Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Difference between GMs and fans....

Expand Messages
  • MoreyH
    Not as much net on the ice as it appears on TV. Back in the 60s, goalies such as Jacques Plante and Roger Crozier would play the angles , a term that is
    Message 1 of 20 , Jun 12, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Not as much net on the ice as it appears on TV. Back in the 60s, goalies such as Jacques Plante and Roger Crozier would "play the angles", a term that is rarely discussed.

      Jonathan Quick plays the angles, albeit differently.

      It's hard to describe geometry in this setting, but suffice to say that when Quick coils down and leans towards the shooter, he actually takes more of the net away than the typical butterfly goaltender.

      The on-ice shooter sees less available net, thanks to the same angles that Crozier et al used, but instead of being vulnerable down low, Quick takes the bottom of the net away with his "coiled butterfly" version (my term, because I do not know what else to call it).

      For years, despite being a traditionalist, I have stated that the NHL needs wider nets - maybe a 4x8. A 1.11 GAA in the finals is proof.

      Morey

      --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, "William Underwood" <wausport@...> wrote:
      >
      > I absolutely agree! Quick has played well but in all honesty the style that
      > he uses REQUIRES good defense. That coiled down style leaves a lot of high
      > net open
    • DAVE SOUTTER
      Morey: Realizing fans like scoring, I understand your sentiments about making the goals larger. However, it will never happen. Changing the size of the goals
      Message 2 of 20 , Jun 12, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Morey:

        Realizing fans like scoring, I understand your sentiments about making the goals larger.

        However, it will never happen.

        Changing the size of the goals would be drastic, to say the least. Widening the net by two feet would change the game in ways we can't even imagine right now.

        I am a proponent of Olympic-sized ice sheets, however. This works very well in International competition and in Europe. The larger sheet spreads the game out and puts more of an emphasis on skating and passing.

        There is nothing wrong with good goaltending and tough defense, and that is why goal scoring is down, not because the nets are too small.

        Dave Soutter
        Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

        -----Original Message-----
        From: MoreyH <epenaltybox@...>
        Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:31:10
        To: <hockhist@yahoogroups.com>
        Subject: [hockhist] Re: Difference between GMs and fans....

         



        Not as much net on the ice as it appears on TV. Back in the 60s, goalies such as Jacques Plante and Roger Crozier would "play the angles", a term that is rarely discussed.

        Jonathan Quick plays the angles, albeit differently.

        It's hard to describe geometry in this setting, but suffice to say that when Quick coils down and leans towards the shooter, he actually takes more of the net away than the typical butterfly goaltender.

        The on-ice shooter sees less available net, thanks to the same angles that Crozier et al used, but instead of being vulnerable down low, Quick takes the bottom of the net away with his "coiled butterfly" version (my term, because I do not know what else to call it).

        For years, despite being a traditionalist, I have stated that the NHL needs wider nets - maybe a 4x8. A 1.11 GAA in the finals is proof.

        Morey

        --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hockhist%40yahoogroups.com> , "William Underwood" <wausport@...> wrote:
        >
        > I absolutely agree! Quick has played well but in all honesty the style that
        > he uses REQUIRES good defense. That coiled down style leaves a lot of high
        > net open
      • MoreyH
        Dave, I strongly disagree with your first point: Fans like action. Scoring usually comes with action. Cycling the puck is boring to play, worse to watch,
        Message 3 of 20 , Jun 12, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Dave,

          I strongly disagree with your first point: Fans like action. Scoring usually comes with action. Cycling the puck is boring to play, worse to watch, especially if you do not have a team to root for or against.

          Yes, changing the size of the nets IS drastic. But consider this, in the 1920s through the 1940s, the average goaltender was about 5'8", weighed about 175 pounds, and wore 45 pounds of equipment, and half of the time were stuck in net because he was the worst skater on the team or in the family, and had a small crease.

          Today, the average goaltender is about 6'1", weighs about 190 pounds, and weares about 15 pounds of equipment, thus are able to cover more of the net just by moving, and are given more protection with a larger goal crease that their predecessors. Some of today's goaltenders are great skaters.

          The goaltending position has been so mechanicalized that when a Dominik Hasek, or Tim Thomas, comes along, no coach wants to play him. The list of coaches who reject Hasek and Thomas, despite their international resume includes to name two, include: Mike Keenan in Chicago, John Muckler in Buffalo, Glen Sather and Craig MacTavish in Edmonton, Marc Crawford in Quebec, Mike Keenan, again, in Boston, Pat Burns and Robbie Ftorek in Boston.

          Fortunately for Thomas and Hasek (and fans), injuries forced the coaches to eventually play them, which made geniuses out of Muckler and Mike Sullivan.

          The reasons for mechanical goalies (think J. S. Giguere) is simple: Geometry. When bigger players are lighter and more mobile, there is less net to shoot at. Add defensive manoeuvers to slow down the game, and youhave the new Dead Puck Era.

          Add 8 square feet to the goal, and the strategy drastically changes.

          Go back and watch Bernie Parent in the 74 or 75 Stanley Cup playoffs, when he was sensational.

          His goaltending back then wouldn't even be considered competent today.

