Hockey goalies are too big now

https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2021/02/hockey-goalies-are-too-big-now/618021/

by emptybits • 5 years ago

322 263 5 years ago

Larrikin2• 5 years ago

I wonder if it's a viable start up news idea to have deep investigative journalism like articles that all have a sister article written in an Axios style that boil everything down to the major points.

The article was well written but I just am not interested that much in hockey to read the entire long form without any idea of the general points.

a0zU• 5 years ago

The death of writing is a bullet-list of major points, put some effort in, maybe you'll become more interested in hockey after reading the article.

Larrikin2• 5 years ago

I enjoy reading well researched articles, just not all the time. The ideal would be this article with an alternate version, not the reduction of the article to the bullet points only. Books aren't dead just because wikipedia has a plot summary on every important one.

TeMPOraL• 5 years ago

But the pinnacle of journalism, the gold standard, the One True Way that's taught to every journalist - and then promptly forgotten when they go to work - is the Inverted Pyramid. The LOD/mipmapping equivalent for words: start with a very short summary of most important things. Then expand the details. Then expand them more. Repeat recursively.

peferron• 5 years ago

I loved the article and read it entirely, but I'm definitely even less interested in hockey now.

kergonath• 5 years ago

I know nothing about hockey, will certainly never play and probably never watch a game. The article was well written and interesting even from my distant perspective. I learnt a couple of things, which, admittedly, will never have any use to me. Still an interesting read.

I think a kind of executive summary would make this drier and less engaging, with less flavour and context. So a worse article overall. In any case, the TL;DR is already in the title.

thekyle• 5 years ago

Some sites (CNBC comes to mind) put summaries in the form of a bullet list at the top of most of their articles which I think is pretty cool.

bscphil5• 5 years ago

I totally get you, but maybe the better conclusion is just that the article isn't for you? I mean that in the opposite of a judgy way; think for a second about just how much knowledge there is out there. Even if you leave out stuff that goes infinitely deep like the sciences, there's way more details to all the topics you might come across in life than anyone can learn in a lifetime.

For example, sometimes I'll watch videos of snooker games on YouTube. Chances are you know absolutely nothing about snooker, but the thing is, I don't really either. I can't keep the rules straight because I so rarely pay attention to it. I can't name more than one professional snooker player. It's fun to watch and can relieve a few minutes of boredom, but that's about it for me. And ... I think that's okay? Some sports, like lacrosse, I know absolutely nothing about, and that seems okay too!

I guess what this comment boils down to is that I don't think I understand what you would get out of a "bullet points" version of an article like this. Do you need to know anything about hockey? Preparing for a Jeopardy tournament or something? Despite not really enjoying hockey myself, what I got out of this article was some pleasure inherent to reading the thoughts of someone who has obviously thought very hard about a specific subject, and writes about those thoughts in a clear way.

jacurtis11• 5 years ago

the better conclusion is just that the article isn't for you

Yes. I love The Atlantic. They are long-from general interest stories and usually written exceptionally well. But they post a lot of essays every day in a wide range of topics. Not all of them are for everyone. You got to pick what you want to read. There are plenty of essays that they publish that I have no interest in. But that's ok. They are interesting to someone. And isn't that what makes life so interesting? That everyone is so different?

I think we forget that now. Every story must be written for everyone collectively. It leads to less interesting stories.

To be honest, this story wouldn't benefit from bullet points. Not everything can be summarized. Imagine a campfire story and you say, "i don't want to wait until dark and make a fire and hike into the woods to hear the story, just give me the bullet points". It would be pointless. Life is about the nuances.

mrspeaker• 5 years ago

Atom and His Package called it years ago in his song "Goalie" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpe7R_KgdVo)

    In hockey, you must score a goal.
    Which one can not do if between me and the net there's no hole.

krrrh• 5 years ago

Wow, there’s a name I have not heard in a long long time. Thanks for the waves of nostalgia.

justinator• 5 years ago

And almost like magic “Happy birthday Ralph, I love you” plays in my head as if it was only yesterday.

keiferski7• 5 years ago

This is written by Ken Dryden, a well-known retired goalie. Very cool. Essentially he is just arguing that because of the size of goalie pads, the most successful strategy has become cause chaos around the net and then try and push the puck in while the goalie is distracted. He’s right, I think, in that it does slow down the inherently high-speed nature of the sport.

So for shooters and coaches, that is the strategy. Rush the net with multiple offensive players, multiple defensive players will go with them, multiple arms, legs, and bodies will jostle in front of the goalie, and the remaining shooters, distant from the net, will fire away hoping to thread the needle, hoping the goalie doesn’t see the needle being threaded, because if he does, he’ll stop it. The situation for the shooter is much like that of a golfer whose ball has landed deep in the woods. He’s been told many times that a tree is more air than leaves and branches, but with several layers of trees in front of him, somehow his ball will hit a leaf or branch before it gets to the green. Somehow, the shooter’s shot will not make it to the net. So he will try again. Because what else can he do?

I played hockey for about a decade growing up, alternating between goalie and defense. One “unofficial” solution I had to this problem was to make it extremely unpleasant for other players to be around the net.

In hockey, you have a lot of leeway in terms of physicality and you can push, shove, lock the stick of your opponent, and do a number of other things that are completely penalized in basketball or soccer. The result was that opposing players became hesitant to get too close to the net, thus solving the problem somewhat.

If a player was on a breakaway, I’d also try to do stuff like this (as the goalie), which of course makes opponents stay far away from you.

https://youtu.be/W5u0khFnHUg

A possible solution could be to expand the goalie-only area around the net. That would, in theory, force opponents to focus more on shooting and not on piling around the goalie.

garmaine2• 5 years ago

In hockey, you have a lot of leeway in terms of physicality and you can push, shove, lock the stick of your opponent, and do a number of other things that are completely penalized in basketball or soccer. The result was that opposing players became hesitant to get too close to the net, thus solving the problem somewhat.

Also the goalie is given waaay more leeway. The goalie can get away with things that would definitely result in the penalty box for anyone else. I don’t know whether is is by convention, or because penalizing the goalie is such a heavy disadvantage that it isn’t done lightly.

jamiek88• 5 years ago

Same in football (soccer) as well. The goalkeeper is protected and can simultaneously get away with more contact.

