It's fun to watch and can relieve a few minutes of boredom, but that's about it for me. And ... I think that's okay? Some sports, like lacrosse, I know absolutely nothing about, and that seems okay too!
I guess what this comment boils down to is that I don't think I understand what you would get out of a "bullet points" version of an article like this. Do you need to know anything about hockey? Preparing for a Jeopardy tournament or something? Despite not really enjoying hockey myself, what I got out of this article was some pleasure inherent to reading the thoughts of someone who has obviously thought very hard about a specific subject, and writes about those thoughts in a clear way.
> the better conclusion is just that the article isn't for you
Yes. I love The Atlantic. They are long-from general interest stories and usually written exceptionally well. But they post a lot of essays every day in a wide range of topics. Not all of them are for everyone. You got to pick what you want to read. There are plenty of essays that they publish that I have no interest in. But that's ok. They are interesting to someone. And isn't that what makes life so interesting? That everyone is so different?
I think we forget that now. Every story must be written for everyone collectively. It leads to less interesting stories.
To be honest, this story wouldn't benefit from bullet points. Not everything can be summarized. Imagine a campfire story and you say, "i don't want to wait until dark and make a fire and hike into the woods to hear the story, just give me the bullet points". It would be pointless. Life is about the nuances.
Yes. I love The Atlantic. They are long-from general interest stories and usually written exceptionally well. But they post a lot of essays every day in a wide range of topics. Not all of them are for everyone. You got to pick what you want to read. There are plenty of essays that they publish that I have no interest in. But that's ok. They are interesting to someone. And isn't that what makes life so interesting? That everyone is so different?
I think we forget that now. Every story must be written for everyone collectively. It leads to less interesting stories.
To be honest, this story wouldn't benefit from bullet points. Not everything can be summarized. Imagine a campfire story and you say, "i don't want to wait until dark and make a fire and hike into the woods to hear the story, just give me the bullet points". It would be pointless. Life is about the nuances.
Some sites (CNBC comes to mind) put summaries in the form of a bullet list at the top of most of their articles which I think is pretty cool.
[deleted]
The death of writing is a bullet-list of major points, put some effort in, maybe you'll become more interested in hockey after reading the article.
But the pinnacle of journalism, the gold standard, the One True Way that's taught to every journalist - and then promptly forgotten when they go to work - is the Inverted Pyramid. The LOD/mipmapping equivalent for words: start with a very short summary of most important things. Then expand the details. Then expand them more. Repeat recursively.
The inverted pyramid is used for news stories. That is what you would expect from the NYTimes, CNN, or your local newspaper.
But The Atlantic isn't news stories. They are general interest essays. They are all long form stories that tell a narrative and dive deep into topics.
But The Atlantic isn't news stories. They are general interest essays. They are all long form stories that tell a narrative and dive deep into topics.
I loved the article and read it entirely, but I'm definitely even less interested in hockey now.
I enjoy reading well researched articles, just not all the time. The ideal would be this article with an alternate version, not the reduction of the article to the bullet points only. Books aren't dead just because wikipedia has a plot summary on every important one.
What I do in these cases is bookmark the article / save it elsewhere, and read it when I'm in a mood to digest a longer article. For what it's worth, I enjoyed the prose of this article and I would rather see more articles like it, than condensing everything to bullet points.
I know nothing about hockey, will certainly never play and probably never watch a game. The article was well written and interesting even from my distant perspective. I learnt a couple of things, which, admittedly, will never have any use to me. Still an interesting read.
I think a kind of executive summary would make this drier and less engaging, with less flavour and context. So a worse article overall. In any case, the TL;DR is already in the title.
I think a kind of executive summary would make this drier and less engaging, with less flavour and context. So a worse article overall. In any case, the TL;DR is already in the title.
Atom and His Package called it years ago in his song "Goalie" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpe7R_KgdVo)
In hockey, you must score a goal.
Which one can not do if between me and the net there's no hole.Wow, there’s a name I have not heard in a long long time. Thanks for the waves of nostalgia.
And almost like magic “Happy birthday Ralph, I love you” plays in my head as if it was only yesterday.
[deleted]
This is written by Ken Dryden, a well-known retired goalie. Very cool. Essentially he is just arguing that because of the size of goalie pads, the most successful strategy has become cause chaos around the net and then try and push the puck in while the goalie is distracted. He’s right, I think, in that it does slow down the inherently high-speed nature of the sport.
So for shooters and coaches, that is the strategy. Rush the net with multiple offensive players, multiple defensive players will go with them, multiple arms, legs, and bodies will jostle in front of the goalie, and the remaining shooters, distant from the net, will fire away hoping to thread the needle, hoping the goalie doesn’t see the needle being threaded, because if he does, he’ll stop it. The situation for the shooter is much like that of a golfer whose ball has landed deep in the woods. He’s been told many times that a tree is more air than leaves and branches, but with several layers of trees in front of him, somehow his ball will hit a leaf or branch before it gets to the green. Somehow, the shooter’s shot will not make it to the net. So he will try again. Because what else can he do?
I played hockey for about a decade growing up, alternating between goalie and defense. One “unofficial” solution I had to this problem was to make it extremely unpleasant for other players to be around the net.
In hockey, you have a lot of leeway in terms of physicality and you can push, shove, lock the stick of your opponent, and do a number of other things that are completely penalized in basketball or soccer. The result was that opposing players became hesitant to get too close to the net, thus solving the problem somewhat.
If a player was on a breakaway, I’d also try to do stuff like this (as the goalie), which of course makes opponents stay far away from you.
https://youtu.be/W5u0khFnHUg
A possible solution could be to expand the goalie-only area around the net. That would, in theory, force opponents to focus more on shooting and not on piling around the goalie.
So for shooters and coaches, that is the strategy. Rush the net with multiple offensive players, multiple defensive players will go with them, multiple arms, legs, and bodies will jostle in front of the goalie, and the remaining shooters, distant from the net, will fire away hoping to thread the needle, hoping the goalie doesn’t see the needle being threaded, because if he does, he’ll stop it. The situation for the shooter is much like that of a golfer whose ball has landed deep in the woods. He’s been told many times that a tree is more air than leaves and branches, but with several layers of trees in front of him, somehow his ball will hit a leaf or branch before it gets to the green. Somehow, the shooter’s shot will not make it to the net. So he will try again. Because what else can he do?
I played hockey for about a decade growing up, alternating between goalie and defense. One “unofficial” solution I had to this problem was to make it extremely unpleasant for other players to be around the net.
In hockey, you have a lot of leeway in terms of physicality and you can push, shove, lock the stick of your opponent, and do a number of other things that are completely penalized in basketball or soccer. The result was that opposing players became hesitant to get too close to the net, thus solving the problem somewhat.
If a player was on a breakaway, I’d also try to do stuff like this (as the goalie), which of course makes opponents stay far away from you.
https://youtu.be/W5u0khFnHUg
A possible solution could be to expand the goalie-only area around the net. That would, in theory, force opponents to focus more on shooting and not on piling around the goalie.
> A possible solution could be to expand the goalie-only area around the net. That would, in theory, force opponents to focus more on shooting and not on piling around the goalie.
The point of the article is that the goalies are too big and therefore you have to crowd the net to even get a chance of scoring. Banning the crowding does not solve the root cause. The result (if the article is correct) would be a game with much fewer goals, probably boring.
The point of the article is that the goalies are too big and therefore you have to crowd the net to even get a chance of scoring. Banning the crowding does not solve the root cause. The result (if the article is correct) would be a game with much fewer goals, probably boring.
> The result (if the article is correct) would be a game with much fewer goals, probably boring.
Maybe boring, but maybe not. Football does really well at attracting attention globally, and they only have a handful of goals in a match at most. Sometimes even zero.
(Germany scoring seven goals against Brazil in the World Cup a while ago was big news.)
Maybe boring, but maybe not. Football does really well at attracting attention globally, and they only have a handful of goals in a match at most. Sometimes even zero.
(Germany scoring seven goals against Brazil in the World Cup a while ago was big news.)
> Maybe boring, but maybe not.
A lot of this is about audience perception, and considerations of what makes a good spectator sport in different cultures.
More than perhaps anywhere else, sport in North America often tends to be about the spectators. Think NASCAR where you can generally see the whole track and there is a lot of overtaking, and a lot of crashes, or basketball which is a high speed, high scoring game played on a smallish court that, again, maximises action. There's a noticeable emphasis on creating the most exciting and intense spectacle for the audience. I think the same is true of contemporary ice hockey, which is like a ludicrously amped up version of regular hockey: the high scores are all part of that.
I'm not an avid follower of any of these sports but, as a casual viewer, I find I'm much happier to sit down and watch them than some of the original sports on which they're based because they're very accessible and high on action and entertainment value.
The one sport where this really comes unstuck for me is American football: the stop/start structure built into the game just drives me up the wall, and I find myself significantly preferring the (by comparison) rarely interrupted action and flow of rugby. That's not a critique of American Football at all - it's obviously a deeply tactical and nuanced sport: this is just my personal preference for a longer arc of play, on average. And, by the way, I'm talking specifically about rugby union: I've never followed rugby league.
A lot of this is about audience perception, and considerations of what makes a good spectator sport in different cultures.
More than perhaps anywhere else, sport in North America often tends to be about the spectators. Think NASCAR where you can generally see the whole track and there is a lot of overtaking, and a lot of crashes, or basketball which is a high speed, high scoring game played on a smallish court that, again, maximises action. There's a noticeable emphasis on creating the most exciting and intense spectacle for the audience. I think the same is true of contemporary ice hockey, which is like a ludicrously amped up version of regular hockey: the high scores are all part of that.
I'm not an avid follower of any of these sports but, as a casual viewer, I find I'm much happier to sit down and watch them than some of the original sports on which they're based because they're very accessible and high on action and entertainment value.
The one sport where this really comes unstuck for me is American football: the stop/start structure built into the game just drives me up the wall, and I find myself significantly preferring the (by comparison) rarely interrupted action and flow of rugby. That's not a critique of American Football at all - it's obviously a deeply tactical and nuanced sport: this is just my personal preference for a longer arc of play, on average. And, by the way, I'm talking specifically about rugby union: I've never followed rugby league.
> There's a noticeable emphasis on creating the most exciting and intense spectacle for the audience.
Honestly, and I say that as someone who loves basket ball and often stays up during the night to see the NBA playoffs, basketball is often far from the level of tension and excitement you can get in (European) football. In football, most of the time a single goal is a game changer even when you have some margin (let say 2-0 and the opponent team is now 2-1,they have regained the momentum now and the match is totally different). In terms of adrenaline, the entire football game is like the fourth quarter of the seventh game and every single goal feels like a buzzer beater!
The scarcity of goals is invaluable.
Honestly, and I say that as someone who loves basket ball and often stays up during the night to see the NBA playoffs, basketball is often far from the level of tension and excitement you can get in (European) football. In football, most of the time a single goal is a game changer even when you have some margin (let say 2-0 and the opponent team is now 2-1,they have regained the momentum now and the match is totally different). In terms of adrenaline, the entire football game is like the fourth quarter of the seventh game and every single goal feels like a buzzer beater!
The scarcity of goals is invaluable.
Basketball captures the tension and momentum in a livelier way. A team coming back from being down 15 is so much more exciting because it requires a sequence of offensive plays and defensive stops. You can feel the momentum shift as the team who was up suddenly can’t buy a basket.
The problem with basketball is last two minutes. What should be the most exciting part of the game becomes a drag with timeouts and intentional fouling.
The problem with basketball is last two minutes. What should be the most exciting part of the game becomes a drag with timeouts and intentional fouling.
Agreed on the last 2 minutes of play.
The fouling is usually by the team trying to mount a last-moment come-back (stop the leading teams momentum, hope they miss the free-throws, and then get possession and shot to close the gap). Making penalties more costly would prevent this and likely just allow the leading team t to win. Though maybe they generally do anyways, so no real loss? I'd have to look at past game stats.
TOs - We could probably do without them in the last moments. That would shift focus from the coach to the team captain to coordinate play. Less set plays, more fluid teamwork. Possibly a net gain for the viewer with no real impact on the teams?
The fouling is usually by the team trying to mount a last-moment come-back (stop the leading teams momentum, hope they miss the free-throws, and then get possession and shot to close the gap). Making penalties more costly would prevent this and likely just allow the leading team t to win. Though maybe they generally do anyways, so no real loss? I'd have to look at past game stats.
TOs - We could probably do without them in the last moments. That would shift focus from the coach to the team captain to coordinate play. Less set plays, more fluid teamwork. Possibly a net gain for the viewer with no real impact on the teams?
They should adopt for regular games what they’ve been doing for the all-star game the past two years, no clock in the fourth quarter, it’s a race to 24 points past the highest score when the quarter begins.
I was initially a fan of the elam ending, in theory. After watching the all-start game endings, I am staunchly opposed to it. The lack of a clock removes most of the tension in the end of a close game. Thinking further, it also removes the entire concept of the last shot / buzzer beater, one of the cornerstones of excitement in competitive basketball. When a shot goes up as the clock expires in a game that is within 1 or 2 points, you have the suspense and excitement of knowing that if the shooter hits that shot, his team wins. If he misses, his team loses. With the Elam ending, there is less excitement because the consequence for missing is that the game just continues & the other team now has a chance to score and possibly win.
I think it depends on how invested you are to the game. When you don’t care about the teams, low scoring games lack the tension you’re talking about
Tennis is at the extreme end of high scoring and even watching matches you don’t care about between average players can be entertaining though not memorable. Longer term it’s only the truly exceptional games of any sport you’re going to remember anyway.
Tennis is at the extreme end of high scoring and even watching matches you don’t care about between average players can be entertaining though not memorable. Longer term it’s only the truly exceptional games of any sport you’re going to remember anyway.
“low scoring games lack the tension you’re talking about”
I think that’s cultural/an acquired taste.
One could argue the outcome of high-scoring games is more predictable, making them less tense.
If, say, on average party A scores a point every minute and party B scores one every 40 seconds, party B will win almost every one hour game against party A (the expected outcome is 90-60), and each individual score is only marginally important. So, why would a spectator be enthousiast about a (missed) score after 20 seconds of play?
If, on other hand, party A scores a goal every 30 minutes and party B one every 20 minutes, party A has a much higher chance of beating party B in a one hour game, and each missed opportunity becomes a potential game changer.
In soccer, some of the most tense games end in 0-0, 1-0, or 0-1 (especially at major tournaments, where, often [1], each result counts)
[1] for one where that wasn’t the case, watch West-Germany against Austria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgrace_of_Gijón).
I think that’s cultural/an acquired taste.
One could argue the outcome of high-scoring games is more predictable, making them less tense.
If, say, on average party A scores a point every minute and party B scores one every 40 seconds, party B will win almost every one hour game against party A (the expected outcome is 90-60), and each individual score is only marginally important. So, why would a spectator be enthousiast about a (missed) score after 20 seconds of play?
If, on other hand, party A scores a goal every 30 minutes and party B one every 20 minutes, party A has a much higher chance of beating party B in a one hour game, and each missed opportunity becomes a potential game changer.
In soccer, some of the most tense games end in 0-0, 1-0, or 0-1 (especially at major tournaments, where, often [1], each result counts)
[1] for one where that wasn’t the case, watch West-Germany against Austria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disgrace_of_Gijón).
In this regard, the most notable feature of tennis is that every match is a mini-tournament. It doesn't matter whether you lose the game 40-0 or after the 5th deuce point, you still just have to make up one game. Similarly, the score of the first set doesn't matter; only who wins. This periodic levelling of the score seems to make it more engaging somehow.
Personally, regardless of sport I only feel tension when I care about the winner. The game could be tied with seconds left to score and it’s no more intense than a pickup game between friends.
I feel the same. I watched (and enjoyed) lots of college basketball when I had roommates that were heavily invested in games' outcomes but never again since.
I much prefer NCAA basketball to the NBA. Perhaps it's the greater variation in team skill (with a bit more variety in playing style), the occasional Cinderella story, or maybe just the marketing around March Madness.
Sometimes 0-0 is fine, but what if say 1/2 or more games where 0-0. That’s hardly fun.
You need to design a sport so scoring is expected every game even if it’s rare within each game. A slightly larger net say 1 foot wider and 6 inches taller with an expanded goalie only area say extra 2 foot radius is a reasonable option. Tweak thing so the most common score it’s say 1-2 or 2-3 and you’re fine.