          Morey


          --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, "DAVE SOUTTER " <dsoutter@...> wrote:
          >
          > Morey:
          >
          > Realizing fans like scoring, I understand your sentiments about making the goals larger.
          >
          > However, it will never happen.
          >
          > Changing the size of the goals would be drastic, to say the least. Widening the net by two feet would change the game in ways we can't even imagine right now.
          >
          > I am a proponent of Olympic-sized ice sheets, however. This works very well in International competition and in Europe. The larger sheet spreads the game out and puts more of an emphasis on skating and passing.
          >
          > There is nothing wrong with good goaltending and tough defense, and that is why goal scoring is down, not because the nets are too small.
          >
          > Dave Soutter
          > Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: MoreyH <epenaltybox@...>
          > Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:31:10
          > To: <hockhist@yahoogroups.com>
          > Subject: [hockhist] Re: Difference between GMs and fans....
          >
          >  
          >
          >
          >
          > Not as much net on the ice as it appears on TV. Back in the 60s, goalies such as Jacques Plante and Roger Crozier would "play the angles", a term that is rarely discussed.
          >
          > Jonathan Quick plays the angles, albeit differently.
          >
          > It's hard to describe geometry in this setting, but suffice to say that when Quick coils down and leans towards the shooter, he actually takes more of the net away than the typical butterfly goaltender.
          >
          > The on-ice shooter sees less available net, thanks to the same angles that Crozier et al used, but instead of being vulnerable down low, Quick takes the bottom of the net away with his "coiled butterfly" version (my term, because I do not know what else to call it).
          >
          > For years, despite being a traditionalist, I have stated that the NHL needs wider nets - maybe a 4x8. A 1.11 GAA in the finals is proof.
          >
          > Morey
          >
          > --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hockhist%40yahoogroups.com> , "William Underwood" <wausport@> wrote:
          > >
          > > I absolutely agree! Quick has played well but in all honesty the style that
          > > he uses REQUIRES good defense. That coiled down style leaves a lot of high
          > > net open
          >
        • DAVE SOUTTER
          Morey: To make a comparison, the size and height of baskets in the NBA has remained consistent for over fifty years, even though players are bigger, faster and
          Message 4 of 20 , Jun 12, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Morey:

            To make a comparison, the size and height of baskets in the NBA has remained consistent for over fifty years, even though players are bigger, faster and stronger than ever before. The players and the way the game is played has changed, but the goal has not. At least not appreciably.

            Have you forgotten the 80s? Scoring was big in those days. Gretzky with 200 points and several players routinely scoring 100 points per season. Not as common in today's game, which is tighter checking.

            Cycling is just another "advancement" in hockey that, in my opinion, would be less common on a larger ice sheet. Cycling is simply a way of moving the puck and drawing defensive players away from the house. The size of the goal has nothing to do with the fact that players cycle in the offensive zone. Perhaps a shot clock is needed ;).

            Seriously, though... If a change is to be made, larger ice sheets would be much more acceptable, (if not practical in many arenas) since there is precedent for it. It could be done if the NHL really wanted it. But changing the size of the goal?

            It will never happen.

            Does the change occur in just the NHL? Would it include minor leagues? College? Juniors? Europe? International tournaments? Amateur hockey at any and all levels?

            Too many "what ifs" involved.

            I would say a set of goalie pads today weigh closer to a range of about 25 lbs. or so, maybe a bit less, depending on the guy. 15 lbs. sounds a bit light to me. But I get your point.

            Comparing players from different eras is fascinating, but to me its an exercise in futility. Parent, Esposito, Dryden, Giacomin and Vachon were stars in their era. Period. As were Brimsek, Broda, Raynor and Hall. To say those players would be washouts today or a different era is meaningless. Apples and oranges. We have what we have today. The game is faster and tighter checking today than it was 20 or 30 years ago and the play has adapted to this.

            I think there is plenty of action in today's game, but fewer goals scored doesn't detract from my enjoyment of watching.

            Dave Soutter
            Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

            -----Original Message-----
            From: MoreyH <epenaltybox@...>
            Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 04:42:13
            To: <hockhist@yahoogroups.com>
            Subject: [hockhist] Re: Difference between GMs and fans....

             



            Dave,

            I strongly disagree with your first point: Fans like action. Scoring usually comes with action. Cycling the puck is boring to play, worse to watch, especially if you do not have a team to root for or against.

            Yes, changing the size of the nets IS drastic. But consider this, in the 1920s through the 1940s, the average goaltender was about 5'8", weighed about 175 pounds, and wore 45 pounds of equipment, and half of the time were stuck in net because he was the worst skater on the team or in the family, and had a small crease.

            Today, the average goaltender is about 6'1", weighs about 190 pounds, and weares about 15 pounds of equipment, thus are able to cover more of the net just by moving, and are given more protection with a larger goal crease that their predecessors. Some of today's goaltenders are great skaters.

            The goaltending position has been so mechanicalized that when a Dominik Hasek, or Tim Thomas, comes along, no coach wants to play him. The list of coaches who reject Hasek and Thomas, despite their international resume includes to name two, include: Mike Keenan in Chicago, John Muckler in Buffalo, Glen Sather and Craig MacTavish in Edmonton, Marc Crawford in Quebec, Mike Keenan, again, in Boston, Pat Burns and Robbie Ftorek in Boston.

            Fortunately for Thomas and Hasek (and fans), injuries forced the coaches to eventually play them, which made geniuses out of Muckler and Mike Sullivan.

            The reasons for mechanical goalies (think J. S. Giguere) is simple: Geometry. When bigger players are lighter and more mobile, there is less net to shoot at. Add defensive manoeuvers to slow down the game, and youhave the new Dead Puck Era.

            Add 8 square feet to the goal, and the strategy drastically changes.

            Go back and watch Bernie Parent in the 74 or 75 Stanley Cup playoffs, when he was sensational.

            His goaltending back then wouldn't even be considered competent today.

