Statistical showing of when Trapping and clutching and grabbing started

[Dark Shadows]

We were having a friendly discussion in another thread about a few players, and why their numbers dropped when they did, so I looked up this info. Figured hockey historians might enjoy seeing the numbers.
I might be off by 1 or two in a few places because ,well, I had to go to the hockeyDB and manually count. Some almost slipped by me because they were trade seasons, but I should have caught most.

I started it during the highest scoring period in hockey History.

In 1982-83: 11 players had over 100 points(Gretzky had 196). 31 players had over 80 points.
In 1983-84: 11 players had over 100 points(Gretzky had over 200). 41 players had over 80 points.
In 1984-85: 16 players had over 100 points(Gretzky had over 200). 35 players had over 80 points.
In 1985-86: 13 players had over 100 points(1 player had over 200). 30 players had over 80 points.
In 1986-87: 7 players had over 100 points(Gretzky had 183), 21 players had over 80 points.
In 1987-88: 8 players had over 100 points. 30 players had over 80 points.
In 1988-89: 9 players had over 100 points. 34 players had over 80 points.
In 1989-90: 12 players had over 100 points. 36 players had over 80 points
In 1990-91:10 players had over 100 points. 29 players had over 80 points.
In 1991-92: 9 players had over 100 points. 28 players had over 80 points.
In 1992-93: 20 players had over 100 points. 47 players had over 80 points.
In 1993-94: 8 players had over 100 points. 35 players had over 80 points.
In 1994-95: Lockout half season
In 1995-96: 11 players had over 100 points. 33 players had over 80 points.

Now, have we established that other than 1 freak scoring year(1992-93), that we see some consistency?
Here is where it becomes obvious:

In 1996-97: 2 players had over 100 points. 19 players had over 80 points.
In 1997-98: 1 player had over 100 points. 9 players had above 80 points.
In 1998-99: 3 players had over 100 points. 12 players had over 80 points
In 1999-2000: 0 players had over 100 points. 9 players had over 80 points
In 2000-01: 2 players had over 100 points. 20 players had over 80 points.
In 2001-02: 0 players had over 100 points. 4 players had over 80 points.
In 2002-03: 3 players had over 100 points. 14 players had over 80 points.
In 2003-04: 0 players had over 100 points. 8 players had over 80 points.
In 2004-05:Lockout Year
In 2005-06: 7 players had over 100 points. 26 players had over 80 points.
In 2006-07: 7 players had over 100 points. 28 players had over 80 points.

Okay, now we have definitely shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that Clutching/grabbing/trap play began to affect scoring precisely in 1996-97. Taking near full effect in 1997-98, and became crippling in 2001-2002. It also shows how the new rules have affected scoring.

Click to read more...

 

[Master_Of_Districts]

The problem with your analysis is that it only demonstrates a decrease in scoring occurred circa 1997.

There is nothing presented here to show that clutching and grabbing was causally related to this decrease.

Although the increase in the number of players who surpassed 100 points in the last two seasons seems to imply that the elimination of obstruction produced an increase in scoring, there are some problems with this conclusion.

Firstly, goals/game are a better metric for scoring levels than number of players who surpassed a certain point threshold (see: 1992-93).

If one uses goals/game to analyze scoring, it is found that most of the increase in post-lockout scoring was confined to the first year, which featured 6.17 goals/game. In fact, most of this increase can be attributed to an increase in powerplay goals scored due to the higher number of infractions.

In the second post-lockout year, scoring dropped to 5.88 goals/game, which can be corrected to 5.74 goals/game once controlling for the shootout. In 2007-08, scoring has decreased further, possibly due to a reduced number of powerplays. These numbers are more in-line with pre-lockout scoring levels (~5.3) than they are with 1991-1996 figures (~6.5).

My take: Obstruction was endemic in the NHL in the early 90s, but scoring remained above-average because the trapping/defensive mentality had not yet become widespread. Only in conjunction with this defensive mentality did widespread obstruction begin to reduce scoring, as was the case between lockouts. In fact, I'd say the ubiquity of defensive strategies is a more important factor in reducing goals/game, considering that current scoring levels are very similar to those seen in the dead-puck era, even though obstruction has effectively been eliminated from the game.

