Speculation: Potential off-season rule changes?

[NobodyBeatsTheWiz]

I don't see where the erosion in skill has happened in the last 10 years. The decrease in scoring has been in lock-step with the decrease in PP opportunities.

 

[artilector]

I don't think anything can really increase goal-scoring except:
a) Ratio of goalie size (in pads) to goal size.
b) Amount of 4 on 4 in the game.

Personally, I'd welcome any incremental changes in those directions. I don't think increasing goal size is any more artificial than the increase in goalie padding over the years.

But I'm kind of skeptical that the NHL establishment is really capable of reversing the trend of decreasing creativity in the game.

edit: I'm not saying players are less skilled, but just it seems that the skill is shining through a lot less -- teams have more success than ever cancelling out each other's stars.

 

[NobodyBeatsTheWiz]

Much easier to cancel out stars when you're allowed to obstruct.

 

[Efactor]

The players got bigger, faster, and more athletic at every position. Goalies now have a hard time getting a sniff if they are under 6'02". The pad size is an issue, but you just don't have many 5'09" goalies anymore. You can't shrink them. Same thing with the skaters...they are fast and big. There is just less room. The coaches and systems are also better today.

To increase scoring, You have to look at adopting International ice size and going to a point system that rewards scoring and not conservative play. Something like 3pts for a regulation win, 2pts for an overtime win, and 1pt for the shootout win. No points to the loser. Have the playoffs be the six teams with most points and next two others with most goals for during the season.

Scoring will go up.

 

[txpd]

I don't see where the erosion in skill has happened in the last 10 years. The decrease in scoring has been in lock-step with the decrease in PP opportunities.

people here seem to want more 5 on 5 hockey. You would think fewer pp's would mean less scoring

 

[txpd]

I don't think anything can really increase goal-scoring except:
a) Ratio of goalie size (in pads) to goal size.
b) Amount of 4 on 4 in the game.

Personally, I'd welcome any incremental changes in those directions. I don't think increasing goal size is any more artificial than the increase in goalie padding over the years.

But I'm kind of skeptical that the NHL establishment is really capable of reversing the trend of decreasing creativity in the game.

edit: I'm not saying players are less skilled, but just it seems that the skill is shining through a lot less -- teams have more success than ever cancelling out each other's stars.

I was thinking just last night what if it was 4 on 4 after matching fighting majors?

 

[NobodyBeatsTheWiz]

International rink size isn't happening. It takes a monetary investment by each team and takes away paying seats. They've gotta work within the confines of the current ice surface.

Bobby Smith had a proposal years ago that involved making the bluelines 6 feet wide, thereby shrinking or enlarging the neutral zone depending on the context of play and enlarging the offensive zone. That's definitely worth consideration, IMO.

 

[artilector]

I was thinking just last night what if it was 4 on 4 after matching fighting majors?

Fine by me!

 

[artilector]

International rink size isn't happening. It takes a monetary investment by each team and takes away paying seats. They've gotta work within the confines of the current ice surface.

Billy Smith had a proposal years ago that involved making the bluelines 6 feet wide, thereby shrinking or enlarging the neutral zone depending on the context of play and enlarging the offensive zone. That's definitely worth consideration, IMO.

Hmm.. I think the key is how do you facilitate gaining the zone with speed? Seems difficult to do by moving lines -- e.g. if you squeeze the neutral zone, well then there will just be more bodies in it...

My thoughts tend to gravitate towards changes aimed on restricting players in certain zones, basically to restrict the ability to create trap/funnel formations... but I haven't quite been able to think of a practical implementation, lol. How do you prevent teams lining up 3 or 4 across near the blue line and squeezing the opposition at center ice? Maybe just introduce a "DMZ" zone (which is roughly the neutral zone, but perhaps larger?) and restrict number of players (3? 4?) a team can have in that zone? Or can only exceed that number for X seconds?

I dunno. Maybe just going to more 4 on 4 is easier. E.g. just play last 5.. 10 minutes of each period 4 on 4.

In any case... I welcome any experiments. Can always revert back.

 

[g00n]

I was thinking just last night what if it was 4 on 4 after matching fighting majors?

Then you'd have teams with good 4 on 4 units spending the whole game deploying thugs to start fights, preferably against guys on the other 4 on 4 units so they're taken off the ice. And even if the top players don't fight they become bigger targets.

