Statistical showing of when Trapping and clutching and grabbing started

[Dr Love]

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

Well, now we're getting somewhere. PPs down, dramatically, from 96 to 04, and not surprisingly scoring was down significantly during that time. And now that PPs are back to where they were before, we're seeing scoring back to those levels as well.

But why were PPs down? That's the question.

 

[God Bless Canada]

I'd be interested in seeing how many players who played at least 40 games, scored at a 100-point clip, and a point-per-game clip.

Interesting read on TSN if you dig around. Bob McKenzie did a "look back" piece to stories in the news from November 1987. Among the headlines was an obstruction crackdown. I guess there was a lot of hooking and holding in 1987, too.

A lot of reasons why you had the high number of 50-goal, 100-point seasons in 1992-93. Teams played 84 games that year. Obstruction was once again cracked down. Ottawa and Tampa entered the league. San Jose was in their second year. Established teams protected two goalies. These teams struggled to find goalies. I think San Jose set league records for losses and goals against.

Many thought goal scoring would continue to go up in 1993-94. And Florida and Anaheim would be awful. But established teams were only allowed to protect one keeper instead of two, so the newbies got good goalies. And Tampa made a move to get Darren Puppa. The rapid expansion left many teams with only a handful of quality offensive players. That hurt. Elite players got their points. But the days of teams having two or three lines with dangerous offensive players were over.

1995-96 had another obstruction crackdown. But the talent pool hadn't recovered from five expansion teams in three years. Most teams had one dangerous power play unit. A few had two. The elite players put up points. A lot of guys had career years offensively. But the absence of secondary scoring on a lot of teams, (ie: the inability to have a quality second PP unit) is why scoring wasn't higher than 6.3 goals per game. Also, that obstruction crackdown softened as the season went along.

There are a lot of reasons why scoring has dropped. And it's not just an NHL thing. The WHL has had several seasons with scoring under six goals per game. Scoring is down in many leagues, from the NHL to Saskatchewan Midget AAA. I could do an essay on the drop in scoring, but here are a few reasons:

*Expansion. Many teams still can't ice a quality second scoring line, or a credible second PP unit. Players are better skaters, shooters and stickhandlers, but you can't teach a kid instincts or creativity. Get past that first PP unit, and you're set.

And it's not just the NHL that got too big for its britches. Other leagues have, too. It used to be a 16-year-old in the WHL was a sure-fire future NHL star. A few years ago, there were 16-year-olds in the Dub who had zero chance to play in the NHL. Over-dilution forced NHL teams to bring up players before they were ready. That forced major junior teams to bring up players who should have been in junior A or midget. Trickle-down effect.

*Goaltending. Yeah, the equipment is bigger. That helps. But a lot of great goalies were drafted or entered the league in the mid-to-late 80s and early 90s, and they hit their stride in the late 90s. Bigger, quicker goalies who had that mental edge. Roy, Hasek and Brodeur - three of the top 10 ever - were at their peak from 1997 to 2002. The goalies who came along in the late 70s and early 80s were mediocre compared to those before them, and after.

*Development. Junior and midget games used to be scrambly and loosy-goosy. You still see it, but team defence and system play are a much bigger part of the game. A lot of the creative kids have been stiffled. Especially on defence. And I think that shows in the talent pipeline gap for defencemen drafted from 1994 to 2001.

The CHA got the right idea a few years ago when they allowed the two-line pass in minor hockey. I look at the 2008 draft class, which is loaded with quality defencemen. These are kids who would have been 11 or 12 when the two-line pass was permitted. I don't think it's a coincidence. Hopefully these kids develop, and 2008 isn't a blip.

I think hockey would be well-served if kids got back to the old backyard rink. No coaches. No systems. Just work on your game, and find what works for you. And be creative. Too much emphasis on scores at the lower levels.

*Clutch and grab hockey. It wasn't called. And when the league tried a crackdown (1998 playoffs, 2002-03 season) it didn't last. It's seeping back into the game, but it's not as bad as it was from 1997 to 2004.

Two other reasons goal scoring was so high: Gretzky and Lemieux. To have the two best players centres ever enter the league five years apart was a boon. Centre position is the one that drives offences the most. And not only did you have Gretzky and Lemieux, you had a whole host of dynamic, creative pivots who entered the league in the late 70s and early 80s. You also had the first generation of defencemen following the Orr era. Defencemen were encouraged to jump into the rush, and teams were willing to go with an offensive defenceman like a Paul Coffey.