Historically its because goalkeepers have been vulnerable when in the air and outfield players leading with their feet when reaching for a contested ball.

remarkEon4• 5 years ago

I think it’s also kind of an unwritten rule. Been watching hockey for 25 years now and it’s rare to see the goalie go to the box, but when they do it’s for a particularly egregious slashing penalty (usually to the ... swimsuit area). I agree with the general point of the article though, which I thought was well written. Hockey, especially over I’d say the last 5-6 years or so has gotten a lot more “run and gun” than before that imo.

miskin8• 5 years ago

When a goalkeeper is given a penalty, one field player is going to the penalty box instead of the goalie.

remarkEon4• 5 years ago

Good comment. Expanding the crease is an interesting idea but I’m not a fan of it for one reason: it would likely lead hockey down the path of baseball, where so much of the game is “reviewed”. Inevitably if we expand the crease size more players are going to inadvertently cross through it because, well, skating on ice is a little chaotic. Which to me has always been the point (and the fun) of the game.

Edit: LOL just watched that video. I remember watching that game as a kid.

keiferski7• 5 years ago

Maybe you could have a two-zone area.

The outer part is if you step into this and don’t immediately step out within 2 seconds, it’s a penalty while the inner part is immediate penalty.

JohnBooty8• 5 years ago

   Expanding the crease is an interesting idea 
   but I’m not a fan of it for one reason: it 
   would likely lead hockey down the path of 
   baseball, where so much of the game is “reviewed”.

We don't have to imagine what this would be like. The NHL tried this in the 90s and the result was exactly what you're talking about, and it was absolutely horrible, for the reasons you say. You are completely correct.

QuesnayJr• 5 years ago

I didn't see who the author was until the end, so I spent the article thinking "Wow, this is someone who's spent way too much time thinking about goaltending." And then I saw it was Ken Dryden, and it all made sense.

His book about being in the NFL, "The Game", is good.

jacurtis11• 5 years ago

I thought the same thing. I was like, "Wow this must be a superfan, who knows all the inner workings of the players union and how the goalies practice".

Then at the end with the author's bio I almost wanted to go read the whole article again, realizing this is one of the best goalies to play in the NHL.

JohnBooty8• 5 years ago

    The result was that opposing players became 
    hesitant to get too close to the net, thus 
    solving the problem somewhat.

Hahaha this was my solution too in floor/street hockey. I was not the best goalie in terms of sheer athleticism, to put it extremely mildly.

So I took advantage of my size and the goalie equipment and got good at throwing my body into scrums around the net. I didn't even hit opposing players per se. But if there was a loose puck/ball I took advantage of the fact that I could make a beeline for it and if there happened to be an opposing player in my way... well, unfortunate for them!

    A possible solution could be to expand the 
    goalie-only area around the net. That would, 
    in theory, force opponents to focus more on 
    shooting and not on piling around the goalie.

This is a very surprising conclusion given that they tried this already in the 90s and it was a total disaster. Culminating in the infamous Cup-winning goal (against Hasek, from your clip above) no less.

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/343121-one-final-thought...

It was a boon for the goalies, not the scorers, and it turned every goal into a controversial mess. As a fan you couldn't even celebrate a goal -- you had to wait until the refs and/or replay decided if it was okay or not minutes later.

Part of the problem is that attacking players can't really control their position in a precise way in a scrum, given all of the contact and the fact that everybody's, well, wearing ice skates. Half of the time the goals were called off for a player being in the goalie crease it wasn't their fault.

And then there was Martin Brodeur, who absolutely broke the game for about a decade by skating around like an "invulnerable third defenseman nobody was allowed to touch." Effective, but really contrary to the spirit of the game and about as much fun as watching paint dry.

I really cannot think of a solution besides larger nets.

4-on-4 makes for really exciting hockey but that feels like fundamentally changing the sport too much. It would also IMO place too much emphasis on penalties. A 5-on-4 advantage for two minutes is one thing but 4-on-3 is quite another. Refereeing in a mass action sport will always be highly imperfect and that would really put the game in the refs' hands.

dmurray3• 5 years ago

Maybe the penalties could still be 5-on-4: the offending player gets removed, but can be replaced, and the other team gets to bring on an additional skater.

Dma54rhs5• 5 years ago

There's a little box inside penalty box in soccer where the goalkeeper has by the rules relative freedom to do whatever he wants for his own safety in soccer as well. Also similarly to crowding the goalie in hockey, own players sometimes build another wall to keep the view of the ball from goalkeeper. Haven't watched NHL for a decade but it seems all the sports constantly evolve to take maximums from situations.

klingon78• 5 years ago

The goal in football/soccer is a bit larger than in hockey.

If you’re going to bring that up, we could talk about the hows and whys of the NBA not allowing goaltending.

Have you ever noticed that one player just can’t jump up and sit in the goal for the whole of the game?

It’s rather small, so the game then would be about who could remove the man from the area above the basket.

Perhaps we could just make the goalie have to stay away from the crease in the NHL and wear something similar to that which everyone else wears? (Unfortunately, there are a number of good reasons things are the way they are[1].)

[1] https://hockeyanswered.com/what-is-the-purpose-of-the-goalie...

smcl3• 5 years ago

I have never heard of these rules regarding the six-yard box in football. As far as I am aware it is only for positioning your goal kicks and something to do with indirect free kicks (a rare occurrence) where they can't be inside that box. I'm sure the keeper does mess around with people in that area, but I don't think it's their right as codified in any rules of the game

ajuc6• 5 years ago

a little box inside penalty box in soccer where the goalkeeper has by the rules

It's not an official rule, but it is the common interpretation, to the point of players relying on this in competitive matches.

Another change that makes it easier for goalkeepers to defend in soccer was calling offside when a player is in offside position and doesn't receive the ball, just obstructs the visibility or messes with defenders and somebody else (not in offside position) score thanks to that.

It's a little inconsistent and I don't like it, but it doesn't seem to help the defenders and goalies too much.

Despite the rule changes in soccer goalies seem to be losing the arms race - there's more and more goals a game and last few years the meta moved to very high pressing and constant offence. Which I very much like - makes for a more entertaining games.

As for hockey I would like them to split the goal into 2 halves and put them 1 meter apart :)

praptak• 5 years ago

A possible solution could be to expand the goalie-only area around the net. That would, in theory, force opponents to focus more on shooting and not on piling around the goalie.

The point of the article is that the goalies are too big and therefore you have to crowd the net to even get a chance of scoring. Banning the crowding does not solve the root cause. The result (if the article is correct) would be a game with much fewer goals, probably boring.

eru3• 5 years ago

The result (if the article is correct) would be a game with much fewer goals, probably boring.

Maybe boring, but maybe not. Football does really well at attracting attention globally, and they only have a handful of goals in a match at most. Sometimes even zero.

(Germany scoring seven goals against Brazil in the World Cup a while ago was big news.)

frobozz• 5 years ago

In most sports, when a goal is scored, the game stops for some kind of reset.

Surely a game with more goals is therefore more boring, because it has more time with everyone dawdling back to the centre line and the referee holding the ball/puck/whatever.

pcl• 5 years ago

a game with much fewer goals, probably boring.

