Paradox of progress: The evolution of NHL hockey towards boredom

[Canadiens1958]

Chicago vs Tampa

Preaching to the choir, C1958. I've coached college and pro roller hockey too in addition to ice, and I'll tell ya...you might see a bunch of 7-6 games, but they aren't good...they aren't exciting...

Personally, I find well-played defensive games interesting...and I respect that that is the minority...but on the flip side, I also get that it's a coach's game now, not a player's game and that can be frustrating...and with that said, maybe if Norm Ullman actually watched this Tampa Bay team for instance, he would not have made that post...a team that plays like Tampa hasn't come around in some time...

They take some sparsely used angles and geometry add a little chemistry and a dollop of skill and wow is it a show...

Add the game day roster manipulations that allow for extra shifting of key players while playing cute with match- ups.

 

[tjcurrie]

Personally I don't think goals make the game exciting, action does.

What's not exciting about a fantastic save on a 2 on 1? Or a one-timer from the slot? Or a tic-tac-toe in front of the net?

The action sets the tone, gets you amped for what may happen next, the result, whether goal or save, either is exciting in itself.

I'm one that didn't mind hockey at all in the mid-90s and early 2000s. I thought it was better than what we're seeing now.

There are plenty of good games these days though, it's not all drab.

Creativity and character has been killed though I believe. Too much emphasis on defensive play, keeping the puck out instead of putting it in, and conforming to whatever system wins and is implemented by the coaches. Even the "offensive" teams in today's game, they still place emphasis on defense and playing responsibly. They're not especially offensive, just relatively offensive.

Offense is harnassed nowadays, lower-skilled players are big and strong and well-trained to stifle offense, shot-blocking is at an all-tie high. Watered down product with too much expansion.

The NHL believes more PPs will help with offense. It may help with GOALS, but action? I mean, I don't want to watch penalties being called more often and nor do I want to see 5 on 4 action that often. Even strength, let the boys play.

Paul Coffey when asked how Wayne Gretzky could score 200 points in a season, answered, "Because he was trying to score 300."

Makes a lot of sense.

Overall, I don't really need to see a lot of goals, just a lot of guys trying to score them rather than prevent them.

 

[BigDucky]

Forgive me for bumping an old thread, but I wanted to contribute something I remember hearing a little more than 10 years ago right after Herb Brooks died. He had a vision for teaching hockey to kids that included unstructured play. A few folks mentioned here that hockey has become too over-coached and this is contributing to the lack of creativity in the modern game. From the Herb Brooks Foundation website:

Herb grew up when players owned the game. Kids played hockey on frozen ponds and outdoor rinks around Minnesota, for fun. Herb and his friends played almost every day and evening, from about Thanksgiving until mid-February. Snowfall and the elements made maintenance difficult, so the outdoor season was 10 to 12 weeks at best.

A dearth of indoor rinks meant the season ended when the ice melted. During that short season, however, young Herbie and his friends would play between 200 and 300 hours of unstructured hockey each winter—mostly at Phalen Park in St. Paul. An average weekend would include a bag lunch and 15-20 hours of unstructured hockey practice. By contrast, a typical youth hockey season included 12 games a year and a practice or two a week with a coach—about 30 hours of structured hockey per season.

According to Herb, youth hockey is too structured. We should combine the best “rink-rat methods”—lots of unstructured play and kids having fun—with outstanding coaching and facilities. That blend will result in more kids playing longer, having more fun, and developing better skills. It is a “model” he discussed often.

 

[tjcurrie]

Forgive me for bumping an old thread, but I wanted to contribute something I remember hearing a little more than 10 years ago right after Herb Brooks died. He had a vision for teaching hockey to kids that included unstructured play. A few folks mentioned here that hockey has become too over-coached and this is contributing to the lack of creativity in the modern game. From the Herb Brooks Foundation website:

Good post. Thanks. Fully agree.

Happy birthday to Herb today, too.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Personally I don't think goals make the game exciting, action does.

What's not exciting about a fantastic save on a 2 on 1? Or a one-timer from the slot? Or a tic-tac-toe in front of the net?