            Morey


            --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hockhist%40yahoogroups.com> , "DAVE SOUTTER " <dsoutter@...> wrote:
            >
            > Morey:
            >
            > Realizing fans like scoring, I understand your sentiments about making the goals larger.
            >
            > However, it will never happen.
            >
            > Changing the size of the goals would be drastic, to say the least. Widening the net by two feet would change the game in ways we can't even imagine right now.
            >
            > I am a proponent of Olympic-sized ice sheets, however. This works very well in International competition and in Europe. The larger sheet spreads the game out and puts more of an emphasis on skating and passing.
            >
            > There is nothing wrong with good goaltending and tough defense, and that is why goal scoring is down, not because the nets are too small.
            >
            > Dave Soutter
            > Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
            >
            > -----Original Message-----
            > From: MoreyH <epenaltybox@...>
            > Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:31:10
            > To: <hockhist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hockhist%40yahoogroups.com> >
            > Subject: [hockhist] Re: Difference between GMs and fans....
            >
            >  
            >
            >
            >
            > Not as much net on the ice as it appears on TV. Back in the 60s, goalies such as Jacques Plante and Roger Crozier would "play the angles", a term that is rarely discussed.
            >
            > Jonathan Quick plays the angles, albeit differently.
            >
            > It's hard to describe geometry in this setting, but suffice to say that when Quick coils down and leans towards the shooter, he actually takes more of the net away than the typical butterfly goaltender.
            >
            > The on-ice shooter sees less available net, thanks to the same angles that Crozier et al used, but instead of being vulnerable down low, Quick takes the bottom of the net away with his "coiled butterfly" version (my term, because I do not know what else to call it).
            >
            > For years, despite being a traditionalist, I have stated that the NHL needs wider nets - maybe a 4x8. A 1.11 GAA in the finals is proof.
            >
            > Morey
            >
            > --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hockhist%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:hockhist%40yahoogroups.com> , "William Underwood" <wausport@> wrote:
            > >
            > > I absolutely agree! Quick has played well but in all honesty the style that
            > > he uses REQUIRES good defense. That coiled down style leaves a lot of high
            > > net open
            >
          • William Underwood
            Yes he does play the angles well but the point being is that for the average human being it is a risky way to play much as was the case with Hasek. You leave
            Message 5 of 20 , Jun 13, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Yes he does play the angles well but the point being is that for the average
              human being it is a risky way to play much as was the case with Hasek. You
              leave the entire upper net open and if the shot is deflected.And if you lack
              his tremendous leg strength you can't recover. It worked deadly well but it
              is NOT a style that I would encourage a young goalie to use any more than I
              would say "Watch how the Dominator does it"..he had cyborg like reflexes and
              the flexibility of a 15 year old gymnast! :-) Nor would I have told kids
              "see how Hextall handles the puck..try that" Most have no clue as to when to
              do it much the less the ability to DO IT. Another issue is how long can he
              keep it up? That style is like a catcher in baseball, a strain on the knees.
              Can it be done successfully over a 60 game stretch doubly so known that
              every team in the league will spend 3 months studying it? Hey it may be fine
              long term like with Hasek style was but again it is NOT a style to be
              emulated..He played GREAT and it works well for him but I stick to my guns I
              would NOT tell another goalie to try it nor do I expect to find a wave of
              Jonathan Quick clones...



              As for the net, the idea has merits but I would not like to see it and we
              won't. The problem being is that you run the risk of doing "too much". It
              would not take much to make the game TOO high scoring the way that kids can
              shoot these days. I see midgets who can really pull the trigger and can be
              pretty accurate. It is something that it would be EASY to get wrong, either
              by doing too little or too much. The nets were not why we saw low scoring
              in the playoffs, the Pens and Flyers had the same nets and it looked a heck
              of lot like lacrosse. It was that teams played great TEAM defense and yes
              some got great goaltending, a potent combo that is the best path to a title,
              just as a great D in football wins or a great pitching staff wins in
              baseball.. The top teams left few rebounds and gave few power breaks. And
              that is not a bad thing. D is part of the game. Plus players have become so
              willing to block shots which again a larger net will not change.



              I am not totally averse to it but just averse as to how far we go and am a
              skeptic.



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • William Underwood
              I have to agree there was lot of great action in this series. To say that you need scoring to have action is like saying that a 1-0 pitchers duel where we
              Message 6 of 20 , Jun 13, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                I have to agree there was lot of great action in this series. To say that
                you "need scoring" to have action is like saying that a 1-0 pitchers duel
                where we have had several situations where there were runners in scoring
                position and they worked their way out of it is dull.it is anything BUT
                dull. Now if the game was one of those trap a thon played between the blue
                lines type of games Morey would have a point but it was anything BUT that.
                Lower scoring is not all of what keeps folks form watching hockey..after all
                we had the Flyers Pens series too..no people like that will just say "too
                much scoring----it its silly."Just like when they say "I don't like the
                fighting" and you suggest college or international hockey and they have a
                new excuse. Ironically a lot of hockey fans are the SAME with soccer.50
                excuses for the immutable fact that they just can't get into the game which
                in the end is more of a product of their culture and mind set than it is the
                game itself.



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • MoreyH
                We might have to agree to disagree. I disagree with the basketball analogy because goaltending is illegal in basketball. If blocking the shot as it is going
                Message 7 of 20 , Jun 13, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  We might have to agree to disagree.

                  I disagree with the basketball analogy because goaltending is illegal in basketball. If blocking the shot as it is going into the rim was legal, you can bet the NBA would have raised the baskets, lest we have Game 2 decided by a 2-0 score, in quadruple overtime!

