View Single Post
Old
11-14-2003, 04:37 PM
  #8
Brain Hemorrhage
Registered User
 
Brain Hemorrhage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFuPenguin
You'd have to compensate owners somehow for the loss of revenue in suggestion #1. If nothing else they'll resort to increasing ticket prices.

As for #2, I'm against increasing the size of the nets. I feel this is the wrong approach to adding excitement to the game. It's not so much the lack of scoring that's the problem IMHO, but the lack of quality scoring chances. Increasing the size of the nets would make it easier to score, true, but it would mostly mean a few more low-percentage shots going in. OTOH, I believe that if you give some of the skilled forwards today the time and space to make a play, they can score on the current net, despite the tremendous goaltending equipment. It's just that there's very few such chances in the NHL these days.

Adding a few inches of net is a band-aid solution rather than attacking the root cause of the problem.
First, let me say I completely understand you. Only because I understand your thoughts do I feel I have a GIVEN RIGHT to say, "I disagree with you." I am not going to necessarily counter anything you said, but expand your point-of-view regarding the argument.

Now, allow me to philosophize.

This is a great issue. What makes this a great issue though? Because in order to UNDERSTAND it's impact, we must throw away our current UNDERSTANDING. We must constantly form new UNDERSTANDING because the issue constantly changes. We regard our UNDERSTANDING of the issue as COMPLEX and HARD TO COMPREHEND because it is COMPLEX and HARD TO COMPREHEND. Whenever you discuss something truly great, it changes the way you look at it every time you look at it. That is THE definition of greatness.

Now, allow me to try and give you a new way to look at altering the nets.

The scoring area side-to-side determines what the goalie can do. The less side-to-side area, the closer together the posts are, the easier it is for a goalie to move side-to-side. Additionally, the easier it is for the goalie to get behind the net, such as to stop the dump-n-chase strategy. The easier this activity becomes, the more time the goalie has to handle the puck, the more effective the goalie becomes stopping the dump-in strategy. Additionally, the closer together the side-to-side area becomes, the further out a goalie can come out to cut off shots and take away angles. And the goalie would require less skill to come out, since just coming out in itself reduces a scoring chance dramatically, regardless of the goalie's understanding of positioning. The goalie can then concentrate on using a top-and-bottom strategy, focusing on eliminating the five-hole and anything over the glove or blocker. The guessing-game between goalie and the offense is a 1-2 probability equation. "Heads, you win. Tails, I win." The goalie's crease also becomes smaller, putting the goalie in greater danger of being knocked down and possibly injured. Finally, rebounds have less percentage chance of going in the closer together the posts are. This is especially noteworthy considering the honest increase in the size of goalie equipment, enabling goaltenders to use their padding more intermittently with their glove and stick.

If the scoring area side-to-side increases, several things happen. The more side-to-side area, the further apart the posts are, the harder it is for a goalie to move side-to-side. Additionally, the harder it is for the goalie to get behind the net, such as to stop the dump-n-chase strategy. The harder this activity becomes, the longer it takes to get to the puck, the less time the goalie has to handle the puck (if they are even fast enough to get to it at all), the less effective the goalie becomes stopping the dump-in strategy. Additionally, the further apart the side-to-side area becomes, the more committed a goalie has to be to cut off shots and take away angles. The more committed a goalie is to stopping the shot, the more vulnerable he is to a great pass. This vulnerability to great passing arguably enhances skillful play (Mario Lemieux and Wayne Gretzky proved that a perfect pass is rarely a botched score no matter who's stick the puck ends up on, so the size of the net is arguably not an issue in putting it away; such an example is intended for the preceding argument). Scoring chances would go up, and if your counter-argument to this suggestion is that unwanted unskilled goals will go up, then you must reason logically that highly demanded skilled goals will go up along with it. It is hard to see otherwise! And the goalie would undoubtably require more skill to come out, since just coming out in itself requires excellent positioning to achieve the desired objective of decreasing a scoring chance dramatically. Let alone the reflexes necessary to get in position to stop the centering pass. The goalie then has to be concious of eliminating the five-hole especially, and anything along the ice like a low hard slapshot. The guessing-game between goalie and the offense is a 1-2-3-4-5 probability equation. The goalie's crease also becomes larger, putting the goalie in lesser danger of being knocked down and possibly injured. Finally, rebounds have a higher percentage chance of going in the further apart the posts are. Most rebounds are not deposited very high if they are right in front of the crease (and hockey knowledge tends to suggest rebounds so close to the net are because the goaltender is "soft" and perhaps has a weak glove). This is, again, especially noteworthy considering the honest increase in the size of goalie equipment, which is enabling goaltenders to use their padding more intermittently with their glove and stick. Goaltenders would have to practice their glove and stickwork much more.

I think that was a zero-sum description of the argument. I disagree with you because the description of the argument suggests you are wrong. No offense. Feel free to add to the argument.

Brain Hemorrhage is offline