The action sets the tone, gets you amped for what may happen next, the result, whether goal or save, either is exciting in itself.

I'm one that didn't mind hockey at all in the mid-90s and early 2000s. I thought it was better than what we're seeing now.

There are plenty of good games these days though, it's not all drab.

Creativity and character has been killed though I believe. Too much emphasis on defensive play, keeping the puck out instead of putting it in, and conforming to whatever system wins and is implemented by the coaches. Even the "offensive" teams in today's game, they still place emphasis on defense and playing responsibly. They're not especially offensive, just relatively offensive.

Offense is harnassed nowadays, lower-skilled players are big and strong and well-trained to stifle offense, shot-blocking is at an all-tie high. Watered down product with too much expansion.

The NHL believes more PPs will help with offense. It may help with GOALS, but action? I mean, I don't want to watch penalties being called more often and nor do I want to see 5 on 4 action that often. Even strength, let the boys play.

Paul Coffey when asked how Wayne Gretzky could score 200 points in a season, answered, "Because he was trying to score 300."

Makes a lot of sense.

Overall, I don't really need to see a lot of goals, just a lot of guys trying to score them rather than prevent them.

The problem is, when you have no opportunity to score, the action is irrelevant. You can do everything to get the puck to the net but, there is so little net to shoot at that scoring chances really aren't scoring chances. When the entire sport is geared to stop people from scoring, it is just a 60 minute exercise in banging your head against the wall. God forbid, you go to triple OT in a playoff game....

If action without goals is fine, we should just remove the nets from the ice. Who needs goals?

 

[Ogopogo*]

Forgive me for bumping an old thread, but I wanted to contribute something I remember hearing a little more than 10 years ago right after Herb Brooks died. He had a vision for teaching hockey to kids that included unstructured play. A few folks mentioned here that hockey has become too over-coached and this is contributing to the lack of creativity in the modern game. From the Herb Brooks Foundation website:

I agree with Herb 100%. The structured game of today is boring to watch and boring to play. Bring back the unstructured creativity of the game and watch people have fun again. Currently, the game is more like a job. How is that fun?

 

[tjcurrie]

The problem is, when you have no opportunity to score, the action is irrelevant. You can do everything to get the puck to the net but, there is so little net to shoot at that scoring chances really aren't scoring chances. When the entire sport is geared to stop people from scoring, it is just a 60 minute exercise in banging your head against the wall. God forbid, you go to triple OT in a playoff game....

If action without goals is fine, we should just remove the nets from the ice. Who needs goals?

My point is that action is more necessary than actual goals. Goals do not tell the story. We focus on "How to create goals?" where we should be focusing on how to create action ("unstructured creativity") - which would actually lead to more scoring chances. Unfortunately I don't really think there is a way to do that. You can't force teams to play a certain style of game. You can't penalize a team for playing defensive. You can't ban shot-blocking. Well I guess technically you COULD, but that'd all be ridiculous.

The total goals scored is really almost irrelevant. If a team spends the entire game on the PP and scores 4 times, that's not necessarily exciting. If a goalie can't stop a beachball and lets in 5 on 19 shots, that's not necessarily exciting. We could change to soccer nets and see 12-10 scores, that's not exciting. The numbers would show that goal scoring is up though, and some would therefor come to the conclusion that the game is more exciting. Gary Bettman would love it.

Goals are nice, and the eventual "goal", but they're not necessarily the product of exciting play.

 

[Boxscore]

My point is that action is more necessary than actual goals. Goals do not tell the story. We focus on "How to create goals?" where we should be focusing on how to create action ("unstructured creativity") - which would actually lead to more scoring chances. Unfortunately I don't really think there is a way to do that. You can't force teams to play a certain style of game. You can't penalize a team for playing defensive. You can't ban shot-blocking. Well I guess technically you COULD, but that'd all be ridiculous.

The total goals scored is really almost irrelevant. If a team spends the entire game on the PP and scores 4 times, that's not necessarily exciting. If a goalie can't stop a beachball and lets in 5 on 19 shots, that's not necessarily exciting. We could change to soccer nets and see 12-10 scores, that's not exciting. The numbers would show that goal scoring is up though, and some would therefor come to the conclusion that the game is more exciting. Gary Bettman would love it.