Also, 0-0 ties and 1-0 wins don't really provide much information. These sports are typically played in the contexts of seasons, where teams are trying to win a championship. Very low scores don't really meaningfully establish which teams are better than others. 0-0 and 1-1 ties are obviously not really disclosing much, but winning 1-0 is really too low-granularity to mean all that much also.

Basketball is a bit ridiculous in the other direction, of course, but I assume that scores in the high single digits to low double digits should be the target, if we are to actually use them to figure out how to rank teams.

Hurling (teams typically score 10-30 points in a game) and baseball (5-20) seem like they're in the right range. Soccer / football (0-10, but often on the bottom end of that) seems way too low.

jug• 5 years ago

Yeah, these are common strategies for I think basically as long as I've watched ice hockey.

Have guy parked in front of the goalie. Keep other players in the attacking zone. Shoot from the blue line. Hope for the puck to hit players/blades along the way in the commotion that will change the direction so late that the goalie doesn't have time to react, but even if not, at least players will block the goalies vision.

Your idea to make it unpleasant to be parked in front of the goalie is also a common "solution" but that's why they place the big players there. :D Some are basically meant for this one position. I now recall "Demolition Man" Tomas Holmström back in the day. He even built special protection for the job, like a special back plate for the constant crosscheckings.

Yes, even if not for this reason, I think the goalie area should be expanded a bit. It always felt too small, like they could seriously disrupt the goalies job before even breaking rules.

newsclues• 5 years ago

Bigger nets, and limit goal pad sizes

hourislate• 5 years ago

If a player was on a breakaway, I’d also try to do stuff like this (as the goalie), which of course makes opponents stay far away from you.

https://youtu.be/W5u0khFnHUg

Yeah, nothing like trying to end a players career. Should have been suspended for the season and fined.

tolbish3• 5 years ago

That was a clean move. Hasek had no way of knowing Gaborik would not be looking where he was going.

jacurtis11• 5 years ago

This game was back in 2007. This was near the end of the "ruthless NHL era", when the NHL was trying to brand itself as the hard-hitting, brutal sport of hockey. So this type of stuff was accepted, and even quietly encouraged.

Now in the past couple years the NHL has cracked down significantly on player safety. This type of thing would probably lead to a suspension if it had happened during the current season. Players are getting suspended for a lot less right now.

One thing that the league looks at is whether the headshot was avoidable and predictable. This is a weird shot, because the forward was looking at the goalie, which means that its both avoidable and predictable (meaning the player could expect to be hit and should prepare for it). But because it was a goalie coming at him, the player probably never expected that the goalie would actually make contact with him. This makes it far less predictable, and therefore less avoidable.

Usually the goalies come up really far during these types of breakaways to create more favorable angles to protect the net. The player was most likely expecting the goalie to stop at some point and start backing up, and he was probably waiting for that to happen so he could deke (move around the goalie while he's immobilized from stopping) and get an easy open net score. So they essentially played a game of chicken, but the goalie never disengaged. This is very unexpected. To me the goalie should be suspended for this. Virtually no forward in the league would have expected the goalie to do that and the way the goalie hit him, it was clear that it could have been dangerous.

bluntfang• 5 years ago

If a player was on a breakaway, I’d also try to do stuff like this (as the goalie), which of course makes opponents stay far away from you.

I played soccer as a goalie at a high level in my youth, and this was my strategy on breakaways as well, completely legal move as long as I tackled the ball and not the player. I was a very intimating and athletic goalie at 6'5" ~220. Players did not like to be near me.

hbosch• 5 years ago

A possible solution could be to expand the goalie-only area around the net. That would, in theory, force opponents to focus more on shooting and not on piling around the goalie.

Pandora's box is already open. Bigger net, more space, smaller pads, etc. won't get players to necessarily focus more on skill shots... it will likely make the chaotic approach today more successful.

jacurtis11• 5 years ago

Yeah i do agree that pandora's box might already be open. I am an avid hockey fan and there has been a huge shift towards "trick" shots in the past few years to get around these goalies.

It is becoming increasingly rare to see "normal" goals anymore in NHL hockey. Goalies are simply too good that normal goals won't go in. So if a defensemen wants to slapshot the puck, his forwards (who are down in front of the net) need to "screen" the goalie so the goalie can't see the puck. The forward then needs to try to dodge the puck at the last second before the goalie can react.

We also are seeing probably half or so of NHL goals come from deflections to pinball the puck around so the goalie can't even track the puck. It is amazing how good NHL forwards are getting now at deflecting. We routinely see triple deflections now.

The rest of the goals are just from diving the net. With 6-8 players in front of the net (3 attacking forwards, and 5 defending forwards+defensemen) just slapping at the puck in the chaos as it bounces around, it eventually goes in.

So I have long since believed that they should widen the net (just by 4-6 inches). But I do think that the NHL players have just gotten so good at creatively combatting the goalie, that widening the net might end up with too many goals in games. There is a fine balance between not enough scoring like in Soccer (Football outside USA) and with too much scoring (like in Basketball). American Football does a good job balancing the scoring. Most games have 3-4 touchdowns between both teams, plus a handful of other scoring opportunities like field goals and conversions. It keeps the touchdowns exciting (players even dance in the endzone on live TV), while still moving the game along with smaller scoring opportunities throughout the game.

playingchanges• 5 years ago

Man that clip is so old time hockey I love it. Best part is the ref giving him the attaboy after. I remember thinking that Hasek wearing the cage instead of a modern goalie mask was so cool as a kid.

goache2• 5 years ago

I created a blog post a few years back showing goalies aren't big enough http://randomlyunique.com/data/2015/goal-goalie-girth/index.... :-D

syntaxing• 5 years ago

Hah, that was a fun read. I like the other posts too like the first post on the site about if your wife loves you more or not.

goache2• 5 years ago

Thanks for this comment - it made my day :-)

ErikVandeWater5• 5 years ago

The author makes 2 basic mistakes

1. Suggesting that goalies are nearly equally suited on their knees as on their skates.

2. Forgetting the goaltending rule exists in basketball.

keiferski7• 5 years ago

The article is written by a goalie who has won six Stanley cups.

tempestn6• 5 years ago

Also nothing in the article suggested a misunderstanding of the goaltending rule.

ctab3• 5 years ago

And that is what makes it so disappointing. Dryden -- who is a genius, a brilliant writer, and one of the most accomplished NHL goaltenders ever -- is absolutely wrong on the point that goaltenders should just stay on their knees all game.

NHL shooters have no problem hitting the uppermost part of the goal at will, and a goaltender on his knees simply doesn't cover enough of that area. This is a 6'5" goalie in that position (presumably having dropped down from upright after the shot is taken): https://www.1stohiobattery.com/columbus-blue-jackets-news/20...