 

[BM67]

Just finished reading Bruce Hood's book Calling the Shots, which was published in 1988. In it he made quite a number of references to the increase in clutching and grabbing and the crackdown on interference. So it certainly can't be tied to the late 90s.

I'll also point out that the team with the fewest PPs in 95-96 had more than the league average for 96-97, 356 to 336. PPs generally came at a reduced rate from then until 05-06.

PP Advantages
Year - Low Avg High
87-88 347 437 500
88-89 334 403 491
89-90 330 367 442
90-91 317 366 403
91-92 338 402 467
92-93 399 443 510
93-94 333 407 459
94-95 164 209 259
95-96 356 413 477
96-97 287 336 406
97-98 333 380 483
98-99 301 359 438
99-00 274 331 377
00-01 310 376 435
01-02 261 338 391
02-03 303 363 420
03-04 300 348 426
05-06 411 480 541

 

[Dark Shadows]

The problem with your analysis is that it only demonstrates a decrease in scoring occurred circa 1997.

There is nothing presented here to show that clutching and grabbing was causally related to this decrease.

Although the increase in the number of players who surpassed 100 points in the last two seasons seems to imply that the elimination of obstruction produced an increase in scoring, there are some problems with this conclusion.

Firstly, goals/game are a better metric for scoring levels than number of players who surpassed a certain point threshold (see: 1992-93).

If one uses goals/game to analyze scoring, it is found that most of the increase in post-lockout scoring was confined to the first year, which featured 6.17 goals/game. In fact, most of this increase can be attributed to an increase in powerplay goals scored due to the higher number of infractions.

In the second post-lockout year, scoring dropped to 5.88 goals/game, which can be corrected to 5.74 goals/game once controlling for the shootout. In 2007-08, scoring has decreased further, possibly due to a reduced number of powerplays. These numbers are more in-line with pre-lockout scoring levels (~5.3) than they are with 1991-1996 figures (~6.5).

My take: Obstruction was endemic in the NHL in the early 90s, but scoring remained above-average because the trapping/defensive mentality had not yet become widespread. Only in conjunction with this defensive mentality did widespread obstruction begin to reduce scoring, as was the case between lockouts. In fact, I'd say the ubiquity of defensive strategies is a more important factor in reducing goals/game, considering that current scoring levels are very similar to those seen in the dead-puck era, even though obstruction has effectively been eliminated from the game.

It is my position that both played a factor in reducing scoring. However, with the removal of clutching and grabbing, there has been a visible increase in scoring. Defense first is still what most teams play, so scoring of course, has not, nor will it ever, reach the plateau it did in the 80's. But it is definitely up as a result. Since most teams still employ a defensive style, 3rd and 4th line scoring has not increased much(Which affects the global number for goals per game). However, the statistics show that around the same number of players are hitting the 100 point plateau, and the 80 point plateau as the late 80's, early 90's

 

[lemieux32*]

The trap was being used by the famous Flying Frenchmen teams.

 

[007madden007]

SHARKS EXPANSION

In 1991-92: 9 players had over 100 points. 28 players had over 80 points.

SENATORS & LIGHTNING EXPANSION

In 1992-93: 20 players had over 100 points. 47 players had over 80 points.

DUCKS & PANTHERS EXPANSION

In 1993-94: 8 players had over 100 points. 35 players had over 80 points.
In 1994-95: Lockout half season
In 1995-96: 11 players had over 100 points. 33 players had over 80 points.
In 1996-97: 2 players had over 100 points. 19 players had over 80 points.
In 1997-98: 1 player had over 100 points. 9 players had above 80 points.

PREDATORS EXPANSION

In 1998-99: 3 players had over 100 points. 12 players had over 80 points

THRASHERS EXPANSION

In 1999-2000: 0 players had over 100 points. 9 players had over 80 points

BLUE JACKETS & WILD EXPANSION

In 2000-01: 2 players had over 100 points. 20 players had over 80 points.
In 2001-02: 0 players had over 100 points. 4 players had over 80 points.
In 2002-03: 3 players had over 100 points. 14 players had over 80 points.
In 2003-04: 0 players had over 100 points. 8 players had over 80 points.

Okay, now we have definitely shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that Clutching/grabbing/trap play began to affect scoring precisely in 1996-97. Taking near full effect in 1997-98, and became crippling in 2001-2002. It also shows how the new rules have affected scoring.