You need to design a sport so scoring is expected every game even if it’s rare within each game. A slightly larger net say 1 foot wider and 6 inches taller with an expanded goalie only area say extra 2 foot radius is a reasonable option. Tweak thing so the most common score it’s say 1-2 or 2-3 and you’re fine.
Someone once claimed that the reason soccer is not big in the US is that we can't get excited about any sport where a team can legitimately be said to have built an insurmountable 1-0 lead.
There's a simple change that I'd like to see tried in soccer that might up the action a bit in the second half enough to get more people in the US interested, without changing it so much that the rest of the world would lose interest.
Simply move the penalty shootout tie-break from after the second period to the break between periods. The penalty shootout would still only count if the game is tied at the end of the second period, but now the teams would go into the second period knowing who wins if it comes to tie-breaks.
In the second period there will always be one team in a "must score" situation, which should cause that team to play more aggressively. That might boost the action enough to get people in the US to watch.
There's a simple change that I'd like to see tried in soccer that might up the action a bit in the second half enough to get more people in the US interested, without changing it so much that the rest of the world would lose interest.
Simply move the penalty shootout tie-break from after the second period to the break between periods. The penalty shootout would still only count if the game is tied at the end of the second period, but now the teams would go into the second period knowing who wins if it comes to tie-breaks.
In the second period there will always be one team in a "must score" situation, which should cause that team to play more aggressively. That might boost the action enough to get people in the US to watch.
> Someone once claimed that the reason soccer is not big in the US is that we can't get excited about any sport where a team can legitimately be said to have built an insurmountable 1-0 lead.
This doesn't apply to soccer at all though. Even a 2-0 lead is often list in a few minutes. What makes soccer exciting isn't the scoring, but that you are always just second away from a goal that could change the game. That's why you'll hardly ever see in soccer that the audience leaves the stadium before the end of the game like you are in baseball all the time.
This doesn't apply to soccer at all though. Even a 2-0 lead is often list in a few minutes. What makes soccer exciting isn't the scoring, but that you are always just second away from a goal that could change the game. That's why you'll hardly ever see in soccer that the audience leaves the stadium before the end of the game like you are in baseball all the time.
Funny you say that. My SO grew up playing and still does. I never really thought much of it until we'd watch some games together. I find myself enjoying the play in the field more than I do when either team scores.
> (Germany scoring seven goals against Brazil in the World Cup a while ago was big news.)
Those type of events are outliers and not worth using
> Football does really well at attracting attention globally
That's only because everyone else is watching it. I got tired of following football around 14, its inherently repetitive and boring (unless you play it yourself) not to mention the extent of match fixing.
Those type of events are outliers and not worth using
> Football does really well at attracting attention globally
That's only because everyone else is watching it. I got tired of following football around 14, its inherently repetitive and boring (unless you play it yourself) not to mention the extent of match fixing.
> Those type of events are outliers and not worth using
Yes, that was exactly my point. A score of 7 is considered an extreme outlier. That tells you that normal scores are much lower.
> That's only because everyone else is watching it. I got tired of following football around 14, its inherently repetitive and boring (unless you play it yourself) not to mention the extent of match fixing.
I don't watch any sports myself, but I don't think the people who do so are all deluded.
Yes, there's a social aspect to it, but that's not the only thing.
Yes, that was exactly my point. A score of 7 is considered an extreme outlier. That tells you that normal scores are much lower.
> That's only because everyone else is watching it. I got tired of following football around 14, its inherently repetitive and boring (unless you play it yourself) not to mention the extent of match fixing.
I don't watch any sports myself, but I don't think the people who do so are all deluded.
Yes, there's a social aspect to it, but that's not the only thing.
> I got tired of following football around 14, its inherently repetitive and boring (unless you play it yourself).
> Those type of events are outliers and not worth using.
> Those type of events are outliers and not worth using.
That match was legitimately unsportsmanlike play from Germany. To thoroughly annihilate the host team like that when it’s elimination and point differential no longer matters; they should have eased off at 4-0 and played a defensive game.
It would be considered far more insulting if Germany took their foot off the pedal and eased off offensively. The media would have a (bigger) field day with that. As well, this is professional sports, not gym class.
Even in international hockey: Canada, USA, Russia will thump teams 20-0 sometimes. There is no way any member of any team, coaching staff or otherwise, to ease off.
Even in international hockey: Canada, USA, Russia will thump teams 20-0 sometimes. There is no way any member of any team, coaching staff or otherwise, to ease off.
It's not uncommon for coaches to put the second- or third-tier players in when it's going to be a blowout, though: It preserves the starters for the next match and gives the others in-game experience, both of which are good for the team's development.
I actually heard the exact opposite argument being made that it was not sportsman like by Germany to allow Brazil that one goal against them, since it looked like they stopped caring or allowed it out of pitty
I think it's more unsportsmanlike to not play to the best of one's ability, especially in an international event like this.
Interesting. I feel completely the opposite. Pulling your punches in a competition that matters is one of the greatest insults I can think of.
According to Wikipedia, aversion to 'running up the score' might be an American thing.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_up_the_score
> Running up the score occurs when a competitor continues to play in such a way as to score additional points after the outcome of the game is no longer in significant question and the team is all but assured of winning. In the United States and Canada, it is considered poor sportsmanship to run up the score in most circumstances
> The term and the concept are not common elsewhere in the world.
> In professional soccer, the concept of "running up the score" is mostly unheard of;
Pulling your punches in the football world cup would indeed have been seen as the ultimate insult.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_up_the_score
> Running up the score occurs when a competitor continues to play in such a way as to score additional points after the outcome of the game is no longer in significant question and the team is all but assured of winning. In the United States and Canada, it is considered poor sportsmanship to run up the score in most circumstances
> The term and the concept are not common elsewhere in the world.
> In professional soccer, the concept of "running up the score" is mostly unheard of;
Pulling your punches in the football world cup would indeed have been seen as the ultimate insult.
I wonder if this could have something to do with the popularity (well, the existence) of American Football. It's a very physical contact sport. Obviously, when a team is losing badly and the other is continuing to run up the score, emotions can run wild, and so there's a stronger possibility of unnecessary injuries. Maybe it's felt to be better to just "take a knee and run out the clock", where possible.
If you compare with baseball, I don't know that I've ever heard of a strong aversion to running up the score. Maybe you're not exactly sending out your substitute batter in the top of the ninth when you're up 10, but I've never seen a team give up and not put in a reasonable effort.
Wildly disparate scores seem pretty common in basketball as well. Even in college (American) football, scores of like 70-0 are not that uncommon. You only really quit trying in football when you can run out the clock, or you pull your starting players to prevent injuries.
If you compare with baseball, I don't know that I've ever heard of a strong aversion to running up the score. Maybe you're not exactly sending out your substitute batter in the top of the ninth when you're up 10, but I've never seen a team give up and not put in a reasonable effort.
Wildly disparate scores seem pretty common in basketball as well. Even in college (American) football, scores of like 70-0 are not that uncommon. You only really quit trying in football when you can run out the clock, or you pull your starting players to prevent injuries.
Even in American football, there aren't really a lot of benchwarmers who are just there as backup. The backup quarterback obviously and teams do indeed sometimes put the backup in during the fourth quarter if they have a big lead. Though I doubt that would happen often in a playoff game. (And, yes, teams will manage the clock towards the end of the game but that's far more about playing it safe than having an aversion to running up the score.)
You're right, perhaps I should have been even more assertive that "not running up the score" isn't that big a thing even in American sports.
I think a clear case of this though is when a team has the ball with the lead and less than 2 minutes to go, and the other team has no timeouts, it's customary to just take a knee ("victory formation") rather than going on a drive and trying to score again.
I think a clear case of this though is when a team has the ball with the lead and less than 2 minutes to go, and the other team has no timeouts, it's customary to just take a knee ("victory formation") rather than going on a drive and trying to score again.
That's not about not running up the score though. That's about doing the absolutely safest thing to run out the clock. Teams will do that even if they have a small lead because it's almost foolproof. (I'm sure some quarterback has fumbled though.)
Watch cricket instead. If one team has an unassailable lead the match is over.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_cricket#Play, https://cricketershub.com/how-to-win-cricket-match/, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scoring_(cricket)#Winning_scor...
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_cricket#Play, https://cricketershub.com/how-to-win-cricket-match/, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scoring_(cricket)#Winning_scor...
BRA71L!!!
You do see teams come back from unlikely deficits in sports every now and then. Not common of course but it does happen. And it tends to happen when the leading team decides to obviously just play defensively.
It is not unsportsmanlike to play to the best of your ability, especially not during a world cup.
However, it may not have been the best strategy. It was a semifinal, the final was next. If you are dominating, it makes sense to calm down a bit to avoid wearing out your players and limit the risk of injury. Germany still won the cup, so we can't really criticize.
However, it may not have been the best strategy. It was a semifinal, the final was next. If you are dominating, it makes sense to calm down a bit to avoid wearing out your players and limit the risk of injury. Germany still won the cup, so we can't really criticize.
In most sports, when a goal is scored, the game stops for some kind of reset.
Surely a game with more goals is therefore more boring, because it has more time with everyone dawdling back to the centre line and the referee holding the ball/puck/whatever.
Surely a game with more goals is therefore more boring, because it has more time with everyone dawdling back to the centre line and the referee holding the ball/puck/whatever.
In hockey, play also stops when the goalie catches the puck.
In many games when a goal is not scored in certain ways (saves, balls going out of play, some sports even have time limits), play also stops.
> a game with much fewer goals, probably boring.
Also, 0-0 ties and 1-0 wins don't really provide much information. These sports are typically played in the contexts of seasons, where teams are trying to win a championship. Very low scores don't really meaningfully establish which teams are better than others. 0-0 and 1-1 ties are obviously not really disclosing much, but winning 1-0 is really too low-granularity to mean all that much also.
Basketball is a bit ridiculous in the other direction, of course, but I assume that scores in the high single digits to low double digits should be the target, if we are to actually use them to figure out how to rank teams.
Hurling (teams typically score 10-30 points in a game) and baseball (5-20) seem like they're in the right range. Soccer / football (0-10, but often on the bottom end of that) seems way too low.
Also, 0-0 ties and 1-0 wins don't really provide much information. These sports are typically played in the contexts of seasons, where teams are trying to win a championship. Very low scores don't really meaningfully establish which teams are better than others. 0-0 and 1-1 ties are obviously not really disclosing much, but winning 1-0 is really too low-granularity to mean all that much also.
Basketball is a bit ridiculous in the other direction, of course, but I assume that scores in the high single digits to low double digits should be the target, if we are to actually use them to figure out how to rank teams.
Hurling (teams typically score 10-30 points in a game) and baseball (5-20) seem like they're in the right range. Soccer / football (0-10, but often on the bottom end of that) seems way too low.
Low single digits make scoring memorable and tension high.
[deleted]
Disagree. I've tried to watch soccer, but the pace kills it for me. <3 goals (total, not per side) in 90 minutes?[1] No thanks. High single digit would be a noticeable improvement, IMO.
US NCAA basketball is, IMO, one of the most exciting sports for viewing. Scores in the 70 point range[2] (per side, 30-35 baskets at 2 or 3 per) in about 2 hours (40 min clock ends up close to 120 min actual game length).
1 - FIFA World Cup matches haven't averaged more than 3 goals per match since 1958. https://www.statista.com/statistics/269031/goals-scored-per-...
2 - https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2013/01/14/colle...
US NCAA basketball is, IMO, one of the most exciting sports for viewing. Scores in the 70 point range[2] (per side, 30-35 baskets at 2 or 3 per) in about 2 hours (40 min clock ends up close to 120 min actual game length).
1 - FIFA World Cup matches haven't averaged more than 3 goals per match since 1958. https://www.statista.com/statistics/269031/goals-scored-per-...
2 - https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/2013/01/14/colle...
Or the mid-90s bulls-knicks series.
What NCCAB games are you watching that last 60 minutes real-time? Every basketball game I watch, men's or women's lasts right at 2 hours, unless there's overtime.
Huh, so they are. Feels shorter to me when watching. Edited the post. Either way, I still prefer NCAA basketball to FIFA WC soccer.
I'm biased in favor of soccer, as that was the game that I grew up playing, but I think it's a different beast entirely from a hypothetical hockey game with low scoring because most shots just bounce off the goalie.
The goalkeeper in soccer (as the article points out) has a much larger space to guard, and this provides opportunity showcasing ability. Both for the shooter and the keeper, as well as other defenders who can make impressive saves without the use of hands.
Fans like showcases of ability. There are boring soccer games, just as there are boring hockey games and boring basketball games. But to me, a well-played soccer game is exciting almost all of the time. A goal can be scored from essentially anywhere on the pitch (much like basketball) and there are an enormous number of possible strategies to make this happen.
This article seems to indicate that there is only one viable strategy just at the minute, and that's detrimental to the game. I don't really care much about hockey, and I'm not well educated on it, but I bought the argument.
The goalkeeper in soccer (as the article points out) has a much larger space to guard, and this provides opportunity showcasing ability. Both for the shooter and the keeper, as well as other defenders who can make impressive saves without the use of hands.
Fans like showcases of ability. There are boring soccer games, just as there are boring hockey games and boring basketball games. But to me, a well-played soccer game is exciting almost all of the time. A goal can be scored from essentially anywhere on the pitch (much like basketball) and there are an enormous number of possible strategies to make this happen.
This article seems to indicate that there is only one viable strategy just at the minute, and that's detrimental to the game. I don't really care much about hockey, and I'm not well educated on it, but I bought the argument.
[deleted]
Honestly, I think of soccer/football as being kind of like baseball. It looks really boring if you don't know what to watch for, but becomes interesting if you do.
E.g. when one of your strikers is about to make a shot on goal, opposing strikers will likely move in anticipation that the goaltender might recover the ball and set up their own attack. Your defenders will need to move in response to this; if they mistake the play being set up, this can be a significant disadvantage. However, unless you recognize the play being set up, you don't see any of this and it just looks like a failed goal attempt.
Disclaimer: I don't actually know much about soccer/football, and am paraphrasing an explanation from memory.
E.g. when one of your strikers is about to make a shot on goal, opposing strikers will likely move in anticipation that the goaltender might recover the ball and set up their own attack. Your defenders will need to move in response to this; if they mistake the play being set up, this can be a significant disadvantage. However, unless you recognize the play being set up, you don't see any of this and it just looks like a failed goal attempt.
Disclaimer: I don't actually know much about soccer/football, and am paraphrasing an explanation from memory.
It looks really boring if you don't know what to watch for, but becomes interesting if you do.
That's entirely possible. I played very little soccer (or any team ball sports) as a youth. By high school I had moved on to rowing and mountain biking.
That's entirely possible. I played very little soccer (or any team ball sports) as a youth. By high school I had moved on to rowing and mountain biking.
> US NCAA basketball is, IMO, one of the most exciting sports for viewing.
This is such an interesting perspective to me, because I get nothing out of basketball (although watching it in person with people is okay). It's just so repetitive, the same things happen over and over the whole time. Scoring is so constant that none of the goals seem particularly special or spectacular.
I feel like both American football and Australian football hit a kind of sweet spot, where there are a lot of different kinds of athleticism on display, different sorts of positions in which different things can happen, and scoring isn't rare enough to make ordinary gameplay boring (soccer) but it's still infrequent enough that each one feels like something it makes sense to stand up and cheer for. With American football in particular, you can really say that two games are very rarely alike, whereas both soccer and basketball have a kind of "seen one, seen them all" vibe to them, with some very rare special games that elevate above that, obviously.
This is such an interesting perspective to me, because I get nothing out of basketball (although watching it in person with people is okay). It's just so repetitive, the same things happen over and over the whole time. Scoring is so constant that none of the goals seem particularly special or spectacular.
I feel like both American football and Australian football hit a kind of sweet spot, where there are a lot of different kinds of athleticism on display, different sorts of positions in which different things can happen, and scoring isn't rare enough to make ordinary gameplay boring (soccer) but it's still infrequent enough that each one feels like something it makes sense to stand up and cheer for. With American football in particular, you can really say that two games are very rarely alike, whereas both soccer and basketball have a kind of "seen one, seen them all" vibe to them, with some very rare special games that elevate above that, obviously.
The repetitive comment is funny to me because I think the same about soccer - ball gets kicked to one end, goal is missed, ball gets kicked to the other end, repeat ad nauseam. Which probably ties nicely to the sibling comment about knowing the intricacies of game play - I'm sure there's more the soccer than what I just described, but it's lost on me because I have no background in the sport.