                  I'm not encourage more scoring - I'm encouraging more opportunities and more athletic achievement. I hated the 80s because the 30 or 40 men who actually knew how to play defense ended up with shorter careers because they couldn't score. Out west, we saw a lot of lousy 8-6 games with the Kings.

                  On a larger ice sheet, cycling would be more prevalent, not less. If you have ever played on both sides of a 10-1 (or equivalent) game, you would remmeber that no one on the side that scored 10 was remotely out of breath, but the side that had 1 was sucking wind and couldn't wait to get out of there. The reason for that: playing on your heels or defense takes more energy out of you than playing on the offense.

                  The idea behind cycling is to wear the defensive team down until you get an opportunity to get a scoring chance. And if you can cycle for long stretches in the 2nd period, the defending team has that much further to go to change lines.

                  Re the goalie pads: 40 pounds back in the day is also a bit on the light side, especially after two periods of soaking up sweat and ice.

                  My point goes to basic geometry with a little bit of physics thrown in for good measure: A larger body with a reduction of drag due to lighter equipment covering the same 24 square feet of goal is not proportional to the original rules, thus the game regresses instead of progresses.

                  I wasn't saying that Bernie Parent would be a washout today. I'm saying look at the goals he gave up in the 74 and 75 Stanley Cup Finals, and tell me what you would suggest about a goalie who gave up similar goals today.


                  --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, "DAVE SOUTTER " <dsoutter@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Morey:
                  >
                  > To make a comparison, the size and height of baskets in the NBA has remained consistent for over fifty years, even though players are bigger, faster and stronger than ever before. The players and the way the game is played has changed, but the goal has not. At least not appreciably.
                  >
                  > Have you forgotten the 80s? Scoring was big in those days. Gretzky with 200 points and several players routinely scoring 100 points per season. Not as common in today's game, which is tighter checking.
                  >
                  > Cycling is just another "advancement" in hockey that, in my opinion, would be less common on a larger ice sheet. Cycling is simply a way of moving the puck and drawing defensive players away from the house. The size of the goal has nothing to do with the fact that players cycle in the offensive zone. Perhaps a shot clock is needed ;).
                  >
                  > Seriously, though... If a change is to be made, larger ice sheets would be much more acceptable, (if not practical in many arenas) since there is precedent for it. It could be done if the NHL really wanted it. But changing the size of the goal?
                  >
                  > It will never happen.
                  >
                  > Does the change occur in just the NHL? Would it include minor leagues? College? Juniors? Europe? International tournaments? Amateur hockey at any and all levels?
                  >
                  > Too many "what ifs" involved.
                  >
                  > I would say a set of goalie pads today weigh closer to a range of about 25 lbs. or so, maybe a bit less, depending on the guy. 15 lbs. sounds a bit light to me. But I get your point.
                  >
                  > Comparing players from different eras is fascinating, but to me its an exercise in futility. Parent, Esposito, Dryden, Giacomin and Vachon were stars in their era. Period. As were Brimsek, Broda, Raynor and Hall. To say those players would be washouts today or a different era is meaningless. Apples and oranges. We have what we have today. The game is faster and tighter checking today than it was 20 or 30 years ago and the play has adapted to this.
                  >
                  > I think there is plenty of action in today's game, but fewer goals scored doesn't detract from my enjoyment of watching.
                  >
                  > Dave Soutter
                  > Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
                  >
                  > -----Original Message-----
                  > From: MoreyH <epenaltybox@...>
                  > Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 04:42:13
                  > To: <hockhist@yahoogroups.com>
                  > Subject: [hockhist] Re: Difference between GMs and fans....
                  >
                  >  
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Dave,
                  >
                  > I strongly disagree with your first point: Fans like action. Scoring usually comes with action. Cycling the puck is boring to play, worse to watch, especially if you do not have a team to root for or against.
                  >
                  > Yes, changing the size of the nets IS drastic. But consider this, in the 1920s through the 1940s, the average goaltender was about 5'8", weighed about 175 pounds, and wore 45 pounds of equipment, and half of the time were stuck in net because he was the worst skater on the team or in the family, and had a small crease.
                  >
                  > Today, the average goaltender is about 6'1", weighs about 190 pounds, and weares about 15 pounds of equipment, thus are able to cover more of the net just by moving, and are given more protection with a larger goal crease that their predecessors. Some of today's goaltenders are great skaters.
                  >
                  > The goaltending position has been so mechanicalized that when a Dominik Hasek, or Tim Thomas, comes along, no coach wants to play him. The list of coaches who reject Hasek and Thomas, despite their international resume includes to name two, include: Mike Keenan in Chicago, John Muckler in Buffalo, Glen Sather and Craig MacTavish in Edmonton, Marc Crawford in Quebec, Mike Keenan, again, in Boston, Pat Burns and Robbie Ftorek in Boston.
                  >
                  > Fortunately for Thomas and Hasek (and fans), injuries forced the coaches to eventually play them, which made geniuses out of Muckler and Mike Sullivan.
                  >
                  > The reasons for mechanical goalies (think J. S. Giguere) is simple: Geometry. When bigger players are lighter and more mobile, there is less net to shoot at. Add defensive manoeuvers to slow down the game, and youhave the new Dead Puck Era.
                  >
                  > Add 8 square feet to the goal, and the strategy drastically changes.
                  >
                  > Go back and watch Bernie Parent in the 74 or 75 Stanley Cup playoffs, when he was sensational.
                  >
                  > His goaltending back then wouldn't even be considered competent today.
                  >
                  > Morey
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hockhist%40yahoogroups.com> , "DAVE SOUTTER " <dsoutter@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Morey:
                  > >
                  > > Realizing fans like scoring, I understand your sentiments about making the goals larger.
                  > >
                  > > However, it will never happen.
                  > >
                  > > Changing the size of the goals would be drastic, to say the least. Widening the net by two feet would change the game in ways we can't even imagine right now.
                  > >
                  > > I am a proponent of Olympic-sized ice sheets, however. This works very well in International competition and in Europe. The larger sheet spreads the game out and puts more of an emphasis on skating and passing.
                  > >
                  > > There is nothing wrong with good goaltending and tough defense, and that is why goal scoring is down, not because the nets are too small.
                  > >
                  > > Dave Soutter
                  > > Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
                  > >
                  > > -----Original Message-----
                  > > From: MoreyH <epenaltybox@>
                  > > Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:31:10
                  > > To: <hockhist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hockhist%40yahoogroups.com> >
                  > > Subject: [hockhist] Re: Difference between GMs and fans....
                  > >
                  > >  
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Not as much net on the ice as it appears on TV. Back in the 60s, goalies such as Jacques Plante and Roger Crozier would "play the angles", a term that is rarely discussed.
                  > >
                  > > Jonathan Quick plays the angles, albeit differently.
                  > >
                  > > It's hard to describe geometry in this setting, but suffice to say that when Quick coils down and leans towards the shooter, he actually takes more of the net away than the typical butterfly goaltender.
                  > >
                  > > The on-ice shooter sees less available net, thanks to the same angles that Crozier et al used, but instead of being vulnerable down low, Quick takes the bottom of the net away with his "coiled butterfly" version (my term, because I do not know what else to call it).
                  > >
                  > > For years, despite being a traditionalist, I have stated that the NHL needs wider nets - maybe a 4x8. A 1.11 GAA in the finals is proof.
                  > >
                  > > Morey
                  > >
                  > > --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hockhist%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:hockhist%40yahoogroups.com> , "William Underwood" <wausport@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > I absolutely agree! Quick has played well but in all honesty the style that
                  > > > he uses REQUIRES good defense. That coiled down style leaves a lot of high
                  > > > net open
                  > >
                  >
                • DAVE SOUTTER
                  Morey: We apparently have different perspectives and that s fine. My point with the basketball goals was with the taller and more athletic players, dunking,
                  Message 8 of 20 , Jun 13, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Morey:

