HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

What Happened to Scoring in 1995?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-30-2014, 07:59 PM
  #26
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 4,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I chalk a lot of it up to a shorter training camp and the fact that you only played within your division. That means more familiarity. Less tricks you can play on your opponent. Scoring in the original 6 days was like it was today, and those teams played each other 14 times a year.
Those are both possible factors, but they are unlikely to be the primary factors. Remember, the decline was even more dramatic the previous season.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Also, there were players after 1994 that were never the same. Guys that took that half year off never came back as good as they were before. Gilmour comes to mind. Andreychuk, Tocchet, Gretzky even had a crazy off year. Even a guy like Oates or Hull lost a step. Guys who were in their 30s more or less. We saw much of the same thing in 2005. I can name a ton of players who were never the same after 2004 because of the lockout and they were all in their 30s.
Again, even if true, this doesn't explain the larger decline the previous season. Gretzky missed almost half the '93 season, won the scoring title in '94... yet scoring declined by over 10%. Remember also when comparing it to the '05 lockout, that '05 was a full season lockout and the game was opened up in '06. I don't think the situation in '94 & '95 was nearly as detrimental to older players as it was in '06.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Lastly, this was the first season in 15 years without an explosive Mario or Wayne. I know people think they were in a perfect storm in their primes, but I can't overestimate just how much of an impact Mario and Wayne had on scoring in the NHL. Mario took the year off. Gretzky was a point a game guy that year. There was no player that took the NHL by the horns. There wasn't anyone that blew the league away forcing other teams to have a copycat style. When Gretzky was putting up 200 point seasons, everyone wanted to play like the Oilers.
The direct effect on league scoring can't really be attributed to one or two superstars, even of the quality of Gretzky & Lemieux. That's not to say there isn't any effect, but it's not the primary cause.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Once these guys became mortals the NHL lost a bit of their identity. Think about it, 20 years later to this day what was the NHL's identity in 1995? I can't think about it. Lindros maybe? Jagr? This wasn't really "Lindros' league" yet because we all knew Mario was just taking a year off and no one knew Gretzky wasn't ever going to be "Gretzky" again. So there was no template.
I'm not denying the difficulty of replacing guys like Gretzky & Lemieux, but I don't think the NHL was lacking superstars in '95. It clearly became Lindros vs. Jagr in '95, they were the two dominant players in the league. Messier and the Rangers had just won the Cup, Fedorov had just won the Hart, Sakic was among the scoring leaders, and Kariya & Forsberg entered the league. I don't think there was a lack of superstars. The rise of the Flyers & Nords was another story line.

However, the league was in the midst of transition, and I think it was known at that time. Gretzky was no longer '80s Gretzky. Lemieux may have been expected back, but I don't think it was known that he would return in '96 and pick up where he had left off. This was just about the final nail in the coffin for the run and gun teams. You may be right that a template was lacking, but the Devils' win provided that template to many (unfortunately). That was only reinforced when the Panthers were able to beat both Lindros' Flyers and the Mario Brothers en route to getting routed in the '96 SCF. It was all about goaltending, team defense (aka, the trap), and getting away with whatever you could (which was a LOT) to slow down the other team's superstars.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2014, 08:11 PM
  #27
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 4,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
but how much did scoring rise from '92 to '93?
'86 7.94
'87 7.34
'88 7.43
'89 7.48
'90 7.37
'91 6.91
'92 6.96
'93 7.25

'94 6.48
'95 5.97
'96 6.29
'97 5.83
'98 5.28

About 0.29 GPG rise from '92 to '93.
From '87 thru '93, scoring is between 6.91-7.48 (0.57 range).
For it to drop 0.77 GPG in '94, and a further 0.51 GPG in '95, is a change of quite historic proportions in just two seasons.

Even strength goals went from 4.88 in '93 to 4.40 in '94 to 4.20 in '95. So the drop in total GPG can't be completely explained as the direct result of the drop in PPO.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2014, 08:25 PM
  #28
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
1992-93 is fairly obvious. Unbalanced league with abysmal expansion teams like the Sharks and Senators allowing a bazillion of goals.