 

[Yann]

Heres what i think. The expansion forced the coaches of those teams to perform defensively as when you dont have much talent its about the only way to win, thus developping more of a defensive mentally, some top teams followed thinking they would be even better.

Clutching and grabing was part of bringing scoring down but not the biggest problem.

If you look at it, back in the day teams would be looking at forwards as goal scorers, and if they could pick between an offense minded, 20 goal 40pt 4th line center that would be minus 15 or a defense minded 4th liner that would get 10 goals 20-25pts and be even or -5, they would pick the 40 pts guy.

Not as many coaches were defense minded like Lemaire and Claude Julien. How can you change that and make them more offense minded, theres no good way of doing it.

Something else that, once again, isnt the major problem, but is a problem is the pads for goaltenders. Theyve increased in size, and slowly but surely so have goalies, wich is part of why you have less goals. When i look at highlights from back in the day, theres always some goals that i can say, many goalies would of had that, it makes a difference and pads need to be smaller, only thing is, nowadays make pads smaller and they become so lightweight that a goalies reflexes look great, back in the day they were smaller and heavier, making a goalie slower.

The game has changed, you cant change the coaches and if you make smaller pads they wont be heavy as they were before. The game is great as it is now, the world has changed and so has the sport, its not as high scoring, but its still entertaining.

 

[Yann]

I'd be interested in seeing how many players who played at least 40 games, scored at a 100-point clip, and a point-per-game clip.

Interesting read on TSN if you dig around. Bob McKenzie did a "look back" piece to stories in the news from November 1987. Among the headlines was an obstruction crackdown. I guess there was a lot of hooking and holding in 1987, too.

A lot of reasons why you had the high number of 50-goal, 100-point seasons in 1992-93. Teams played 84 games that year. Obstruction was once again cracked down. Ottawa and Tampa entered the league. San Jose was in their second year. Established teams protected two goalies. These teams struggled to find goalies. I think San Jose set league records for losses and goals against.

Many thought goal scoring would continue to go up in 1993-94. And Florida and Anaheim would be awful. But established teams were only allowed to protect one keeper instead of two, so the newbies got good goalies. And Tampa made a move to get Darren Puppa. The rapid expansion left many teams with only a handful of quality offensive players. That hurt. Elite players got their points. But the days of teams having two or three lines with dangerous offensive players were over.

1995-96 had another obstruction crackdown. But the talent pool hadn't recovered from five expansion teams in three years. Most teams had one dangerous power play unit. A few had two. The elite players put up points. A lot of guys had career years offensively. But the absence of secondary scoring on a lot of teams, (ie: the inability to have a quality second PP unit) is why scoring wasn't higher than 6.3 goals per game. Also, that obstruction crackdown softened as the season went along.

There are a lot of reasons why scoring has dropped. And it's not just an NHL thing. The WHL has had several seasons with scoring under six goals per game. Scoring is down in many leagues, from the NHL to Saskatchewan Midget AAA. I could do an essay on the drop in scoring, but here are a few reasons:

*Expansion. Many teams still can't ice a quality second scoring line, or a credible second PP unit. Players are better skaters, shooters and stickhandlers, but you can't teach a kid instincts or creativity. Get past that first PP unit, and you're set.

And it's not just the NHL that got too big for its britches. Other leagues have, too. It used to be a 16-year-old in the WHL was a sure-fire future NHL star. A few years ago, there were 16-year-olds in the Dub who had zero chance to play in the NHL. Over-dilution forced NHL teams to bring up players before they were ready. That forced major junior teams to bring up players who should have been in junior A or midget. Trickle-down effect.

*Goaltending. Yeah, the equipment is bigger. That helps. But a lot of great goalies were drafted or entered the league in the mid-to-late 80s and early 90s, and they hit their stride in the late 90s. Bigger, quicker goalies who had that mental edge. Roy, Hasek and Brodeur - three of the top 10 ever - were at their peak from 1997 to 2002. The goalies who came along in the late 70s and early 80s were mediocre compared to those before them, and after.