If the shooter is 5 or more feet away, and has a couple seconds to set up a shot, and the goaltender is on his knees, it is virtually an automatic goal. Someone employing the strategy Dryden suggests should be the standard would lose every game for their team.

This takes away from his other very good commentary about the aesthetics of the game changing.

ondrek• 5 years ago

This also answers why goalies aren't huge fat guys.

As the rules limit how big a goalie's pad can be, a huge guy might take up a lot of space, but much of his body will be unprotected from 150+ km/h slap shots.

tyingq• 5 years ago

Try "Ian Laperriere face" on google images for how fast the pucks move. I'd be wearing every bit of padding I could.

m8s2• 5 years ago

Or Sean Walker (of the Los Angeles Kings) from this season. It's the worst puck-to-face shot I've seen.

Warning, graphic and not for the faint of heart: https://mobile.twitter.com/AugieLens/status/1355249355507163...

stan_rogers• 5 years ago

I'm old enough to remember maskless NHL goalies (IIRC, Glenn Hall was the last of the breed). It wasn't pretty. And Terry Sawchuk's mask when he finally started wearing one, with all of the stitches he had gotten, and all of the stitches he would have gotten, painted on. And - remember that the first masks were basically just a fibreglass face covering with nearly zero padding - Jacques Plante spending a significant part of the late '60s and early '70s unconscious on the ice.... again (he stopped a lot of pucks with his face).

jgon• 5 years ago

This article is written by a famous retired goalie and it contains a lot of good points in it. Everything the author says about the modern method of scoring goals being to "scrum" in front of the net is pretty accurate, and it honestly takes away, at least in my opinion, a lot of the aesthetic enjoyment that hockey used to have. Sure goals may not be going down in number, but they're definitely less fun to watch being scored.

But I think that the title, and a large part of the article, ignores or at least only pays lip service to the other half of the problem, and I think that by focusing solely on goalie equipment, we actually limit the probability of the problem actually being solved.

And the other half of the problem is that players can shoot way too hard now. Its a chicken and egg problem, and I don't know which came first, but any attempt to cut down on goalie padding is going to have come up against the very real safety concerns caused by modern hockey sticks. Anyone who has used one of the new $300+ composite sticks can tell you they aren't just for showing off your income, these things actually work, and they honestly work too well. Goalies have a legitimate point that goaltenders of old could wear the equipment they did because players were probably shooting 20%+ slower on average. Right now every hockey player is walking around with the equivalent of a corked bat or an aluminum bat in baseball.

And so I think that any attempt to scale back protective equipment to something that doesn't strangle the game is going to have to be matched with a similar regulation to go back to plain wood sticks or something similar, to prevent any sort of composite material voodoo. Matching up a decrease in protective bulk, with controls on stick material and I think that you still have a faster, more skilled game, but you'll really open up the ability to express that skill and still keep goalies "safe" (I use quotation marks because they're still crazy people putting themselves in front of a rock hard rubber bullet, but hey some folks are just different). Just addressing the equipment is going to be a non-starter and even if it did get forced through I think it might open the game up too much and lead to too much scoring. There's definitely a compromise to be struck on both sides here.

wilsynet2• 5 years ago

Over time, as goalie equipment changed, so did the way that goalies covered the net and stopped pucks. The way that a goalie plays today is very different than the way Hasek played, and the way Hasek played is very different than the way Fuhr played and the way Dryden played.

I think the argument is: scale back protective equipment to something that doesn't strangle the game, and goalies must play a different style in order to stay safe. Which they will.

Having said that, I agree, we should also go back to non-composite sticks. The game was no less fun to watch when Mario and Wayne were playing the game with wooden sticks.

pimlottc2• 5 years ago

Over time, as goalie equipment changed, so did the way that goalies covered the net and stopped goals.

Can you go into more detail about this for someone who doesn’t followed hockey that closely?

jbluepolarbear• 5 years ago

Watching Hockey in the states is very different from Canada. I grew up near the Washington Canadian border and so I was able to watch all the Hockey games on CBC. I didn’t know Hockey wasn’t regularly aired on TV until I moved. Going to a Hockey game is really fun.

Dma54rhs5• 5 years ago

I'm from European country with bad level of hockey and couldn't enjoy watching NHL despite dad loving it. For some reason very difficult for me to follow the puck. Went to see a local game Live, what Canadians would see as total amateur show but it was amazing and easy to follow. You could really feel and see the shots and appreciate the players strength but skills of skating and being elastic/acrobatic at the same time. Still can't get excited seeing it from telly for some reason. But live experience was awesome!

boomboomsubban3• 5 years ago

The more you watch (and probably play) hockey, the less you follow the puck and the more you can infer where it is from body positioning. That's why long time fans like your father can enjoy televised hockey more, while everyone can enjoy live games.

macspoofing2• 5 years ago

I think any sport to a novice will seem inaccessible.

For example, many Americans see soccer as slow and boring and are bothered by the low scores and frequent draws. None of those things are a detriment for hundreds of millions of global soccer fans who see the game as fast and exciting (which it is).

All I can tell you is that following the puck is a non-issue to hockey fans. As others mentioned, at some point you just get a feel for what's going on and you'll have no problem figuring out where the puck is and following the action. If you want to be into hockey, invest time and join some hockey communities to learn the 'meta' of the game, and you'll get it.

1123581321• 5 years ago

It's a similar experience watching varsity or JV club hockey in the states. Very fun.

We definitely don't have the same quantity of beer leagues, though. I wish we would.

tempestn6• 5 years ago

For me this brings to mind Formula 1 racing. Each year teams pore through the rules looking for any possible advantage they can gain within their strict letter. And each year the FIA looks at which teams managed to do this a little too well, and tweaks the rules the following season to prevent whatever they did. They also plan ahead, making significant changes to car design parameters every few years, in order to correct shortcomings in the state or trajectory of the sport. It isn't always executed perfectly, but the attempt is made and is certainly impactful.

I don't see any reason the NHL couldn't do the same. Goalie pads too long? Set a max length above the knee. Torso pads billowing too much? Specify a maximum difference between torso circumference with and without pads. Or find some other way to measurably define the problem and then regulate against it. Any issue severe enough to be a problem can be specifically defined and therefore corrected.

And if necessary, you can make larger changes as well, like F1 is doing with ground effects this year to allow cars to follow more closely without sacrificing so much downforce. For example (not saying this would be a good change, just an example of the sort of large change that's possible) the pad shape could be redefined with a bulge at the top so that they wouldn't lie completely flat on the ice.

