Amazinmets73
Registered User
- Dec 1, 2015
- 1,014
- 483
Should the NHL have allowed its players to utilise state-of-the-art technology or followed the MLBs traditional approach and adhered to wooden sticks?
I tend to agree. One reason is economics. How much more affordable would the sport be if a top of the line stick cost $45 as opposed to $300?In my opinion, wooden sticks should have been mandated.
Yes. Gotta keep some fair consistency throughout the years and eras.
Goals had come down despite the advancement in stick technology.
We also got goaltenders who evolved to become more bulked up, yet the equipment was lighter than before.
The horse is out of the barn now. Theres no going back. This is just another reason why I dont like to compare two guys from different eras. Theres too many variables at play.
You could have restricted the bolded if every NHL player wasn't shooting the puck 90+ mph. It became a figurative arms race, and now there's a legitimate argument that you cannot reduce the size of goalie pads much further due to safety concerns.
Fair point. A sport like baseball has little equipment that can be enhanced by modern technology. Yea, gloves and cleats have improved to a degree. However, you could suit a player in gear from 1985 and he'd compete without issue. In hockey no chanceYes. All other equipment has advanced. Skates, jerseys, helmets, pads, and of course goalie equipment. There's no need to single out the stick, and leave it lagging in advancement.
Generally, I'd agree. However, bats have changed a great deal since the 90's. I don't think they are using ash anymore; I believe its maple. And they make them so light and flimsy now, every player seems to use at least two bats a game. I think part of the homerun surge is due to the quality of the bats, even if they aren't made to last.Fair point. A sport like baseball has little equipment that can be enhanced by modern technology. Yea, gloves and cleats have improved to a degree. However, you could suit a player in gear from 1985 and he'd compete without issue. In hockey no chance
That's probably true. My opinion is that I'd rather have the League mandate wooden sticks, but of course it only makes sense if goaltending equipment had also been more limited, but how do you limit something that's artificial to begin with?If wooden sticks were still in the NHL, we would most likely see scoring levels decrease below what they were in the DPE.
Any advantage that players have with composite sticks now are matched by equal advancements in goaltending equipment, where a goalie is literally able to stand there and save certain shots that would have went in 40 years ago.
Not to mention that advancements in defence and the structure of the game as well have tilted the game to a disadvantage of scoring anyways.
Definitely an interesting point of view, I did a quick and dirty quantitative look into goalscoring distribution between players:That's probably true. My opinion is that I'd rather have the League mandate wooden sticks, but of course it only makes sense if goaltending equipment had also been more limited, but how do you limit something that's artificial to begin with?
The late-90s was a weird period when an increase in goaltender training and athleticism coincided with a big increase in lightness and flexibility of equipment, resulting in the dead-puck era and a lot of average goalies looking dominant.
I almost wonder if it's going too far the other way now, though. Every day I see shots going in the net by stay-at-home defencemen that would have been impossible with wooden sticks. It's not that I would want scoring to go down, but I wonder now if equipment hasn't overly-leveled the playing field between elite and less-than-elite talents (offensively, anyway).
2018 | 2010 | 2000 | 1990 | 1980 | |
1st in goals | 51 | 51 | 58 | 72 | 68 |
10th in goals | 41 | 35 | 36 | 45 | 48 |
50th in goals | 28 | 25 | 25 | 30 | 30 |
100th in goals | 22 | 20 | 19 | 22 | 23 |
200th in goals | 14 | 13 | 12 | 12 | 13 |
300th in goals | 9 | 9 | 8 | 5 | 6 |
400th in goals | 6 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 2 |
Volume and sustain can be used to compensate for a lack of chops, but if anything it is harder to cover up mistakes when the instrument is amplified.This is a really tough question. Composite sticks are a bit like electric guitars... they cover up mistakes and make mediocre players look like stars, but they also provide experiences that otherwise wouldn't exist at all.
I think there are a lot of virtues in seeing the game played with wood sticks, but I'm inclined to say professionals should be using the best equipment available. Ideally amateurs should be using wood, a bit like the reverse of baseball.
I'd argue that if the league mandated wood only when composites first hit the scene there wouldn't be much of a drop now with wood.
What I mean is stick makers would've been forced to innovate and come up with better wood sticks
That's definitely a good point, but I'd figure that there would still be intrinsic limitations with wood in terms of weight and torque and lack of flex and so on that would mean the gains were a lot less drastic than what we see with composites (and I'm no expert in materials science or anything so someone who knows better could add some more insight).
My last stick when I really played as a teenager was this Nike aluminum thing, I thought it was so cool and all that back then. After that in my later teens I just got out of playing hockey a bit. In 2012 I bought my first new hockey stick in ten years (an Easton Mako first generation) and started to play around a bit. At first I was like "nice I got all my skills and shots as I remember them except I'm stronger I guess" and thought the stick was just lighter. Going back to some Sherwood and Louisville wood sticks was an eye opener. You eventually get used to the wood stick again and the muscle memory of how to pass/shoot/handle comes back with it, but there's no doubt these new sticks are something else in raising the skill floor at least (I'm probably not the right person to ask about the skill ceiling but I guess there's a reason all the pros now use them).
In 1984 there was only 63 first line first power play unit spot.Because of this, I would assume the the scoring of 100th place and lower seem to have remained fairly constant. The big changes come from the top ~50 goalscorers each year, being the top 1-3 (depending on era and # of teams) scorers per team.
In 1984 there was only 63 first line first power play unit spot.Because of this, I would assume the the scoring of 100th place and lower seem to have remained fairly constant. The big changes come from the top ~50 goalscorers each year, being the top 1-3 (depending on era and # of teams) scorers per team.
Why the f*** would you quote my post from 2.5 years ago?In 1984 there was only 63 first line first power play unit spot.
Now there is 96.
With some defenceman making the cut off, you have enough spot to be all filled by first liners/first PP unit guy now.
In hockey the change on the goaltender side of things equipment wise is so massive versus the equipment available to a pitcher and they do make the ball a bit fly a little longer or shorter over time has well, that it is not necessarily a fair comparable.
In 1984 there was only 63 first line first power play unit spot.
Now there is 96.
With some defenceman making the cut off, you have enough spot to be all filled by first liners/first PP unit guy now.
Composite stick did not lead to an out of norm high scoring change and was not an issue after the first couple of season when they were breaking all the time.
Did not see the date, but not sure what changed since for it to matter ? (But it should be obvious because it is a message just above a resurrected thread of the day)Why the f*** would you quote my post from 2.5 years ago?