style in hockey

[doc5hole]

When you hear whispers of outlawing zone defense and ways to reduce shot-blocking, you know the style of the game is headed in the wrong direction entertainment wise because the collapsing D-systems and shot-blocking are taking the entertainment out of the game.

I'd start with moving the blue lines back to where they were pre-lockout. The idea was to open up the offense zone with the idea it would create more offense.

But it has back-fired.

For years wingers were taught to cover the point-men. It was more of a man-to-man D than the collapsing-to-the-slot zone D we see today.

Once the blue-lines got move back the D-men moved back with it. Instead of covering the D-men who were now an extra 4 feet away from the goal, they decided it was more effective to have all 5 defenders collapse down into the slot and take away the point shot through deflections and shot-blocking. The extra 4 feet gave wingers more time to get squared up to the oncoming point shot. Combine that with advances in equipment and protection(extra glove padding, skate-protectors, etc. and shot-blocking became the norm rather than the exception. And shot-blocking goes hand-in-hand with collapsing zone defense. Moving the blue-lines back to where they were won't solve all the problems, but at least it's a start.

Agree here, but the collapse technique actually predates the 2005 expansion of the attacking zones -- I remember Montreal doing this quite a bit during that era of frequent playoff series vs. the Bourque-Neely Bruins. Craig Ludwig with his goalie-shin pads was ahead of his time, and it would seem that goalie gear that allows goalies to have evolved in technique so as to maximize their chances of getting hit with the puck has at the same time contributed to the evolved technique of layers of shot blockers getting in the way rather than the old style of letting the goalie see the shot (so he'd have a chance of making a save that doesn't kill him). Now rarely do shots (despite the new sticks and any player's power from however awkward a position) injure the goalie. That threat is marginalized, enabling the game to change.
But it has been motivated to change via the expansion of the NHL from 21 teams (of which 16 made the playoffs) to 30 (of which 16 make the playoffs). Therefore, playoff pressure in the regular season, thus hyper-coached containment and layered defenses (like the Swedes coached 10 years earlier) and trapping (thanks largely to the 2005 institution of the 2-line pass).
The only thing the NHL failed to legislate into the regular season was playoff emotion. I ride the elevators with the GM's and coaches, and the tension can be cut like a knife some dreary regular-season nights in which it seems every result has ramifications, but minus the emotion that makes playoff hockey an event even basketball junkies profess love for it's like a decaf when you feel like you need the real thing.
I'm old (like John, haha) and miss the days of "Esposito, save Meloche! Bucyk, save Meloche!" But the NHL wanted to legislate parity and, while the league hasn't exactly succeeded there, it has legislated a grind of a game on most any night and that's what the OP alluded to being an overrated factor in the enjoyment of the entire 9 months of hockey. I feel that, too, and kudos to John for finding a way to simply articulate that.
IMO the whole 2005 rules changes were a smokescreen for a fundamental change in how penalties were called, coincidental with the plastic stick revolution which has turned the game into air hockey (because many D-men don't have the hands to match the lively blades so they just fire it around the boards to players stationed past center with stick positioned to tip the rocket pass down the other end of the ice ... ergo, "the icing tip pass.") Now the opponent has to bring up the puck.
Competition continues to result in technique changes. I think it's funny that Claude Julien sort of wrote the book on the zone defense, but is actually not a fan of the 2005 rules changes. Any coach knows under the pressure of the regular season that goals against have to stay down so bad defensemen have to be sheltered by matchups and systems (ie. Wideman became a plus player in Boston). There were elements of style in his 2003-04 Montreal team that came back from 3-1 to beat the Bruins before the lockout year, but I credit him for fashioning a game plan that allows players so be useful to the team while minimizing their vulnerabilities.
The notion that a zone D can be outlawed in hockey as it was in hoops just seems so far fetched. If the NHL wants to do that, it's simple: put the red line back in play. Now D-men can jump up to peripheral areas like Nick Boynton used to not only for a big hit but for containment double-teams and whatnot. Want man to man? Get rid of that 2-line pass that results in very few breakaway plays but many non-icing dumps and neutral-zone trapping like we never saw from the Devils teams widely accused of it. By today's standard's they'd look like Sheppard and Schmautz on the old-school forecheck.
I don't think there is a cure in a 30-team league that enforces playoff-type ramifications on the 82 via the 16-team cutoff. But goalie mitts do not need to be half as large as they are. No goalie has a hand half the size of his mitt, and that has zero to do with protection. I'd start there. Padding is one thing, size is another.