These problems are solvable; it just requires a willingness to continually tweak the minutia of the rules when things aren't going as desired.

oh_sigh• 5 years ago

Wouldn't Formula 1 be more interesting if everyone had to race with the same car? Then it would just be about driver skill? Otherwise all of the rules are just too easy to game for a season and dominate.

kaoD• 5 years ago

F1 is a team sport, car engineering is part of the competition.

tempestn6• 5 years ago

It can become boring when one team is very dominant, as has been the case for a number of years now. Absent that though, differences between the cars can make the sport more interesting. The engineering competition is a part of it. As are the adaptations the drivers and teams need to make to take into account their cars' relative strengths and weaknesses compared to others. Plus, if the disadvantage isn't too great, it can be fun to cheer for an underdog who overcomes a disadvantageous car and still manages to win.

Spec racing certainly has its place, and it is indeed also nice to see drivers pitted against each other on skill (and luck) alone. But that's never been Formula 1.

Gene_Parmesan2• 5 years ago

F1 is as much about the engineering challenge of having the teams competing to build the fastest circuit racing car in the world as it is about the drivers driving it. If you remove the engineering challenge, you no longer have F1. (Kind of literally, as the Formula in Formula 1 refers to the regulations teams need to follow in their construction of the vehicle.)

There are plenty of other major racing series around the world that use standardized vehicles. The reason F1 is special is the engineering, plain and simple. The aerodynamics involved, the engine efficiencies... Mercedes' ICU (traditional fuel part of the power unit) has achieved a thermal efficiency of over 50%. That is astounding. You just don't get these sort of advances with a spec series; there's no motivation for it.

If you combat the imbalance in team success at all, you do it by inserting negative feedback loops and spending limits. Making total available budget be not the #1 determining factor is an obvious choice. Some caps are in the works currently. And for negative feedback loops, these are things like -- the higher your finishing position for the season, the less wind tunnel time you have available to use in the offseason. Something like that, things that make it so if you win, it's a little bit harder to keep winning the next time.

You definitely don't turn it into a spec series, because then you have killed the sport.

acover• 5 years ago

There are leagues that do this, they aren't as popular as formula 1. Even still, the best teams can afford to buy 3 engines and keep the one that's 10% better.

masklinn2• 5 years ago

Wouldn't Formula 1 be more interesting if everyone had to race with the same car?

It would be a different sport. Not necessarily worse or better, just different. The engineering constrains and challenges are, et this moment, part of the point.

Formula E is closer to what you’re talking about, i believe only the power train is customisable.

AmericanChopper2• 5 years ago

That sport is called already exists, it’s called IndyCar. Viewership and revenue statistics would suggest that it’s probably not more interesting.

jacurtis11• 5 years ago

Wouldn't Formula 1 be more interesting if everyone had to race with the same car?

This already exists. Formula 2 is essentially Formula 1 racing, but everyone races the same car with the same specs. IndyCar is another example of Formula style racing where everyone races the same vehicle.

But Formula 1 is fascinating because it pushes the technological envelope of what is possible. The engineers back at car-manufacturer headquarters are the athletes participating on the team. The main driver of course is important, but there are plenty of examples of amazing drivers in less desirable cars that lose repeatedly. Because the engineering is part of the sport. Formula 1 drivers have quit teams over engineering decisions. Formula 1 is so interesting because the cars just keep pushing the engineering envelope of what is possible with 4 wheels.

This is similar to the old Ford vs Ferrari days at Le Mans, where car manufacturers had to build cars that were capable of racing at high speeds for 24 hours straight. Of course the driver is important. But more important than the driver is the car. The car must be able to last, and especially back in the 60s, cars really couldn't do that.

Much of the technology that is developed at those races trickled down into what we drive today and have built more reliable cars. Technology like fuel injection that we take for granted in cars today came from these races.

hervature4• 5 years ago

Unlike Formula 1, millions of kids play the game and want to play it like the pros. Constantly changing the rules is feasible for the NHL. Goalies probably get new equipment every year anyway. But you can’t expect goalies in the recreational setting to do that. Probably the only people who would like that are the pad manufacturers. You’re also forgetting that the main aspect of goalie pads is protection and there’s a natural increase in protection as shooting power increases with stick technology. That being said, the hockey world needs to rip the bandaid off and simply make the goalie pads 6 inches narrower (3 off each) if they want more goals.

YinglingLight• 5 years ago

Bro, kids aren't going to be less enthused about playing hockey because their goalie's pads are slightly different than what they see on TV.

tempestn6• 5 years ago

It wouldn't be necessary to echo every minor change at lower levels of the sport. Racing is no different. Kids grow up racing karts, then the serious ones maybe move to Formula 3, Formula 2, before (a very select few) move up to F1. The equipment (car) at each of these levels is massively different, but the skills carry over, as they would for hockey, even if the goalie pads weren't identical.

darkwizard42• 5 years ago

Yeah, but these rules don't need to be extended elsewhere. There are already tons of rules and gear that changes in popular sports based on the level of professional play... all the way down to swimming where professional meets have very different restrictions on suits, googles, caps than youth events.

Also as the article states, for most younger players, these changes wouldn't be an issue as the goalie isn't quite big enough to cause the rules to be needed.

AmericanChopper2• 5 years ago

F1 isn’t an example of success to emulate. The over-regulation of the sport is widely hated by fans. The situation they have now is a negative feedback loop of excessive regulation requiring the implementation of an ever increasing amount of further regulation. Small teams used to be able to innovate, but the regulations have pushed the barrier to innovation so high that you need hundreds of millions of dollars, and even then, if you didn’t manage to hire Adrian Newey or James Allison, then you have to cheat to be anywhere near the front of the pack. You’ll never see another Ross Brawn in F1 again. The new status quo is a few rich teams at the front, a couple of permanent midfield teams, and 4-5 teams teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. I would hope that no other sport ever chooses this path.

tempestn6• 5 years ago

That's fair. Another alternative from racing would be 'spec' equipment. For example, there could be a league office responsible for goalie equipment, which could take goalie measurements and work with suppliers to provide each NHL goalie with authorized equipment.

You'd still need some regulations around how the equipment is worn, but that's the case regardless.

jacurtis11• 5 years ago

Formula 1 is funny because in some ways it is like a sport of lawyers and engineers. Engineers try to push the envelope and lawyers dive through the minutiae of the regulations to try to find loopholes and justifications for the car changes.

The league even has these little arbitrated court cases where the teams defend themselves against the regulations, while the league or other teams fight in opposition. If a loophole is discovered, then it is either patched in the regulations the next year, or it becomes adopted by every other team immediately.

soperj10• 5 years ago

I honestly don't know what hockey Dryden is watching here. The game has gotten faster, and the players smaller over the last decade and a half. Most goals are tip shots, one timers, dekes, or power play goals. I agree that the goalie equipment size is out of whack, especially compared to what came before, but the rest of what he said makes me think he hasn't watched hockey since the 90s.

soperj10• 5 years ago

For comparison sake, lacrosse goalies have bigger equipment, and a smaller net, and yet let in way more goals per game than any NHL game.