*Development. Junior and midget games used to be scrambly and loosy-goosy. You still see it, but team defence and system play are a much bigger part of the game. A lot of the creative kids have been stiffled. Especially on defence. And I think that shows in the talent pipeline gap for defencemen drafted from 1994 to 2001.

The CHA got the right idea a few years ago when they allowed the two-line pass in minor hockey. I look at the 2008 draft class, which is loaded with quality defencemen. These are kids who would have been 11 or 12 when the two-line pass was permitted. I don't think it's a coincidence. Hopefully these kids develop, and 2008 isn't a blip.

I think hockey would be well-served if kids got back to the old backyard rink. No coaches. No systems. Just work on your game, and find what works for you. And be creative. Too much emphasis on scores at the lower levels.

*Clutch and grab hockey. It wasn't called. And when the league tried a crackdown (1998 playoffs, 2002-03 season) it didn't last. It's seeping back into the game, but it's not as bad as it was from 1997 to 2004.

Two other reasons goal scoring was so high: Gretzky and Lemieux. To have the two best players centres ever enter the league five years apart was a boon. Centre position is the one that drives offences the most. And not only did you have Gretzky and Lemieux, you had a whole host of dynamic, creative pivots who entered the league in the late 70s and early 80s. You also had the first generation of defencemen following the Orr era. Defencemen were encouraged to jump into the rush, and teams were willing to go with an offensive defenceman like a Paul Coffey.

Theres more than what i said and it all makes sense.

What i really do agree with is that its too serious in the minors, let the kids be creative, let them have fun and score. And going back to back yard rinks.

Im reading "King of Russia: A year in the Russian Super League" By Dave King, who coached Magnitogorsk in 05-06, and apparently when praticing, Russians have a puck at the end of their stick far more than youngsters practicing in North America. It makes a difference, player develop more of their ability without the puck and less with it, wich decreases offense and helps the defense get better.

Look at the Staal brothers, they had a rink in their backyard on wich they all played hockey or keep away. No wonder they are so good, first Eric's offensive ability isnt any surprise, being the oldest and as a result best when he was young, he had the puck alot when they would play for fun. Marc Staal, well when he first started playing with big brother he had to find ways of stopping someone with a more devloped skill set, no wonder hes a good shutdown D, what about Jordan, he must not of had the puck that much, but when you got 2 bigger brothers, if their father played with them must of been Jordan and "dad" against the bigger bros, he leanred alot playing with an adult, and Jared, well he hasnt had as much puck carying experience wich is why hes a bit behind in the puck control departement, but hes skilled becuase he still had a backyard rink where he would play just for fun and all.

Being able to play your way and looking at what works for you makes the whole difference and i agree 100%

 

[Alan Jackson]

There are a lot of reasons why scoring has dropped. And it's not just an NHL thing. The WHL has had several seasons with scoring under six goals per game. Scoring is down in many leagues, from the NHL to Saskatchewan Midget AAA. I could do an essay on the drop in scoring, but here are a few reasons

Interesting thoughts. I really enjoyed this post.

I have a question for you. What can the NHL do to get scoring up to about 7 goals per game? I think that's the level that would be just about right.

I think the League needs to look at goaltender gear again, but failing that, I really do think that the idea of bigger nets as to be at least discussed. There's been other threads on this recently, and I don't want to have that debate again here, but to me, the goalies are taking up far too much of the yet. And I will concede that goaltending is also much better than it was 20 seasons ago. It's a two-pronged effect.

It is my contention that with the state of goaltending, not only are there fewer goals - there are actually fewer chances.

To me, this is the one area the League has some control over. The League isn't going to retract anytime soon, and I don't know that there is a way to encourage coaches to loosen the reigns, either.

I don't find the game as exciting as it was in the 80's and early 90's, and it's not just the lack of goals - it's the lack of the hope of goals.

I'm really interested in thoughts others have on this issue. I don't like the idea of radical solutions (4-on-4 is a non-starter for me) but is there anything the League could or should do?

 

[Lou is God]

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.

Wrong. The Devils have always been the least penalized teams in the league year in and year out, how could they possibly be the worst offenders when most other teams were penalized more then them? Or are just basing your opinion on stereotypes?

And I have NO idea what games you were watching John Madden play.