 

[BruinDust]

Agree here, but the collapse technique actually predates the 2005 expansion of the attacking zones -- I remember Montreal doing this quite a bit during that era of frequent playoff series vs. the Bourque-Neely Bruins. Craig Ludwig with his goalie-shin pads was ahead of his time, and it would seem that goalie gear that allows goalies to have evolved in technique so as to maximize their chances of getting hit with the puck has at the same time contributed to the evolved technique of layers of shot blockers getting in the way rather than the old style of letting the goalie see the shot (so he'd have a chance of making a save that doesn't kill him). Now rarely do shots (despite the new sticks and any player's power from however awkward a position) injure the goalie. That threat is marginalized, enabling the game to change.
But it has been motivated to change via the expansion of the NHL from 21 teams (of which 16 made the playoffs) to 30 (of which 16 make the playoffs). Therefore, playoff pressure in the regular season, thus hyper-coached containment and layered defenses (like the Swedes coached 10 years earlier) and trapping (thanks largely to the 2005 institution of the 2-line pass).
The only thing the NHL failed to legislate into the regular season was playoff emotion. I ride the elevators with the GM's and coaches, and the tension can be cut like a knife some dreary regular-season nights in which it seems every result has ramifications, but minus the emotion that makes playoff hockey an event even basketball junkies profess love for it's like a decaf when you feel like you need the real thing.
I'm old (like John, haha) and miss the days of "Esposito, save Meloche! Bucyk, save Meloche!" But the NHL wanted to legislate parity and, while the league hasn't exactly succeeded there, it has legislated a grind of a game on most any night and that's what the OP alluded to being an overrated factor in the enjoyment of the entire 9 months of hockey. I feel that, too, and kudos to John for finding a way to simply articulate that.
IMO the whole 2005 rules changes were a smokescreen for a fundamental change in how penalties were called, coincidental with the plastic stick revolution which has turned the game into air hockey (because many D-men don't have the hands to match the lively blades so they just fire it around the boards to players stationed past center with stick positioned to tip the rocket pass down the other end of the ice ... ergo, "the icing tip pass.") Now the opponent has to bring up the puck.
Competition continues to result in technique changes. I think it's funny that Claude Julien sort of wrote the book on the zone defense, but is actually not a fan of the 2005 rules changes. Any coach knows under the pressure of the regular season that goals against have to stay down so bad defensemen have to be sheltered by matchups and systems (ie. Wideman became a plus player in Boston). There were elements of style in his 2003-04 Montreal team that came back from 3-1 to beat the Bruins before the lockout year, but I credit him for fashioning a game plan that allows players so be useful to the team while minimizing their vulnerabilities.
The notion that a zone D can be outlawed in hockey as it was in hoops just seems so far fetched. If the NHL wants to do that, it's simple: put the red line back in play. Now D-men can jump up to peripheral areas like Nick Boynton used to not only for a big hit but for containment double-teams and whatnot. Want man to man? Get rid of that 2-line pass that results in very few breakaway plays but many non-icing dumps and neutral-zone trapping like we never saw from the Devils teams widely accused of it. By today's standard's they'd look like Sheppard and Schmautz on the old-school forecheck.
I don't think there is a cure in a 30-team league that enforces playoff-type ramifications on the 82 via the 16-team cutoff. But goalie mitts do not need to be half as large as they are. No goalie has a hand half the size of his mitt, and that has zero to do with protection. I'd start there. Padding is one thing, size is another.

Certainly collapsing zone D was around before the advent of the larger attacking zones, but it was never as prominent as it is today, nor is shot-blocking. But like you said I don't see any way they can outlaw zone defense in hockey, just don't see how it's possible.

Goalie mitts are too large no question. But I'd start with their chest/arm protectors. Some goalies with their arm protectors are as wide as their leg pads. And the height of the shoulders is ridiculous. NHL needs to approach the equipment manufacturers and get them to develop upper-body gear that reduces the size of the net they cover, while maintaining the goalies protection from injury. Certainly with today's technology something of considerably smaller size but equal if not surpassed protection can be invented by the R&D divisions of Bauer, Reebok, etc.