You haven't shown anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The league increased from 21 to 30 teams in a decade. Expansion watered down the product.

The highest scoring team in 92/93 was the Penguins, who had eight 20 goal scorers and six guys who averaged at least a point a game (seven if you count Mullen's 70 in 72).

The highest scoring team in 99/00 was the Devils (seriously) who had four 20 goal scorers and one guy who averaged a point a game. Obviously, the style of the teams was different (although those Devils were not a trap team), but SO WAS THE LEVEL OF TALENT.

Guys who were playing on the third line on the 92/93 Pens would have been first liners are virtually any 99/00 team (assuming that they travelled in a time machine and didn't age seven years).

In the 80's / early 90's, virtually every team had a minimum of one great line. By the end of the 90's, teams tended to have just one or two top players. That made a huge difference, both in coaching strategies and success.

 

[Dark Shadows]

You haven't shown anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The league increased from 21 to 30 teams in a decade. Expansion watered down the product.

The highest scoring team in 92/93 was the Penguins, who had eight 20 goal scorers and six guys who averaged at least a point a game (seven if you count Mullen's 70 in 72).

The highest scoring team in 99/00 was the Devils (seriously) who had four 20 goal scorers and one guy who averaged a point a game. Obviously, the style of the teams was different (although those Devils were not a trap team), but SO WAS THE LEVEL OF TALENT.

Guys who were playing on the third line on the 92/93 Pens would have been first liners are virtually any 99/00 team (assuming that they travelled in a time machine and didn't age seven years).

In the 80's / early 90's, virtually every team had a minimum of one great line. By the end of the 90's, teams tended to have just one or two top players. That made a huge difference, both in coaching strategies and success.

The problem with your theory about expansion is this. Why did removing of the red line rule, clutching and grabbing, and more teams ditching trapping for high offense strategies raise scoring to almost the same level as the late 80's, early 90's?

By your theory it should be impossible to have the same level of points in the "Watered down league" between 2005-2008, but they are doing it.

The answer? Because clutching and grabbing is gone, because the red line is gone(Helping against trapping teams). Unless you have some answer to this miraculous increase in scoring in the "watered down league".

 

[007madden007]

The problem with your theory about expansion is this. Why did removing of the red line rule, clutching and grabbing, and more teams ditching trapping for high offense strategies raise scoring to almost the same level as the late 80's, early 90's?

By your theory it should be impossible to have the same level of points in the "Watered down league" between 2005-2008, but they are doing it.

The answer? Because clutching and grabbing is gone, because the red line is gone(Helping against trapping teams). Unless you have some answer to this miraculous increase in scoring in the "watered down league".

Scoring has not returned to the level of the late 80's and early 90's.

In 92/93, 15 of the 24 teams scored at least 300 goals.

In 06/07, 1 out of 30 did.

The lowest scoring team in 92/93 were the Ottawa Senators (202 GF), one of the worst teams in NHL history (70 losses!). The 06/07 Jackets, Hawks, and Oilers all scored fewer goals than the 92/93 Sens.

The only other team to score fewer than 240 goals in 92/93 were the Sharks (218 GF, 70 losses). In 06/07, 13 teams scored fewer than 240 goals, including two division winners (Devils, Canucks) and two other playoff teams (Wild, Stars).

The high scoring 06/07 Sabres would have tied for the 14th highest scoring team in 92/93!

 

[arrbez]

Scoring has not returned to the level of the late 80's and early 90's.

In 92/93, 15 of the 24 teams scored at least 300 goals.

In 06/07, 1 out of 30 did.

The lowest scoring team in 92/93 were the Ottawa Senators (202 GF), one of the worst teams in NHL history (70 losses!). The 06/07 Jackets, Hawks, and Oilers all scored fewer goals than the 92/93 Sens.

The only other team to score fewer than 240 goals in 92/93 were the Sharks (218 GF, 70 losses). In 06/07, 13 teams scored fewer than 240 goals, including two division winners (Devils, Canucks) and two other playoff teams (Wild, Stars).

The high scoring 06/07 Sabres would have tied for the 14th highest scoring team in 92/93!

1992/93 is a giant anomoly, and obviously shouldn't be used as an example of what typical scoring looked like during the early 90's. Some truly awfull expansion teams and an 84 game schedual lead to ridiculous point totals that don't at all fall in line with the surrounding years.