As for American football - I used to be a huge fan of NCAA and NFL games, even though I never played myself. Of the core American professional sports, it's the only I used to watch regularly. My son played into high school. I happily helped coach his youth teams. But, with the discovery of CTE, I've gone right off watching it. Knowing that the players literally concussing themselves stupid took the fun out of it.
As for American football - I used to be a huge fan of NCAA and NFL games, even though I never played myself. Of the core American professional sports, it's the only I used to watch regularly. My son played into high school. I happily helped coach his youth teams. But, with the discovery of CTE, I've gone right off watching it. Knowing that the players literally concussing themselves stupid took the fun out of it.
> The repetitive comment is funny to me because I think the same about soccer - ball gets kicked to one end, goal is missed, ball gets kicked to the other end, repeat ad nauseam.
I agree - it's just that basketball is basically the same for me. The only difference is that with basketball, they score about 25% of the time (or whatever). But the scores are all kind of the same, with a rare spectacular three pointer. Whereas in American football the teams kind of "feel each other out" and change strategies over time, have different formations, and so on, to the casual observer basketball is just a bunch of guys running towards defenders, hoping to spot a weakness, and either succeeding or failing, over and over. And when they succeed it doesn't matter that much, it's 2 points in a game where the teams will score a combined 200!
I've attended two NCAA basketball games, SEC and Big 10 respectively. In both cases when our (the home) team scored, we didn't stand up and cheer, we clapped. I felt like I was watching golf!
> Knowing that the players literally concussing themselves stupid took the fun out of it.
You're absolutely right about this, I was praising football on the abstract level but actually haven't watched it in years. I've sort of gotten myself into watching the occasional Australian football game for exactly that reason; it has some of the same appeal to me without the physicality that creates so many injuries.
I agree - it's just that basketball is basically the same for me. The only difference is that with basketball, they score about 25% of the time (or whatever). But the scores are all kind of the same, with a rare spectacular three pointer. Whereas in American football the teams kind of "feel each other out" and change strategies over time, have different formations, and so on, to the casual observer basketball is just a bunch of guys running towards defenders, hoping to spot a weakness, and either succeeding or failing, over and over. And when they succeed it doesn't matter that much, it's 2 points in a game where the teams will score a combined 200!
I've attended two NCAA basketball games, SEC and Big 10 respectively. In both cases when our (the home) team scored, we didn't stand up and cheer, we clapped. I felt like I was watching golf!
> Knowing that the players literally concussing themselves stupid took the fun out of it.
You're absolutely right about this, I was praising football on the abstract level but actually haven't watched it in years. I've sort of gotten myself into watching the occasional Australian football game for exactly that reason; it has some of the same appeal to me without the physicality that creates so many injuries.
I've attended two NCAA basketball games, SEC and Big 10...
Wrong conferences. ;)
ACC games are bonkers.
Wrong conferences. ;)
ACC games are bonkers.
> Also, 0-0 ties and 1-0 wins don't really provide much information.
This doesn't seem to have caused any problems for soccer.
This doesn't seem to have caused any problems for soccer.
This is one reason I loved MISL, the Major Indoor Soccer League, back around 1980 — scores in the high single digits were common.
https://www.fourfourtwo.com/us/features/major-indoor-soccer-...
> Played on artificial turf in ice hockey arenas with teams of six, 12ft-by-6ft nets, a hi-vis orange ball and rebounds off the hockey boards, this was the Americanisation of football taken to its logical conclusion. Games would produce 10 to 20 goals; one 1980 match saw a record 165 shots on target. The American obsession with stats was also catered for: players were precisely graded with points for goals and assists. It worked. Supporters weaned on the all-action scoring of basketball preferred it to the 'boring' one-nils of the NASL, and flocked to watch.
https://www.fourfourtwo.com/us/features/major-indoor-soccer-...
> Played on artificial turf in ice hockey arenas with teams of six, 12ft-by-6ft nets, a hi-vis orange ball and rebounds off the hockey boards, this was the Americanisation of football taken to its logical conclusion. Games would produce 10 to 20 goals; one 1980 match saw a record 165 shots on target. The American obsession with stats was also catered for: players were precisely graded with points for goals and assists. It worked. Supporters weaned on the all-action scoring of basketball preferred it to the 'boring' one-nils of the NASL, and flocked to watch.
Here's MISL star Steve Zungul scoring a hat trick in 37 seconds off the game clock:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xpG4pYbT9A&t=2200s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xpG4pYbT9A&t=2200s
Interestingly, the NHL record is even faster.
21 seconds.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nhl/2020/03/23/bill-mo...
21 seconds.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nhl/2020/03/23/bill-mo...
In standard football/soccer, it's 1 minute 29 seconds.
https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2017/06/13/six-of-the-fastest-hat...
https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2017/06/13/six-of-the-fastest-hat...
Good comment. Expanding the crease is an interesting idea but I’m not a fan of it for one reason: it would likely lead hockey down the path of baseball, where so much of the game is “reviewed”. Inevitably if we expand the crease size more players are going to inadvertently cross through it because, well, skating on ice is a little chaotic. Which to me has always been the point (and the fun) of the game.
Edit: LOL just watched that video. I remember watching that game as a kid.
Edit: LOL just watched that video. I remember watching that game as a kid.
Maybe you could have a two-zone area.
The outer part is if you step into this and don’t immediately step out within 2 seconds, it’s a penalty while the inner part is immediate penalty.
The outer part is if you step into this and don’t immediately step out within 2 seconds, it’s a penalty while the inner part is immediate penalty.
To be honest, the less the referees are involved, the better.
There's a much simpler answer: increase the size of the net. Hockey sticks are pretty incredible these days, and the torque generated from flexing the stick is pretty unbelievable. Playing in net in hockey is mostly about setting up at the right angles and blocking the highest percentage of the net that you can, combined with athleticism and instinct.
But a bigger goal would lead to more goals, if that's the end goal for the NHL.
There's a much simpler answer: increase the size of the net. Hockey sticks are pretty incredible these days, and the torque generated from flexing the stick is pretty unbelievable. Playing in net in hockey is mostly about setting up at the right angles and blocking the highest percentage of the net that you can, combined with athleticism and instinct.
But a bigger goal would lead to more goals, if that's the end goal for the NHL.
I'm a hockey goalie, too. I think we have to think about non-NHL goalies too. Not every adult is 2m high and if we make net size bigger we will effectively make the game unplayable for "average" goalies. When a shooter shoots on you from 3-4 meters, there is not enough time to react too much and you play mostly angles and block. I can imagine that kids playing in a much larger net would lead to a very different game where shooting is much more beneficial than any other option.
Yes, NHL is what most people watch on TV, but there are millions of people playing the game that would have it ruined.
Average top-level soccer game ends something like 2-1 nowadays (maybe 3-1? it's certainly going up with time).
Average semi-professional game ends something like 6-3.
Average kids on the backyard soccer game ends 10-5 or something like that :)
Compared to "real" players kids suck as goalkeepers but so what? They are still having fun. The score doesn't matter that much at that level anyway.
Kids also usually play on smaller fields with smaller goals but it's not mainly because of scoring chance - it's because schools don't have the space and kids don't have the stamina to run for 90 minutes on a full sized football pitch.
I don't think anybody minds weird scores in lower level games.
Average semi-professional game ends something like 6-3.
Average kids on the backyard soccer game ends 10-5 or something like that :)
Compared to "real" players kids suck as goalkeepers but so what? They are still having fun. The score doesn't matter that much at that level anyway.
Kids also usually play on smaller fields with smaller goals but it's not mainly because of scoring chance - it's because schools don't have the space and kids don't have the stamina to run for 90 minutes on a full sized football pitch.
I don't think anybody minds weird scores in lower level games.
Problem is that if the net is too big, it will be different game. I was maybe too generic with "kids". Youngsters (cca 10 years and more) are playing in official nets on full size field, so if they were bigger they couldn't catch almost anything that goes directly into any of the corner, or they would have to be away from net extra few meters. This would change game drastically. Especially with young players I think it is much more important to build up chance, pass and "play", not only shoot slapshots from blue line.
Also, in non-pro games, there are plenty of goals. There is no need to have much more. If you play on amateur level, like I do now, you would see that there is usually problem to find enough goalies (for many reasons) and with bigger net it would be even worse, because if you are under 190cm you would be there for laughs.
> Youngsters (cca 10 years and more) are playing in official nets on full size field, so if they were bigger they couldn't catch almost anything that goes directly into any of the corner, or they would have to be away from net extra few meters.
Keep in mind that the number of kids who can pick a corner and kick a ball into it consistently is pretty small too.
The skill level of the goalie and the skill level of the kickers will actually likely balance out.
Keep in mind that the number of kids who can pick a corner and kick a ball into it consistently is pretty small too.
The skill level of the goalie and the skill level of the kickers will actually likely balance out.
In fully professional adult soccer if you pick the corner further away from the goalie (doesn't matter if high or low) you'll score 99% of the time. It's just that it's very hard to do.
> Average kids on the backyard soccer game ends 10-5 or something like that :)
He is not talking about backyard kids. He is talking about teenagers and adults playing hockey in hobbyist amateur teams. These typically tend to be much better players then kids in backyard.
He is not talking about backyard kids. He is talking about teenagers and adults playing hockey in hobbyist amateur teams. These typically tend to be much better players then kids in backyard.
These are results of last few matches at regional level that reserve team from my city has played: 5-1, 3-0, 3-4, 11-1, 5-0, 8-0, 14-0
These are semi-professional adults playing on full sized football field with regular sized goals for full 90 minutes.
It's not unheard of to score or lose 20 goals at that level :)
These are semi-professional adults playing on full sized football field with regular sized goals for full 90 minutes.
It's not unheard of to score or lose 20 goals at that level :)
I dont see how that is argument for anything. The bigger net would change it to 40 or something. The complain is not about how many goals happen, but about how the game plays.
Also, I am still not talking about "reserve team". I am talking about hobbyists who want to have some fun while exercising and socializing, who maybe used to play in some team as kids but dropped out never being close to be stars.
Some adults don't just watch sports, they do actively play them.
Also, I am still not talking about "reserve team". I am talking about hobbyists who want to have some fun while exercising and socializing, who maybe used to play in some team as kids but dropped out never being close to be stars.
Some adults don't just watch sports, they do actively play them.
There's nothing preventing them from having different sized nets for different levels. Basketball 3-pt lines are different dimensions per level, for instance.
Which is different from soccer. One thing I really like about soccer is the human error element. They don’t use video replays at the highest levels of the game because the game should be exactly the same whether it’s a bunch of kids playing with the only ball in their neighborhood or the World Cup finale.
Kids are playing soccer with all kinds of weird goal sizes, the standard one at the schools I've seen was about 50% the size of the "real" ones. Nobody really talks about it because it doesn't matter as long as it's the same size for both sides.
Kids are also often playing with 1 goal and 1 goalkeeper and 2 teams trying to score (you have to move past half the pitch after regaining possession before shooting)- that way on 1 field you can have 2 games going on at once and only 1 person has to be the goalie in each of these games.
And we've played soccer on random backyards - you just put 2 backpacks as the goalposts and you're ready to go. I think the focus on rules and dimensions is very american, kids just want to dribble and shoot, the score and the minute details aren't important :).
As for replay they were introduced in high-level football last few years. It's called VAR and most fans hate it because it spoils the celebrations after a goal is scored and you have to wait to know if it's really a goal or not.
Kids are also often playing with 1 goal and 1 goalkeeper and 2 teams trying to score (you have to move past half the pitch after regaining possession before shooting)- that way on 1 field you can have 2 games going on at once and only 1 person has to be the goalie in each of these games.
And we've played soccer on random backyards - you just put 2 backpacks as the goalposts and you're ready to go. I think the focus on rules and dimensions is very american, kids just want to dribble and shoot, the score and the minute details aren't important :).
As for replay they were introduced in high-level football last few years. It's called VAR and most fans hate it because it spoils the celebrations after a goal is scored and you have to wait to know if it's really a goal or not.
Not only that, but VAR has consistently produced some shocking and unexplainable decisions. They haven’t quite gotten the implementation correct. Offside calls are improved, dangerous tackle/red card reviews are improved (for the most part, there are still some unexplainable decisions), but handball calls are still shambolic. It’s still a human referee up there in the VAR booth and they don’t have to explain their decision making at all. That’s my opinion, at least- I mostly watch the Premier League.
Premier league has one of the worst VAR I've seen in top 5 leagues. I think Bundesliga does it the best (but still not perfect).
> handball calls are still shambolic.
that's because handball calls are interpretation of intent and slow motion won't help you with that.
So then they changed the rules to ignore the intent and it became a valid strategy for a striker to try to shoot the ball at a defender arm for penalty.
> handball calls are still shambolic.
that's because handball calls are interpretation of intent and slow motion won't help you with that.
So then they changed the rules to ignore the intent and it became a valid strategy for a striker to try to shoot the ball at a defender arm for penalty.
I agree that the rule change is problematic, but no matter what the rule is, it is still unevenly enforced.
They didn’t use video replays at the highest levels of the game. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_assistant_referee
Basically every pro sport had that philosophy, until they didn't. Eventually, some highly publicized incorrect call (with video evidence, because it was televised) leads to refs using video replay.
[deleted]
The original article proposed different sized goals for different leagues.
Sure, it may be solution, but there is a lot of muscle memory that is bound to size of goals. If you have goalkeeper in junior league it would be very complicated to pull him up as backup to senior game. Or from lower league to upper one.
All the angles and distances would need to be re-trained when switching leagues. I cannot imagine that, really.
I think it would be easier to somehow limit area blocked by goalie equipment together - so if the goalie is very tall, pads would need to be either narrower or not that high to keep some max blocking area. And this is only IF we really need to do some change at all.
I think it would be easier to somehow limit area blocked by goalie equipment together - so if the goalie is very tall, pads would need to be either narrower or not that high to keep some max blocking area. And this is only IF we really need to do some change at all.
I don’t think the goal is necessarily to have more goals, but to reduce the pile up of players around the net.
Maybe it’s my goalie experience speaking, but the highlight of hockey to me was always the direct confrontation between a shooter and the goalie. The more chaotic the goals, the less interesting the sport is.
Maybe it’s my goalie experience speaking, but the highlight of hockey to me was always the direct confrontation between a shooter and the goalie. The more chaotic the goals, the less interesting the sport is.
I think like the article says, the way you reduce the pileup around the goalie is to make it possible to score from places other than the pileup around the goalie.
Just as the viability of 3-point shooters opened up the floor in the NBA, making it viable to score from the blue line in the NHL would open the ice as well.
When I was a kid in the 80s players would score from the blue line all of the time.
They were still relatively low percentage shots but a guy could absolutely score with a slapper from the blue line. Enough that you had to respect the threat. Not unheard of for a d-man to score 20 or 30 in a year.
As a fan that was fun too! Not as fun as a magical "sexy" Gretzky goal. But you could hear the anticipation in the building when the puck went back to some guy who had a cannon from the blue line. Al Iafrate, etc.
Today, if a defensemen actually scored from the blue line, the team would probably immediately release the goalie and fire the goaltending coach lol. Only reason to shoot from long range is so you can get the puck into the scrum in the slot and hope some something happens from there.
Just as the viability of 3-point shooters opened up the floor in the NBA, making it viable to score from the blue line in the NHL would open the ice as well.
When I was a kid in the 80s players would score from the blue line all of the time.
They were still relatively low percentage shots but a guy could absolutely score with a slapper from the blue line. Enough that you had to respect the threat. Not unheard of for a d-man to score 20 or 30 in a year.
As a fan that was fun too! Not as fun as a magical "sexy" Gretzky goal. But you could hear the anticipation in the building when the puck went back to some guy who had a cannon from the blue line. Al Iafrate, etc.
Today, if a defensemen actually scored from the blue line, the team would probably immediately release the goalie and fire the goaltending coach lol. Only reason to shoot from long range is so you can get the puck into the scrum in the slot and hope some something happens from there.
Goals from blue line are not that uncommon even in NHL [1]. Also, hockey is played on many different levels than NHL and trust me, if I got one USD for each goal I got from blue line, I'm doing just fine :)
[1] https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/video/chara-levels-slapshot-blu...
[1] https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/video/chara-levels-slapshot-blu...
