The Butterfly vs. The Trap

[jkrx]

This myth keeps getting perpetuated when it's simply not true.
the NHL increased its player pool to incldue more players from new streams from Europe and the US college ssytem, so unless you want to argue that Canadain hockey went down in skill level and the "newer players" lacked talent it simply doesn't hold up when tested.

Also in a trapping league a premium is based on fast defensive players who adhere to "the system" rather than talented offensive guys.

Rob Brown is a classic guy who would have excelled before the trapping defensive minded hockey as his skillset was awesome but his defensive awareness totally lacking.

The key to winning games literally went from trying to score the most goals as the Oilers and Pens played to trying to not get scored on and scoring on the counter attack which is the focus of the trap.

And when the trap is used with extreme clutch and grab we get the lazy "dead puck era" tag.

Neither the european nor the north american talent pools were large enough for the heavy expansion in 90's. Take a look at those rosters and tell me they are good. Then reduce the league to 20 teams or less and you'd see the difference.

 

[Czech Your Math]

Neither the european nor the north american talent pools were large enough for the heavy expansion in 90's. Take a look at those rosters and tell me they are good. Then reduce the league to 20 teams or less and you'd see the difference.

I don't think there was a lack of talent in the '90s. The NHL had 21 teams for 12 years, which compresses talent some. Then it expanded from 21 to 26 in three years, and from 21 to 30 in ten years. So even disregarding population growth (significant over ten years) and previous talent compression, the European talent only needed to comprise 20-30% of the league for it to even out.

The fact that the European players were disproportionately elite forwards further discounts any supposition that dilution of talent was a primary reason for the low scoring of the "dead puck era."

It's unfortunate that the league allowed huge goalie pads and didn't enforce the rules. Can only imagine '90s forwards in today's environment... wow!

 

[KingGallagherXI]

I disagree when the goalie is a modern butterfly goalie. Not much entertaining about getting into position and letting the puck hit you.

Modern goaltending techniques have made the shot from a player streaking down the wing almost obsolete, allowing defenses to collapse in front of the net (which further limits good scoring opportunities).

But modern goalie techniques have also pushed players to perfect their shot and skills. Besides, those pre-butterfly on-the-rush slap shot goals make me cringe. I prefer hockey as it is now.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I also disagree that talent dilution was a serious problem during Dead Puck.

Much, much, MUCH more significant was the fact that higher-skilled players were constantly held back by obstruction tactics, which made power forwards the premium scorers of the era... and then the really top-end players (Lindros, Forsberg, Jagr, Bure, Kariya, LaFontaine, even Mario and Gretzky to an extent) started dropping like flies with a variety of injuries. Insert those players back into the league with their health intact, and the rules being enforced properly, and I don't think there would be many complaints about the skill level.

 

[jkrx]

I also disagree that talent dilution was a serious problem during Dead Puck.

Much, much, MUCH more significant was the fact that higher-skilled players were constantly held back by obstruction tactics, which made power forwards the premium scorers of the era... and then the really top-end players (Lindros, Forsberg, Jagr, Bure, Kariya, LaFontaine, even Mario and Gretzky to an extent) started dropping like flies with a variety of injuries. Insert those players back into the league with their health intact, and the rules being enforced properly, and I don't think there would be many complaints about the skill level.

Why were there so many obstructions?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

But modern goalie techniques have also pushed players to perfect their shot and skills. Besides, those pre-butterfly on-the-rush slap shot goals make me cringe. I prefer hockey as it is now.

And the neutral zone trap forced players to perfect their breakouts, puck rushing, and passing techniques...

 

[tarheelhockey]

Why were there so many obstructions?

Because it's effective and the league allowed it.

A couple of nights ago, Paul Maurice was talking about the '02 Finals and said that late in Game 2 with the score tied, Erik Cole was streaking wide-open toward a breakaway and literally had a guy jump on his back so that he never received the pass. That (at least in Maurice's rendition) was the point where the series turned the other way, as Detroit came right back down and scored and then of course took the next game in 3OT. If a player can help his team win the Stanley Cup by playing piggyback, why wouldn't he?

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Because it's effective and the league allowed it.

A couple of nights ago, Paul Maurice was talking about the '02 Finals and said that late in Game 2 with the score tied, Erik Cole was streaking wide-open toward a breakaway and literally had a guy jump on his back so that he never received the pass. That (at least in Maurice's rendition) was the point where the series turned the other way, as Detroit came right back down and scored and then of course took the next game in 3OT. If a player can help his team win the Stanley Cup by playing piggyback, why wouldn't he?