In 92/93, 15 of the 24 teams scored at least 300 goals.

In 06/07, 1 out of 30 did.

In 91/92 four teams topped 300 goals, and in 93/94 three teams did.

Scoring isn't where it once was, but it's not as far off as you're trying to represent it. Even more than clutching and grabbing, the biggest difference IMO has been MUCH better goaltending.

 

[rmchahn]

When did the larger goalie pads come in?

 

[Ted Hoffman]

Talking about how many players scored X points in a given year is largely useless. In 1992-93 fourteen (14) players scored 50 or more goals - that year, 7.25 goals per game were scored. In 1989-90 [7.37 goals per game], there were only 8 50-goal scorers; the 9 years prior to that [which also had more goals per game than the '92-93 season], the number of 50-goal scorers was 6, 8, 5, 6, 9, 8, 7, 10, 8, and 9. Why didn't the highest-scoring season [on a per-game basis] in NHL history produce more than 10 50-goal scorers?

No, the big drop came in '93-94 when goal scoring fell by about 0.8 goals per game; the '94-95 season saw the first season averaging under 6 goals per game since 1969-70, and after '95-96 saw a rebound to 6.29 goals per game we fell back under 6 goals per game from '96-97 until the lockout. People also forget that scoring never really topped 6 goals per game with any regularity until the 70s, and think that the 12-year period after the NHL-WHA merger of 7 or more goals per game is what hockey has always been like. It's not - looking at the entire history of the NHL, that period was an anomaly.

 

[007madden007]

1992/93 is a giant anomoly, and obviously shouldn't be used as an example of what typical scoring looked like during the early 90's. Some truly awfull expansion teams and an 84 game schedual lead to ridiculous point totals that don't at all fall in line with the surrounding years.

I'll concede that.

In 91/92 four teams topped 300 goals, and in 93/94 three teams did.

Scoring isn't where it once was, but it's not as far off as you're trying to represent it. Even more than clutching and grabbing, the biggest difference IMO has been MUCH better goaltending.

91/92 - 4/22 (18%)
93/94 - 3/26 (12%)
06/07 - 1/30 (3%)

That's still a pretty big difference.

 

[007madden007]

Let's look at this based on the % of players who reached those levels. I'll just use 18 skaters per team as the baseline. Obviously that under represents the total # of players who lace up the skates in a given season, but the guys who play 20 games a year aren't really a factor in this regard.

21 teams / 378 players

In 1989-90: 3% / 8%
In 1990-91: 3% / 8%

22 teams / 396 players

In 1991-92: 3% / 7%

24 teams / 432 players

In 1992-93: 5% / 11%

26 teams / 468 players

In 1993-94: 2% / 7%
In 1995-96: 2% / 7%
In 1996-97: 0% / 4%

30 teams / 540 players

In 2005-06: 1% / 5%
In 2006-07: 1% / 5%

 

[seventieslord]

This shows that scoring dropped during those years, but does not in any way prove that it was related to clutching and grabbing. If there was a way to relate scoring to the amount of hooking/holding/interference penalties called, then you may be on to something.... on second thought, never mind. you'd find that they called less and less of it as the scoring got lower and lower. there is probably no good way to do this other than relate anecdotal evidence of the on-ice product we witnessed.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Scoring has not returned to the level of the late 80's and early 90's.

In 92/93, 15 of the 24 teams scored at least 300 goals.

In 06/07, 1 out of 30 did.

The lowest scoring team in 92/93 were the Ottawa Senators (202 GF), one of the worst teams in NHL history (70 losses!). The 06/07 Jackets, Hawks, and Oilers all scored fewer goals than the 92/93 Sens.

The only other team to score fewer than 240 goals in 92/93 were the Sharks (218 GF, 70 losses). In 06/07, 13 teams scored fewer than 240 goals, including two division winners (Devils, Canucks) and two other playoff teams (Wild, Stars).

The high scoring 06/07 Sabres would have tied for the 14th highest scoring team in 92/93!

I never said it has returned to the same level. I said it scoring was way up in comparison to 1998-2004, and that 97 was when the drop began.

Another guy already mentioned it, but 92-93 was a freak year, and among the highest scoring years in NHL history.