Sharks 359
Nords 318
Pens 308
Flames 305
NYI 299


Sharks 419
Sens 395
Hart 369
Kings 340
Oilers 337

Sens 397
Jets 344
Kings 322
Flyers 314
Oliers 305

Part of the answer but it's not so simple PP% was up slightly along with more PP opportunities per team as well.

this is a pretty use full tool to get a quick overview on these things.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/stats.html


Last edited by Hardyvan123: 05-30-2014 at 08:32 PM.
Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2014, 08:40 PM
  #29
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
Tony Esposito early 70's was quite the cheater. Studied the rule book back to front. For starters, adds kapok (an upholsterers stuffing) to his pads gaining illegal inches & back in the day the NHL actually announced when they were coming in to check equipment. He'd then put several hundreds of pounds worth of weights on them to compress them back to legal size. After they passed, fluffed them back out again, like pillows.... then he added 2-3" to his trapper. No max on width so he added a "cheater", extra piece sewn on, then copied by Mike Palmateer amongst others, eventually manufacturers started makin em that way.... also added a "crotch net" to his pants. Yard of material dangling in between his legs there to close the 5 hole when he went into the Butterfly, along with an oversized sweater.... but it really took off & went crazy with Hextall & Garth Snow etc mid-80's. Over-sized chest protectors, Michelin Man Pads up to here, Blockers with like 3"'s of "sidewall" etc.
Isn't this breaking some unwritten rule of the goalie guild or something?

The size of the goalie equipment today is a complete joke compared to prior mid 80's though.

Every time someone brings up the lack of scoring talent in the modern NHL, one can simply point to any goalie and their equipment from now to the 80's and need not add a single thing to refute that assertion.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2014, 08:53 PM
  #30
The Panther
Registered User
 
The Panther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Country: Japan
Posts: 1,987
vCash: 500
The size of the goaltenders' bodies and the size of the goalie equipment is the #1 thing that I think is detrimental to the sport since the early '90s.

How the powers-that-be have not more strictly addressed the latter issue (nothing they can do about body-size, I guess) is beyond me.

I mean, it's a joke. You can't even see the net behind the goalies anymore. I frickin' hate that, because you never see skilled players fly in on the wing and score on accurate slap/wrist-shots anymore. That was probably my favorite part of the game.

The Panther is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2014, 09:03 PM
  #31
LeBlondeDemon10
BlindLemon Haystacks
 
LeBlondeDemon10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
... unhuh. S'plain the kapok in his goalie pads, adding a coupla inches both sides beyond regulation width LBD? Is that "added protection"? Is then putting 300lbs of dumb bells on the things to compress them back to regulation size before the NHL Po-leece Maing arrives so he doesnt get Busted, is that the act of an Innocent Man merely looking to "protect himself"?..... Or the "Crotch Catcher"?. How is adding a yard & padding to the empty space in between your crotch & knee's, like a wall of fabric, like kids with their oversized jeans, the zipper just above the knee type dealeo, how is that "adding safety features"?..... and the shoe repair guy, adding an extra 2.5-3.5" to the outside of his trapper with webbing. Formerly vacant space, air, atmosphere, nuthin there to hurt, howz that "adding safety features" to Tonionios' delicate frame LBD? Criminal Mind is what that is.
Ok, busted But how much was it policed in those days? And were there written rules about the size of goalie equipment back then? I am asking sincerely because I have the impression that the game was changing so much back then and sport seemed much less regulated than it is now. My fantasy? It all seems so micromanaged these days probably because it has to be to keep the cheats in line. There's that word again...

LeBlondeDemon10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2014, 09:12 PM
  #32
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 16,158
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForsbergForever View Post
Does the correlation between number of power plays and goals continue through to present?

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2014, 09:51 PM
  #33
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,972
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
Those are both possible factors, but they are unlikely to be the primary factors. Remember, the decline was even more dramatic the previous season.
There is a melting pot of reasons. They all cover about 10% of the reason in my opinion. The funny thing is, we would still consider 1994 being "high" scoring with 6.5 and 1995 with 6.0. Another thing to think about, the goaltending equipment exploded around this time as well. Look at Bill Ranford in 1990. Won the Conn Smythe. His equipment isn't big.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-31-2014, 03:05 AM
  #34
The Panther
Registered User
 
The Panther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Country: Japan
Posts: 1,987
vCash: 500
While I'm on my soap-box, I also believe that the rink and the nets should both be made slightly larger.

Some sports -- like baseball -- are more consistent over the generations because athletes haven't become noticeably larger in a game where (excepting power hitters) physical size isn't really a desirable trait.

Hockey is different, where the players are already in close proximity on the ice and the size of the average player has become much larger since the early 90s. Compounding this is the bulk of the equipment worn by players, most noticeably goalies, further reducing the space on ice. Then, add in the fact that goalies and equipment are much bigger and nets aren't, and you have a formula for boring offence and lower scoring.