Inclined to agree. The goals I remember from watching hockey in my youth are the really sexy ones. A risky pass and a breakaway, or some slick skating at the blue line to put some defenders off balance. Also, “just make the goal bigger” sounds a lot like “change the rules so more runs are scored” in baseball. You lose an element of the game you can’t get back when you do that. Maybe that’s a little “old man yells at cloud” but whatever.
Expanding the crease is an interesting idea
but I’m not a fan of it for one reason: it
would likely lead hockey down the path of
baseball, where so much of the game is “reviewed”.
The Buffalo natives on this forum are all too aware of this.
The NHL has done that: made pads smaller.
2line pass is now a 3line pass rule.
they moved the goal line back for to increase playmaking space.
There’s no more ties; which means fewer matches where only 2 points are awarded.
2line pass is now a 3line pass rule.
they moved the goal line back for to increase playmaking space.
There’s no more ties; which means fewer matches where only 2 points are awarded.
Technically, it is still a two line pass, simply the center line doesn’t exist for the purposes of the rule. Semantically no difference.
Yeah, these are common strategies for I think basically as long as I've watched ice hockey.
Have guy parked in front of the goalie. Keep other players in the attacking zone. Shoot from the blue line. Hope for the puck to hit players/blades along the way in the commotion that will change the direction so late that the goalie doesn't have time to react, but even if not, at least players will block the goalies vision.
Your idea to make it unpleasant to be parked in front of the goalie is also a common "solution" but that's why they place the big players there. :D Some are basically meant for this one position. I now recall "Demolition Man" Tomas Holmström back in the day. He even built special protection for the job, like a special back plate for the constant crosscheckings.
Yes, even if not for this reason, I think the goalie area should be expanded a bit. It always felt too small, like they could seriously disrupt the goalies job before even breaking rules.
Have guy parked in front of the goalie. Keep other players in the attacking zone. Shoot from the blue line. Hope for the puck to hit players/blades along the way in the commotion that will change the direction so late that the goalie doesn't have time to react, but even if not, at least players will block the goalies vision.
Your idea to make it unpleasant to be parked in front of the goalie is also a common "solution" but that's why they place the big players there. :D Some are basically meant for this one position. I now recall "Demolition Man" Tomas Holmström back in the day. He even built special protection for the job, like a special back plate for the constant crosscheckings.
Yes, even if not for this reason, I think the goalie area should be expanded a bit. It always felt too small, like they could seriously disrupt the goalies job before even breaking rules.
I didn't see who the author was until the end, so I spent the article thinking "Wow, this is someone who's spent way too much time thinking about goaltending." And then I saw it was Ken Dryden, and it all made sense.
His book about being in the NFL, "The Game", is good.
His book about being in the NFL, "The Game", is good.
I thought the same thing. I was like, "Wow this must be a superfan, who knows all the inner workings of the players union and how the goalies practice".
Then at the end with the author's bio I almost wanted to go read the whole article again, realizing this is one of the best goalies to play in the NHL.
Then at the end with the author's bio I almost wanted to go read the whole article again, realizing this is one of the best goalies to play in the NHL.
There's a little box inside penalty box in soccer where the goalkeeper has by the rules relative freedom to do whatever he wants for his own safety in soccer as well.
Also similarly to crowding the goalie in hockey, own players sometimes build another wall to keep the view of the ball from goalkeeper. Haven't watched NHL for a decade but it seems all the sports constantly evolve to take maximums from situations.
The goal in football/soccer is a bit larger than in hockey.
If you’re going to bring that up, we could talk about the hows and whys of the NBA not allowing goaltending.
Have you ever noticed that one player just can’t jump up and sit in the goal for the whole of the game?
It’s rather small, so the game then would be about who could remove the man from the area above the basket.
Perhaps we could just make the goalie have to stay away from the crease in the NHL and wear something similar to that which everyone else wears? (Unfortunately, there are a number of good reasons things are the way they are[1].)
[1]- https://hockeyanswered.com/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-goalie...
If you’re going to bring that up, we could talk about the hows and whys of the NBA not allowing goaltending.
Have you ever noticed that one player just can’t jump up and sit in the goal for the whole of the game?
It’s rather small, so the game then would be about who could remove the man from the area above the basket.
Perhaps we could just make the goalie have to stay away from the crease in the NHL and wear something similar to that which everyone else wears? (Unfortunately, there are a number of good reasons things are the way they are[1].)
[1]- https://hockeyanswered.com/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-goalie...
I have never heard of these rules regarding the six-yard box in football. As far as I am aware it is only for positioning your goal kicks and something to do with indirect free kicks (a rare occurrence) where they can't be inside that box. I'm sure the keeper does mess around with people in that area, but I don't think it's their right as codified in any rules of the game
[deleted]
Yeah, I was mistaken, these are not real rules as written down.
But you can often hear commentators talking about it and keepers are being trained to protect themselves in that area. They recently changed the rule that you can touch the keeper in that area (eg. during the corners etc). Around 2006, before it was not allowed. Any body contact, but keepers knowing it was not allowed for the attackers to have proper body contact with them and they kinda hacked the rule often and were fishing them or looking for the contact.
This may be particular to non-British football coverage, because this is all entirely alien to me and I've never heard this ever. It would make sense though, when I played I would definitely fuck around with the keeper during set pieces in the box, and they'd either fight back or a burly defender would be dispatched to keep me busy :-D
I played at fairly high level as a GK (you have to take a word for random guy on HN out of all places saying it) and it was common knowledge or something that was being taught from young age at higher levels.
Maybe I just thought sort of everyone knows it and pay for attention when I hear commentators /studio talking about it. But you can think of it how many penalties, or rather fouls against keeper, they give when keeper jumps into someone inside the six yard box - I don't have statistics at hand but bet tons of money 6 yard box vs penalty area.
> a little box inside penalty box in soccer where the goalkeeper has by the rules
It's not an official rule, but it is the common interpretation, to the point of players relying on this in competitive matches.
Another change that makes it easier for goalkeepers to defend in soccer was calling offside when a player is in offside position and doesn't receive the ball, just obstructs the visibility or messes with defenders and somebody else (not in offside position) score thanks to that.
It's a little inconsistent and I don't like it, but it doesn't seem to help the defenders and goalies too much.
Despite the rule changes in soccer goalies seem to be losing the arms race - there's more and more goals a game and last few years the meta moved to very high pressing and constant offence. Which I very much like - makes for a more entertaining games.
As for hockey I would like them to split the goal into 2 halves and put them 1 meter apart :)
It's not an official rule, but it is the common interpretation, to the point of players relying on this in competitive matches.
Another change that makes it easier for goalkeepers to defend in soccer was calling offside when a player is in offside position and doesn't receive the ball, just obstructs the visibility or messes with defenders and somebody else (not in offside position) score thanks to that.
It's a little inconsistent and I don't like it, but it doesn't seem to help the defenders and goalies too much.
Despite the rule changes in soccer goalies seem to be losing the arms race - there's more and more goals a game and last few years the meta moved to very high pressing and constant offence. Which I very much like - makes for a more entertaining games.
As for hockey I would like them to split the goal into 2 halves and put them 1 meter apart :)
> there's more and more goals a game
So it sucks to be a goalkeeper and I sympathise with anyone tasked with organising the defence when faced with this trend. But for us fans this is quite good news :-)
So it sucks to be a goalkeeper and I sympathise with anyone tasked with organising the defence when faced with this trend. But for us fans this is quite good news :-)
Man that clip is so old time hockey I love it. Best part is the ref giving him the attaboy after.
I remember thinking that Hasek wearing the cage instead of a modern goalie mask was so cool as a kid.
The result was that opposing players became
hesitant to get too close to the net, thus
solving the problem somewhat.
So I took advantage of my size and the goalie equipment and got good at throwing my body into scrums around the net. I didn't even hit opposing players per se. But if there was a loose puck/ball I took advantage of the fact that I could make a beeline for it and if there happened to be an opposing player in my way... well, unfortunate for them!
A possible solution could be to expand the
goalie-only area around the net. That would,
in theory, force opponents to focus more on
shooting and not on piling around the goalie.
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/343121-one-final-thought...
It was a boon for the goalies, not the scorers, and it turned every goal into a controversial mess. As a fan you couldn't even celebrate a goal -- you had to wait until the refs and/or replay decided if it was okay or not minutes later.
Part of the problem is that attacking players can't really control their position in a precise way in a scrum, given all of the contact and the fact that everybody's, well, wearing ice skates. Half of the time the goals were called off for a player being in the goalie crease it wasn't their fault.
And then there was Martin Brodeur, who absolutely broke the game for about a decade by skating around like an "invulnerable third defenseman nobody was allowed to touch." Effective, but really contrary to the spirit of the game and about as much fun as watching paint dry.
I really cannot think of a solution besides larger nets.
4-on-4 makes for really exciting hockey but that feels like fundamentally changing the sport too much. It would also IMO place too much emphasis on penalties. A 5-on-4 advantage for two minutes is one thing but 4-on-3 is quite another. Refereeing in a mass action sport will always be highly imperfect and that would really put the game in the refs' hands.
Maybe the penalties could still be 5-on-4: the offending player gets removed, but can be replaced, and the other team gets to bring on an additional skater.
I think it would work but it's such a fundamental change to the sport that I can't imagine any established hockey league even considering it. Not saying they shouldn't, just saying they won't!
The most radical change I can imagine them considering would be eliminating offsides.
The most radical change I can imagine them considering would be eliminating offsides.
Is it bigger than changing the size of the goal (the author's preferred solution?)
Yes, I think altering the number of players on the ice is way more radical than changing the size of the goal by a few %... I wouldn't think they are even comparable!
What do you think?
What do you think?
I don't watch enough hockey to know, and never played. But if the goalie can cover 90% of the small goal, and 70% of a goal just a few percent bigger, it makes sense to me that could be a bigger change than changing the number of players.
For a lot of people, it's more than a sport. It's a huge chunk of Canada's identity for well over a century. Changing the number of players on the ice would be like... well, I can't think of an analogy. But they'd never go for that. (Watch them prove me wrong...)
It's also a very coarse adjustment. Versus changing net dimensions, something they could experiment with in small increments at the minor league level.
But if the goalie can cover 90% of the small
goal, and 70% of a goal just a few percent
bigger, it makes sense to me that could be a
bigger change than changing the number of players.
It's also a very coarse adjustment. Versus changing net dimensions, something they could experiment with in small increments at the minor league level.
> In hockey, you have a lot of leeway in terms of physicality and you can push, shove, lock the stick of your opponent, and do a number of other things that are completely penalized in basketball or soccer. The result was that opposing players became hesitant to get too close to the net, thus solving the problem somewhat.
Also the goalie is given waaay more leeway. The goalie can get away with things that would definitely result in the penalty box for anyone else. I don’t know whether is is by convention, or because penalizing the goalie is such a heavy disadvantage that it isn’t done lightly.
Also the goalie is given waaay more leeway. The goalie can get away with things that would definitely result in the penalty box for anyone else. I don’t know whether is is by convention, or because penalizing the goalie is such a heavy disadvantage that it isn’t done lightly.
Same in football (soccer) as well. The goalkeeper is protected and can simultaneously get away with more contact.
Historically its because goalkeepers have been vulnerable when in the air and outfield players leading with their feet when reaching for a contested ball.
Historically its because goalkeepers have been vulnerable when in the air and outfield players leading with their feet when reaching for a contested ball.
I think it’s also kind of an unwritten rule. Been watching hockey for 25 years now and it’s rare to see the goalie go to the box, but when they do it’s for a particularly egregious slashing penalty (usually to the ... swimsuit area). I agree with the general point of the article though, which I thought was well written. Hockey, especially over I’d say the last 5-6 years or so has gotten a lot more “run and gun” than before that imo.
I'm not sure how referees are handling this in Canada or the USA, but in Europe, if the goalie hits any other player with blocker to head area, it is the game penalty for him. If the goalie starts a fistfight (without gloves), it is also the game penalty.
Yeah it's an automatic game penalty in the NHL -- Rule 51.3
Match Penalty - If, in the judgement of the Referee
, a goalkeeper uses his blocking glove to punch an
opponent in the head or face in an attempt to or to
deliberately injure an opponent, a match penalty
must be assessed.
Where in Europe are you? I've been trying to find more hockey to watch that's not US based. In the NHL it's extraordinarily rare for a goalie to get into a fight (also fighting in hockey should definitely not be banned ... it's part of the art and culture of the sport).
I'm in Slovakia. I think problem with watching hockey in TV is not only about quality of players, but also production of the broadcasting. Here NHL shines and it is big difference. When I was on live match, it was quite watchable (even Slovak league ;), but in TV it lacks the action that is provided by good broadcast production - a lot of cameras, cuts, etc.
Also around here it is quite uncommon for goalies to fight, but especially goalies coming from Canada tended to "payback" in some brawls around crease with blocker and paid dearly for it, as they had to leave the crease during important play-off game afterwards.
Also around here it is quite uncommon for goalies to fight, but especially goalies coming from Canada tended to "payback" in some brawls around crease with blocker and paid dearly for it, as they had to leave the crease during important play-off game afterwards.
I haven't been following hockey in a couple of decades but fighting used to be much less common in European leagues AFAIK than it is (or was) in the NHL. Goalies getting involved would have been even rarer. But if fights do occur, they are (or at least used to be) penalised more strictly, in line with fighting not being considered a part of the game the way it is in North America.
A lot of fighting is legal or results in a minimal slap on the wrist in the NHL. Different culture.
[deleted]
When a goalkeeper is given a penalty, one field player is going to the penalty box instead of the goalie.
I was about to comment on that, too, but I then came to think GP might have meant game misconducts (in case of getting actually physically violent) which would usually be a greater loss in case of a primary goalie than in the case of a random skater.
Still there's probably plenty of area where the penalty could be a two-minute minor (served by another player instead of the goalie), and where goalies are still permitted to defend their crease with means that would be considered roughing or something similar if done by skaters.
Still there's probably plenty of area where the penalty could be a two-minute minor (served by another player instead of the goalie), and where goalies are still permitted to defend their crease with means that would be considered roughing or something similar if done by skaters.
>A possible solution could be to expand the goalie-only area around the net. That would, in theory, force opponents to focus more on shooting and not on piling around the goalie.
Pandora's box is already open. Bigger net, more space, smaller pads, etc. won't get players to necessarily focus more on skill shots... it will likely make the chaotic approach today more successful.
Pandora's box is already open. Bigger net, more space, smaller pads, etc. won't get players to necessarily focus more on skill shots... it will likely make the chaotic approach today more successful.
Yeah i do agree that pandora's box might already be open. I am an avid hockey fan and there has been a huge shift towards "trick" shots in the past few years to get around these goalies.
It is becoming increasingly rare to see "normal" goals anymore in NHL hockey. Goalies are simply too good that normal goals won't go in. So if a defensemen wants to slapshot the puck, his forwards (who are down in front of the net) need to "screen" the goalie so the goalie can't see the puck. The forward then needs to try to dodge the puck at the last second before the goalie can react.
We also are seeing probably half or so of NHL goals come from deflections to pinball the puck around so the goalie can't even track the puck. It is amazing how good NHL forwards are getting now at deflecting. We routinely see triple deflections now.
The rest of the goals are just from diving the net. With 6-8 players in front of the net (3 attacking forwards, and 5 defending forwards+defensemen) just slapping at the puck in the chaos as it bounces around, it eventually goes in.
So I have long since believed that they should widen the net (just by 4-6 inches). But I do think that the NHL players have just gotten so good at creatively combatting the goalie, that widening the net might end up with too many goals in games. There is a fine balance between not enough scoring like in Soccer (Football outside USA) and with too much scoring (like in Basketball). American Football does a good job balancing the scoring. Most games have 3-4 touchdowns between both teams, plus a handful of other scoring opportunities like field goals and conversions. It keeps the touchdowns exciting (players even dance in the endzone on live TV), while still moving the game along with smaller scoring opportunities throughout the game.
It is becoming increasingly rare to see "normal" goals anymore in NHL hockey. Goalies are simply too good that normal goals won't go in. So if a defensemen wants to slapshot the puck, his forwards (who are down in front of the net) need to "screen" the goalie so the goalie can't see the puck. The forward then needs to try to dodge the puck at the last second before the goalie can react.
We also are seeing probably half or so of NHL goals come from deflections to pinball the puck around so the goalie can't even track the puck. It is amazing how good NHL forwards are getting now at deflecting. We routinely see triple deflections now.