So yeah, more fights and more 4 on 4, but probably more cheap **** on the league stars so maybe more injuries and it might all wash out.

 

[g00n]

Other ideas:

-30 second or 1 minute penalty for Icing
-goalies can't ever freeze the puck unless part of their body is touching the crease
-the 3/2/1/0 tiered point system
-start enforcing the penalty shot rule instead of chickening out and calling 2 minute minors

 

[Corby78]

I don't buy the "can't make the rinks bigger" argument. Very few teams sell out, and when they do its infrequent. So they aren't losing hardly any tickets. Its a minimal investment for a better product, and I'm sure the NHL can help subsidize the expense.

To me its the best option to open the game up and allow for more skill and back and forth play.

Also get rid of the shootout. Its a dumb way to end a great game.

 

[NobodyBeatsTheWiz]

Arenas are designed such that the last row of permanent seats are against the glass.

Minimal investment my ass.

 

[Devil Dancer]

Bigger ice surfaces don't increase scoring anyway, so forget it. My two-step plan is very simple:

1. Enforce the rules on the books. That means calling interference and obstruction penalties the way the refs did in 2005. The goal isn't to call more penalties, but to teach defenders that they can't get away with a bunch of hooking and holding, opening up the 5v5 game. In the short term this is going to generate a lot of PPs, but that's OK with me.

2. Reduce the maximum size of goalie pads. I don't buy for a second that this is a safety issue, so take out a few inches here and there, and give shooters a fighting chance to actually score some goals on unscreened shots from more than 10 feet out.

 

[SpinningEdge]

I have some thoughts on how to make the NHL better and more popular.

One: Get rid of the shootout. I'm okay with getting an extra point for teams that make it to overtime - but not via the shootout. Make a team really fight for the extra point. 5v5 and as many OT's as it takes.

Two: No more back to back games. With how much bigger/stronger/etc the players are these days, there's no reason to schedule back to back days for games. The scheduling can be better. The team not playing the second day in a row has a big advantage. Plus, it will make continuous OT's and a game not ending until a team scores okay since they'll have a off day the following day. From Oct til April of the regular season it is a full 6 months - so a little over 180 days. You can schedule 82 games this way without back to backs. The scheduling can be better.

Three: Coaches challenge. There needs to be a way to argue over a call as officiating isn't good in a lot of NHL games. A coach gets 1 challenge per game unless he wins his first challenge, then he gets another. Officials can also review a call under 5 minutes left in the third period so the game ends being called the right way without any BS. Also, if a team loses its challenge they lose their timeout too. If they burn a timeout - they lose their challenge. This will add more strategy to coaches wanting to burn a time out after a few icings/etc since they may need to use the challenge later in the game.

Four: Less playoff teams. How about only the top 2 of each division make the playoffs - and then 2 wild card teams. That's 6 teams in each conference. Each divisional winner gets a bye. In the West 8 out of 14 teams make the playoffs right now. That's kind of ridiculous. You can be one of the bottom half teams and still the only disadvantage of that is a first rd matchup of one more game on the road. I don't like it. I like how the NFL does their playoffs. The NHL should do the two best teams in the conference (both divisional winners) get a bye, and the other four teams all play a round with the two wild card teams playing on the road. This allows for the very best teams in the NHL to be in the playoffs.

Going from 16 to 12 playoff teams (12 playoff teams is still 40% of the teams in the league) allows for teams to be more aggressive with trades/etc too. No longer will teams just be okay being in the middle of the pack and hoping they get lucky in the playoffs/etc. Teams will have to make sure they are GOOD to really be in the playoffs as only 12 make it. This will result in more teams buying at the deadline (making the 12 teams in the playoffs really good teams with a lot of talent), and will have a lot more teams selling since more teams will be out of the playoffs. More big trades/excitement in the NHL = more love and hype around the NHL.

 

[ChibiPooky]

I have some thoughts on how to make the NHL better and more popular.

One: Get rid of the shootout. I'm okay with getting an extra point for teams that make it to overtime - but not via the shootout. Make a team really fight for the extra point. 5v5 and as many OT's as it takes.

Two: No more back to back games. With how much bigger/stronger/etc the players are these days, there's no reason to schedule back to back days for games. The scheduling can be better. The team not playing the second day in a row has a big advantage. Plus, it will make continuous OT's and a game not ending until a team scores okay since they'll have a off day the following day. From Oct til April of the regular season it is a full 6 months - so a little over 180 days. You can schedule 82 games this way without back to backs. The scheduling can be better.