                    We apparently have different perspectives and that's fine. My point with the basketball goals was with the taller and more athletic players, dunking, etc., the height of the rim is the same, even though it is much easier for most players to score these days than it was in past eras. Players and the game has evolved without changes in the goal. IMO, until we have goalies that are capable of taking up 24 square feet of space in front of a goal without moving there is no reason to change the size of the goal.

                    I agree with Bill that the 2012 playoffs were full of action and very entertaining. Much more so than when Jacques Lemaire's New Jersey teams ran their neutral zone trap to perfection. Yawn.

                    If more scoring opportunities are what you're looking for, Olympic-sized sheets could provide that. Skilled players do well when they have time and space to work their magic. Larger sheets afford that by spreading the game out.

                    Hockey often becomes a puck possession/protection game. Cycling is designed to protect the puck while drawing defensive players away from prime scoring areas, thereby creating time and space in the offensive zone and allowing the puck carrier to cut across the seam for a good scoring opportunity.

                    Even with that, we did see some good examples of good old fashioned up-and-down the ice, firewagon-style hockey in these playoffs.

                    But again, changing the size of the goal is something I doubt we'll ever see. The gear has been modified and modernized but two basic and key elements remain essentially the same: the size, shape and weight of the puck and the size of the goal. I doubt either of those two will ever change.

                    Dave Soutter
                    Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: MoreyH <epenaltybox@...>
                    Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 17:21:37
                    To: <hockhist@yahoogroups.com>
                    Subject: [hockhist] Re: Difference between GMs and fans....

                     



                    We might have to agree to disagree.

                    I disagree with the basketball analogy because goaltending is illegal in basketball. If blocking the shot as it is going into the rim was legal, you can bet the NBA would have raised the baskets, lest we have Game 2 decided by a 2-0 score, in quadruple overtime!

                    I'm not encourage more scoring - I'm encouraging more opportunities and more athletic achievement. I hated the 80s because the 30 or 40 men who actually knew how to play defense ended up with shorter careers because they couldn't score. Out west, we saw a lot of lousy 8-6 games with the Kings.

                    On a larger ice sheet, cycling would be more prevalent, not less. If you have ever played on both sides of a 10-1 (or equivalent) game, you would remmeber that no one on the side that scored 10 was remotely out of breath, but the side that had 1 was sucking wind and couldn't wait to get out of there. The reason for that: playing on your heels or defense takes more energy out of you than playing on the offense.

                    The idea behind cycling is to wear the defensive team down until you get an opportunity to get a scoring chance. And if you can cycle for long stretches in the 2nd period, the defending team has that much further to go to change lines.

                    Re the goalie pads: 40 pounds back in the day is also a bit on the light side, especially after two periods of soaking up sweat and ice.

                    My point goes to basic geometry with a little bit of physics thrown in for good measure: A larger body with a reduction of drag due to lighter equipment covering the same 24 square feet of goal is not proportional to the original rules, thus the game regresses instead of progresses.

                    I wasn't saying that Bernie Parent would be a washout today. I'm saying look at the goals he gave up in the 74 and 75 Stanley Cup Finals, and tell me what you would suggest about a goalie who gave up similar goals today.