The rest of the goals are just from diving the net. With 6-8 players in front of the net (3 attacking forwards, and 5 defending forwards+defensemen) just slapping at the puck in the chaos as it bounces around, it eventually goes in.
So I have long since believed that they should widen the net (just by 4-6 inches). But I do think that the NHL players have just gotten so good at creatively combatting the goalie, that widening the net might end up with too many goals in games. There is a fine balance between not enough scoring like in Soccer (Football outside USA) and with too much scoring (like in Basketball). American Football does a good job balancing the scoring. Most games have 3-4 touchdowns between both teams, plus a handful of other scoring opportunities like field goals and conversions. It keeps the touchdowns exciting (players even dance in the endzone on live TV), while still moving the game along with smaller scoring opportunities throughout the game.
I also think American Football (and baseball) does a good job of having quantifiable action outside of scoring plays. Every play has a clear result, often with obvious valence. So even though it doesn't count directly towards the final score, you can build up tension and excitement for example just on 3rd down conversion attempts.
An experienced viewer might be able to pick out this sort of mini battle during other sports, and there are also more nuanced battles in football that a random viewer may not pick up on. But for somebody casual, or even just listening on the radio or checking for updates on an app, there is a lot more "result" happening on a football field.
Plus the pauses help, when somebody gets the better of their opponent in a traditional goal-based sport you usually know mere moments later whether it had an impact on the game. A 3rd down conversion on the other hand can have minutes of game time (let alone real time) before one knows whether it led to a score. And even if it didn't, there is at least a clear impact on time of possession.
So I think perception of too little vs too much scoring can be helped by this dynamic, where real scores still feel very impactful but there are "fake" scores one can also root for on a shorter timescale.
An experienced viewer might be able to pick out this sort of mini battle during other sports, and there are also more nuanced battles in football that a random viewer may not pick up on. But for somebody casual, or even just listening on the radio or checking for updates on an app, there is a lot more "result" happening on a football field.
Plus the pauses help, when somebody gets the better of their opponent in a traditional goal-based sport you usually know mere moments later whether it had an impact on the game. A 3rd down conversion on the other hand can have minutes of game time (let alone real time) before one knows whether it led to a score. And even if it didn't, there is at least a clear impact on time of possession.
So I think perception of too little vs too much scoring can be helped by this dynamic, where real scores still feel very impactful but there are "fake" scores one can also root for on a shorter timescale.
If a player was on a breakaway, I’d also try to do stuff like this (as the goalie), which of course makes opponents stay far away from you.
https://youtu.be/W5u0khFnHUg
Yeah, nothing like trying to end a players career. Should have been suspended for the season and fined.
https://youtu.be/W5u0khFnHUg
Yeah, nothing like trying to end a players career. Should have been suspended for the season and fined.
This game was back in 2007. This was near the end of the "ruthless NHL era", when the NHL was trying to brand itself as the hard-hitting, brutal sport of hockey. So this type of stuff was accepted, and even quietly encouraged.
Now in the past couple years the NHL has cracked down significantly on player safety. This type of thing would probably lead to a suspension if it had happened during the current season. Players are getting suspended for a lot less right now.
One thing that the league looks at is whether the headshot was avoidable and predictable. This is a weird shot, because the forward was looking at the goalie, which means that its both avoidable and predictable (meaning the player could expect to be hit and should prepare for it). But because it was a goalie coming at him, the player probably never expected that the goalie would actually make contact with him. This makes it far less predictable, and therefore less avoidable.
Usually the goalies come up really far during these types of breakaways to create more favorable angles to protect the net. The player was most likely expecting the goalie to stop at some point and start backing up, and he was probably waiting for that to happen so he could deke (move around the goalie while he's immobilized from stopping) and get an easy open net score. So they essentially played a game of chicken, but the goalie never disengaged. This is very unexpected. To me the goalie should be suspended for this. Virtually no forward in the league would have expected the goalie to do that and the way the goalie hit him, it was clear that it could have been dangerous.
Now in the past couple years the NHL has cracked down significantly on player safety. This type of thing would probably lead to a suspension if it had happened during the current season. Players are getting suspended for a lot less right now.
One thing that the league looks at is whether the headshot was avoidable and predictable. This is a weird shot, because the forward was looking at the goalie, which means that its both avoidable and predictable (meaning the player could expect to be hit and should prepare for it). But because it was a goalie coming at him, the player probably never expected that the goalie would actually make contact with him. This makes it far less predictable, and therefore less avoidable.
Usually the goalies come up really far during these types of breakaways to create more favorable angles to protect the net. The player was most likely expecting the goalie to stop at some point and start backing up, and he was probably waiting for that to happen so he could deke (move around the goalie while he's immobilized from stopping) and get an easy open net score. So they essentially played a game of chicken, but the goalie never disengaged. This is very unexpected. To me the goalie should be suspended for this. Virtually no forward in the league would have expected the goalie to do that and the way the goalie hit him, it was clear that it could have been dangerous.
Expectations are a weird way to make rules. I bet Gaborik didn't try playing chicken with Hasek again, right?
The hit was dangerous, but there's nothing in the rulebook (to my knowledge) that says a goalie can't hit another player.
That was a clean move. Hasek had no way of knowing Gaborik would not be looking where he was going.
Hasek absolutely could see Gaborik had his head down. But you're not supposed to have your head down. Nowadays this would likely be seen as a hit to the head and possibly suspension worthy.
How was Hasek supposed to know Gaborik would not look up? This was not a blind-side hit.
How was Scott Stevens supposed to know Eric Lindros wouldn't look up? Pretty much the same answer. The rules were different back then, but today if you're about to hit someone with their head down you're expected to let up. Since Lindros' career was derailed by hits with his head down, players are now taught not to skate through traffic with your head down.
The scenarios are not the same for several reasons, the two most important being (1) Stevens performed a hit to the head, and (2) he did it to a defenseless player (Lindros was defenseless because he was cutting between defenders, not because he wasn't looking where he was going).
>If a player was on a breakaway, I’d also try to do stuff like this (as the goalie), which of course makes opponents stay far away from you.
I played soccer as a goalie at a high level in my youth, and this was my strategy on breakaways as well, completely legal move as long as I tackled the ball and not the player. I was a very intimating and athletic goalie at 6'5" ~220. Players did not like to be near me.
I played soccer as a goalie at a high level in my youth, and this was my strategy on breakaways as well, completely legal move as long as I tackled the ball and not the player. I was a very intimating and athletic goalie at 6'5" ~220. Players did not like to be near me.
I created a blog post a few years back showing goalies aren't big enough http://randomlyunique.com/data/2015/goal-goalie-girth/index.... :-D
The author makes 2 basic mistakes
1. Suggesting that goalies are nearly equally suited on their knees as on their skates.
2. Forgetting the goaltending rule exists in basketball.
1. Suggesting that goalies are nearly equally suited on their knees as on their skates.
2. Forgetting the goaltending rule exists in basketball.
The article is written by a goalie who has won six Stanley cups.
And that is what makes it so disappointing. Dryden -- who is a genius, a brilliant writer, and one of the most accomplished NHL goaltenders ever -- is absolutely wrong on the point that goaltenders should just stay on their knees all game.
NHL shooters have no problem hitting the uppermost part of the goal at will, and a goaltender on his knees simply doesn't cover enough of that area. This is a 6'5" goalie in that position (presumably having dropped down from upright after the shot is taken): https://www.1stohiobattery.com/columbus-blue-jackets-news/20...
If the shooter is 5 or more feet away, and has a couple seconds to set up a shot, and the goaltender is on his knees, it is virtually an automatic goal. Someone employing the strategy Dryden suggests should be the standard would lose every game for their team.
This takes away from his other very good commentary about the aesthetics of the game changing.
NHL shooters have no problem hitting the uppermost part of the goal at will, and a goaltender on his knees simply doesn't cover enough of that area. This is a 6'5" goalie in that position (presumably having dropped down from upright after the shot is taken): https://www.1stohiobattery.com/columbus-blue-jackets-news/20...
If the shooter is 5 or more feet away, and has a couple seconds to set up a shot, and the goaltender is on his knees, it is virtually an automatic goal. Someone employing the strategy Dryden suggests should be the standard would lose every game for their team.
This takes away from his other very good commentary about the aesthetics of the game changing.
Did you even read the article? I don’t think so.
He doesn’t claim that goalies should always be on their knees, but rather than it’s common for them to do so, exploring the reasons why.
He doesn’t claim that goalies should always be on their knees, but rather than it’s common for them to do so, exploring the reasons why.
Of course I read the article. See the paragraph beginning: "Really, the biggest reason for a goalie to get off his knees is that if he doesn’t, people might notice.", and the two paragraphs preceding it.
This quote does not support your argument.
In no way does he argue that the goalie should always be on his knees. He says it’s common for some to be, then explores the reasons why that might be the case. That is called good, nuanced writing.
It’s an article in the The Atlantic, not a formal proof.
It’s an article in the The Atlantic, not a formal proof.
He says he noticed while watching Vasilevskiy that after having dropped he did not immediately spring back up as his team carried the puck out, but eventually did before the other team regained control -- "but he didn’t really need to", because Dryden, wrongly, thinks that when the team returns to the zone Vasilevskiy should face them from his knees.
Every NHL goalie plays much of the game on their knees, as they should, because they end up there in response to low shots and close-approaching shooters. What Dryden is wrong to imply is that they should adopt this as their default posture.
As I reread I see that even worse, he downplays the danger of adopting this position leading to taking a slap shot to the helmet, saying a modern goalie mask protects the head "as much as a catching glove does the hand". Just utterly false. https://www.tsn.ca/nhl-concerned-by-rise-in-goalie-concussio...
Every NHL goalie plays much of the game on their knees, as they should, because they end up there in response to low shots and close-approaching shooters. What Dryden is wrong to imply is that they should adopt this as their default posture.
As I reread I see that even worse, he downplays the danger of adopting this position leading to taking a slap shot to the helmet, saying a modern goalie mask protects the head "as much as a catching glove does the hand". Just utterly false. https://www.tsn.ca/nhl-concerned-by-rise-in-goalie-concussio...
I’m sure that Vasilevskiy didn’t pop up immediately there because he was exhausted. If his team turns it over, he’s back on his feet in an instant. No way he stays on his knees the whole game
That's why my claim was weaker than ctab's. He suggested they are equally suited on their knees.
Also, the stick is very substantial for covering the 5-hole already. When a goaltender is on his knees, he isn't going to be raising the stick over his head to cover the three hole.
Also nothing in the article suggested a misunderstanding of the goaltending rule.
Here you go:
> Only the ball needs to get to the hoop, and in this NBA game, it doesn’t matter whether you are 7 feet tall or 8 feet tall; a ball shot from beyond the 23-foot-9-inch arc will loop over the outstretched arm of even the tallest player.
That is absolutely untrue. Any player that can dunk can goaltend any shot.
> Only the ball needs to get to the hoop, and in this NBA game, it doesn’t matter whether you are 7 feet tall or 8 feet tall; a ball shot from beyond the 23-foot-9-inch arc will loop over the outstretched arm of even the tallest player.
That is absolutely untrue. Any player that can dunk can goaltend any shot.
I think you're misunderstanding the point the author is making. The goaltending rule only prevents blocking shots on their downward trajectory. Blocks on the upward trajectory are still allowed, but they become more difficult as the play becomes more spread out, which happens when longer shots are encouraged.
If he stated what you stated I would be misunderstanding.
This also answers why goalies aren't huge fat guys.
As the rules limit how big a goalie's pad can be, a huge guy might take up a lot of space, but much of his body will be unprotected from 150+ km/h slap shots.
As the rules limit how big a goalie's pad can be, a huge guy might take up a lot of space, but much of his body will be unprotected from 150+ km/h slap shots.
Try "Ian Laperriere face" on google images for how fast the pucks move. I'd be wearing every bit of padding I could.
Or Sean Walker (of the Los Angeles Kings) from this season. It's the worst puck-to-face shot I've seen.
Warning, graphic and not for the faint of heart: https://mobile.twitter.com/AugieLens/status/1355249355507163...
Warning, graphic and not for the faint of heart: https://mobile.twitter.com/AugieLens/status/1355249355507163...
I'm old enough to remember maskless NHL goalies (IIRC, Glenn Hall was the last of the breed). It wasn't pretty. And Terry Sawchuk's mask when he finally started wearing one, with all of the stitches he had gotten, and all of the stitches he would have gotten, painted on. And - remember that the first masks were basically just a fibreglass face covering with nearly zero padding - Jacques Plante spending a significant part of the late '60s and early '70s unconscious on the ice.... again (he stopped a lot of pucks with his face).
This article is written by a famous retired goalie and it contains a lot of good points in it. Everything the author says about the modern method of scoring goals being to "scrum" in front of the net is pretty accurate, and it honestly takes away, at least in my opinion, a lot of the aesthetic enjoyment that hockey used to have. Sure goals may not be going down in number, but they're definitely less fun to watch being scored.
But I think that the title, and a large part of the article, ignores or at least only pays lip service to the other half of the problem, and I think that by focusing solely on goalie equipment, we actually limit the probability of the problem actually being solved.
And the other half of the problem is that players can shoot way too hard now. Its a chicken and egg problem, and I don't know which came first, but any attempt to cut down on goalie padding is going to have come up against the very real safety concerns caused by modern hockey sticks. Anyone who has used one of the new $300+ composite sticks can tell you they aren't just for showing off your income, these things actually work, and they honestly work too well. Goalies have a legitimate point that goaltenders of old could wear the equipment they did because players were probably shooting 20%+ slower on average. Right now every hockey player is walking around with the equivalent of a corked bat or an aluminum bat in baseball.
And so I think that any attempt to scale back protective equipment to something that doesn't strangle the game is going to have to be matched with a similar regulation to go back to plain wood sticks or something similar, to prevent any sort of composite material voodoo. Matching up a decrease in protective bulk, with controls on stick material and I think that you still have a faster, more skilled game, but you'll really open up the ability to express that skill and still keep goalies "safe" (I use quotation marks because they're still crazy people putting themselves in front of a rock hard rubber bullet, but hey some folks are just different). Just addressing the equipment is going to be a non-starter and even if it did get forced through I think it might open the game up too much and lead to too much scoring. There's definitely a compromise to be struck on both sides here.
But I think that the title, and a large part of the article, ignores or at least only pays lip service to the other half of the problem, and I think that by focusing solely on goalie equipment, we actually limit the probability of the problem actually being solved.
And the other half of the problem is that players can shoot way too hard now. Its a chicken and egg problem, and I don't know which came first, but any attempt to cut down on goalie padding is going to have come up against the very real safety concerns caused by modern hockey sticks. Anyone who has used one of the new $300+ composite sticks can tell you they aren't just for showing off your income, these things actually work, and they honestly work too well. Goalies have a legitimate point that goaltenders of old could wear the equipment they did because players were probably shooting 20%+ slower on average. Right now every hockey player is walking around with the equivalent of a corked bat or an aluminum bat in baseball.
And so I think that any attempt to scale back protective equipment to something that doesn't strangle the game is going to have to be matched with a similar regulation to go back to plain wood sticks or something similar, to prevent any sort of composite material voodoo. Matching up a decrease in protective bulk, with controls on stick material and I think that you still have a faster, more skilled game, but you'll really open up the ability to express that skill and still keep goalies "safe" (I use quotation marks because they're still crazy people putting themselves in front of a rock hard rubber bullet, but hey some folks are just different). Just addressing the equipment is going to be a non-starter and even if it did get forced through I think it might open the game up too much and lead to too much scoring. There's definitely a compromise to be struck on both sides here.
Over time, as goalie equipment changed, so did the way that goalies covered the net and stopped pucks. The way that a goalie plays today is very different than the way Hasek played, and the way Hasek played is very different than the way Fuhr played and the way Dryden played.
I think the argument is: scale back protective equipment to something that doesn't strangle the game, and goalies must play a different style in order to stay safe. Which they will.
Having said that, I agree, we should also go back to non-composite sticks. The game was no less fun to watch when Mario and Wayne were playing the game with wooden sticks.
I think the argument is: scale back protective equipment to something that doesn't strangle the game, and goalies must play a different style in order to stay safe. Which they will.
Having said that, I agree, we should also go back to non-composite sticks. The game was no less fun to watch when Mario and Wayne were playing the game with wooden sticks.
> Over time, as goalie equipment changed, so did the way that goalies covered the net and stopped goals.
Can you go into more detail about this for someone who doesn’t followed hockey that closely?