0dana• 5 years ago

Lacrosse has a larger net, and goalies have far less and smaller equipment.

miskin8• 5 years ago

Goalie equipment rules are the same or more restrictive than in the past (pads are more narrow than they were allowed before). The difference is that current goalies in NHL are HUGE. When I see how tall they are when they are on their knees... OMG, I'm that tall when I stand in the crease. Catcher and blocker sizes are given and the same for everyone. The difference is with pad size where total height is limited by lengths of your bones so tall goalies can effectively have much larger pads. So, not only they are already big and block a big portion of the net, they block even more space because their pads are allowed to be much taller and thus blocking even more net.

soperj10• 5 years ago

yes, the biggest players on the ice these days are the goalies. The rest of the narrative about everyone crashing the net to get a goal seems false by my eye. The high slot tip was popularized in the last decade for instance.

Grustaf• 5 years ago

Extremely well written piece, but isn't the solution obvious? Make the goal larger.

pubby• 5 years ago

One suggested improvement is to make the game 4-on-4 instead of 5-on-5. Less players on the ice typifies more offense, and less bodies covering the net causing chaos.

In some ways the game is already moving towards this, by changing overtime and the All-Star Game to be 3-on-3 a few years ago.

alkonaut• 5 years ago

The removal of hookings and slashings from the game still makes it a much more open affair than it was back when goalies did acrobatic saves in smaller pads.

The speed and skill allowed now is completely different. The composite sticks means players can release shots without warning, that would take a full second to prepare back when everyone had a moustache. Goalies had a chancee because the guy with the moustache and wooden stick was getting slashed or cross checked while taking his shot. It was way less enjoyable than the game is now. The SV% and GAA is also mostly unchanged because of this. If the hookings were removed, players had the speed and composite sticks of late 2000's but goales looked and played like in 1980 - it wouldn't really be watchable.

Also, I love that a hockey article is at the front page of HN.

soperj10• 5 years ago

GAA & SV% is actually much higher than in the 80s. Grant Fuhr had only 2 seasons with an above .900 sv% and those were in the last half of the 90s. Mostly had a GAA of over 3.5. You wouldn't be an NHL goalie with those numbers these days.

lunatuna• 5 years ago

IMHO, Grant Fuhr was underrated for his skills. He was left to do most of the defending himself while the rest of his team was out hunting goals. Even lots of beer and old video of his games would likely not settle this, but I put this out there. The goal differential was strongly in the Oilers favour.[0] So leaving Fuhr to his business looked to work.

Comparing to the Habs[1], the Oilers had a full goal + on any other team. Plus the Oilers were averaging 5 goals a night with some 8-0 and 7-1 out there. Likely still could have won some of those games without a goalie.

alkonaut - This is really cool. I was a bit struck seeing this on HN and from an Atlantic article and Dryden writing the article.

[0] https://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/EDM/1985.html [1]: https://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/MTL/1985.html

animal531• 5 years ago

A long time ago in cricket there were no limit on bat sizes. So the entrepreneurial minded players started using bats that were wider than the combined width of the stumps.

Eventually laws were introduced to set limits.

jgilias2• 5 years ago

I feel like I would like to agree with the article, but I don't. It's described in a way that makes one believe that it's completely impossible to score a goal in a one-on-one situation, as the goalie can just sit on his knees and not move. As is evident by any recent shootout one may watch, this is not the case.

And regarding the good old times when goalies had to be acrobatic to actually make saves. Just yesterday I saw a highlight of Korpisalo from Blue Jackets making a crazy reaching stick-save to deny an empty-netter.

I think it's fine. I find the game exciting and dynamic enough to watch.

adventured• 5 years ago

I agree with what you said. Goals per game are comparable to where they were at 15-20 years ago, as well as in the 1950s and 1960s.

Goals are considerably down from the late 1970s and 1980s. Larger goalies are merely properly offsetting the offensive gains made from better sticks and the slap shot, which had temporarily provided a scoring advantage and boosted goals per game.

Rather than it being a problem as implied by the article, larger goalies have balanced the game back out and returned it to where it was.

bradfa• 5 years ago

I played ice hockey goalie growing up, in high school, intramurals in college, and then men's league for a while. The game definitely changed over the course of me playing it. I started playing goalie around 1991 and fondly remember having to do "kick save" drills and learning to "T glide". The game has changed, no goalies do kick saves anymore, it's just not an effective way to stop the puck.

But to say that goalies today aren't acrobatic or fit or flexible or amazing athletes is totally wrong. To be able to put your body into the butterfly position, to be able to push off to move while staying in the butterfly, to be able to slide post to post as the puck moves behind the net and keep the post-side leg upright: THIS IS EXTREMELY HARD!

Goalies today are basically 6 foot+ tall gymnasts.

My knees, groin, and hips surely can no longer perform the kinds of movements which I used to be able to do. I was not anywhere near being NHL caliber, so maybe I have a different appreciation for watching top level goalies today. But damn, these goalies today are seriously impressive in how they can move their bodies.

Sure, the equipment regulations might need to change for bantam or midget level leagues and up, but the younger kids aren't big enough to take advantage of the equipment so any changes the NHL wants to implement shouldn't affect the vast majority of kids playing the game today until (if) they get to a high level of play and high school age or beyond.

I think the NHL should continue to change the rules, not just for goalies, but for the whole game. And if things work, then other leagues should adopt those rules over time, too.

docdeek• 5 years ago

Nice article, though my first thought was a scene from 'The West Wing':

Sam: You know what I'd do if I owned a hockey team? I'd hire a sumo wrestler. I'd give him a uniform, transportation, 500 bucks a week to sit in the goal, eat a ham sandwich and enjoy the game. My team would never get scored on.

Josh: Your team would get scored on constantly.

Sam: Maybe, but we'd sell a few tickets.

Josh: Yeah, 'cause sumo wrestling sells out all the time in big hockey towns.

Sam: My idea's totally inviable?

Josh: Well, you're a Democrat. It's a pretty big club.

jgilias2• 5 years ago

Having thought about this a bit, I think the suggestion to increase the goal/reduce the goalie would make ice hockey considerably less interesting to watch.