A good story about obstruction, but I doubt if Cole scores that has any effect on the series. Detroit was going to win that series. Also, being the more skilled team, I'm sure obstruction being allowed hurt Detroit a lot more than Carolina. If it was wide open hockey you have to think Detroit destroys them.

 

[overpass]

This myth keeps getting perpetuated when it's simply not true.
the NHL increased its player pool to incldue more players from new streams from Europe and the US college ssytem, so unless you want to argue that Canadain hockey went down in skill level and the "newer players" lacked talent it simply doesn't hold up when tested.

Also in a trapping league a premium is based on fast defensive players who adhere to "the system" rather than talented offensive guys.

A lot of people argued in the late 1990s that the skill level of Canadian hockey was down, because of an increased emphasis on playing systems and winning games in minor hockey, as opposed to skill development.

When you look at the trend of Canadian talent entering the league throughout the 1990s, it looks like they were onto something.

How many young superstars were on Team Canada in 1998? Lindros and who else? In 2002, Iginla and who else?

I don't think you can assume Canadian talent stays proportional to population or even constant.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Size

A lot of people argued in the late 1990s that the skill level of Canadian hockey was down, because of an increased emphasis on playing systems and winning games in minor hockey, as opposed to skill development.

When you look at the trend of Canadian talent entering the league throughout the 1990s, it looks like they were onto something.

How many young superstars were on Team Canada in 1998? Lindros and who else? In 2002, Iginla and who else?

I don't think you can assume Canadian talent stays proportional to population or even constant.

One other consideration - size. From the Flyers mid 1970's onward but especially post Mario Lemieux the size of the players became the key element in the composition of competitive youth hockey teams, Best exemplified by the viewpoint that "Skills can be taught but size cannot be taught.".

The pendulum started swinging back about ten seasons ago.

 

[tarheelhockey]

A good story about obstruction, but I doubt if Cole scores that has any effect on the series. Detroit was going to win that series. Also, being the more skilled team, I'm sure obstruction being allowed hurt Detroit a lot more than Carolina. If it was wide open hockey you have to think Detroit destroys them.

Maybe. That team had guys like Francis, Kapanen and Ozolinsh who were pretty good at wide-open hockey.

Anyway, Maurice's point was that a small act of obstruction tilted the series toward a particular conclusion. If Cole scores there, the underdog suddenly goes back home with a 2-0 lead and into a game that ended up being decided by a hair-thin margin. Maybe they win that third game as well... maybe they don't, but the series goes to 6 or 7 games... crazy things happen in the playoffs. When Detroit scored a couple of minutes later, and went back to Raleigh up 2-0, it was all but over.

 

[Ogopogo*]

It's a common opinion that Lemaire and the Devils "ruined" hockey with the trap. I want to know why Roy's advancement of the butterfly doesnt get the same amount of attention. Thoughts?

Because big equipment is the issue- not the butterfly. Same with the "trap". The clutching and grabbing was the issue not the technique.

 

[Czech Your Math]

A lot of people argued in the late 1990s that the skill level of Canadian hockey was down, because of an increased emphasis on playing systems and winning games in minor hockey, as opposed to skill development.

When you look at the trend of Canadian talent entering the league throughout the 1990s, it looks like they were onto something.

How many young superstars were on Team Canada in 1998? Lindros and who else? In 2002, Iginla and who else?

I don't think you can assume Canadian talent stays proportional to population or even constant.

Agree that Canadian forward talent was weaker than normal during that period, but that was made up for by the extreme influx of talented European forwards. Also, if there weren't Euros during that era, Sakic, Lindros and to a lesser extent Kariya would have appeared much more dominant.

 

[Killion]

Because big equipment is the issue- not the butterfly. Same with the "trap". The clutching and grabbing was the issue not the technique.

Dont quite follow Ogopogo. In Roys' case it was a combination of oversized equipment, the talent & ability to make it all work together, the "technique" if you will. That he was playing through the "clutch & grab" era in no way minimizes his brilliance as a goaltender. Though I should perhaps qualify; I didnt/dont like him as a person. Not that that matters one whit but still...

 

[BraveCanadian]

Dont quite follow Ogopogo. In Roys' case it was a combination of oversized equipment, the talent & ability to make it all work together, the "technique" if you will. That he was playing through the "clutch & grab" era in no way minimizes his brilliance as a goaltender. Though I should perhaps qualify; I didnt/dont like him as a person. Not that that matters one whit but still...