Can you go into more detail about this for someone who doesn’t followed hockey that closely?
Take a look at this page: https://www.omha.net/news_article/show/631894-the-evolution-...
Under the standup style of the 80s, you see these very short and narrrow goalie pads. If a modern goaltender were to drop to the butterfly using these pads, they wouldn’t cover as much of the net, and they’d be risking injury as the pads don’t extend to cover the top part of the leg.
The size of pads today, not just width but length too, allows the goalie to cover large parts of the bottom of the net. And also slide to the post and cover a pretty enormous area there too.
This video is another good example: https://youtu.be/cggFu52LnCE
Goalie pads today really are unusually and unnecessarily large. Goalies will tell you they need them for safety, but that’s only because they have exploited them to their fullest advantage.
Under the standup style of the 80s, you see these very short and narrrow goalie pads. If a modern goaltender were to drop to the butterfly using these pads, they wouldn’t cover as much of the net, and they’d be risking injury as the pads don’t extend to cover the top part of the leg.
The size of pads today, not just width but length too, allows the goalie to cover large parts of the bottom of the net. And also slide to the post and cover a pretty enormous area there too.
This video is another good example: https://youtu.be/cggFu52LnCE
Goalie pads today really are unusually and unnecessarily large. Goalies will tell you they need them for safety, but that’s only because they have exploited them to their fullest advantage.
Very helpful, thanks for the links!
Watching Hockey in the states is very different from Canada. I grew up near the Washington Canadian border and so I was able to watch all the Hockey games on CBC. I didn’t know Hockey wasn’t regularly aired on TV until I moved. Going to a Hockey game is really fun.
I'm from European country with bad level of hockey and couldn't enjoy watching NHL despite dad loving it. For some reason very difficult for me to follow the puck.
Went to see a local game Live, what Canadians would see as total amateur show but it was amazing and easy to follow. You could really feel and see the shots and appreciate the players strength but skills of skating and being elastic/acrobatic at the same time. Still can't get excited seeing it from telly for some reason. But live experience was awesome!
The more you watch (and probably play) hockey, the less you follow the puck and the more you can infer where it is from body positioning. That's why long time fans like your father can enjoy televised hockey more, while everyone can enjoy live games.
I actually got the feel, now when I think of it I couldn't see the puck flying during the shots. I guess it had something to do with my love for soccer where I can see it curling into top corner. While I appreciated the art of doing the same in hockey, I believe I felt like I couldn't take part of the enjoyment of seeing it flying into the net.
Oh yeah, that never gets better. Tracking a puck going 100mph(160km/hr) on a ~30fps broadcast is basically impossible. Even modern HD doesn't help much.
Heh. Brings to mind the Fox Sports 'FoxTrax' [1] which placed a glow on the puck. Hockey fans hated it. I'm not sure if non-hockey fans cared either way.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FoxTrax
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FoxTrax
Oh no, the glowing dot! But remember this was well before HDTV. Watching hockey on a grainy old TV was not accessible for those who didn’t know the game. However, I don’t think it was successful in bringing in new viewers, and people who were already fans hated it because, well, it sucked.
With the puck tracki technology being reused for advanced stats fans, I wonder if they'll try something similar except make it optional on web broadcasts or will the FoxTrax legacy prevent them from attempting it.
I think any sport to a novice will seem inaccessible.
For example, many Americans see soccer as slow and boring and are bothered by the low scores and frequent draws. None of those things are a detriment for hundreds of millions of global soccer fans who see the game as fast and exciting (which it is).
All I can tell you is that following the puck is a non-issue to hockey fans. As others mentioned, at some point you just get a feel for what's going on and you'll have no problem figuring out where the puck is and following the action. If you want to be into hockey, invest time and join some hockey communities to learn the 'meta' of the game, and you'll get it.
For example, many Americans see soccer as slow and boring and are bothered by the low scores and frequent draws. None of those things are a detriment for hundreds of millions of global soccer fans who see the game as fast and exciting (which it is).
All I can tell you is that following the puck is a non-issue to hockey fans. As others mentioned, at some point you just get a feel for what's going on and you'll have no problem figuring out where the puck is and following the action. If you want to be into hockey, invest time and join some hockey communities to learn the 'meta' of the game, and you'll get it.
[deleted]
It's a similar experience watching varsity or JV club hockey in the states. Very fun.
We definitely don't have the same quantity of beer leagues, though. I wish we would.
We definitely don't have the same quantity of beer leagues, though. I wish we would.
For me this brings to mind Formula 1 racing. Each year teams pore through the rules looking for any possible advantage they can gain within their strict letter. And each year the FIA looks at which teams managed to do this a little too well, and tweaks the rules the following season to prevent whatever they did. They also plan ahead, making significant changes to car design parameters every few years, in order to correct shortcomings in the state or trajectory of the sport. It isn't always executed perfectly, but the attempt is made and is certainly impactful.
I don't see any reason the NHL couldn't do the same. Goalie pads too long? Set a max length above the knee. Torso pads billowing too much? Specify a maximum difference between torso circumference with and without pads. Or find some other way to measurably define the problem and then regulate against it. Any issue severe enough to be a problem can be specifically defined and therefore corrected.
And if necessary, you can make larger changes as well, like F1 is doing with ground effects this year to allow cars to follow more closely without sacrificing so much downforce. For example (not saying this would be a good change, just an example of the sort of large change that's possible) the pad shape could be redefined with a bulge at the top so that they wouldn't lie completely flat on the ice.
These problems are solvable; it just requires a willingness to continually tweak the minutia of the rules when things aren't going as desired.
I don't see any reason the NHL couldn't do the same. Goalie pads too long? Set a max length above the knee. Torso pads billowing too much? Specify a maximum difference between torso circumference with and without pads. Or find some other way to measurably define the problem and then regulate against it. Any issue severe enough to be a problem can be specifically defined and therefore corrected.
And if necessary, you can make larger changes as well, like F1 is doing with ground effects this year to allow cars to follow more closely without sacrificing so much downforce. For example (not saying this would be a good change, just an example of the sort of large change that's possible) the pad shape could be redefined with a bulge at the top so that they wouldn't lie completely flat on the ice.
These problems are solvable; it just requires a willingness to continually tweak the minutia of the rules when things aren't going as desired.
Unlike Formula 1, millions of kids play the game and want to play it like the pros. Constantly changing the rules is feasible for the NHL. Goalies probably get new equipment every year anyway. But you can’t expect goalies in the recreational setting to do that. Probably the only people who would like that are the pad manufacturers. You’re also forgetting that the main aspect of goalie pads is protection and there’s a natural increase in protection as shooting power increases with stick technology. That being said, the hockey world needs to rip the bandaid off and simply make the goalie pads 6 inches narrower (3 off each) if they want more goals.
Bro, kids aren't going to be less enthused about playing hockey because their goalie's pads are slightly different than what they see on TV.
You're right, they're not. But if the league they play in says that their pads have to change, and the goalies are staring down a $200 investment in pads (this isn't totally unreasonable) there could be a lot of folks who can't swing that kind of cash just to have their kids play in a youth league, or adults who play in a beer league.
Hockey is already expensive - for goalies especially. More rule changes = more $$$ spent, and not always for great reasons.
Hockey is already expensive - for goalies especially. More rule changes = more $$$ spent, and not always for great reasons.
Right, but why would the league institute this change? Because kids want to play in the NHL. Yes, kids aren’t going to care if the goalie pads are slightly different, but it’s the same enthusiasm for the NHL that puts pressure on the leagues to conform to the NHL. Have you ever seen a league play in a non NHL sized arena in North America? Sure is funny that huge infrastructure changes happened even though smaller cheaper rinks were viable for a long time.
Where I’m from in northern Ontario, a hockey centric place in the world, more kids played in recreational leagues than at the local barn rinks. Sure, playing shinny is really fun, but at the end of the day, kids want to play hockey as seen on TV. Whenever I went to the barn rink with my goalie equipment, people loved it because it was one of the few times they actually could shoot on a goalie. Playing posts or with a fake goalie is just as challenging (given I wasn’t very good) but it’s not the same as the real thing.
Where I’m from in northern Ontario, a hockey centric place in the world, more kids played in recreational leagues than at the local barn rinks. Sure, playing shinny is really fun, but at the end of the day, kids want to play hockey as seen on TV. Whenever I went to the barn rink with my goalie equipment, people loved it because it was one of the few times they actually could shoot on a goalie. Playing posts or with a fake goalie is just as challenging (given I wasn’t very good) but it’s not the same as the real thing.
Yeah, but these rules don't need to be extended elsewhere. There are already tons of rules and gear that changes in popular sports based on the level of professional play... all the way down to swimming where professional meets have very different restrictions on suits, googles, caps than youth events.
Also as the article states, for most younger players, these changes wouldn't be an issue as the goalie isn't quite big enough to cause the rules to be needed.
Also as the article states, for most younger players, these changes wouldn't be an issue as the goalie isn't quite big enough to cause the rules to be needed.
It wouldn't be necessary to echo every minor change at lower levels of the sport. Racing is no different. Kids grow up racing karts, then the serious ones maybe move to Formula 3, Formula 2, before (a very select few) move up to F1. The equipment (car) at each of these levels is massively different, but the skills carry over, as they would for hockey, even if the goalie pads weren't identical.
Of course it wouldn't be necessary, but all the incentives are lined up against that happening in sports with millions of players. There's a reason why indoor soccer plays second fiddle to outdoor soccer. People aren't interested in playing sports with transferable skills. They are interested in playing what their idols play. Lacrosse is a prime example. In the US, the outdoor version is vastly more popular than the indoor version. In Canada, it is the exact opposite due to our access to indoor arenas and lack of summer months. To say something is possible without looking at the massive cultural momentum behind something is silly. You call equipment changes minor, but the very first thing hockey players do when they get to a high enough level is remove the cage from the helmet.
[deleted]
F1 isn’t an example of success to emulate. The over-regulation of the sport is widely hated by fans. The situation they have now is a negative feedback loop of excessive regulation requiring the implementation of an ever increasing amount of further regulation. Small teams used to be able to innovate, but the regulations have pushed the barrier to innovation so high that you need hundreds of millions of dollars, and even then, if you didn’t manage to hire Adrian Newey or James Allison, then you have to cheat to be anywhere near the front of the pack. You’ll never see another Ross Brawn in F1 again. The new status quo is a few rich teams at the front, a couple of permanent midfield teams, and 4-5 teams teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. I would hope that no other sport ever chooses this path.
That's fair. Another alternative from racing would be 'spec' equipment. For example, there could be a league office responsible for goalie equipment, which could take goalie measurements and work with suppliers to provide each NHL goalie with authorized equipment.
You'd still need some regulations around how the equipment is worn, but that's the case regardless.
You'd still need some regulations around how the equipment is worn, but that's the case regardless.
Formula 1 is funny because in some ways it is like a sport of lawyers and engineers. Engineers try to push the envelope and lawyers dive through the minutiae of the regulations to try to find loopholes and justifications for the car changes.
The league even has these little arbitrated court cases where the teams defend themselves against the regulations, while the league or other teams fight in opposition. If a loophole is discovered, then it is either patched in the regulations the next year, or it becomes adopted by every other team immediately.
The league even has these little arbitrated court cases where the teams defend themselves against the regulations, while the league or other teams fight in opposition. If a loophole is discovered, then it is either patched in the regulations the next year, or it becomes adopted by every other team immediately.
Wouldn't Formula 1 be more interesting if everyone had to race with the same car? Then it would just be about driver skill? Otherwise all of the rules are just too easy to game for a season and dominate.
F1 is as much about the engineering challenge of having the teams competing to build the fastest circuit racing car in the world as it is about the drivers driving it. If you remove the engineering challenge, you no longer have F1. (Kind of literally, as the Formula in Formula 1 refers to the regulations teams need to follow in their construction of the vehicle.)
There are plenty of other major racing series around the world that use standardized vehicles. The reason F1 is special is the engineering, plain and simple. The aerodynamics involved, the engine efficiencies... Mercedes' ICU (traditional fuel part of the power unit) has achieved a thermal efficiency of over 50%. That is astounding. You just don't get these sort of advances with a spec series; there's no motivation for it.
If you combat the imbalance in team success at all, you do it by inserting negative feedback loops and spending limits. Making total available budget be not the #1 determining factor is an obvious choice. Some caps are in the works currently. And for negative feedback loops, these are things like -- the higher your finishing position for the season, the less wind tunnel time you have available to use in the offseason. Something like that, things that make it so if you win, it's a little bit harder to keep winning the next time.
You definitely don't turn it into a spec series, because then you have killed the sport.
There are plenty of other major racing series around the world that use standardized vehicles. The reason F1 is special is the engineering, plain and simple. The aerodynamics involved, the engine efficiencies... Mercedes' ICU (traditional fuel part of the power unit) has achieved a thermal efficiency of over 50%. That is astounding. You just don't get these sort of advances with a spec series; there's no motivation for it.
If you combat the imbalance in team success at all, you do it by inserting negative feedback loops and spending limits. Making total available budget be not the #1 determining factor is an obvious choice. Some caps are in the works currently. And for negative feedback loops, these are things like -- the higher your finishing position for the season, the less wind tunnel time you have available to use in the offseason. Something like that, things that make it so if you win, it's a little bit harder to keep winning the next time.
You definitely don't turn it into a spec series, because then you have killed the sport.
Just make the cars and the tires less wide and you'll have a competitive F1 series with overtaking at every corner.
Like what Fangio had to drive.
Like what Fangio had to drive.
> Wouldn't Formula 1 be more interesting if everyone had to race with the same car?
This already exists. Formula 2 is essentially Formula 1 racing, but everyone races the same car with the same specs. IndyCar is another example of Formula style racing where everyone races the same vehicle.
But Formula 1 is fascinating because it pushes the technological envelope of what is possible. The engineers back at car-manufacturer headquarters are the athletes participating on the team. The main driver of course is important, but there are plenty of examples of amazing drivers in less desirable cars that lose repeatedly. Because the engineering is part of the sport. Formula 1 drivers have quit teams over engineering decisions. Formula 1 is so interesting because the cars just keep pushing the engineering envelope of what is possible with 4 wheels.
This is similar to the old Ford vs Ferrari days at Le Mans, where car manufacturers had to build cars that were capable of racing at high speeds for 24 hours straight. Of course the driver is important. But more important than the driver is the car. The car must be able to last, and especially back in the 60s, cars really couldn't do that.
Much of the technology that is developed at those races trickled down into what we drive today and have built more reliable cars. Technology like fuel injection that we take for granted in cars today came from these races.
This already exists. Formula 2 is essentially Formula 1 racing, but everyone races the same car with the same specs. IndyCar is another example of Formula style racing where everyone races the same vehicle.
But Formula 1 is fascinating because it pushes the technological envelope of what is possible. The engineers back at car-manufacturer headquarters are the athletes participating on the team. The main driver of course is important, but there are plenty of examples of amazing drivers in less desirable cars that lose repeatedly. Because the engineering is part of the sport. Formula 1 drivers have quit teams over engineering decisions. Formula 1 is so interesting because the cars just keep pushing the engineering envelope of what is possible with 4 wheels.
This is similar to the old Ford vs Ferrari days at Le Mans, where car manufacturers had to build cars that were capable of racing at high speeds for 24 hours straight. Of course the driver is important. But more important than the driver is the car. The car must be able to last, and especially back in the 60s, cars really couldn't do that.
Much of the technology that is developed at those races trickled down into what we drive today and have built more reliable cars. Technology like fuel injection that we take for granted in cars today came from these races.
> Wouldn't Formula 1 be more interesting if everyone had to race with the same car?
It would be a different sport. Not necessarily worse or better, just different. The engineering constrains and challenges are, et this moment, part of the point.
Formula E is closer to what you’re talking about, i believe only the power train is customisable.
It would be a different sport. Not necessarily worse or better, just different. The engineering constrains and challenges are, et this moment, part of the point.
Formula E is closer to what you’re talking about, i believe only the power train is customisable.
That sport is called already exists, it’s called IndyCar. Viewership and revenue statistics would suggest that it’s probably not more interesting.
As one of the 10 people who watched Indycar, simliar things still happen. Teams are limited in the number of wind tunnel trials they can do each year, so one team bought a mountain with a road that tunnels the wind in order to skirt regulations. Its called the Laurel Hill Tunnel if you want to read more
> Teams are limited in the number of wind tunnel trials they can do each year
I don't understand, what's the purpose of wind tunnel trials when you're not designing the car?