 

[OutspokenMinority*]

the beanbag goalie problem is serious and nothing will get better until that is solved. bigger nets seems like the only option. it would certainly hurt for a while to see a goal that looks uncomfortably like a soccer goal but i think it's in everyone's best interest (save perhaps for one Benjamin Bishop and all those like him) to make that change.

 

[Roll 4 Lines]

First off, I, too, thought the posts by BruinDust and ODAAT were excellent.

I agree with the sentiments of this thread, even if purists think that makes me less of a hockey fan.

I'm willing to concede that part of the blame likely lies with me. With all the marvelous technology that has become part of our lives, I do feel as if my attention span is shorter and it takes more to stimulate me.

For example, I used to listen to entire symphonies even at home on CD start to finish. When I try that now, I find myself fidgeting or even skipping the 'boring' parts.

I'm 47 and remember the days when it was an absolute treat to be able to watch the NHL on television, even once a week or once a month. For the last several years, I've watched literally hundreds of games.

So I accept some of the blame.

However - I do find the entertainment value of the game - as a television product and a live product (I did catch the Bruins in Dallas this year) to be lacking, and not worth either the financial commitment or the time commitment.

I understand the ramifications of concussions and am OK with the NHL phasing out the fighting - in principle. But they better be able to replace the passion and energy. The thread on Boston/Vancouver is interesting, because while that was only four years ago, watching the highlights is like watching a different sport.

I'm of the belief Bettman is trying to grow the sport in non-conventional markets with utter confidence that the NHL's extremely die hard fans won't jump ship as the product gets watered down. He's likely basing that on how willingly we return after lockouts, compared to other sports (remember baseball fans were slow coming back after '94, and it took a steroid-fueled home run derby four years later).

Speaking only for myself, he's wrong. I'm not renewing NHL Center Ice, nor will I be making the trek to Dallas next year. I'm not doing it out of protest, but because I truly don't find it entertaining, nor do I find it worth either the financial or time commitments.

If you substitute Boston for Dallas, you might convince me that I wrote this post myself.

I used to watch any and all hockey, every chance I got.

This year I watched about 25% of the SCF and I liked every second of it.....just no longer top priority I guess...hope I'm not growing up!

 

[Roll 4 Lines]

Great thread, with a lot of great posts....thanks!

I agree on goalie equipment, and I think with the size and speed of todays players, a larger ice surface could help.

I was of the opinion that when so many new rinks were being built back in the 90s, that it would be a perfect time to go to the Olympic/college-sized rinks.

I know there are many who disagree with me, but I think more room could result in more creativity.

Phil Esposito, for instance was an absolute giant at 6'-3" or 6' 4" and 215 lbs.

Nowadays that's probably close to average.

Even go back and look at tape from the Bourque/Mario era, and the players look much smaller.

I realize the rink size aint changing any time soon, but I think it might have been for the better, had they done it when they had the opportunity.

 

[jgatie]

Great thread, with a lot of great posts....thanks!

I agree on goalie equipment, and I think with the size and speed of todays players, a larger ice surface could help.

I was of the opinion that when so many new rinks were being built back in the 90s, that it would be a perfect time to go to the Olympic/college-sized rinks.

I know there are many who disagree with me, but I think more room could result in more creativity.

Phil Esposito, for instance was an absolute giant at 6'-3" or 6' 4" and 215 lbs.

Nowadays that's probably close to average.

Even go back and look at tape from the Bourque/Mario era, and the players look much smaller.

I realize the rink size aint changing any time soon, but I think it might have been for the better, had they done it when they had the opportunity.

Euro hockey is the most boring hockey on earth. Instead of the larger surface enhancing creativity, instead it puts everything to the perimeter and stifles net drive.

By the way, Phil was 6'1" 205. But Mario was 6'4", 235 lbs. He was huge then, he'd be huge now.

 

[BruinDust]

Euro hockey is the most boring hockey on earth. Instead of the larger surface enhancing creativity, instead it puts everything to the perimeter and stifles net drive.

By the way, Phil was 6'1" 205. But Mario was 6'4", 235 lbs. He was huge then, he'd be huge now.