                    --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hockhist%40yahoogroups.com> , "DAVE SOUTTER " <dsoutter@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Morey:
                    >
                    > To make a comparison, the size and height of baskets in the NBA has remained consistent for over fifty years, even though players are bigger, faster and stronger than ever before. The players and the way the game is played has changed, but the goal has not. At least not appreciably.
                    >
                    > Have you forgotten the 80s? Scoring was big in those days. Gretzky with 200 points and several players routinely scoring 100 points per season. Not as common in today's game, which is tighter checking.
                    >
                    > Cycling is just another "advancement" in hockey that, in my opinion, would be less common on a larger ice sheet. Cycling is simply a way of moving the puck and drawing defensive players away from the house. The size of the goal has nothing to do with the fact that players cycle in the offensive zone. Perhaps a shot clock is needed ;).
                    >
                    > Seriously, though... If a change is to be made, larger ice sheets would be much more acceptable, (if not practical in many arenas) since there is precedent for it. It could be done if the NHL really wanted it. But changing the size of the goal?
                    >
                    > It will never happen.
                    >
                    > Does the change occur in just the NHL? Would it include minor leagues? College? Juniors? Europe? International tournaments? Amateur hockey at any and all levels?
                    >
                    > Too many "what ifs" involved.
                    >
                    > I would say a set of goalie pads today weigh closer to a range of about 25 lbs. or so, maybe a bit less, depending on the guy. 15 lbs. sounds a bit light to me. But I get your point.
                    >
                    > Comparing players from different eras is fascinating, but to me its an exercise in futility. Parent, Esposito, Dryden, Giacomin and Vachon were stars in their era. Period. As were Brimsek, Broda, Raynor and Hall. To say those players would be washouts today or a different era is meaningless. Apples and oranges. We have what we have today. The game is faster and tighter checking today than it was 20 or 30 years ago and the play has adapted to this.
                    >
                    > I think there is plenty of action in today's game, but fewer goals scored doesn't detract from my enjoyment of watching.
                    >
                    > Dave Soutter
                    > Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
                    >
                    > -----Original Message-----
                    > From: MoreyH <epenaltybox@...>
                    > Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 04:42:13
                    > To: <hockhist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hockhist%40yahoogroups.com> >
                    > Subject: [hockhist] Re: Difference between GMs and fans....
                    >
                    >  
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Dave,
                    >
                    > I strongly disagree with your first point: Fans like action. Scoring usually comes with action. Cycling the puck is boring to play, worse to watch, especially if you do not have a team to root for or against.
                    >
                    > Yes, changing the size of the nets IS drastic. But consider this, in the 1920s through the 1940s, the average goaltender was about 5'8", weighed about 175 pounds, and wore 45 pounds of equipment, and half of the time were stuck in net because he was the worst skater on the team or in the family, and had a small crease.
                    >
                    > Today, the average goaltender is about 6'1", weighs about 190 pounds, and weares about 15 pounds of equipment, thus are able to cover more of the net just by moving, and are given more protection with a larger goal crease that their predecessors. Some of today's goaltenders are great skaters.
                    >
                    > The goaltending position has been so mechanicalized that when a Dominik Hasek, or Tim Thomas, comes along, no coach wants to play him. The list of coaches who reject Hasek and Thomas, despite their international resume includes to name two, include: Mike Keenan in Chicago, John Muckler in Buffalo, Glen Sather and Craig MacTavish in Edmonton, Marc Crawford in Quebec, Mike Keenan, again, in Boston, Pat Burns and Robbie Ftorek in Boston.
                    >
                    > Fortunately for Thomas and Hasek (and fans), injuries forced the coaches to eventually play them, which made geniuses out of Muckler and Mike Sullivan.
                    >
                    > The reasons for mechanical goalies (think J. S. Giguere) is simple: Geometry. When bigger players are lighter and more mobile, there is less net to shoot at. Add defensive manoeuvers to slow down the game, and youhave the new Dead Puck Era.
                    >
                    > Add 8 square feet to the goal, and the strategy drastically changes.
                    >
                    > Go back and watch Bernie Parent in the 74 or 75 Stanley Cup playoffs, when he was sensational.
                    >
                    > His goaltending back then wouldn't even be considered competent today.
                    >
                    > Morey
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hockhist%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:hockhist%40yahoogroups.com> , "DAVE SOUTTER " <dsoutter@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Morey:
                    > >
                    > > Realizing fans like scoring, I understand your sentiments about making the goals larger.
                    > >
                    > > However, it will never happen.
                    > >
                    > > Changing the size of the goals would be drastic, to say the least. Widening the net by two feet would change the game in ways we can't even imagine right now.
                    > >
                    > > I am a proponent of Olympic-sized ice sheets, however. This works very well in International competition and in Europe. The larger sheet spreads the game out and puts more of an emphasis on skating and passing.
                    > >
                    > > There is nothing wrong with good goaltending and tough defense, and that is why goal scoring is down, not because the nets are too small.
                    > >
                    > > Dave Soutter
                    > > Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
                    > >
                    > > -----Original Message-----
                    > > From: MoreyH <epenaltybox@>
                    > > Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:31:10
                    > > To: <hockhist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hockhist%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:hockhist%40yahoogroups.com> >
                    > > Subject: [hockhist] Re: Difference between GMs and fans....
                    > >
                    > >  
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Not as much net on the ice as it appears on TV. Back in the 60s, goalies such as Jacques Plante and Roger Crozier would "play the angles", a term that is rarely discussed.
                    > >
                    > > Jonathan Quick plays the angles, albeit differently.
                    > >
                    > > It's hard to describe geometry in this setting, but suffice to say that when Quick coils down and leans towards the shooter, he actually takes more of the net away than the typical butterfly goaltender.
                    > >
                    > > The on-ice shooter sees less available net, thanks to the same angles that Crozier et al used, but instead of being vulnerable down low, Quick takes the bottom of the net away with his "coiled butterfly" version (my term, because I do not know what else to call it).
                    > >
                    > > For years, despite being a traditionalist, I have stated that the NHL needs wider nets - maybe a 4x8. A 1.11 GAA in the finals is proof.
                    > >
                    > > Morey
                    > >
                    > > --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hockhist%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:hockhist%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:hockhist%40yahoogroups.com> , "William Underwood" <wausport@> wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > I absolutely agree! Quick has played well but in all honesty the style that
                    > > > he uses REQUIRES good defense. That coiled down style leaves a lot of high
                    > > > net open
                    > >
                    >
                  • William Underwood
                    The big ice would be interesting. But at the same time it does not always increase scoring..remember Morey the modern trap styles were perfected in Sweden! The
                    Message 9 of 20 , Jun 14, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      The big ice would be interesting. But at the same time it does not always
                      increase scoring..remember Morey the modern trap styles were perfected in
                      Sweden! The SEL made the NHL of the 90's look like the Gretzky days.it was
                      almost like defensive Italian soccer at its highest! But the big ice is hard
                      to do not only because it creates issues with seating in the NHL but most
                      youth, minor pro, junior and college surfaces are not that big nor will they
                      be that big in the foreseeable future. We will not be able to TRAIN kids on
                      it.the costs are WAY beyond what most of those places can pay.