I don't understand, what's the purpose of wind tunnel trials when you're not designing the car?
I think they can do some minor body adjustments to fins and things. But the core car and powertrain is the same.
In a sport where everyone drives the same car, marginal gains (1% more performance) can be what wins a race.
In a sport where everyone drives the same car, marginal gains (1% more performance) can be what wins a race.
There are leagues that do this, they aren't as popular as formula 1. Even still, the best teams can afford to buy 3 engines and keep the one that's 10% better.
F1 is a team sport, car engineering is part of the competition.
It can become boring when one team is very dominant, as has been the case for a number of years now. Absent that though, differences between the cars can make the sport more interesting. The engineering competition is a part of it. As are the adaptations the drivers and teams need to make to take into account their cars' relative strengths and weaknesses compared to others. Plus, if the disadvantage isn't too great, it can be fun to cheer for an underdog who overcomes a disadvantageous car and still manages to win.
Spec racing certainly has its place, and it is indeed also nice to see drivers pitted against each other on skill (and luck) alone. But that's never been Formula 1.
Spec racing certainly has its place, and it is indeed also nice to see drivers pitted against each other on skill (and luck) alone. But that's never been Formula 1.
I honestly don't know what hockey Dryden is watching here. The game has gotten faster, and the players smaller over the last decade and a half. Most goals are tip shots, one timers, dekes, or power play goals. I agree that the goalie equipment size is out of whack, especially compared to what came before, but the rest of what he said makes me think he hasn't watched hockey since the 90s.
Goalie equipment rules are the same or more restrictive than in the past (pads are more narrow than they were allowed before).
The difference is that current goalies in NHL are HUGE. When I see how tall they are when they are on their knees... OMG, I'm that tall when I stand in the crease.
Catcher and blocker sizes are given and the same for everyone. The difference is with pad size where total height is limited by lengths of your bones so tall goalies can effectively have much larger pads. So, not only they are already big and block a big portion of the net, they block even more space because their pads are allowed to be much taller and thus blocking even more net.
yes, the biggest players on the ice these days are the goalies. The rest of the narrative about everyone crashing the net to get a goal seems false by my eye. The high slot tip was popularized in the last decade for instance.
For comparison sake, lacrosse goalies have bigger equipment, and a smaller net, and yet let in way more goals per game than any NHL game.
Lacrosse has a larger net, and goalies have far less and smaller equipment.
I was talking about box lacrosse, not field:
https://laxgoalierat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/BoxLacro...
https://laxgoalierat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/BoxLacro...
I am a dumb American. I didn't even know Box Lacrosse was a thing. We only have field lacrosse here.
lol. All of my favourite box lacrosse players had to go play box lacrosse in the US to actually make some money.
You have a National Lacrosse League. Although I just checked, and there are a bunch more Canadian teams in that league than there used to be. At one point in the mid 2000s, 12 of the 14 teams were US based.
There are differences between indoor box hockey up in Canada and the open field variety more common in the US (both countries play both of course)
Field hockey is present in the US, but ice hockey is far more popular. This article is about the US/Canadian top-level ice hockey league... I can't say I've ever heard of professional field hockey play in the US, much less a nation-wide league.
They meant box lacrosse.
Extremely well written piece, but isn't the solution obvious? Make the goal larger.
One suggested improvement is to make the game 4-on-4 instead of 5-on-5. Less players on the ice typifies more offense, and less bodies covering the net causing chaos.
In some ways the game is already moving towards this, by changing overtime and the All-Star Game to be 3-on-3 a few years ago.
In some ways the game is already moving towards this, by changing overtime and the All-Star Game to be 3-on-3 a few years ago.
The removal of hookings and slashings from the game still makes it a much more open affair than it was back when goalies did acrobatic saves in smaller pads.
The speed and skill allowed now is completely different. The composite sticks means players can release shots without warning, that would take a full second to prepare back when everyone had a moustache. Goalies had a chancee because the guy with the moustache and wooden stick was getting slashed or cross checked while taking his shot. It was way less enjoyable than the game is now. The SV% and GAA is also mostly unchanged because of this. If the hookings were removed, players had the speed and composite sticks of late 2000's but goales looked and played like in 1980 - it wouldn't really be watchable.
Also, I love that a hockey article is at the front page of HN.
The speed and skill allowed now is completely different. The composite sticks means players can release shots without warning, that would take a full second to prepare back when everyone had a moustache. Goalies had a chancee because the guy with the moustache and wooden stick was getting slashed or cross checked while taking his shot. It was way less enjoyable than the game is now. The SV% and GAA is also mostly unchanged because of this. If the hookings were removed, players had the speed and composite sticks of late 2000's but goales looked and played like in 1980 - it wouldn't really be watchable.
Also, I love that a hockey article is at the front page of HN.
GAA & SV% is actually much higher than in the 80s.
Grant Fuhr had only 2 seasons with an above .900 sv% and those were in the last half of the 90s.
Mostly had a GAA of over 3.5.
You wouldn't be an NHL goalie with those numbers these days.
IMHO, Grant Fuhr was underrated for his skills. He was left to do most of the defending himself while the rest of his team was out hunting goals. Even lots of beer and old video of his games would likely not settle this, but I put this out there. The goal differential was strongly in the Oilers favour.[0] So leaving Fuhr to his business looked to work.
Comparing to the Habs[1], the Oilers had a full goal + on any other team. Plus the Oilers were averaging 5 goals a night with some 8-0 and 7-1 out there. Likely still could have won some of those games without a goalie.
alkonaut - This is really cool. I was a bit struck seeing this on HN and from an Atlantic article and Dryden writing the article.
[0]: https://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/EDM/1985.html [1]: https://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1985.html
Comparing to the Habs[1], the Oilers had a full goal + on any other team. Plus the Oilers were averaging 5 goals a night with some 8-0 and 7-1 out there. Likely still could have won some of those games without a goalie.
alkonaut - This is really cool. I was a bit struck seeing this on HN and from an Atlantic article and Dryden writing the article.
[0]: https://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/EDM/1985.html [1]: https://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1985.html
Fuhr was one of the greatest goalies of all time. I was saying it not as a slight to Fuhr, I'm saying that it's representative of the actual stats of the time. Look at Ron Hextall, 3 seasons with a better than .900 sv%, 2 of which were in the late 90s at the end of his career. Look at Don Beaupre, 17 seasons in the league, and not one over a .900 sv%. You don't get 17 seasons in the league, most as a starter, if you're not above avg.
A long time ago in cricket there were no limit on bat sizes. So the entrepreneurial minded players started using bats that were wider than the combined width of the stumps.
Eventually laws were introduced to set limits.
Eventually laws were introduced to set limits.
I feel like I would like to agree with the article, but I don't. It's described in a way that makes one believe that it's completely impossible to score a goal in a one-on-one situation, as the goalie can just sit on his knees and not move. As is evident by any recent shootout one may watch, this is not the case.
And regarding the good old times when goalies had to be acrobatic to actually make saves. Just yesterday I saw a highlight of Korpisalo from Blue Jackets making a crazy reaching stick-save to deny an empty-netter.
I think it's fine. I find the game exciting and dynamic enough to watch.
And regarding the good old times when goalies had to be acrobatic to actually make saves. Just yesterday I saw a highlight of Korpisalo from Blue Jackets making a crazy reaching stick-save to deny an empty-netter.
I think it's fine. I find the game exciting and dynamic enough to watch.
I played ice hockey goalie growing up, in high school, intramurals in college, and then men's league for a while. The game definitely changed over the course of me playing it. I started playing goalie around 1991 and fondly remember having to do "kick save" drills and learning to "T glide". The game has changed, no goalies do kick saves anymore, it's just not an effective way to stop the puck.
But to say that goalies today aren't acrobatic or fit or flexible or amazing athletes is totally wrong. To be able to put your body into the butterfly position, to be able to push off to move while staying in the butterfly, to be able to slide post to post as the puck moves behind the net and keep the post-side leg upright: THIS IS EXTREMELY HARD!
Goalies today are basically 6 foot+ tall gymnasts.
My knees, groin, and hips surely can no longer perform the kinds of movements which I used to be able to do. I was not anywhere near being NHL caliber, so maybe I have a different appreciation for watching top level goalies today. But damn, these goalies today are seriously impressive in how they can move their bodies.
Sure, the equipment regulations might need to change for bantam or midget level leagues and up, but the younger kids aren't big enough to take advantage of the equipment so any changes the NHL wants to implement shouldn't affect the vast majority of kids playing the game today until (if) they get to a high level of play and high school age or beyond.
I think the NHL should continue to change the rules, not just for goalies, but for the whole game. And if things work, then other leagues should adopt those rules over time, too.
But to say that goalies today aren't acrobatic or fit or flexible or amazing athletes is totally wrong. To be able to put your body into the butterfly position, to be able to push off to move while staying in the butterfly, to be able to slide post to post as the puck moves behind the net and keep the post-side leg upright: THIS IS EXTREMELY HARD!
Goalies today are basically 6 foot+ tall gymnasts.
My knees, groin, and hips surely can no longer perform the kinds of movements which I used to be able to do. I was not anywhere near being NHL caliber, so maybe I have a different appreciation for watching top level goalies today. But damn, these goalies today are seriously impressive in how they can move their bodies.
Sure, the equipment regulations might need to change for bantam or midget level leagues and up, but the younger kids aren't big enough to take advantage of the equipment so any changes the NHL wants to implement shouldn't affect the vast majority of kids playing the game today until (if) they get to a high level of play and high school age or beyond.
I think the NHL should continue to change the rules, not just for goalies, but for the whole game. And if things work, then other leagues should adopt those rules over time, too.
I agree with what you said. Goals per game are comparable to where they were at 15-20 years ago, as well as in the 1950s and 1960s.
Goals are considerably down from the late 1970s and 1980s. Larger goalies are merely properly offsetting the offensive gains made from better sticks and the slap shot, which had temporarily provided a scoring advantage and boosted goals per game.
Rather than it being a problem as implied by the article, larger goalies have balanced the game back out and returned it to where it was.
Goals are considerably down from the late 1970s and 1980s. Larger goalies are merely properly offsetting the offensive gains made from better sticks and the slap shot, which had temporarily provided a scoring advantage and boosted goals per game.
Rather than it being a problem as implied by the article, larger goalies have balanced the game back out and returned it to where it was.
Nice article, though my first thought was a scene from 'The West Wing':
Sam: You know what I'd do if I owned a hockey team? I'd hire a sumo wrestler. I'd give him a uniform, transportation, 500 bucks a week to sit in the goal, eat a ham sandwich and enjoy the game. My team would never get scored on.
Josh: Your team would get scored on constantly.
Sam: Maybe, but we'd sell a few tickets.
Josh: Yeah, 'cause sumo wrestling sells out all the time in big hockey towns.
Sam: My idea's totally inviable?
Josh: Well, you're a Democrat. It's a pretty big club.
Sam: You know what I'd do if I owned a hockey team? I'd hire a sumo wrestler. I'd give him a uniform, transportation, 500 bucks a week to sit in the goal, eat a ham sandwich and enjoy the game. My team would never get scored on.
Josh: Your team would get scored on constantly.
Sam: Maybe, but we'd sell a few tickets.
Josh: Yeah, 'cause sumo wrestling sells out all the time in big hockey towns.
Sam: My idea's totally inviable?
Josh: Well, you're a Democrat. It's a pretty big club.
Having thought about this a bit, I think the suggestion to increase the goal/reduce the goalie would make ice hockey considerably less interesting to watch.
It goes something like this. The inherent thrill of watching a sports event comes from multiple things: pace of the game, ratio between attempts/scores, watching skillful people do tricky things, but most importantly - not knowing who is going to win. So, it's not very exciting to watch a coin tossing championship, because there's no skill involved. But at the same time, it's not very exciting to watch something where the nominally stronger team wins with near absolute certainty. Like a game with a high attempt/score ratio with a single mode of scoring. Basketball solved this by introducing another mode of scoring that's also inherently more uncertain. So they introduced asymmetry and more uncertainty leading to more interesting games, as the certainty with which you can say who's going to win is reduced, as that depends on wider skill-sets across the team and also more luck.
Now, take a game with a low attempt/score ratio. The uncertainty about who's going to win is baked into that ratio. With some luck, the nominally weaker team still has a chance of winning the nominally stronger team. And this is what makes ice hockey interesting in my book. This is how Finland could win the world championships without any NHL players last year. Increasing the goal would increase the attempt/score ratio, without adding any other offsetting asymmetry to the game. This will reduce the uncertainty of who's going to win, making the game less interesting to watch. For a game with a relatively high attempt/score ratio that's also highly dynamic with a lot of attempts per game, and has somewhat similar strategies to hockey, I invite you to check out Innebandy/Floorball. It's a fun game, but not that exciting as a spectator sport. Because the nominally stronger team will win any given game with near certainty due to the large amount of attempts per game coupled with a high attempt/score ratio.
It goes something like this. The inherent thrill of watching a sports event comes from multiple things: pace of the game, ratio between attempts/scores, watching skillful people do tricky things, but most importantly - not knowing who is going to win. So, it's not very exciting to watch a coin tossing championship, because there's no skill involved. But at the same time, it's not very exciting to watch something where the nominally stronger team wins with near absolute certainty. Like a game with a high attempt/score ratio with a single mode of scoring. Basketball solved this by introducing another mode of scoring that's also inherently more uncertain. So they introduced asymmetry and more uncertainty leading to more interesting games, as the certainty with which you can say who's going to win is reduced, as that depends on wider skill-sets across the team and also more luck.
Now, take a game with a low attempt/score ratio. The uncertainty about who's going to win is baked into that ratio. With some luck, the nominally weaker team still has a chance of winning the nominally stronger team. And this is what makes ice hockey interesting in my book. This is how Finland could win the world championships without any NHL players last year. Increasing the goal would increase the attempt/score ratio, without adding any other offsetting asymmetry to the game. This will reduce the uncertainty of who's going to win, making the game less interesting to watch. For a game with a relatively high attempt/score ratio that's also highly dynamic with a lot of attempts per game, and has somewhat similar strategies to hockey, I invite you to check out Innebandy/Floorball. It's a fun game, but not that exciting as a spectator sport. Because the nominally stronger team will win any given game with near certainty due to the large amount of attempts per game coupled with a high attempt/score ratio.
There is a lot of history and posturing. And it's coming from one of the best goalies to ever play the game. But, I still think he's wrong.
There has been a slow crackdown on goalie gear size. We have seen scoring slightly go up.
But what's not talked about in the article is that the game really isn't static. The players have gotten better and better at picking up those tiny gaps and holes in the body. They are looking at video of movements of goalies, picking apart every weakness based on hundreds of hours of film. They offense is more equipped than ever to know and understand NHL goalies. We see hot rookie goalies like Andrew Hammond or Elvis Merzlikins come out with phenomenal numbers and generally fall to earth.
Why? I think a large part is coaching/scouting. There are teams dedicated to exposing goalie weaknesses on each team (Video Coaches). They can look at everything goalies have done and along with other coaching staff adapt strategies to take advantage of perceived weaknesses/tendencies/etc. If you actually watch NHL games, look at where the players are shooting. You'll often notice a pattern, are they going glove or blocker side more? Are they going high or right above the pads? Are they trying to make cross ice passes near the crease to get goalie moving side to side? There is probably a good chance the team thinks it sees a certain weakness somewhere in the goalie's play and is trying to exploit it.
And then sometimes you just have players say fuck it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-m8Fd93faw
No weakness in normal hockey? Just pick up the puck like a Lacrosse player and dunk it in a tiny hole from behind the net (originally called The Michigan, some calling it the Svechnikov after the first NHL player to do it).
Dryden wants to talk about how soccer players can bend the ball, the newest big move we get to see on rare occasion is the move in that video. It starts with one guy doing it at this level (Svechnikov - 3 times I think). And now Filip Forsberg has done it. Other players have made attempts (Kuznetsov 2018 before anyone had ever done it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGFQkWfkjxk). Nils Hoglander, canucks rookie did it three times in Sweden and their fanbase is excited to see his first NHL goal in that fashion. I would bet money it happens at some point given his history with the move and talent.
Point is, players are getting more creative, better with puck handling, the game is getting faster, and every little detail is being scrutinized deeper and deeper. Hockey has the most parity of all the big sports in the US and the most uncertainty. Seeking out every edge is what separates the teams with long stretches of success and the mediocre teams which sit puzzlingly at the bottom year after year despite often drafting immensely talented players.