Goals are nice, and the eventual "goal", but they're not necessarily the product of exciting play.

This is all correct. Until coaches start implementing "offensive" strategies instead of "defensive" the game will continue to regress in the entertainment department as players get bigger.

The NHL Board of Governors should meet and decide there will be a movement towards "offensive hockey" and teams should hire coaches who are tasked with developing a creative and entertaining offensive approach... and coaches can (and will) do this. In most cases, these are brilliant men who spend 20 hours a day focusing on ways to win hockey games. And, right now, defensive hockey gives many teams an advantage.

If the NHL "shifts" towards a more offensive game, and coaches adjust accordingly, the lower leagues will follow suit.

Actual "goals" aren't as important as 60 minute "offensive flow" where there are exciting scoring chances and end-to-end action. Firewagon hockey in the 80's is a perfect example. Fun hockey.

 

[Crosbyfan]

In the old days they didn't let players skate near as far from the bench before the guy he replaced arrived. Now he can't take part in the play, but can skate halfway across the ice, or the equivalent, before the guy he replaced gets off. Not allowing changes on the fly, or making it more restrictive, would allow more mismatches.


Making the net bigger would increase the scoring areas and chances, both from a goalie and shot blocking perspective. Collapsing around the net would still be done, but less successfully.

 

[Ogopogo*]

My point is that action is more necessary than actual goals. Goals do not tell the story. We focus on "How to create goals?" where we should be focusing on how to create action ("unstructured creativity") - which would actually lead to more scoring chances. Unfortunately I don't really think there is a way to do that. You can't force teams to play a certain style of game. You can't penalize a team for playing defensive. You can't ban shot-blocking. Well I guess technically you COULD, but that'd all be ridiculous.

The total goals scored is really almost irrelevant. If a team spends the entire game on the PP and scores 4 times, that's not necessarily exciting. If a goalie can't stop a beachball and lets in 5 on 19 shots, that's not necessarily exciting. We could change to soccer nets and see 12-10 scores, that's not exciting. The numbers would show that goal scoring is up though, and some would therefor come to the conclusion that the game is more exciting. Gary Bettman would love it.

Goals are nice, and the eventual "goal", but they're not necessarily the product of exciting play.

The solution is simple but, the NHLPA would likely never agree to it: play 4 on 4 for 60 minutes and make goalie equipment 80s sized - the goalies can keep the advantage of the light stuff.

You do those two things and the entertainment value or "action" will be brought back and the game will be entertaining again.

 

[habsrule4eva3089]

The solution is simple but, the NHLPA would likely never agree to it: play 4 on 4 for 60 minutes and make goalie equipment 80s sized - the goalies can keep the advantage of the light stuff.

You do those two things and the entertainment value or "action" will be brought back and the game will be entertaining again.

It's the nhl game that's boring.

When watching International Hockey it's two different versions of the game all together.

It's not the game, it's the product of the league that needs to change. Can you imagine how much boredom the league will offer once it expands.

 

[tjcurrie]

The solution is simple but, the NHLPA would likely never agree to it: play 4 on 4 for 60 minutes and make goalie equipment 80s sized - the goalies can keep the advantage of the light stuff.

You do those two things and the entertainment value or "action" will be brought back and the game will be entertaining again.

I agree that would bring some of the old excitement and openness of the game back. Not sure I want to see 4 on 4, I would prefer that same excitement with 5 on 5, just not sure that's possible. Would take a generation of unlearning defense and systems play.

I'd like to see all equipment downsized, especially goalie equipment, but certainly that's never going to happen.

 

[Ogopogo*]

It's the nhl game that's boring.

When watching International Hockey it's two different versions of the game all together.

It's not the game, it's the product of the league that needs to change. Can you imagine how much boredom the league will offer once it expands.

I disagree. The Olympics in 2014 - the gold medal game in particular - was boring. I was literally falling asleep during the gold medal game.

The game has become boring across the board - all hockey seems to take its cue from the NHL and the past 20 years, that is not a good thing.