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • William Underwood
                      I agree! I thought that though they were low scoring I enjoyed the playoffs this year! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      Message 10 of 20 , Jun 14, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I agree! I thought that though they were low scoring I enjoyed the playoffs
                        this year!



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • MoreyH
                        Yes, but a larger goal net eliminates the trap without increasing the ice size.
                        Message 11 of 20 , Jun 14, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Yes, but a larger goal net eliminates the trap without increasing the ice size.

                          --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, "William Underwood" <wausport@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > The big ice would be interesting. But at the same time it does not always
                          > increase scoring..remember Morey the modern trap styles were perfected in
                          > Sweden! The SEL made the NHL of the 90's look like the Gretzky days.it was
                          > almost like defensive Italian soccer at its highest! But the big ice is hard
                          > to do not only because it creates issues with seating in the NHL but most
                          > youth, minor pro, junior and college surfaces are not that big nor will they
                          > be that big in the foreseeable future. We will not be able to TRAIN kids on
                          > it.the costs are WAY beyond what most of those places can pay.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                        • William Underwood
                          I am just skeptical about a bigger net..not that I doubt that we would see more goals but that we may see TOO many! [Non-text portions of this message have
                          Message 12 of 20 , Jun 15, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I am just skeptical about a bigger net..not that I doubt that we would see
                            more goals but that we may see TOO many!



                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • MoreyH
                            I m not so sure. That s why we have the Summer Camp in Toronto, is it not? To try new things? Maybe a 4 x 8 net would yield too many goals - I don t think
                            Message 13 of 20 , Jun 15, 2012
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I'm not so sure. That's why we have the Summer Camp in Toronto, is it not? To try new things?

                              Maybe a 4 x 8 net would yield too many goals - I don't think so. Experiments could be made with a 4 x 7...

                              Total shots in goals, both teams during the Finals: An average of under 15 per period. This includes rebounds, and there were not a tremendous amount of blocks.

                              The game has become a chess match.

                              Morey



                              --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com, "William Underwood" <wausport@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > I am just skeptical about a bigger net..not that I doubt that we would see
                              > more goals but that we may see TOO many!
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              >
                            • DAVE SOUTTER
                              Morey: It seems your complaint is that the game has become much tighter checking, making it harder to score. Or, perhaps this combined with better goaltending
                              Message 14 of 20 , Jun 15, 2012
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Morey:

                                It seems your complaint is that the game has become much tighter checking, making it harder to score. Or, perhaps this combined with better goaltending has led to fewer goals. Either way, perhaps those two elements have resulted in a less entertaining show of talent.

                                I know the NHL average goal per game has fluctuated through the years, and although it didn't set a record, this past season was historically low for average. It has definitely trended downward since a couple of peaks in the 80s.
                                However, the playoff scoring average has been slightly higher the past several seasons on average than it was in the mid-to late 90s, for example. And, playoff SOG has actually trended upward the past several years.

                                You say the game has become a "chess match". I see your point, but I believe that is a result of the tighter checking we see in the game today. Players are faster and more mobile at both ends of the ice than ever before.

                                So, I assume your argument for increasing the goal size would result in increased scoring. Maybe, but my intuition tells me the larger goal would result in an even tighter-checking game.

                                Again, I can't see the NHL increasing the size of the goal. As I stated in an earlier post, I believe doing so would result in changes in the way the game is played we cannot imagine beforehand. And if that precedent is set, what other changes may we see? Four skaters rather than five to open things up? Allow teams to skate three men short on PKs? Smaller pucks?

                                The game has changed, and maybe not for the better, but its still a lot of fun to watch.

                                Dave Soutter
                                Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: MoreyH <epenaltybox@...>
                                Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 16:08:50
                                To: <hockhist@yahoogroups.com>
                                Subject: [hockhist] Re: Difference between GMs and fans....

                                 



                                I'm not so sure. That's why we have the Summer Camp in Toronto, is it not? To try new things?

