Is low scoring hockey boring?

[LadyStanley]

Do the Sharks play boring hockey? Well, whatever works

Kurz asks the question. Sharks are currently scoring (along with their opponent) 4.88 goals/game (lowest in the league). Contrast that to average ~6 gpg.

Sharks aren't concerned. Only with the W.

Click to read more...

 

[TheWayToRefJose]

I mean, not inherently boring. A 1-0 game can be extremely exciting if it's back and forth, not cycle on the outside, lose the puck, and have the other team do the same thing.

 

[LadyStanley]

Well, their average will increase as there will be at least 7 goals tonight.

 

[BaileyMacTavish]

I mean, not inherently boring. A 1-0 game can be extremely exciting if it's back and forth, not cycle on the outside, lose the puck, and have the other team do the same thing.

I am going to agree with this. When the Sharks decide to cycle forever only to do nothing with it, that's when the Sharks play boring hockey. Skilled, high speed back and forth even with a 1-0 is exciting

 

[hohosaregood]

we're not that boring. shots happen at a pretty decent rate to and fro

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

we're not that boring. shots happen at a pretty decent rate to and fro

That's solely on the basis of our high shots for output. We take the 10th most shots per game and allow the fewest shots per game in the league.

Interestingly, we attempt the 5th most shots per 60 and allow the 9th most shot attempts per 60 in the league.

 

[CJL182]

I am going to agree with this. When the Sharks decide to cycle forever only to do nothing with it, that's when the Sharks play boring hockey. Skilled, high speed back and forth even with a 1-0 is exciting

Yup, I don't mind a 1-0 game if there's a lot of scoring chances, ideally with great flow and lack of stoppages. Continuous cycles are great if they lead to scoring chances, but it's frustrating when the cycle leads to a turnover and easy clear for the other team. Start and stop hockey with constant icings and offsides really frustrates me.

 

[rangerssharks414]

A low scoring hockey game can be a lot more exciting than a low scoring basketball or football game, that's for sure.

As others have said, it depends on the flow of the game.

 

[The Ice Hockey Dude]

I love the NHL game these days, it's fast and filled with lots of scoring chances to be sure. Players have never been better. e.g. goalies and i love to see them make the save. Not to mention the skill in some of the goals scored.

I think back to teams the played the trap, like the sharks for the most part did under
Kevin Constantine and think what we have in SJ is way more fun to watch that
that old crap.

 

[Beethovens 10th]

Good game’s a good game. Loaded question. It could be a strain, and just drag out forever, or it could be relieving and exciting at the same time and leave you walking on air. When you wipe the gunk out of your brown eyes and see where things really went it could be quite the wild log ride when you think about it. Okay. I’m just gonna dump this schitck

 

[Used As A Shield]

Low event hockey = super boring and its hard to cheer for anything unless there is a goal. High event hockey is much more entertaining to me, even if it leads to a few more losses, at least there are more events to cheer for. As a side note, as +/- is not a meaningful stat in player comparisons, points still weigh heavy for player comparisons regarding trade value, which would be interesting to see long term if a high scoring club receives more value on player trades. I guess the downside to having lots of points would be the player salary demands would most likely reflect that.

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Low event hockey = super boring and its hard to cheer for anything unless there is a goal. High event hockey is much more entertaining to me, even if it leads to a few more losses, at least there are more events to cheer for. As a side note, as +/- is not a meaningful stat in player comparisons, points still weigh heavy for player comparisons regarding trade value, which would be interesting to see long term if a high scoring club receives more value on player trades. I guess the downside to having lots of points would be the player salary demands would most likely reflect that.

That is a very interesting point. I remember that it was the common talk around 2016 that the entire Oilers roster had players with very low trade value, due to the way they had been playing. I was skeptical of it until Taylor Hall was traded for Adam Larsson, which totally proved the theory; I actually made a thread about it. It's a lot more interesting to wonder if players on lower scoring teams return less in trades.