I would suggest that nets be about 5-10% bigger and than the rink itself be 10% larger.

(Steps off soap-box.)

The Panther is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-31-2014, 03:15 AM
  #35
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 4,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Panther View Post
The size of the goaltenders' bodies and the size of the goalie equipment is the #1 thing that I think is detrimental to the sport since the early '90s.

How the powers-that-be have not more strictly addressed the latter issue (nothing they can do about body-size, I guess) is beyond me.

I mean, it's a joke. You can't even see the net behind the goalies anymore. I frickin' hate that, because you never see skilled players fly in on the wing and score on accurate slap/wrist-shots anymore. That was probably my favorite part of the game.
I agree with you about reducing goalie equipment, and I think that would be the best rule change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Panther View Post
While I'm on my soap-box, I also believe that the rink and the nets should both be made slightly larger.

Some sports -- like baseball -- are more consistent over the generations because athletes haven't become noticeably larger in a game where (excepting power hitters) physical size isn't really a desirable trait.

Hockey is different, where the players are already in close proximity on the ice and the size of the average player has become much larger since the early 90s. Compounding this is the bulk of the equipment worn by players, most noticeably goalies, further reducing the space on ice. Then, add in the fact that goalies and equipment are much bigger and nets aren't, and you have a formula for boring offence and lower scoring.

I would suggest that nets be about 5-10% bigger and than the rink itself be 10% larger.

(Steps off soap-box.)
Changing the net size? Absolutely not! You don't mess with such a constant.

As far as increasing rink size, it's an interesting idea, but I highly doubt it happens, since it would mean fewer seats.
Is the size of the rink standard now? I thought Boston and Chicago (?), maybe others, had different sized rinks... before they built their new arenas. If it is standard now, I think it would be good to allow teams flexibility in the size of their rink (like baseball teams)... could lead to some interesting configurations. Would love to see hockey's version of the green monster.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-31-2014, 09:39 AM
  #36
LeBlondeDemon10
BlindLemon Haystacks
 
LeBlondeDemon10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Panther View Post
While I'm on my soap-box, I also believe that the rink and the nets should both be made slightly larger.

Some sports -- like baseball -- are more consistent over the generations because athletes haven't become noticeably larger in a game where (excepting power hitters) physical size isn't really a desirable trait.

Hockey is different, where the players are already in close proximity on the ice and the size of the average player has become much larger since the early 90s. Compounding this is the bulk of the equipment worn by players, most noticeably goalies, further reducing the space on ice. Then, add in the fact that goalies and equipment are much bigger and nets aren't, and you have a formula for boring offence and lower scoring.

I would suggest that nets be about 5-10% bigger and than the rink itself be 10% larger.

(Steps off soap-box.)
Interesting. After the 1968 season, known as the Year of the Pitcher, MLB lowered the height of the mound from 15" to 10". Maybe one of the most significant alterations to the dynamics of any sports playing field.

As for hockey, in the past I have advocated for a larger ice surface in the NHL, but since the lockout of 04-05 and the consequent penalizing of obstruction, smaller players have again began to succeed. As for the nets, I wouldn't change a thing. Reduction of the size of goalie equipment and, as someone said in another thread, bring back the wooden sticks for accuracy in shooting would certainly help scoring and passing. Far too often are there rolling pucks and passes deflected into the stands. I attribute this to the composite sticks which allow you to shoot harder, but appear to me to not be suitable for finesse.

LeBlondeDemon10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-31-2014, 02:52 PM
  #37
Ishdul
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Country: Lithuania
Posts: 3,089
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBlondeDemon10 View Post
Reduction of the size of goalie equipment and, as someone said in another thread, bring back the wooden sticks for accuracy in shooting would certainly help scoring and passing. Far too often are there rolling pucks and passes deflected into the stands. I attribute this to the composite sticks which allow you to shoot harder, but appear to me to not be suitable for finesse.
You'd be wrong.

Ishdul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-31-2014, 03:29 PM
  #38
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
I agree with you about reducing goalie equipment, and I think that would be the best rule change.
I agree but the goalies, under the guise of "safety", would argue and have won that day with Gary "I love parity more than the game"Bettman

Quote:
Changing the net size? Absolutely not! You don't mess with such a constant.
See above, forward passing and the red line are all contestants now, in fact I would love to go back to the early days were goalies weren't allowed to flop down ever and had to stay on their feet but sadly that rule was changed.