If there is international hockey out there that is a lot more entertaining, I am missing it. I guess the world U20 championships are usually pretty good.

 

[Theokritos]

Talking about options the NHLPA would never approve of, I'd rather see smaller match rosters than 4 vs 4 hockey.

 

[BobbyAwe]

Time for four on four?

don't get me started

 

[habsrule4eva3089]

I disagree. The Olympics in 2014 - the gold medal game in particular - was boring. I was literally falling asleep during the gold medal game.

The game has become boring across the board - all hockey seems to take its cue from the NHL and the past 20 years, that is not a good thing.

If there is international hockey out there that is a lot more entertaining, I am missing it. I guess the world U20 championships are usually pretty good.

Just going back to a couple of games I remember.

USA vs. Russia, one for the ages
Canada vs. Finland, a nailbiter that could have gone either way.
Canada vs. Latvia, a goaltending performance for the ages in which Latvia nearly pulled out a victory had it buried a chance at the ned.
Canada vs. USA, best game of Hockey we've seen since the 2010 Olympic final, it had speed, skill, tenacity, sacrifice, perseverance, and the best players came to play. It might have been even more up tempo then the 2010 game to be frank.

Final was not boring, it was a dominant performance from a team that might be the best Hockey team ever assembled, it was Hockey played on both sides of the puck at it's best.

That my friend, is not ''boring''.

And that's not even talking about the Women's Final which was the best game ever played in Women's Hockey and would probably rank top 10 in all of Hockey history. It was pure theatre that left one speechless.

 

[BobbyAwe]

Talking about options the NHLPA would never approve of, I'd rather see smaller match rosters than 4 vs 4 hockey.

I would rather see 4 on 4, but I agree shortening the bench would be better than what we have right now. You've either got to give them more room (4 on 4) or slow the game down and give them more time to develop a play. Today's 35-40 second shifts are ridiculous. There's no time for anything to develop. It seems as soon as a line gets on they're looking to get off. When teams ran 3 lines instead of 4 the players were out there longer, had to pace themselves, and though the game was slower it was more creative and exciting.

 

[Cursed Lemon]

The only thing that will open the game up at this point is to get rid of offsides.

 

[C77]

I agree with others about the lack of time/space to make plays in today's NHL.

Creativity is largely absent. Most of the players are from the same cookie cutter mould. Physical attributes (while always important) have completely overwhelmed the mental/decision making side of the game.

In addition to mandating lengthier shifts and perhaps allowing teams to dress 16 skaters - with replacement allowed in case of injury, I think further changes to reduce the goaltending equipment are a must along with calling a 2 minute penalty if a defender leaves his skates to block a shot/pass.

By reducing the goaltending equipment you would force teams to defend differently. There is nothing worse in today's game than the maze of bodies clogging up the front of the net. Make it possible for players to score more often from further away and the defenders will have to abandon the net front area.

 

[Hardyvan123]

The problem is, when you have no opportunity to score, the action is irrelevant. You can do everything to get the puck to the net but, there is so little net to shoot at that scoring chances really aren't scoring chances. When the entire sport is geared to stop people from scoring, it is just a 60 minute exercise in banging your head against the wall. God forbid, you go to triple OT in a playoff game....

If action without goals is fine, we should just remove the nets from the ice. Who needs goals?

pretty much this.

the game has transitioned to be tailored to defensive play, goal equipment and techniques and systems all on the same ice surface and same sized net.

More goals are needed to reward skill, right now the skill is there but hard work and defense makes it's all equal and luck or chance is what dictates alot of games nowadays.

The other major sports have done things to increase or promote offense, why is it so hard for the NHL to figure out the right formula means more goals and more action?

Sadly we can't go back in time defensive systems are here to stay probably as are blocking shots and an emphasis on team defensive play over taking chances.

Make a system more conducive to scoring and reward goals, ie make the net 2 inches wider and 1 inch higher and the balance will return.

Better yet get rid of microphones and headsets on the bench and the coaches altogether IMO, the game is way too over coached at all levels really.

I know it's not going to actually happen but it would free up the game, ie more mistakes and action.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Just going back to a couple of games I remember.