Now I have said this several times. Scoring has jumped. Not to the same level obviously, but much higher than between 98-04. The reason being? The star scorers can again easily attain 80 points-100 points. It is much closer to the late 80's, early 90's in regards to 80 point and 100 point players. This proves that the new rules are working, and superstars can again use their skill without losing a step to clutching and grabbing.

The reason scoring as a whole did not jump is simple. 2nd, 3rd and 4th lines in the early 80's scored more, and were not as watered down. They were not relied on for as much defense. Certainly some were. But many 3rd and 4th liners were scoring 20 goals back in the day as opposed to today, where it is rookies, energy players/roleplayers, and defensive forwards.

If somehow, the scoring increase was not due to the new rules making the trap less effective, and highly reducing clutching and grabbing. How exactly do you explain the sudden uprise of 100+ point scorers, and 80+ point scorers becoming similar to mid 80's early 90's all of the sudden?
Obviously, the new rules did something to enable them to start scoring at this pace. Its not some mystic coincidence. As another pointed out. Goaltending is improved, and equipment is huge. Yet another factor in why scoring has not jumped THAT high, but still increased.

 

[Master_Of_Districts]

It is my position that both played a factor in reducing scoring.

Generally speaking, I agree.

but 92-93 was a freak year, and among the highest scoring years in NHL history.

Well, from my understanding, the surplus of 100+ point players in 1992-93 was not so much due to an increase in an increase in the average number of goals per game, but rather, to an increase in scoring variance that year (i.e. good players and good teams exploited the crappy expansion teams).

If somehow, the scoring increase was not due to the new rules making the trap less effective, and highly reducing clutching and grabbing. How exactly do you explain the sudden uprise of 100+ point scorers, and 80+ point scorers becoming similar to mid 80's early 90's all of the sudden?

I agree with you in that post-lockout elimination of clutching and grabbing had an effect, but I think that the increase in powerplays was a larger factor. For example, in 2003-04 the average team scored 140 ES goals, compared to 148 for 2005-06. But in terms of PP goals, the difference was 57 vs 85 goals per team, in favor of 2005-06. In 2006-07, the average team scored 152 ES goals and 70 PP goals.

The increase in ES scoring can probably be attributed to reduced obstruction, but this increase is somewhat limited compared to the corresponding increase in PP goals, especially for 2005-06.

2003-04 Data
2005-06 Data
2006-07 Data

 

[Fish on The Sand]

.The increase in ES scoring can probably be attributed to reduced obstruction, but this increase is somewhat limited compared to the corresponding increase in PP goals, especially for 2005-06.

This is correct however, the 8 goal increase is actually more than 8 goals. The rise in powerplays rose considerably causing the biggest increase in goal scoring. There will be no debate from me there. However with such a rise in powerplays even strength time was greatly redcued. You would get a better idea of how much even strength scoring increased by looking at even strength goals/minute.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

91/92 - 4/22 (18%)
93/94 - 3/26 (12%)
06/07 - 1/30 (3%)

That's still a pretty big difference.

here is something to consider. When those expansion teams came in, they didn't have a realistic chance of scoring 300+ goals as they were defact minor league teams. Basically, you are just adding to the total number of teams without the talent being distributed. Essentialy from 91/92 to 93/94 you have a decrease in 300 goal team, not a difference of 6% of you the numbers would lead you to believe. The expansion teams had no realistic chance of doing this.

Now, by 06/07 the game was very different. There are now 30 teams and all have been around for at least 7 seasons and all but one has been to the playoffs, and the one that missed had a player win a share of the Richard trophy once. So clearly, the talent had a chance to distribute itself around the league. The difference in team-wide goal scoring is simple. More teams means the talent concentration on each team is less due to 2 main factors.

1) More teams=more players=stretched player pool
2) Salary cap restricts talent concentration team by team

With less raw ability on rosters teams are forced to play a much better positional game with an emphasis on defence. In addition to this, goalies began to dominate the game.

During the 1980s when talent concentration was at an all time high, teams rarely played smart, responsible positional hockey. This was because they could ice 3 scoring lines. In addition to this, goaltenders just plain sucked in the 80s. Billy Smith and Patrick Roy are the only hall of famers I believe from the 80s, and most of Roy's career was in the 90s and early 00s. There was a distinct lack of quality goaltending in this decade.
Not only was goaltending a farce, but defence was too. As for players who spent their prime years playing defence in the 80s you are limited to 1 hall of famer. There were obviously guys like Chelios, Leetch, Potvin and Robinson, but all of them spent their best years either in the 70s or 90s. Bourque and Coffey are the exceptions to this.