                                Maybe a 4 x 8 net would yield too many goals - I don't think so. Experiments could be made with a 4 x 7...

                                Total shots in goals, both teams during the Finals: An average of under 15 per period. This includes rebounds, and there were not a tremendous amount of blocks.

                                The game has become a chess match.

                                Morey

                                --- In hockhist@yahoogroups.com <mailto:hockhist%40yahoogroups.com> , "William Underwood" <wausport@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > I am just skeptical about a bigger net..not that I doubt that we would see
                                > more goals but that we may see TOO many!
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >
                              • William Underwood
                                I would need A LOT more data than from a short summer camp before a RADICAL change such as this. I d also need impetus from my EXISTANT (not fantasy) fan base
                                Message 15 of 20 , Jun 16, 2012
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  I would need A LOT more data than from a short summer camp before a RADICAL
                                  change such as this. I'd also need impetus from my EXISTANT (not fantasy)
                                  fan base saying "this is something that we might want". I don't think people
                                  shunned the playoffs this year.to the contrary it seems that ratings were
                                  relatively good. Granted the NHL was quite lucky to have major market teams
                                  go deep.in fact it could hardly have been better fro that. Still the regular
                                  season numbers were good too, again granted the NBA lock out helped that but
                                  even if one factors that out one draws the conclusions that hockey fans are
                                  not tuning out the NHL. So one can say that this doesn't seem broke..so why
                                  go and try to "fix" something that the fan base is not saying via apathy
                                  "fix it"? To get fans that we really don't know even exist? If we had just
                                  come off of say three years of significantly declined attendance and TV
                                  ratings to the point that it is even being seen occur in Canada and major
                                  hockey hot beds and fans were saying "boring WAY too few goals, I can't
                                  watch it" I'd say "let's do it NOW". But again the contrary we have seen
                                  none of the above and in fact when polls are taken large numbers of people
                                  say "don't do it.." Therefore there seems limited motive to do it.



                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • William Underwood
                                  Great point! More net space would mean even MORE motive to try to reel the game in.we might see everyone go to the trap and have a ton of games like that
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Jun 16, 2012
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Great point! More net space would mean even MORE motive to try to reel the
                                    game in.we might see everyone go to the trap and have a ton of games like
                                    that Tampa/Philly game where the Lightning were usign their 1-3-1 and the
                                    Flyers dropped into a trap to counter and it became a game of chicken to see
                                    who might blink first and take the first shot on net..international soccer
                                    on ice at its WORST!



                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • DAVE SOUTTER
                                    I would also seek input from the players. I doubt too many goalies or d-men would support making the nets larger, but quite honestly I can t see a lot of
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Jun 16, 2012
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I would also seek input from the players. I doubt too many goalies or d-men would support making the nets larger, but quite honestly I can't see a lot of support behind the idea from many forwards, either. The Player's Association would likely provide a fair amount of input.

                                      To potentially dilute the product is not what the NHL is looking for, IMO.

                                      However, it would be interesting to watch a game utilizing a larger net as an experiment. Perhaps a college or junior exhibition game or two just to see what happens.

                                      You'd have to think breakaways and even 2-on-1s would almost always result in goals. Also 5-on-3 situations. Might be a good way to keep penalties down. Maybe you've got something there, Morey! And what about shootouts? Those may become a thing of the past, which wouldn't break my heart.

                                      With larger nets, goalies would become like centers in basketball. Nobody under 6-5" need apply! The days of puckstoppers the size of Darren Pang and Lindsay Middlebrook would come to a screeching halt (not that there are many guys their size around these days, anyway).

                                      With bigger nets, Gretzky would have had a heyday setting up in his "office", and maybe he could have reached the 100 goal mark by Christmas! ;)

                                      Seriously, though... I agree with Bill in that until there is a hue and cry from the masses, there won't be any sort of change.

                                      Dave Soutter
                                      Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: William Underwood <wausport@...>
                                      Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 15:31:20
                                      To: <hockhist@yahoogroups.com>
                                      Subject: [hockhist] Re: Difference between GMs and fans....

                                       



                                      I would need A LOT more data than from a short summer camp before a RADICAL
                                      change such as this. I'd also need impetus from my EXISTANT (not fantasy)
                                      fan base saying "this is something that we might want". I don't think people
                                      shunned the playoffs this year.to the contrary it seems that ratings were
                                      relatively good. Granted the NHL was quite lucky to have major market teams
                                      go deep.in fact it could hardly have been better fro that. Still the regular
                                      season numbers were good too, again granted the NBA lock out helped that but
                                      even if one factors that out one draws the conclusions that hockey fans are
                                      not tuning out the NHL. So one can say that this doesn't seem broke..so why
                                      go and try to "fix" something that the fan base is not saying via apathy
                                      "fix it"? To get fans that we really don't know even exist? If we had just
                                      come off of say three years of significantly declined attendance and TV
                                      ratings to the point that it is even being seen occur in Canada and major
                                      hockey hot beds and fans were saying "boring WAY too few goals, I can't
                                      watch it" I'd say "let's do it NOW". But again the contrary we have seen
                                      none of the above and in fact when polls are taken large numbers of people
                                      say "don't do it.." Therefore there seems limited motive to do it.

                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • William Underwood
                                      All true.and as I say I d like to see WAY more than just a camp or handful of games to make a decision that would change the game so radically, I d want to see
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Jun 21, 2012
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        All true.and as I say I'd like to see WAY more than just a camp or handful
                                        of games to make a decision that would change the game so radically, I'd
                                        want to see another league be a "Guinea Pig" first.



                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.