That's a good point. I would argue the moving back of the bluelines has had a partial affect in that as well. Mostly because with the wingers now covering the high-slot rather than the point, it makes it near impossible to cut into the middle of the high-slot for scoring chances, players don't even try anymore cause they know their are two defenders waiting for them as soon as they cut in.

 

[jgatie]

That's a good point. I would argue the moving back of the bluelines has had a partial affect in that as well. Mostly because with the wingers now covering the high-slot rather than the point, it makes it near impossible to cut into the middle of the high-slot for scoring chances, players don't even try anymore cause they know their are two defenders waiting for them as soon as they cut in.

For every idea to create offense, there is a counter move on defense that the creators of the idea never thought of. So, although collapsing the wings would seem to be the most counter intuitive reaction to lengthening the zone, that's exactly what happened.

 

[Roll 4 Lines]

Euro hockey is the most boring hockey on earth. Instead of the larger surface enhancing creativity, instead it puts everything to the perimeter and stifles net drive.

By the way, Phil was 6'1" 205. But Mario was 6'4", 235 lbs. He was huge then, he'd be huge now.

This is even more to my point. Espo appeared huge in his day compared to most players.

And yes, Mario was huge, my point was that, in general, the players appeared to be smaller than today, resulting in more room on the ice.

Maybe Euro hockey would be less exciting, no matter the rink size, because it's not as good of a league as the NHL?

 

[jgatie]

This is even more to my point. Espo appeared huge in his day compared to most players.

And yes, Mario was huge, my point was that, in general, the players appeared to be smaller than today, resulting in more room on the ice.

Maybe Euro hockey would be less exciting, no matter the rink size, because it's not as good of a league as the NHL?

The Olympics was in Turin and Sochi were pretty boring too, compared to Vancouver and Salt Lake. Can't complain about the talent there.

 

[Roll 4 Lines]

The Olympics was in Turin and Sochi were pretty boring too, compared to Vancouver and Salt Lake. Can't complain about the talent there.

Perhaps, but it was also filled with NHL players who are used to the smaller ice. Perhaps if they played on a bigger surface regularly, they'd adapt.

I find college hockey to be exciting, and a lot of those rinks are Olympic-sized.

Again, there are many who disagree with me, but it seems to make sense. They players are much bigger and faster than just 20 years ago, but the ice surface hasn't changed (much) in 100 years.

I could be wrong....I often am!

 

[Aeroforce]

The obvious solution (at least until a Jacques Lemaire or Claude Julien solve it )is going 4 on 4 the entire game; but I think we all know that will never happen due to the loss of jobs.

The hockey we all love is more or less improvised, as opposed to the line matching, possession-obsessed, systems play of today. That sort of structure can work in other sports, but in hockey the result is often a product lacking in entertainment value.

4 on 4 would be interesting conceptually - do teams go with 3 forwards and one D, or two forwards and two D? Obviously that would change depending on the score.

In a toned down league (what some are already jokingly calling the No Hitting League), end-to-end and odd man rushes, quality shots and scoring chances, etc. need to be more.

 

[jgatie]

Perhaps, but it was also filled with NHL players who are used to the smaller ice. Perhaps if they played on a bigger surface regularly, they'd adapt.

I find college hockey to be exciting, and a lot of those rinks are Olympic-sized.

Again, there are many who disagree with me, but it seems to make sense. They players are much bigger and faster than just 20 years ago, but the ice surface hasn't changed (much) in 100 years.

I could be wrong....I often am!

There is always a counter intuitive element to changes like the one you propose. They lengthened the offensive zones to "free up space for creativity!!!"" Yay NHL!! Moar scoares!! Instead, we got collapsing defenses, blocked shots, and perimeter play. They got rid of the two line pass to increase speed. Yay NHL!! Moar scoares!! Instead, we got the "tip it to prevent icing" dump-in and an increase in concussions.

 

[doc5hole]

For every idea to create offense, there is a counter move on defense that the creators of the idea never thought of. So, although collapsing the wings would seem to be the most counter intuitive reaction to lengthening the zone, that's exactly what happened.

Excellent point, happens with every rule change. I'd much rather see the league let the competition formulate responses to strategies rather than continue making rules changes and incrementally reinventing the game.