The 80s was the decade of the forward. The combination of an expanding talent pool, and a small team count concentrated the talent greatly. Combine this with the worst decade for goaltending and defence and you have yourself 8 goals a game.

*Disclaimer* All names were people I ran off the top of my head. If I am missing any defencemen who are already in the hall of fame or are mortal locks for the hall of fame who spent their prime seasons (or a good chunk of their prime) in the 80s feel free to correct)

 

[Flinch*]

The problem with your theory about expansion is this. Why did removing of the red line rule, clutching and grabbing, and more teams ditching trapping for high offense strategies raise scoring to almost the same level as the late 80's, early 90's?

By your theory it should be impossible to have the same level of points in the "Watered down league" between 2005-2008, but they are doing it.

The answer? Because clutching and grabbing is gone, because the red line is gone(Helping against trapping teams). Unless you have some answer to this miraculous increase in scoring in the "watered down league".

I'm curious about the breakdown of 5 on 5 goals vs. goals scored on the power play and whether or not the number of penalty calls, period, were substantially increased and how much of this scoring increase is related to goals scored on the man advantage.

 

[GNick42]

The trap appeared here and there for many years but came to forefront in the mid-'90s. With so much expansion fast and the game watered down, the scoring was going crazy there once. Offensive minded players were running all over previous AHL talented players. Coaches on weaker teams were looking for anyway to slow it down.

Jacques Lemaire took the Devils to a cup with it and Roger Nielson took an expansion team to a .500 record its first year and cup finals a couple of years later. After that everybody did it.

 

[007madden007]

I never said it has returned to the same level.

You said:

Why did removing of the red line rule, clutching and grabbing, and more teams ditching trapping for high offense strategies raise scoring to almost the same level as the late 80's, early 90's?

I've demonstrated that it hasn't.

It is much closer to the late 80's, early 90's in regards to 80 point and 100 point players.

No, it isn't. 7 or 8 players out of 540 reaching the 100 point level is not the same as 7 or 8 out of 378 doing so.

1% of NHL players reached the 100 point level in 05/06 and 06/07. This is a slight increase over the previous few seasons, not the massive jump that you keep on implying.

This proves that the new rules are working, and superstars can again use their skill without losing a step to clutching and grabbing.

No, it doesn't prove anything. Even if we agree that scoring has increased, all that you have demonstrated is a correlation between the rule changes and an increase in scoring, not proven a cause and effect relationship.

1) You repeatedly muddle "clutching and grabbing" with defensive systems such as "the trap". They are not interchangeable. Many (but not all) Devils teams of the era were "trap" teams, but they were not "clutch and grab" teams. The Panthers of the mid-90's are a good example of a "clutch and grab" team. Last night, the Leafs used a "trap" system against the Bruins, but only had two minor penalties because they weren't playing a "clutch and grab" style.

2) You are similarly confusing the stronger enforcement of holding/hooking/etc. penalties with the actual new rules that came into effect post-lockout. Removing the red line doesn't negate the trap (it just moves it backwards) and has nothing to do with "clutching and grabbing", however it too has been cited as a reason why scoring has increased.

3) You have completely ignored the emergence of new, generational talents. Take a look at the top scorers of 05/06 and 06/07. The list is dominated by young players (Crosby, Thornton, Lecavalier, Heatley, Hossa, Ovechkin, Staal - all under 30). Now look at the scoring leaders from pre-lockout years. The lists are dominated by older players (Forsberg, Naslund, Murray, Bertuzzi, Elias, Sundin, etc.).

4) You have also ignored the retirement/decline of many of the great defencemen of the 90's / early 00's.

5) The biggest problem with your argument is that the 100/80 point levels, while nice and simple to look at, are extremely arbitrary and pretty much meaningless. There were five players in 02/03 who scored at least 97 points, compared to seven in 06/07. Suddenly the gap isn't so large, is it?

6) What about injuries? The top ten scorers in 06/07 missed four games combined! Three of those four games were missed by Crosby, the other by Briere. The ten scorers in 99/00 missed 73 games in total! Jagr, Bure, Kariya, and Sakic all likely would have eclipsed the 100 point mark if they had been healthier.