Quote:
As far as increasing rink size, it's an interesting idea, but I highly doubt it happens, since it would mean fewer seats.
Is the size of the rink standard now? I thought Boston and Chicago (?), maybe others, had different sized rinks... before they built their new arenas. If it is standard now, I think it would be good to allow teams flexibility in the size of their rink (like baseball teams)... could lead to some interesting configurations. Would love to see hockey's version of the green monster.

I agree with the above, it won't change for economic reasons and the size of the rink has less impact on goal scoring, or the lack of it, than goalie equipment IMO.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-31-2014, 04:14 PM
  #39
LeBlondeDemon10
BlindLemon Haystacks
 
LeBlondeDemon10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,174
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ishdul View Post
You'd be wrong.
Maybe I am but you gotta do better than that to convince me.

LeBlondeDemon10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2014, 11:49 PM
  #40
Mr. Fancy Pants
Registered User
 
Mr. Fancy Pants's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Gifu
Country: Japan
Posts: 267
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I chalk a lot of it up to a shorter training camp and the fact that you only played within your division. That means more familiarity. Less tricks you can play on your opponent. Scoring in the original 6 days was like it was today, and those teams played each other 14 times a year.

Also, there were players after 1994 that were never the same. Guys that took that half year off never came back as good as they were before. Gilmour comes to mind. Andreychuk, Tocchet, Gretzky even had a crazy off year. Even a guy like Oates or Hull lost a step. Guys who were in their 30s more or less. We saw much of the same thing in 2005. I can name a ton of players who were never the same after 2004 because of the lockout and they were all in their 30s.

Lastly, this was the first season in 15 years without an explosive Mario or Wayne. I know people think they were in a perfect storm in their primes, but I can't overestimate just how much of an impact Mario and Wayne had on scoring in the NHL. Mario took the year off. Gretzky was a point a game guy that year. There was no player that took the NHL by the horns. There wasn't anyone that blew the league away forcing other teams to have a copycat style. When Gretzky was putting up 200 point seasons, everyone wanted to play like the Oilers. Once these guys became mortals the NHL lost a bit of their identity. Think about it, 20 years later to this day what was the NHL's identity in 1995? I can't think about it. Lindros maybe? Jagr? This wasn't really "Lindros' league" yet because we all knew Mario was just taking a year off and no one knew Gretzky wasn't ever going to be "Gretzky" again. So there was no template.
Another reason may just be psychological. The 94 lockout was much different from the other lockouts. Bettman was new to the league. Remember Chelios' comments about how he should be concerned for his life? I think a lot of players thought a lockout would never happen and were shocked at how close they came to losing the whole season. After seeing all the ugliness behind the scenes, maybe a bunch of players - especially the veterans - tuned out a little.

The lockout was definitely a turning point in NHL history. There seems to be a distinct difference between pre-lockout and post-lockout games.

Mr. Fancy Pants is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2014, 12:29 PM
  #41
ForsbergForever
Red Rocket
 
ForsbergForever's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,823
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
I agree with you about reducing goalie equipment, and I think that would be the best rule change.



Changing the net size? Absolutely not! You don't mess with such a constant.
It would only be a constant if the size of goalies hadn't gone from like 5'10 to 6'2 in the last decade and their gear hadn't doubled in size. Thus there is much less open net to shoot at, which should necessitate a proportional increase in the size of the net to compensate.

ForsbergForever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2014, 10:53 PM
  #42
billybudd
5 Mike Rupps
 
billybudd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 15,133
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sticks and Pucks View Post
I think 1995 was when scoring began to decline due to more teams adapting to the trap with more teams in the league. The 1995-1996 season was the anomaly here as it was higher scoring than all the other post-lockout seasons. One explanation could be that the goaltenders were just off that year. Hasek's one blip during his era was the 1995-1996 season. The two top goaltenders that year were Jim Carey and Chris Osgood so that probably says something about the goaltending that year.
No, there was some absurd volume of powerplays prior to the all-star break (relative the previous and succeeding years). Not only did those lead to a lot of goals, but many D got gunshy about what they could and couldn't do, which lead to them playing like spectators a lot of the time.

95-96 was like 05-06 in a great many ways.

I don't recall at this point, but the most likely reason to me that Carey and Osgood would have been ahead of the pack that year is if the Wings and Caps were top 5 teams on the PK.

billybudd is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:04 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.