 

[Slapshooter]

I always thought that the great NHL era ended after 1995-96 season. Downhill started already from 94-95 lockout finals when ultra-boring NJD beat Detroit. Even more boring and crappy Florida tried to duplicate the trick following season, but luckily they failed. However, after those 2 finals every GM and coach finally realized that disciplined trap'N'grab hockey is both cheaper(no need for so many star players) and more effective.

Another bad things are the expansion teams of 90's and 2K's. More teams = less talent per team = more crappiness.

Also increased European influences made the game more tactically emphazised(=boring) and a lot more wimpy(=very boring).

 

[Dark Shadows]

Wrong. The Devils have always been the least penalized teams in the league year in and year out, how could they possibly be the worst offenders when most other teams were penalized more then them? Or are just basing your opinion on stereotypes?

And I have NO idea what games you were watching John Madden play.

Maybe I was thinking of Pandolfo then. Can't remember. Part of him shadowing people in the early 2000's, I always saw his arm come up and latch on, and unless someone went down, they never called it.
Certain aspects of obstruction type play were not offenses that you get penalties for back then.

Interference back during the late 90's almost required a physical hit away from the play in order to be called. Now they call it simply for slowing up someone away from the play. It makes a difference. Same with putting your arm up on someone. Before they started enforcing the new rules, unless you literally tugged the guy hard enough to stop him in his tracks, refs never called it as holding. Now they call it even if your arm on a body comes up whatsoever.

Every team did it. I simply recall the devils checking line were brilliant at it. They played a "bend don't break" style that was very effective. Stevens played a "Break him in half" style, which usually relied on one of his defensive partners or a checking forward to latch on to a guy, and steer him into Stevens big hits

 

[Fish on The Sand]

I always thought that the great NHL era ended after 1995-96 season. Downhill started already from 94-95 lockout finals when ultra-boring NJD beat Detroit. Even more boring and crappy Florida tried to duplicate the trick following season, but luckily they failed. However, after those 2 finals every GM and coach finally realized that disciplined trap'N'grab hockey is both cheaper(no need for so many star players) and more effective.

Another bad things are the expansion teams of 90's and 2K's. More teams = less talent per team = more crappiness.

Also increased European influences made the game more tactically emphazised(=boring) and a lot more wimpy(=very boring).

way to ruin a serious discussion with a poorly thought out and worded post.

 

[Slapshooter]

way to ruin a serious discussion with a poorly thought out and worded post.

I can't argue about poorly worded, but what was factually so wrong about it?

 

[golfortennis]

.

Not as many coaches were defense minded like Lemaire and Claude Julien. How can you change that and make them more offense minded, theres no good way of doing it.

I've always thought that eliminating the point for the tie would do it. You either win the game and get 2 points or you don't. If after OT there's no victor, you can either go to the shootout, or the game ends in a tie and no one gets any points.

Of course, the risk is that rather than play to win, if a team gets a lead, they just sit all five guys right in front of the goalie the rest of the time. So it may or may not be best idea.

Like anohr poster said, it's not so much goals scored as scoring chances. It's not nearly as exciting when you are simly trying to figure out which team will win 2-1, rather than wondering if you will see a 6-5 shootout, a 1-0 game with gems from both goalies, or a solid 4-0 shutout.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Interesting thoughts. I really enjoyed this post.

I have a question for you. What can the NHL do to get scoring up to about 7 goals per game? I think that's the level that would be just about right.

I think the League needs to look at goaltender gear again, but failing that, I really do think that the idea of bigger nets as to be at least discussed. There's been other threads on this recently, and I don't want to have that debate again here, but to me, the goalies are taking up far too much of the yet. And I will concede that goaltending is also much better than it was 20 seasons ago. It's a two-pronged effect.

It is my contention that with the state of goaltending, not only are there fewer goals - there are actually fewer chances.

To me, this is the one area the League has some control over. The League isn't going to retract anytime soon, and I don't know that there is a way to encourage coaches to loosen the reigns, either.

I don't find the game as exciting as it was in the 80's and early 90's, and it's not just the lack of goals - it's the lack of the hope of goals.

I'm really interested in thoughts others have on this issue. I don't like the idea of radical solutions (4-on-4 is a non-starter for me) but is there anything the League could or should do?

Good question. Finding the root of the problem, or in this case, roots, is easy if you're willing to look at the situation. Finding the solution can be a challenge.