It goes something like this. The inherent thrill of watching a sports event comes from multiple things: pace of the game, ratio between attempts/scores, watching skillful people do tricky things, but most importantly - not knowing who is going to win. So, it's not very exciting to watch a coin tossing championship, because there's no skill involved. But at the same time, it's not very exciting to watch something where the nominally stronger team wins with near absolute certainty. Like a game with a high attempt/score ratio with a single mode of scoring. Basketball solved this by introducing another mode of scoring that's also inherently more uncertain. So they introduced asymmetry and more uncertainty leading to more interesting games, as the certainty with which you can say who's going to win is reduced, as that depends on wider skill-sets across the team and also more luck.

Now, take a game with a low attempt/score ratio. The uncertainty about who's going to win is baked into that ratio. With some luck, the nominally weaker team still has a chance of winning the nominally stronger team. And this is what makes ice hockey interesting in my book. This is how Finland could win the world championships without any NHL players last year. Increasing the goal would increase the attempt/score ratio, without adding any other offsetting asymmetry to the game. This will reduce the uncertainty of who's going to win, making the game less interesting to watch. For a game with a relatively high attempt/score ratio that's also highly dynamic with a lot of attempts per game, and has somewhat similar strategies to hockey, I invite you to check out Innebandy/Floorball. It's a fun game, but not that exciting as a spectator sport. Because the nominally stronger team will win any given game with near certainty due to the large amount of attempts per game coupled with a high attempt/score ratio.

ohashi• 5 years ago

There is a lot of history and posturing. And it's coming from one of the best goalies to ever play the game. But, I still think he's wrong.

There has been a slow crackdown on goalie gear size. We have seen scoring slightly go up.

But what's not talked about in the article is that the game really isn't static. The players have gotten better and better at picking up those tiny gaps and holes in the body. They are looking at video of movements of goalies, picking apart every weakness based on hundreds of hours of film. They offense is more equipped than ever to know and understand NHL goalies. We see hot rookie goalies like Andrew Hammond or Elvis Merzlikins come out with phenomenal numbers and generally fall to earth.

Why? I think a large part is coaching/scouting. There are teams dedicated to exposing goalie weaknesses on each team (Video Coaches). They can look at everything goalies have done and along with other coaching staff adapt strategies to take advantage of perceived weaknesses/tendencies/etc. If you actually watch NHL games, look at where the players are shooting. You'll often notice a pattern, are they going glove or blocker side more? Are they going high or right above the pads? Are they trying to make cross ice passes near the crease to get goalie moving side to side? There is probably a good chance the team thinks it sees a certain weakness somewhere in the goalie's play and is trying to exploit it.

And then sometimes you just have players say fuck it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-m8Fd93faw

No weakness in normal hockey? Just pick up the puck like a Lacrosse player and dunk it in a tiny hole from behind the net (originally called The Michigan, some calling it the Svechnikov after the first NHL player to do it).

Dryden wants to talk about how soccer players can bend the ball, the newest big move we get to see on rare occasion is the move in that video. It starts with one guy doing it at this level (Svechnikov - 3 times I think). And now Filip Forsberg has done it. Other players have made attempts (Kuznetsov 2018 before anyone had ever done it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGFQkWfkjxk). Nils Hoglander, canucks rookie did it three times in Sweden and their fanbase is excited to see his first NHL goal in that fashion. I would bet money it happens at some point given his history with the move and talent.

Point is, players are getting more creative, better with puck handling, the game is getting faster, and every little detail is being scrutinized deeper and deeper. Hockey has the most parity of all the big sports in the US and the most uncertainty. Seeking out every edge is what separates the teams with long stretches of success and the mediocre teams which sit puzzlingly at the bottom year after year despite often drafting immensely talented players.

One of my favorite goalie coach quotes, you can't teach size, is definitely true. It's an advantage for sure. But is it ruining the game? Not even close. Maybe he's watching a different sport than the rest of us.

rrock3• 5 years ago

I had the same reaction. Has he not noticed goalies playing at the top of the crease (still)? Goalies play from the standing position for as long as the can to leverage their quickness, only dropping to the butterfly when the shot is on its way or a defensive breakdown demands it. I was really surprised to see who wrote it.

jacurtis11• 5 years ago

When he talked about goalies not ever needing to get off the knees, I was wondering what teams he was watching, because it wasn't the same teams as me. Goalies only drop to their knees when a player shoots. I'd be yelling at the screen if my goalie just sat on his knees. I don't know where that claim comes from.

pattle• 5 years ago

Surely they just need to make the net a bit bigger?

ajcp2• 5 years ago

And take away play-space? Nah. With todays advanced materials they should make goalie padding simply protect the goalie, and let the G-man protect the net.

siruva07• 5 years ago

"Take away the goalie’s eyes. If he can see it, he’ll stop it."

One heckuva instigator, NY Ranger Sean Avery, figured this out in the 2008 playoffs against NJ Devils Martin Brodeur.

video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec_2oKWe2Gw

The day after, the NHL made a rule that makes it illegal for a player to stand in front of a goalie and wave his or her stick in the goalie's face. Dubbed "The Sean Avery Rule," it results in a 2 min unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.

And yes, this play still has me riled up! :)

old_fart_dev3• 5 years ago

The fact Sean did this multiple times makes me smile.

This should be legal in beer league hockey. I spend a good amount of time in net with my defense men standing right in front of me, facing away from the net - I would love someone to come in and fan away all the beer farts from the crease.

justinlink• 5 years ago

I find it interesting the author didn't mention field hockey. My daughter is a goalkeeper for her youth club. The goalkeepers wear very similar pads, and face shots at similar speeds with the same safety concerns. (I wouldn't want to be hit with a puck or a field hockey ball).

The cage is much larger in field hockey: https://i2.wp.com/hockeyanswered.com/wp-content/uploads/2019...

The save percentages are about 70% vs the 90%+ in ice hockey, but the game scores tend to be similar to ice hockey.

If the goalkeeper is getting bigger because of the gear, even adding a few more inches onto the net to maintain the desired scoring percentage makes sense at least at the professional level.

Pinus• 5 years ago

Neither following nor playing either sport I'm on thin ice here (or maybe that's exactly what I'm not!), but isn't bandy sort of like hockey but with soccer-sized goals (and a ball instead of a puck)?

rrock3• 5 years ago

Yes, and is played on a frozen soccer field, 11 on 11. No boards, the ball can go out of bounds. Scoring is much higher.

(Others may correct me, I’ve been to one bandy game my whole Life)

old_fart_dev3• 5 years ago

Ken Dryden is a legend - he was a tall butterfly goaltender in the 70s and is the prototype of professional goaltenders today.

I think it's funny he thinks goalies are too big given he was a huge goalie himself. I do think goalies might be too mobile on their knees, which Ken alluded to in this article.