USA vs. Russia, one for the ages
Canada vs. Finland, a nailbiter that could have gone either way.
Canada vs. Latvia, a goaltending performance for the ages in which Latvia nearly pulled out a victory had it buried a chance at the ned.
Canada vs. USA, best game of Hockey we've seen since the 2010 Olympic final, it had speed, skill, tenacity, sacrifice, perseverance, and the best players came to play. It might have been even more up tempo then the 2010 game to be frank.

Final was not boring, it was a dominant performance from a team that might be the best Hockey team ever assembled, it was Hockey played on both sides of the puck at it's best.

That my friend, is not ''boring''.

And that's not even talking about the Women's Final which was the best game ever played in Women's Hockey and would probably rank top 10 in all of Hockey history. It was pure theatre that left one speechless.

Therein lies the problem. Those who were born 1985 or later, really don't know any better. They look at that gold medal game and believe it was "perfection". That brand of "perfection" puts me to sleep. That was an incredibly boring hockey game.

It is a situation of The Emperor's New Clothes. Modern analysts and fans have to talk it up for fear of going against the norm. Reality is, that hockey sucked and I would never pay the ticket price to see it.

If you thought that game was exciting, I feel bad for you.

 

[SatanwasaSlovak]

There is a real lack of personalities in the NHL.

Which probably stems from that most NHL-players comes from exactly the same sort of backgrounds of playing hockey in those developmental-systems their whole lives.

It's a slow death of hockey that we are seeing, and a lot of people has talked about it in this thread. Hockey is becoming a sport which only some people can afford to even play as kids. And judging by how it works in Sweden, they will start to make the cuts when they are 10 years old, leaving the non-well-developed 10-year olds in ****** teams.

The NHL and hockey in general is only going to get worse. I already see it in the Swedish national league aswell, a serious lack of talent.

 

[Rexor]

The IIHF World Championships is the best hockey one can watch these days imo. This spring's tournament was much more entertaining than the Olympics.

 

[Ogopogo*]

There is a real lack of personalities in the NHL.

Which probably stems from that most NHL-players comes from exactly the same sort of backgrounds of playing hockey in those developmental-systems their whole lives.

It's a slow death of hockey that we are seeing, and a lot of people has talked about it in this thread. Hockey is becoming a sport which only some people can afford to even play as kids. And judging by how it works in Sweden, they will start to make the cuts when they are 10 years old, leaving the non-well-developed 10-year olds in ****** teams.

The NHL and hockey in general is only going to get worse. I already see it in the Swedish national league aswell, a serious lack of talent.

Agreed. The game has been dying for 20 years and after trying to still love the game as I always have, finally, it is driving me away. I watch 90% less hockey these days compared to what I used to. I held an Edmonton Oilers mini pack for the past 8 years - I did not renew this year. Yes - Connor McDavid is here but, the game as a whole is not entertaining anymore. I will probably go to one Oilers game this season rather than the 5 I used to attend. I will watch probably 10 Oilers games on TV and likely no other NHL games - I used to watch 80 Oilers games and probably 40 others. I remember last season, the hype over a Kings vs Blackhawks or Rangers vs Canadiens game - when I had the time, I never bothered watching. Even the best teams are not very entertaining most nights. In the past two playoff seasons, I have watched a total of 3 games.

With a family, life is busy so I have to prioritize. The state of the game today means hockey has fallen down that priority list. I miss the game of the 70s and 80s - if hockey was like that again, I would probably still be fully on board. I don't see anything resembling that game coming in the near future and the only solution I can really see is to play 60 minutes of 4 on 4 and bring goalie equipment down to 80s sizes (they can keep it light). That might win me back but, the current state of the game doesn't earn many of my entertainment dollars.

 

[Ogopogo*]

The IIHF World Championships is the best hockey one can watch these days imo. This spring's tournament was much more entertaining than the Olympics.

You might be right in regards to the entertainment value of that tournament but, as a Canadian, it has always been very difficult to get excited about the World Championships. Most of the best players are not participating so, even if a team wins - what have they won? It is like the leftover cup.

It's probably a good tournament but, to North Americans, it doesn't resonate.