Three: Coaches challenge. There needs to be a way to argue over a call as officiating isn't good in a lot of NHL games. A coach gets 1 challenge per game unless he wins his first challenge, then he gets another. Officials can also review a call under 5 minutes left in the third period so the game ends being called the right way without any BS. Also, if a team loses its challenge they lose their timeout too. If they burn a timeout - they lose their challenge. This will add more strategy to coaches wanting to burn a time out after a few icings/etc since they may need to use the challenge later in the game.

Four: Less playoff teams. How about only the top 2 of each division make the playoffs - and then 2 wild card teams. That's 6 teams in each conference. Each divisional winner gets a bye. In the West 8 out of 14 teams make the playoffs right now. That's kind of ridiculous. You can be one of the bottom half teams and still the only disadvantage of that is a first rd matchup of one more game on the road. I don't like it. I like how the NFL does their playoffs. The NHL should do the two best teams in the conference (both divisional winners) get a bye, and the other four teams all play a round with the two wild card teams playing on the road. This allows for the very best teams in the NHL to be in the playoffs.

Going from 16 to 12 playoff teams (12 playoff teams is still 40% of the teams in the league) allows for teams to be more aggressive with trades/etc too. No longer will teams just be okay being in the middle of the pack and hoping they get lucky in the playoffs/etc. Teams will have to make sure they are GOOD to really be in the playoffs as only 12 make it. This will result in more teams buying at the deadline (making the 12 teams in the playoffs really good teams with a lot of talent), and will have a lot more teams selling since more teams will be out of the playoffs. More big trades/excitement in the NHL = more love and hype around the NHL.

I'm definitely on board with eliminating the shootout. However, I don't see the PA agreeing to continuous 5v5. Maybe continuous 4v4 would have more traction.

The problem with eliminating back-to-back games is that a lot of arenas are shared with NBA teams, and the NBA contracts have priority written into them - so the NHL gets the scheduling shaft. I'd be all for it but I don't think it's actually possible.

Challenge - yes. It's long overdue.

The owners ever agreeing to less playoff revenue is the least probable of these in my mind.

 

[RandyHolt]

Interference the sole reason for killing scoring - counter point. Why don't we see picks freeing up scoring chances #NBA. Interference is not a one way argument. Interference in some form or another has and will always be in the game. The rink is too small for there not to be bodies in contact away from the puck. Calling every instance interference will kill the game. Whistle after whistle, PP after PP. It's not happening.

Two guys battling for position in front, do you want to call both for interference to get your 4 on 4 goals? Fact is players are always battling for space on the ice or to get to a spot without the puck.

How is a guy supposed to defend a guy cutting to the net without ever touching him? Interference in the 1980's did not kill scoring, but it is now... I don't buy it. Fans like Tex will tell you tackling on breakaways was legal. Why did it not kill scoring? If it didnt kill it then, it certainly is not killing it now.

My erosion of skill argument, who are the studs recently drafted that are dominating scoring?

It seems most teams cannot fill their top 6 with skill players. We cannot even complete our top line or a top pair with PP worthy guys. I don't recall these problems in the 80's and 90's. Look at the Oilers teams. Skill all over the place. Islanders.

I randomly picked our 87 team. Look at the skill

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/WSH/1988.html

Christian Stevens Murphy Hatcher Gus Gartner Hunter Pivo, Ridley. 2nd Tier guys like Locker, Spinorama Miller. All seasoned vets.

Now we have Ovi, Nick, Green. Carlson. Beagle. Kuz and Bura can be in the discussion have barely earned regular spots.

I see a big difference.

I will venture a guess and also say that NHL development programs leave a lot to be desired. Sending players to the A seems their only real plan.

 

[Efactor]

To increase scoring, you need a point/playoff system that rewards scoring and not conservative play. Something like 3pts for a regulation win, 2pts for an overtime win, and 1pt for the shootout win. No points to the loser. Have the playoffs be the six teams with most points and next two others with most goals for during the season.

 

[BobRouse]

The players got bigger, faster, and more athletic at every position. Goalies now have a hard time getting a sniff if they are under 6'02". The pad size is an issue, but you just don't have many 5'09" goalies anymore. You can't shrink them. Same thing with the skaters...they are fast and big. There is just less room. The coaches and systems are also better today.