Knee stacks and landing pads change the game in the early 2000s. Goaltenders now can drop in a butterfly and slide across the crease still on their knees, allowing them to cover backside plays, passes from behind the net, and wraparounds, which used to be bread and butter plays for offenses. Getting rid of the pads would force goalies to play the same "drop and pop" style Ken did, where goalies need to get to their feet more often to more laterally. This would give offenses more incentive to get the puck to behind the back line and open up the ice more.

Alternatively to that, goalie skates have also gotten smaller - there's less protective covering on them. This makes it easier for goalies to push off with their skates while on their knees, since more of the blade of the skate can touch the ice. I can image the NHL could declare "for goalie safety" that goalie skates must have a certain thickness of protection around the skate, which would make sliding less effective.

Of course, amateur goalies (such as myself) should be able to keep knee stacks, since they also reduce stress on the hip caused by the knees dropping into the ice. ;)

soperj10• 5 years ago

Ken Dryden was not a butterfly goalie. Almost no one was until Patrick Roy popularized it.

old_fart_dev3• 5 years ago

I feel shame - I confused Ken Dryden with Jacques Plante. In my defense, I'm a Bruins fan and we're not big on having well-informed opinions. ;)

jacurtis11• 5 years ago

I think it's funny he thinks goalies are too big given he was a huge goalie himself. I do think goalies might be too mobile on their knees, which Ken alluded to in this article.

This is actually what to me is the most enlightening. It is almost like a whistleblower coming out to say something is wrong. Similarly to how the sport of cycling in the 2000s was filled with doping across the board. All the players that played back then came out and admitted that they doped because everyone else was doping. But now they are retired so they didn't mind admitting how they played the game and broke the rules.

I think Dryden is basically doing the same thing. Although it isn't as scandalous as doping, he is basically saying that as a top-tier goalie (among the best of all time) he recognizes that he did so well in his career because of his size. He didn't have to rely as much on athleticism as the goalies before him. So now he is opening up about "the truth".

Markoff• 5 years ago

I've never understood why they don't just hire extremely obese goalie (or some former sumo warrior), if you dress him in all protective gear therw won't be space for puck to pass, is there any NHL regulation about it?

ajcp2• 5 years ago

Those guys tend to be big and tall. Tall = a lot of space your body takes up is above the net.

You'd want a very fat, short guy, right? Well even if he manages to be as wide as 80% of that net that leaves a massive 20% of unattended space. So now this extremely obese, extremely squat goalie needs to move faster than a puck to protect that 20%? Not gonna happen.

And that's just hoping he can survive until the 1st intermission before you have to drag him off the ice as he's, you know, extremely obese.

InitialLastName2• 5 years ago

There are max size rules for some of the pads, so a really large player would have exposed area.

I don't know if you've seen the bruises that pro hockey goalies get even when they take a puck through the pads, but I really wouldn't want someone with unprotected flesh to have to make a decision about allowing a goal or getting hit.

ooboe• 5 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrgHA56uEDQ

Garbage TV link, but they address your question. One thing they get very right is that, in non-game, non-rushed environments, even the worst NHL hockey player can pick any corner of the net.

AcerbicZero• 5 years ago

Maybe the professionalization of classic games has just gone too far?

Perhaps what was fun for kids in the winter wasn’t actually designed to be taken seriously by grown men/woman, with millions of dollars at stake?

I don’t know. I still watch F1, so perhaps I’m just off base here, but it seems that there is a disconnect between the sport and the spectacle.

fc373745• 5 years ago

Why not make the goal bigger? Bigger to the point where we can see double digit scoring?

One thing that turned me off from watching Soccer one year was the amount of 1-1 games that led to PKs, and after just doing a little bit of research, Hockey has the longest overtime games by far, and occurs more often by far.

The average NHL team has gone to overtime in about 23.1 percent of its games over the past three seasons. The Flyers have done so in about 31.1 percent of their games

It's not enjoyable for the casual viewer. Betting on sports which have O/U of 0.5, 1, 1.5 is ridiculous tbh.

dionidium• 5 years ago

Speaking of betting, overtime is also frustrating, because it turns a bet based on slight edges over 60 minutes of play into a ridiculous prop bet. You can bet strictly on regulation time, but the bookie I use doesn’t offer a push, so it’s not an attractive bet.

jp57• 5 years ago

Part of the reason for so many overtimes is the ridiculous point system for overtime games: For a game that ends in regulation, one team gets 2 points and the other gets 0. For game that goes to overtime each team gets at least 1 point, and the winner gets two. This situation reduces the incentive to play aggressively and take chances to win when a game is tied late in the 3rd period.

For comparison, before the addition of shootouts to resolve games still tied after overtime, each game was worth exactly two points: both went to the winner, or they were split in the case of a tie.

Now there is the weird situation that teams are not competing for a fixed number of standings points. Instead rather a new point gets created whenever a game goes to overtime. This makes a huge incentive not to try to break ties in regulation.

flurdy• 5 years ago

That is why football/soccer introduced 3 points for a win to combat the 1980s trend of playing for a draw. Made enough of a difference.

runnr_az• 5 years ago

Of course, this was predicted by Adam and his Package: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpe7R_KgdVo

ukd1• 5 years ago

Shouldn't there be a fixed ratio of goalie surface area to goal face? Otherwise, this ends up in a Red Dwarf goalie for the 2224 World Cup which was a genetically engineered rectangular block of muscle the exact size of the goal...

AtlasBarfed2• 5 years ago

Why not a sumo wrestler?

jlizzle30• 5 years ago

Former college hockey goalie here (now a SWE).

Dryden is correct. Hockey goaltending has become incredibly technical and an essence of the game has been lost as goalies have gained mastery.

This is less about equipment being 'too big' and more about the technologic and strategic progression goalies have made. There aren't any equipment regulations that can unwind this progress.

While I played, I was vehemently opposed to changing the net-size. Now, as an outsider with no horse in the race, I think it's the right thing to do.

Every so often at practices, myself and my goaltending partner would agree to make 'highlight reel' saves for a drill or two. What this meant was abandoning our technique and adopt an athletic, intuitive style that resembled something of the past (kick saves, stacking the pads, catching the puck dramatically). We did this because it was fun; the shooters enjoyed it more too. Making the nets bigger would inject these elements back into the position.

etempleton• 5 years ago

It is interesting to compare hockey goalie strategy to lacrosse. The key difference is that the goal is significantly bigger—6x6 feet. Goalies in lacrosse general wear less pads then the other players on the field—often foregoing elbow and shoulder pads—for optimal mobility and because goalies are crazy (most do not wear shin pads because they will be made fun of by other goalies).

So I think another solution, that would surely be controversial, would be to make the goal slightly bigger. The minute goalie pads do not cover the whole area goalies will be forced to prioritize mobility over pad size.

Hockey goalies are too big now

Related Stories