I think everyone will agree that Roy was an outstanding goaltender no matter his equipment but the fact is he really pushed the envelope.

Apparently he even tried oversized jerseys that would droop down to cover his fivehole when he went down in the butterfly as well as act like a webbing in between his arm and body. Gloves now are absolutely huge compared to the old days etc.

Bigger equipment and just plain bigger goaltenders are a significant factor imo. It allows them to play the odds that much more.

 

[Killion]

Bigger equipment and just plain bigger goaltenders are a significant factor imo. It allows them to play the odds that much more.

I see. Sooo. Its OK to cheat?....

 

[BraveCanadian]

I see. Sooo. Its OK to cheat?....

Huh? Who said that?

 

[TasteofFlames]

I see. Sooo. Its OK to cheat?....

If ya ain't cheatin', ya ain't tryin'. Everyone pushes the limits of what is acceptable, and if you don't get called out on it, why stop?

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

If ya ain't cheatin', ya ain't tryin'. Everyone pushes the limits of what is acceptable, and if you don't get called out on it, why stop?

very true. was bobby hull and his big curve cheating? if it gives you an advantage and it's not against the rules (yet), how can it be cheating?

 

[Hardyvan123]

A lot of people argued in the late 1990s that the skill level of Canadian hockey was down, because of an increased emphasis on playing systems and winning games in minor hockey, as opposed to skill development.

When you look at the trend of Canadian talent entering the league throughout the 1990s, it looks like they were onto something.

How many young superstars were on Team Canada in 1998? Lindros and who else? In 2002, Iginla and who else?

I don't think you can assume Canadian talent stays proportional to population or even constant.

I'll agree here up to a point that Canadian talent isn't always proportional to population and it rarely is in other countries, these things come in waves even if they are subtle.

My overall point is that the way hockey was being played in the mid 90's skill development was not encourages as much as systems play, thew skilled players didn't go away but they definitely had a harder time standing out with all the clutching and grabbing going on.

This is addition to the more defensive mind of systems being played by most teams and emphasis on trying to not get scored on sometimes obscures the fact that there was more than enough talent during that era overall.

If we look at 98 11 of the top 20 point scorers in the NHL were not from Canada but there still was alot of talent overall in the top 50 with the 50th guy being Roenick, albeit a post injury guy.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

I think sometimes the point production going down in the clutch and grab era is confused with an overall lack of talent much like the increased point production of many players in the late 60's is over empathized and not put into context.

Overall the lack of talent argument gets thrown around way too easily sometimes IMO and isn't always backed up and of course if we contract any group of players down to a smaller number then we have a better league or team ect that Jkrx was mentioning.

 

[GrkFlyersFan]

The answer is simple. Do you like hockey as it's played now? If so, that means the butterfly didn't ruin hockey. Goalies and goalie coaches are quick to copy other people's successful ideas. The butterfly is testament to Patrick Roy's disproving that if you're not on your feet, you're out of position, which was the philosophy before Roy. The trap was another successful idea that got widely copied, but it's effectiveness was that it was easier to get away with technically illegal things like obstruction hooking that just weren't called much back then. My guess is, most of you prefer the gameplay as it is now. Therefore, the trap was worse for hockey than the butterfly, because even more goalies use butterfly now than in the dead puck era.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The answer is simple. Do you like hockey as it's played now? If so, that means the butterfly didn't ruin hockey.

What if I enjoy watching Thomas, Roloson and Brodeur much, much more than Giguere, Lundqvist and Luongo?

 

[Say Hey Kid]

It's a common opinion that Lemaire and the Devils "ruined" hockey with the trap. I want to know why Roy's advancement of the butterfly doesnt get the same amount of attention. Thoughts?

The trap created bad boring hockey and the butterfly didn't hurt the game. There's nothing wrong with the butterfly or a 1-0 game.

 

[GrkFlyersFan]

What if I enjoy watching Thomas, Roloson and Brodeur much, much more than Giguere, Lundqvist and Luongo?

Interesting curveball, my friend. I'm a goaltending aficionado myself, and I love watching Thomas, but I also accept that goalies are taught not to do the things he does. Butterfly goalies make amazing saves sometimes, too, so it's not all bad. It still hasn't made hockey as boring as the trap.

 

[BraveCanadian]

The answer is simple. Do you like hockey as it's played now? If so, that means the butterfly didn't ruin hockey.

Not as much as I did in the past.

It is much less creative and everyone is playing the odds so much it isn't as fun to watch for me.