To increase scoring, You have to look at adopting International ice size and going to a point system that rewards scoring and not conservative play. Something like 3pts for a regulation win, 2pts for an overtime win, and 1pt for the shootout win. No points to the loser. Have the playoffs be the six teams with most points and next two others with most goals for during the season.

Scoring will go up.

Have players and goalie pads gotten that much bigger since 05-06???

I think not. The reduced scoring is DIRECTLY related to the # of PPs being handed out and the amount of obstruction allowed.

International ice DOES NOT INCREASE SCORING.

It increases teams who will trap! There are far more passing angles and teams can almost play a 4 corners keep away style.

Olympic hockey is almost always low scoring despite immense talent for example.

 

[ChibiPooky]

It seems most teams cannot fill their top 6 with skill players. We cannot even complete our top line or a top pair with PP worthy guys. I don't recall these problems in the 80's and 90's. Look at the Oilers teams. Skill all over the place. Islanders.

I randomly picked our 87 team. Look at the skill

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/WSH/1988.html

Christian Stevens Murphy Hatcher Gus Gartner Hunter Pivo, Ridley. 2nd Tier guys like Locker, Spinorama Miller. All seasoned vets.

Now we have Ovi, Nick, Green. Carlson. Beagle. Kuz and Bura can be in the discussion have barely earned regular spots.

I see a big difference.

I will venture a guess and also say that NHL development programs leave a lot to be desired. Sending players to the A seems their only real plan.

I believe the term you are looking for is 'salary cap'.

 

[txpd]

here is the push and pull of the shootout and the points. the reason there is a loser point is because it was the only way to get the owner votes for the shootout. eliminate the loser point and you eliminate the shootout.

add that dynamic to the current defensive strong game where a high percentage of games are tied at the end of regulation and time constraints require a short time ending of the game and the options are all bad.

if you put the tie back in place there will be teams with 30 of them in a season. that would be a disaster. no matter how you try and force an end you end up with a gimmick.

 

[BrooklynCapsFan]

I don't think you need to look much further than the AHL to see exactly what changes are coming to overtime. I wouldn't be surprised to see them arrive as soon as next year.

 

[Hivemind]

I don't buy the "can't make the rinks bigger" argument. Very few teams sell out, and when they do its infrequent. So they aren't losing hardly any tickets. Its a minimal investment for a better product, and I'm sure the NHL can help subsidize the expense.

To me its the best option to open the game up and allow for more skill and back and forth play.

What?
Thirteen teams are reporting an average attendance of 100% or higher. A mere six are beneath 90% on average.

Arena renovations are never a "minimal investment." Even for an NHL-only arena it would be a substantial investment. Most arenas aren't NHL-exclusive, and taking time out of the schedule to renovate the arena would mean lost revenue from other events (basketball, concerts, the circus, monster truck rallies, etc).

 

[Ajax1995]

Just put the rink back to the same configuration as in the 80's. Taking space out of the neutral zone and adding it behind the net has not created a bunch of Gretzkys making plays from back there. And less neutral zone space has made it easier to neutral zone trap. Also speed is gained in the neutral zone so less neutral zone means less speed and thus easier for the defense.

Also minor penalties used to be the full 2 minutes, whether the team scored a PP goal or not. Since they don't want to call penalties anymore at least let the ones they do call sometimes last longer.

 

[RandyHolt]

I believe the term you are looking for is 'salary cap'.

Well than maybe there is part of the answer. All that skill is dispersed evenly to all the teams. I believe the term you are looking for is parity. So every team has barely enough skill to pot 2.75 goals if gifted 4 PPs. But no teams can establish itself above the rest offensively because the highest priority is parity. Every game is evenly matched, so there are no blowouts padding scoring stats.

But we sure didn't spend top dollar money in 87, did we? I thought we were perennially one of the lower payrolls under Poile including in 1987.

In the modern era, have the highest cap hit teams won the cup? Chicago was one, IIRC. We haven't, yet have been brown capping for many years now. #MissTheGeek

Sticking to my guns, interference didn't kill scoring in the trip and tackle era, so it cannot be suddenly THE only factor now. And I feel the average skill level of an NHL player has decreased. Maybe its a lack of effort, or lack of Gretzky. I barely see "elite" NHL players sweat anymore, Ovi aside. Is the KHL and other leagues that have formed, no factor at all?

Measure those pillows.