Let me preface this by saying I've seen some great 2-1 games over the last 10 years. I think a great save is every bit as exciting as a goal. My keeper pool team would probably benefit from an increase to seven goals per game. But my attitudes towards the game isn't influenced by my keeper pool team.

Bigger nets are coming. Not in the short-term, but I would say within the next 10 years. The goalies are getting bigger. Not just the equipment, but the goalies themselves. 15 years ago, how many goalies were in the six-foot-two range? Roy, Barasso, Burke. That's about it. You had a lot of goalies in the five-nine, five-10 range, guys like Richter, Fuhr and Vernon. And while I'm sure all those guys would be great goalies in today's NHL (all three were top goalies in the late 90s, for those about to dump on them), the bottom line is that hockey people aren't looking at small goalies as much anymore. They want a six-foot-three goalie who covers the net well when in the butterfly. And the goalies won't be getting smaller any time soon. Give an extra two inches in width, and an extra inch in height. Nothing serious. Just an adjustment.

Goalie equipment needs to be constantly examined, but with many goalies in the six-three, six-four range, you have to keep the equipment at a reasonable size.

I don't know if it's possible, but maybe it's time the leagues (and I mean all leagues) looked at banning zone defences. That's what the trap is. There was some discussion of it in the mid-90s, when the trap became prevalent around the league. It would be tough to enforce, but it's the only way you're ever going to get rid of the trap.

I don't like the idea of four-on-four in regulation. It eliminates the physical element of the game. Which would kill the game. I'm not a fan of bigger ice - the Swedes loved using the trap on the big ice - and it would also hinder the physical element. Unless you're talking about a minimal adjustment.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

I'm not a fan of bigger ice - the Swedes loved using the trap on the big ice - and it would also hinder the physical element. Unless you're talking about a minimal adjustment.

I'm not a fan of everyone going to the bigger ice, but what I would love to see is some differences in the ice surfaces, like we used to have with the Boston Garden, Chicago Stadium etc. Those teams were built to play in their buildings.

My suggestion would be to set limits.

Lower end .. 200 X 85 .. current NHL standards

Upper End .. 200 X 100 .. current international standard.

Teams could have their ice surface anywhere within those parameters.

Only draw back is that most teams have relatively new buildings, so there wouldn't be many differences.

 

[Drewr15]

I think one other factor that is lost in all the trap blame is the butterfly goaltender. When Roy came in 86, he revolutionized the position. The reason you don't see wingers come down off the wing and score on big slapshots anymore is because the butterfly goalie gives you so much less of the net to shoot at, the increase in padding helps as well. All the young goaltenders started to play like Roy and it took about a generation almost to start infiltrating the game, which would be about the mid 90s. Combine that with defense first hockey becoming more prevalent and you have the perfect storm for a drop in goals.

But as others have mentioned, the 80s were really the aberration in NHL history regarding scoring, extend your analysis back 2 more decades and you'll see that.

 

[Drewr15]

I'm not a fan of everyone going to the bigger ice, but what I would love to see is some differences in the ice surfaces, like we used to have with the Boston Garden, Chicago Stadium etc. Those teams were built to play in their buildings.

My suggestion would be to set limits.

Lower end .. 200 X 85 .. current NHL standards

Upper End .. 200 X 100 .. current international standard.

Teams could have their ice surface anywhere within those parameters.

Only draw back is that most teams have relatively new buildings, so there wouldn't be many differences.

I agree, it give each arena more character. Forget the trapezoid, Brodeur hardly left his crease to play the puck in the old Boston Garden, because of that like funnel effect they had back there.

 

[Dark Shadows]

I think one other factor that is lost in all the trap blame is the butterfly goaltender. When Roy came in 86, he revolutionized the position. The reason you don't see wingers come down off the wing and score on big slapshots anymore is because the butterfly goalie gives you so much less of the net to shoot at, the increase in padding helps as well. All the young goaltenders started to play like Roy and it took about a generation almost to start infiltrating the game, which would be about the mid 90s. Combine that with defense first hockey becoming more prevalent and you have the perfect storm for a drop in goals.

But as others have mentioned, the 80s were really the aberration in NHL history regarding scoring, extend your analysis back 2 more decades and you'll see that.

Roy didn't invent the butterfly. Glenn Hall and Tony Esposito did

But I get your point. The rise of Butterfly goaltenders towards the late 80's contributed to it

 

[007madden007]

I didn't realize that this thread was still going!