7) As others have pointed out, you haven't accounted for the increase in power play goals.

So, tell me again how you have proven that the "new rules" have restored scoring "almost" to the levels of the late 80's / early 90's?

The new rules, and better enforcement of old ones, has had some impact on scoring, particularly for younger, faster, offensively gifted players. I've never disagreed with that. Your argument, however, is that there has been a huge increase in scoring (there hasn't) and that it is entirely the result of a crackdown on "clutching and grabbing" (it isn't).

 

[EpochLink]

In 1999-2000: 0 players had over 100 points. 9 players had over 80 points
In 2000-01: 2 players had over 100 points. 20 players had over 80 points.
In 2001-02: 0 players had over 100 points. 4 players had over 80 points.
In 2002-03: 3 players had over 100 points. 14 players had over 80 points.

Those players with 100 points within that span were Sakic, Jagr, Naslund, Forsberg and Thornton in that 4 season span. 01-02 the only four players that had over 80 were Iginla, Naslund, Bertuzzi and Sundin.

 

[Master_Of_Districts]

This is correct however, the 8 goal increase is actually more than 8 goals.

Yeah, I suppose my original statement was somewhat misleading. The actual aggregate increase was 240 more ES goals.

However with such a rise in powerplays even strength time was greatly redcued. You would get a better idea of how much even strength scoring increased by looking at even strength goals/minute.

This is a good point, and something I've failed to consider.

On another note, comparing scoring in 2003-04 to the two post lockout years probably overstates the increase in post-lockout scoring considering that scoring in 2003-04 was lower than any other year in the dead puck era.

For example, just looking at 2001-02 and 2002-03, there were 148 and 145 ES goals scored by each team on average (respectively). These figures are even more similar to those in 2005-06 and 2006-07.

As you mentioned, though, it is crucial to compare even strength scoring rates to get a more accurate picture of how scoring changed across years, rather than absolute numbers.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Okay, now we have definitely shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that Clutching/grabbing/trap play began to affect scoring precisely in 1996-97. Taking near full effect in 1997-98, and became crippling in 2001-2002. It also shows how the new rules have affected scoring.

That would make sense. The 1996 playoffs were when 2nd year expansion team Florida, used a very passive (boring?) trap to reach the finals.

 

[Dark Shadows]

You said:

I've demonstrated that it hasn't.



No, it isn't. 7 or 8 players out of 540 reaching the 100 point level is not the same as 7 or 8 out of 378 doing so.

1% of NHL players reached the 100 point level in 05/06 and 06/07. This is a slight increase over the previous few seasons, not the massive jump that you keep on implying.

Why are you even bothering to do it by player % who hit 100 points or 80 points? Even with the fact that we have 540 players now as opposed to 378 back in the day, that doesn't magically mean that the same % of them should become top scorers. Being a top scorer is a gift that precious few have. Add all the players you want. It doesn't mean that the same % of them will suddenly become top scoring talent. The top scorers are less hemmed in now. That is why they are scoring 100 points and 80 points more often again.

No, it doesn't prove anything. Even if we agree that scoring has increased, all that you have demonstrated is a correlation between the rule changes and an increase in scoring, not proven a cause and effect relationship.

1) You repeatedly muddle "clutching and grabbing" with defensive systems such as "the trap". They are not interchangeable. Many (but not all) Devils teams of the era were "trap" teams, but they were not "clutch and grab" teams. The Panthers of the mid-90's are a good example of a "clutch and grab" team. Last night, the Leafs used a "trap" system against the Bruins, but only had two minor penalties because they weren't playing a "clutch and grab" style.

Ok, no offense, but the devils were among the big offenders in clutching and grabbing throughout the late 90's early 2000's. I understand that as a Madden fan, you will disagree, but Madden was a huge clutch and grab kid. I watched him, game in and game out latch on and slow and shadow in ways that would get him penalized today.

2) You are similarly confusing the stronger enforcement of holding/hooking/etc. penalties with the actual new rules that came into effect post-lockout. Removing the red line doesn't negate the trap (it just moves it backwards) and has nothing to do with "clutching and grabbing", however it too has been cited as a reason why scoring has increased.