One of my favorite goalie coach quotes, you can't teach size, is definitely true. It's an advantage for sure. But is it ruining the game? Not even close. Maybe he's watching a different sport than the rest of us.
There has been a slow crackdown on goalie gear size. We have seen scoring slightly go up.
But what's not talked about in the article is that the game really isn't static. The players have gotten better and better at picking up those tiny gaps and holes in the body. They are looking at video of movements of goalies, picking apart every weakness based on hundreds of hours of film. They offense is more equipped than ever to know and understand NHL goalies. We see hot rookie goalies like Andrew Hammond or Elvis Merzlikins come out with phenomenal numbers and generally fall to earth.
Why? I think a large part is coaching/scouting. There are teams dedicated to exposing goalie weaknesses on each team (Video Coaches). They can look at everything goalies have done and along with other coaching staff adapt strategies to take advantage of perceived weaknesses/tendencies/etc. If you actually watch NHL games, look at where the players are shooting. You'll often notice a pattern, are they going glove or blocker side more? Are they going high or right above the pads? Are they trying to make cross ice passes near the crease to get goalie moving side to side? There is probably a good chance the team thinks it sees a certain weakness somewhere in the goalie's play and is trying to exploit it.
And then sometimes you just have players say fuck it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-m8Fd93faw
No weakness in normal hockey? Just pick up the puck like a Lacrosse player and dunk it in a tiny hole from behind the net (originally called The Michigan, some calling it the Svechnikov after the first NHL player to do it).
Dryden wants to talk about how soccer players can bend the ball, the newest big move we get to see on rare occasion is the move in that video. It starts with one guy doing it at this level (Svechnikov - 3 times I think). And now Filip Forsberg has done it. Other players have made attempts (Kuznetsov 2018 before anyone had ever done it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGFQkWfkjxk). Nils Hoglander, canucks rookie did it three times in Sweden and their fanbase is excited to see his first NHL goal in that fashion. I would bet money it happens at some point given his history with the move and talent.
Point is, players are getting more creative, better with puck handling, the game is getting faster, and every little detail is being scrutinized deeper and deeper. Hockey has the most parity of all the big sports in the US and the most uncertainty. Seeking out every edge is what separates the teams with long stretches of success and the mediocre teams which sit puzzlingly at the bottom year after year despite often drafting immensely talented players.
One of my favorite goalie coach quotes, you can't teach size, is definitely true. It's an advantage for sure. But is it ruining the game? Not even close. Maybe he's watching a different sport than the rest of us.
I had the same reaction. Has he not noticed goalies playing at the top of the crease (still)? Goalies play from the standing position for as long as the can to leverage their quickness, only dropping to the butterfly when the shot is on its way or a defensive breakdown demands it. I was really surprised to see who wrote it.
When he talked about goalies not ever needing to get off the knees, I was wondering what teams he was watching, because it wasn't the same teams as me. Goalies only drop to their knees when a player shoots. I'd be yelling at the screen if my goalie just sat on his knees. I don't know where that claim comes from.
"Take away the goalie’s eyes. If he can see it, he’ll stop it."
One heckuva instigator, NY Ranger Sean Avery, figured this out in the 2008 playoffs against NJ Devils Martin Brodeur.
video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec_2oKWe2Gw
The day after, the NHL made a rule that makes it illegal for a player to stand in front of a goalie and wave his or her stick in the goalie's face. Dubbed "The Sean Avery Rule," it results in a 2 min unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.
And yes, this play still has me riled up! :)
One heckuva instigator, NY Ranger Sean Avery, figured this out in the 2008 playoffs against NJ Devils Martin Brodeur.
video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec_2oKWe2Gw
The day after, the NHL made a rule that makes it illegal for a player to stand in front of a goalie and wave his or her stick in the goalie's face. Dubbed "The Sean Avery Rule," it results in a 2 min unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.
And yes, this play still has me riled up! :)
The fact Sean did this multiple times makes me smile.
This should be legal in beer league hockey. I spend a good amount of time in net with my defense men standing right in front of me, facing away from the net - I would love someone to come in and fan away all the beer farts from the crease.
This should be legal in beer league hockey. I spend a good amount of time in net with my defense men standing right in front of me, facing away from the net - I would love someone to come in and fan away all the beer farts from the crease.
I find it interesting the author didn't mention field hockey. My daughter is a goalkeeper for her youth club. The goalkeepers wear very similar pads, and face shots at similar speeds with the same safety concerns. (I wouldn't want to be hit with a puck or a field hockey ball).
The cage is much larger in field hockey: https://i2.wp.com/hockeyanswered.com/wp-content/uploads/2019...
The save percentages are about 70% vs the 90%+ in ice hockey, but the game scores tend to be similar to ice hockey.
If the goalkeeper is getting bigger because of the gear, even adding a few more inches onto the net to maintain the desired scoring percentage makes sense at least at the professional level.
The cage is much larger in field hockey: https://i2.wp.com/hockeyanswered.com/wp-content/uploads/2019...
The save percentages are about 70% vs the 90%+ in ice hockey, but the game scores tend to be similar to ice hockey.
If the goalkeeper is getting bigger because of the gear, even adding a few more inches onto the net to maintain the desired scoring percentage makes sense at least at the professional level.
Neither following nor playing either sport I'm on thin ice here (or maybe that's exactly what I'm not!), but isn't bandy sort of like hockey but with soccer-sized goals (and a ball instead of a puck)?
Yes, and is played on a frozen soccer field, 11 on 11. No boards, the ball can go out of bounds. Scoring is much higher.
(Others may correct me, I’ve been to one bandy game my whole Life)
(Others may correct me, I’ve been to one bandy game my whole Life)
Ken Dryden is a legend - he was a tall butterfly goaltender in the 70s and is the prototype of professional goaltenders today.
I think it's funny he thinks goalies are too big given he was a huge goalie himself. I do think goalies might be too mobile on their knees, which Ken alluded to in this article.
Knee stacks and landing pads change the game in the early 2000s. Goaltenders now can drop in a butterfly and slide across the crease still on their knees, allowing them to cover backside plays, passes from behind the net, and wraparounds, which used to be bread and butter plays for offenses. Getting rid of the pads would force goalies to play the same "drop and pop" style Ken did, where goalies need to get to their feet more often to more laterally. This would give offenses more incentive to get the puck to behind the back line and open up the ice more.
Alternatively to that, goalie skates have also gotten smaller - there's less protective covering on them. This makes it easier for goalies to push off with their skates while on their knees, since more of the blade of the skate can touch the ice. I can image the NHL could declare "for goalie safety" that goalie skates must have a certain thickness of protection around the skate, which would make sliding less effective.
Of course, amateur goalies (such as myself) should be able to keep knee stacks, since they also reduce stress on the hip caused by the knees dropping into the ice. ;)
I think it's funny he thinks goalies are too big given he was a huge goalie himself. I do think goalies might be too mobile on their knees, which Ken alluded to in this article.
Knee stacks and landing pads change the game in the early 2000s. Goaltenders now can drop in a butterfly and slide across the crease still on their knees, allowing them to cover backside plays, passes from behind the net, and wraparounds, which used to be bread and butter plays for offenses. Getting rid of the pads would force goalies to play the same "drop and pop" style Ken did, where goalies need to get to their feet more often to more laterally. This would give offenses more incentive to get the puck to behind the back line and open up the ice more.
Alternatively to that, goalie skates have also gotten smaller - there's less protective covering on them. This makes it easier for goalies to push off with their skates while on their knees, since more of the blade of the skate can touch the ice. I can image the NHL could declare "for goalie safety" that goalie skates must have a certain thickness of protection around the skate, which would make sliding less effective.
Of course, amateur goalies (such as myself) should be able to keep knee stacks, since they also reduce stress on the hip caused by the knees dropping into the ice. ;)
Ken Dryden was not a butterfly goalie. Almost no one was until Patrick Roy popularized it.
I feel shame - I confused Ken Dryden with Jacques Plante. In my defense, I'm a Bruins fan and we're not big on having well-informed opinions. ;)
hahaha. I've been to a bruins game in TD Garden, and while I agree with you it still was pretty fun. Jacques Plante, best goalie to ever play for the Oilers!
> I think it's funny he thinks goalies are too big given he was a huge goalie himself. I do think goalies might be too mobile on their knees, which Ken alluded to in this article.
This is actually what to me is the most enlightening. It is almost like a whistleblower coming out to say something is wrong. Similarly to how the sport of cycling in the 2000s was filled with doping across the board. All the players that played back then came out and admitted that they doped because everyone else was doping. But now they are retired so they didn't mind admitting how they played the game and broke the rules.
I think Dryden is basically doing the same thing. Although it isn't as scandalous as doping, he is basically saying that as a top-tier goalie (among the best of all time) he recognizes that he did so well in his career because of his size. He didn't have to rely as much on athleticism as the goalies before him. So now he is opening up about "the truth".
This is actually what to me is the most enlightening. It is almost like a whistleblower coming out to say something is wrong. Similarly to how the sport of cycling in the 2000s was filled with doping across the board. All the players that played back then came out and admitted that they doped because everyone else was doping. But now they are retired so they didn't mind admitting how they played the game and broke the rules.
I think Dryden is basically doing the same thing. Although it isn't as scandalous as doping, he is basically saying that as a top-tier goalie (among the best of all time) he recognizes that he did so well in his career because of his size. He didn't have to rely as much on athleticism as the goalies before him. So now he is opening up about "the truth".
I've never understood why they don't just hire extremely obese goalie (or some former sumo warrior), if you dress him in all protective gear therw won't be space for puck to pass, is there any NHL regulation about it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrgHA56uEDQ
Garbage TV link, but they address your question. One thing they get very right is that, in non-game, non-rushed environments, even the worst NHL hockey player can pick any corner of the net.
Garbage TV link, but they address your question. One thing they get very right is that, in non-game, non-rushed environments, even the worst NHL hockey player can pick any corner of the net.
Those guys tend to be big and tall. Tall = a lot of space your body takes up is above the net.
You'd want a very fat, short guy, right? Well even if he manages to be as wide as 80% of that net that leaves a massive 20% of unattended space. So now this extremely obese, extremely squat goalie needs to move faster than a puck to protect that 20%? Not gonna happen.
And that's just hoping he can survive until the 1st intermission before you have to drag him off the ice as he's, you know, extremely obese.
You'd want a very fat, short guy, right? Well even if he manages to be as wide as 80% of that net that leaves a massive 20% of unattended space. So now this extremely obese, extremely squat goalie needs to move faster than a puck to protect that 20%? Not gonna happen.
And that's just hoping he can survive until the 1st intermission before you have to drag him off the ice as he's, you know, extremely obese.
There are max size rules for some of the pads, so a really large player would have exposed area.
I don't know if you've seen the bruises that pro hockey goalies get even when they take a puck through the pads, but I really wouldn't want someone with unprotected flesh to have to make a decision about allowing a goal or getting hit.
I don't know if you've seen the bruises that pro hockey goalies get even when they take a puck through the pads, but I really wouldn't want someone with unprotected flesh to have to make a decision about allowing a goal or getting hit.
Maybe the professionalization of classic games has just gone too far?
Perhaps what was fun for kids in the winter wasn’t actually designed to be taken seriously by grown men/woman, with millions of dollars at stake?
I don’t know. I still watch F1, so perhaps I’m just off base here, but it seems that there is a disconnect between the sport and the spectacle.
Perhaps what was fun for kids in the winter wasn’t actually designed to be taken seriously by grown men/woman, with millions of dollars at stake?
I don’t know. I still watch F1, so perhaps I’m just off base here, but it seems that there is a disconnect between the sport and the spectacle.
Why not make the goal bigger? Bigger to the point where we can see double digit scoring?
One thing that turned me off from watching Soccer one year was the amount of 1-1 games that led to PKs, and after just doing a little bit of research, Hockey has the longest overtime games by far, and occurs more often by far.
> The average NHL team has gone to overtime in about 23.1 percent of its games over the past three seasons. The Flyers have done so in about 31.1 percent of their games
It's not enjoyable for the casual viewer. Betting on sports which have O/U of 0.5, 1, 1.5 is ridiculous tbh.
One thing that turned me off from watching Soccer one year was the amount of 1-1 games that led to PKs, and after just doing a little bit of research, Hockey has the longest overtime games by far, and occurs more often by far.
> The average NHL team has gone to overtime in about 23.1 percent of its games over the past three seasons. The Flyers have done so in about 31.1 percent of their games
It's not enjoyable for the casual viewer. Betting on sports which have O/U of 0.5, 1, 1.5 is ridiculous tbh.
Speaking of betting, overtime is also frustrating, because it turns a bet based on slight edges over 60 minutes of play into a ridiculous prop bet. You can bet strictly on regulation time, but the bookie I use doesn’t offer a push, so it’s not an attractive bet.
Part of the reason for so many overtimes is the ridiculous point system for overtime games: For a game that ends in regulation, one team gets 2 points and the other gets 0. For game that goes to overtime each team gets at least 1 point, and the winner gets two. This situation reduces the incentive to play aggressively and take chances to win when a game is tied late in the 3rd period.
For comparison, before the addition of shootouts to resolve games still tied after overtime, each game was worth exactly two points: both went to the winner, or they were split in the case of a tie.
Now there is the weird situation that teams are not competing for a fixed number of standings points. Instead rather a new point gets created whenever a game goes to overtime. This makes a huge incentive not to try to break ties in regulation.
For comparison, before the addition of shootouts to resolve games still tied after overtime, each game was worth exactly two points: both went to the winner, or they were split in the case of a tie.
Now there is the weird situation that teams are not competing for a fixed number of standings points. Instead rather a new point gets created whenever a game goes to overtime. This makes a huge incentive not to try to break ties in regulation.
That is why football/soccer introduced 3 points for a win to combat the 1980s trend of playing for a draw. Made enough of a difference.
Of course, this was predicted by Adam and his Package: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpe7R_KgdVo
Shouldn't there be a fixed ratio of goalie surface area to goal face? Otherwise, this ends up in a Red Dwarf goalie for the 2224 World Cup which was a genetically engineered rectangular block of muscle the exact size of the goal...
Why not a sumo wrestler?
Former college hockey goalie here (now a SWE).
Dryden is correct. Hockey goaltending has become incredibly technical and an essence of the game has been lost as goalies have gained mastery.
This is less about equipment being 'too big' and more about the technologic and strategic progression goalies have made. There aren't any equipment regulations that can unwind this progress.
While I played, I was vehemently opposed to changing the net-size. Now, as an outsider with no horse in the race, I think it's the right thing to do.
Every so often at practices, myself and my goaltending partner would agree to make 'highlight reel' saves for a drill or two. What this meant was abandoning our technique and adopt an athletic, intuitive style that resembled something of the past (kick saves, stacking the pads, catching the puck dramatically). We did this because it was fun; the shooters enjoyed it more too. Making the nets bigger would inject these elements back into the position.
Dryden is correct. Hockey goaltending has become incredibly technical and an essence of the game has been lost as goalies have gained mastery.
This is less about equipment being 'too big' and more about the technologic and strategic progression goalies have made. There aren't any equipment regulations that can unwind this progress.
While I played, I was vehemently opposed to changing the net-size. Now, as an outsider with no horse in the race, I think it's the right thing to do.
Every so often at practices, myself and my goaltending partner would agree to make 'highlight reel' saves for a drill or two. What this meant was abandoning our technique and adopt an athletic, intuitive style that resembled something of the past (kick saves, stacking the pads, catching the puck dramatically). We did this because it was fun; the shooters enjoyed it more too. Making the nets bigger would inject these elements back into the position.
It is interesting to compare hockey goalie strategy to lacrosse. The key difference is that the goal is significantly bigger—6x6 feet. Goalies in lacrosse general wear less pads then the other players on the field—often foregoing elbow and shoulder pads—for optimal mobility and because goalies are crazy (most do not wear shin pads because they will be made fun of by other goalies).
So I think another solution, that would surely be controversial, would be to make the goal slightly bigger. The minute goalie pads do not cover the whole area goalies will be forced to prioritize mobility over pad size.
So I think another solution, that would surely be controversial, would be to make the goal slightly bigger. The minute goalie pads do not cover the whole area goalies will be forced to prioritize mobility over pad size.
The article was well written but I just am not interested that much in hockey to read the entire long form without any idea of the general points.