Maybe I was thinking of Pandolfo then. Can't remember. Part of him shadowing people in the early 2000's, I always saw his arm come up and latch on, and unless someone went down, they never called it.
Certain aspects of obstruction type play were not offenses that you get penalties for back then.

Interference back during the late 90's almost required a physical hit away from the play in order to be called. Now they call it simply for slowing up someone away from the play. It makes a difference. Same with putting your arm up on someone. Before they started enforcing the new rules, unless you literally tugged the guy hard enough to stop him in his tracks, refs never called it as holding. Now they call it even if your arm on a body comes up whatsoever.

I don't disagree with your assesment above, just with your comments that Madden - or Pandolfo - were guilty of this. Their stats in the post-lockout years bear that out.

Madden

05/06 - 36 PIM, Selke Trophy Finalist
06/07 - 14 PIM

Pando

05/06 - 16 PIM
06/07 - 8 (!) PIM, Selke Trophy Finalist

Stevens played a "Break him in half" style, which usually relied on one of his defensive partners or a checking forward to latch on to a guy, and steer him into Stevens big hits

Yeah, Dano was guilty of that on more than a few occasions. Not so much Rafalski when he was paired with Stevens, though.

 

[Dark Shadows]

I didn't realize that this thread was still going!



I don't disagree with your assesment above, just with your comments that Madden - or Pandolfo - were guilty of this. Their stats in the post-lockout years bear that out.

Madden

05/06 - 36 PIM, Selke Trophy Finalist
06/07 - 14 PIM

Pando

05/06 - 16 PIM
06/07 - 8 (!) PIM, Selke Trophy Finalist



Yeah, Dano was guilty of that on more than a few occasions. Not so much Rafalski when he was paired with Stevens, though.

rofl
I loved watching those plays. One guy latches on, steer into Stevens and BOOM

 

[ForsbergForever]

Ok, I cribbed this from an old PNEP post, but it shows the GPG for every NHL season. Highlighted totals are for season averaging over 6.0 goals per game. It shows that the "high scoring" eras were, the league's first six years, when it was real run and gun style play, then after a massive drop-off that peaked in 1928-29 (Great Depression?)with 2.91 GPG, scoring sky rocketed during and immeditely after WWII. After another decline, scoring gradually continued to increase from around 1960 through to the mid eighties when it gradually crept lower until 1996-97 when it fell below 6.0 and stayed there until the post-lockout year.

League scoring

17-18 342/36 9.5
18-19 224/27 8.29
19-20 460/48 9.58
20-21 406/48 8.45
21-22 380/48 7.91
22-23 313/48 6.52
23-24 255/48 5.31
24-25 450/90 5.00
25-26 581/126 4.61
26-27 879/220 3.99
27-28 836/220 3.8
28-29 642/220 2.91
29-30 1301/220 5.91
30-31 1054/220 4.79
31-32 957/192 4.98
32-33 983/216 4.55
33-34 1041/216 4.82
34-35 1087/216 5.04
35-36 831/192 4.33
36-37 946/192 4.92
37-38 972/192 5.06
38-39 851/168 5.06
39-40 838/168 4.98
40-41 900/168 5.35
41-42 1047/168 6.23
42-43 1083/150 7.22
43-44 1225/150 8.17
44-45 1103/150 7.35
45-46 1003/150 6.68
46-47 1138/180 6.32
47-48 1053/180 5.85
48-49 978/180 5.43
49-50 1148/210 5.47
50-51 1139/210 5.42
51-52 1090/210 5.19
52-53 1006/210 4.79
53-54 1009/210 4.80
54-55 1059/210 5.04
55-56 1064/210 5.07
56-57 1130/210 5.38
57-58 1175/210 5.59
58-59 1217/210 5.79
59-60 1238/210 5.89
60-61 1261/210 6.00
61-62 1264/210 6.02
62-63 1249/210 5.94
63-64 1166/210 5.55
64-65 1208/210 5.75
65-66 1277/210 6.08
66-67 1252/210 5.96
67-68 2476/444 5.57
68-69 2718/456 5.96
69-70 2649/456 5.80
70-71 3409/546 6.24
71-72 3348/546 6.13
72-73 4088/624 6.55
73-74 3989/624 6.39
74-75 4932/720 6.85
75-76 4913/720 6.82
76-77 4783/720 6.64
77-78 4747/720 6.59
78-79 4757/680 6.99
79-80 5902/840 7.02
80-81 6457/840 7.68
81-82 6740/840 8.02
82-83 6493/840 7.72
83-84 6627/840 7.88
84-85 6530/840 7.77
85-86 6667/840 7.93
86-87 6165/840 7.33
87-88 6237/840 7.43
88-89 6286/840 7.48
89-90 6189/840 7.36
90-91 5805/840 6.91
91-92 6123/880 6.96
92-93 7311/1008 7.25
93-94 7081/1092 6.48
94-95 3727/624 5.97
95-96 6701/1066 6.29
96-97 6216/1066 5.83
97-98 5624/1066 5.27
98-99 5830/1107 5.26
99-00 6306/1148 5.49
00-01 6780/1230 5.51
01-02 6442/1230 5.23
02-03 6527/1230 5.31
03-04 6318/1230 5.14
05-06 7588/1230 6.17