When I talk about the "New rules" of course I also mean stronger enforcement of holding and hooking, interfering with players away from the play, etc.
Removing the red line doesn't negate the trap. It just makes it a world easier to make outlet passes.

3) You have completely ignored the emergence of new, generational talents. Take a look at the top scorers of 05/06 and 06/07. The list is dominated by young players (Crosby, Thornton, Lecavalier, Heatley, Hossa, Ovechkin, Staal - all under 30). Now look at the scoring leaders from pre-lockout years. The lists are dominated by older players (Forsberg, Naslund, Murray, Bertuzzi, Elias, Sundin, etc.).

Naslund was an older player in the pre lockout years? Bertuzzi? dude, they were in their primes. Naslund and Forsberg just turned 30, and Bertuzzi was 28. Iginla was 26. Thornton was scoring big as a 23 year old pre lockout, not just after. Elias scoring high young. Lecavalier, Heatley, Hossa ALL WERE SCORING HIGH YOUNG PRE LOCKOUT. The problem was that "high scoring" pre lockout was 80 points.
In fact, this argument works against you. The new rules rejuvenated the numbers of some older forwards who were "mere" 80 point, 30 goal men for a few years. Obviously they are not "new generational talent"
Jagr had a major bounce back year after several disappointing years because he could use his speed again. Selanne and Sakic are 37 year olds scoring 90-100 points again. All 3 have been outspoken about how much the new rules has opened up mobility and how the crackdowns have been responsible for their resurgence. Selanne also credits this to his repaired knee, but still claims most of the credit is for obstruction crackdown.

This "generational talent" you speak of, is Crosby, and Ovechkin. All the others were scoring well before the lockout by pre lockout standards.

4) You have also ignored the retirement/decline of many of the great defencemen of the 90's / early 00's.

This, I will agree with you on. We are having a lack of #1 Dmen nowdays. However, the skill level separating top Dmen from #3/4 nowdays is much smaller than it used to be.
The uprising of great goaltending pretty much offsets the downswing of defense. Goaltending is better than it ever has been, pads are twice as big and half as heavy as they used to be

5) The biggest problem with your argument is that the 100/80 point levels, while nice and simple to look at, are extremely arbitrary and pretty much meaningless. There were five players in 02/03 who scored at least 97 points, compared to seven in 06/07. Suddenly the gap isn't so large, is it?

02/03 was also the highest scoring spread year in the 2000's before the lockout. 20 people scored over 80 points that year. It was an anomaly year for its era, just like 92-93 was a huge anomaly.

By the way, you took the number 97 as a cutoff point for a reason. Had you taken 95 points, 10 players in 06/07 vs the 5 in 02/03. but I get it. It makes your argument look better if you are selective about your numbers.

6) What about injuries? The top ten scorers in 06/07 missed four games combined! Three of those four games were missed by Crosby, the other by Briere. The ten scorers in 99/00 missed 73 games in total! Jagr, Bure, Kariya, and Sakic all likely would have eclipsed the 100 point mark if they had been healthier.

In 99-00
Jagr, yes, Bure, yes, Sakic, yes. Kariya? no he would have hit 95 points. In any case, three 100 point scorers and eight 80 point scorers is not much above the normal then.
In both post lockout years, 2 more players than the 7 who hit 100 would have hit 100 if not for injuries(Spezza both years, and Kovalchuk + Iginla the others). it works both ways.

7) As others have pointed out, you haven't accounted for the increase in power play goals.

So, tell me again how you have proven that the "new rules" have restored scoring "almost" to the levels of the late 80's / early 90's?

Again, the same amount of scorers are scoring around 100 points adn 80 points again. not quite there, but close. No it does not go by % based on the greater volume of players. Its a gift. Greater number of players does not mean you will find a greater number with the gift. Most who had the gift would have been found anyhow because diamonds stand out like a sore thumb.

The new rules, and better enforcement of old ones, has had some impact on scoring, particularly for younger, faster, offensively gifted players. I've never disagreed with that. Your argument, however, is that there has been a huge increase in scoring (there hasn't) and that it is entirely the result of a crackdown on "clutching and grabbing" (it isn't).

Huge increase in scoring overall? Not too huge. huge difference for the guys who can score 100 points and 80 points? Yes.

Obviously since all of them were commenting like crazy about how nice the new rules were for them, and how they have so much more room to work with.