 

[Drewr15]

Roy didn't invent the butterfly. Glenn Hall and Tony Esposito did

But I get your point. The rise of Butterfly goaltenders towards the late 80's contributed to it

Yeah I wasn't saying he did, just that he inspired everyone to play it after him.

Same with the Devils and the trap, its been around forever, Howe even said his Wings played it in his day after the Devils won the cup in 95, but they sure inspired everyone to copy them.

 

[Fish on The Sand]

I can't argue about poorly worded, but what was factually so wrong about it?

this

"Also increased European influences made the game more tactically emphazised(=boring) and a lot more wimpy(=very boring)."

If you look at a percentage of North Americans and a percentage of Europeans in the nhl, I will gaurentee a MUCH larger percentage of Europeans are what you would call skill players than for the North Americans.

 

[Slapshooter]

If you look at a percentage of North Americans and a percentage of Europeans in the nhl, I will gaurentee a MUCH larger percentage of Europeans are what you would call skill players than for the North Americans.

I did not say or meant that Europeans are not skill players. Indeed most of them are, but AFAIK Europeans are used to play the game with more disciplined neutral zone tactics than NA players. That means tighter defence. Ever watched Czech national team for instance? They are skilled as hell(with the puck), but also boring as hell. It's all D and counter attacks. Good skating and skill with the puck helps the defense at least as much as the offense. And defending is always easier than scoring

And while there are some notable exceptions in both ways, Europeans don't generally play the game with that much physical contact. That makes typical Eurohockey especially boring. Low scoring combined with sissy play...can hockey get any worser than that. There is nothing wrong with Bures, Forsbergs and Selannes, but it's more like those European 3rd/4th liners and their defensive D-men. European defensive players tend to be more boring than their North-American counterparts. I think also that European success in national tournaments has influenced NA coaches think the game in more soccer like terms. For me, that means pretty much same as disciplined defensive play.

Therefore, increased amount of Europeans in NHL has made the league more boring to those who like action, whether it's goal scoring or hitting (and fighting). I'm NOT saying that Euros are alone responsible for the low scoring. I'm European and there is nothing political about this. I just like the my picture of traditional North-American hockey(if that even exist enymore) much better in every way than Eurohockey. It's possible that the game would have been evolved as D-emphasized as now without Euros too, but I doubt it.

Bring back poorly skating, big and mean D-men. And fill 4th lines with crazy goons(who'll take stupid penalties) instead of speedy midget robots . (smaller goalie gear would be nice too...)

 

[Fish on The Sand]

There is nothing wrong with Bures, Forsbergs and Selannes, but it's more like those European 3rd/4th liners and their defensive D-men. European defensive players tend to be more boring than their North-American counterparts.

This is my objection. These guys you are refering to just simply do not play in the nhl. They play in Russia. The Europeans that came over were forced to adapt to the NHL coaching, not vice versa. Your post is completley ignorant. It is the fringe North Americans that comprise the majority of NHL 3rd and 4th lines that make the game more defensive. It is CANADIAN coaches like Lemaire, Burns, Nolan etc that put in these defensive system. Your post is just littered with the same crap Don Cherry spews every Saturday.

 

[Slapshooter]

Your post is just littered with the same crap Don Cherry spews every Saturday.

Mr. Cherry is a wise man. Don't mess with him.