Some thoughts on NHL quality

[Hank 0]

I hate being a 'downer' but I couldn't help realize something after the opening week of the NHL; every team is basically the same.

Now don't get me wrong, I think the quality of games has far surpassed anything that was offered during the dead-puck era. It's night and day in regards to the speed and openness of the game.

But basically, because of all the money involved and too much expansion in the late 90's and early 2K's, each team is forced to play a very defense-first style. The only thing that separates the Wings from the Wild or Avs from the Devils is the amount of scorers on the top lines. But every team plays a sort of trap while not allowing any of the players to showcase any kind of creativity.

In the 80's (again, I'm showing my age), it seemed that teams tried to outscore each other. It's the opposite now.

I have ideas how the NHL can rectify this, but I think it's gotten to the point where I need to shutup and just enjoy any kind of hockey there is. Because I don't see any changes coming anytime soon.

Coaches jobs and millions are on the line and the easiest way to win is defense. Anyone can be taught to backcheck, but not everyone can be taught to thread passes or pick top corners.

Am I way off base? How does everyone else here feel?

Again, I hate bashing on the NHL as it's so cliche and seems to be the most popular thing to do in pro sports. And I really, really do like the quality of play since the lockout. But I guess I long for the day where the star player on each team was gettin 25-35 minutes of ice time a night and had free reign to let their skills take over games.

Edited October 8, 2007 by Hank

[Turkey 0]

I admit that I wasn't watching hockey in the 80s. I had the bad fortune to grow up in a non-hockey household (In Michigan! Horrors!) and didn't discover this awesome sport until college. That said, I can say that I've been pretty happy with the games I've seen this year. Maybe it's just still the honeymoon stage of the season but the games I've seen have had fairly good end to end play and a high pace. That's what I look for in a good game. In addition, I've seen some games with a high level of (clean) hitting. That has also made me happy. I love hitting, speed, and flow. I've been getting those things so far, I guess.

[auxlepli 17]

I agree all the teams are closer together competitively. Babcock has said as much too.

"Today's an example of how it's going to be in the league. It's going to be tough every night. Parity from team to team is really there, so you'll have to compete, whether you're at home or on the road, and you're going to be scratching for points.''

[Turkey 0]

I agree all the teams are closer together competitively. Babcock has said as much too.

"Today's an example of how it's going to be in the league. It's going to be tough every night. Parity from team to team is really there, so you'll have to compete, whether you're at home or on the road, and you're going to be scratching for points.''

I agree, for the most part, and I'm happy to see it. Parity makes me happy.

[lets go pavel 2]

Parity doesn't bother me, it makes the games more competitive ... but I think on most teams there is a significant dropoff in talent from 1st and 2nd line to 3rd and 4th lines because teams can't afford to stock up on talent anymore ... as a result, I think a lot of the 3rd and 4th liners slow the games down, make them sloppier, and break their rhythm. A solution? One would be to trim active rosters so teams could only dress 3 lines and maybe 1 reserve ... that would get the top players more ice time. Getting rid of a couple teams might help too ... but that'll never happen.

[WhiteLightning91 105]

Getting rid of teams is the best way to improve the quality of the product on the ice. Less teams means wayyy more competition for roster spots. Basic supply and demand. Then we could weed out the dozens of borderline NHL players and be able to focus on the star players.

[BringHomeTheCup! 0]

I disagree with the idea that expansion is the problem. I feel it is the solution.

Bare with me here, and let me explain.

What happens when you contract teams? You reduce the number of teams, and thus increase the number of talented players on each team. In this situation, it is going to be much harder for teams to get guys any real amount of ice time. A guy like Datsyuk, might be a second line guy. Not too much difference in ice time. However, a guy like Rex might not break out of a fourth line role, if he gets that.

With expansion, you increase the number of teams, thus decreasing the number of talented guys on each roster. Suddenly a guy like Datsyuk is getting 27 minutes a night instead of 20. A guy like Rex ends up on your second line. In this situation, opposing teams can't always counter with a shutdown counterpart to Datsyuk (i.e. Draper). By expanding the league you spread out the talent, but you also make the competition weaker. This gives the stronger, more talented players an advantage.

Regardless of what you think, what really matters is defense wins championships. For those of you who have the pleasure of having a DVR, try this. After a goal is scored, rewind the play. Look for the defensive mistake. I'd say about 80% of goals are scored because someone made a mistake, and his team could recover. Until a team wins a championship by scoring 8 goals a night, you won't see offense take over the mindset of NHL coaches, GM's, and front offices.

[lets go pavel 2]

I disagree with the idea that expansion is the problem. I feel it is the solution.

Bare with me here, and let me explain.

What happens when you contract teams? You reduce the number of teams, and thus increase the number of talented players on each team. In this situation, it is going to be much harder for teams to get guys any real amount of ice time. A guy like Datsyuk, might be a second line guy. Not too much difference in ice time. However, a guy like Rex might not break out of a fourth line role, if he gets that.

With expansion, you increase the number of teams, thus decreasing the number of talented guys on each roster. Suddenly a guy like Datsyuk is getting 27 minutes a night instead of 20. A guy like Rex ends up on your second line. In this situation, opposing teams can't always counter with a shutdown counterpart to Datsyuk (i.e. Draper). By expanding the league you spread out the talent, but you also make the competition weaker. This gives the stronger, more talented players an advantage.

Regardless of what you think, what really matters is defense wins championships. For those of you who have the pleasure of having a DVR, try this. After a goal is scored, rewind the play. Look for the defensive mistake. I'd say about 80% of goals are scored because someone made a mistake, and his team could recover. Until a team wins a championship by scoring 8 goals a night, you won't see offense take over the mindset of NHL coaches, GM's, and front offices.

Except it doesn't work that way ... if Dats was going to get that much icetime he'd already have it, but no matter how many teams you have you'll still be rolling 4 lines, just the quality would deteriorate more ... plus you'd have to add a lot of teams to water down the talent level as much as you're talking about ... contraction on the other hand would increase the number of talented players on each team, true, but isn't that more exciting to watch? Plus I would think having more talented players on each roster would encourage teams to open things up and shoot it out, rather than play conservative knowing they don't have the firepower ... and a wealth of talent doesn't necessarily mean a wealth of defensive specialists ... I think you'd end up with a concentration of offense before defense ...

[BringHomeTheCup! 0]

Except it doesn't work that way ... if Dats was going to get that much icetime he'd already have it, but no matter how many teams you have you'll still be rolling 4 lines, just the quality would deteriorate more ... plus you'd have to add a lot of teams to water down the talent level as much as you're talking about ... contraction on the other hand would increase the number of talented players on each team, true, but isn't that more exciting to watch? Plus I would think having more talented players on each roster would encourage teams to open things up and shoot it out, rather than play conservative knowing they don't have the firepower ... and a wealth of talent doesn't necessarily mean a wealth of defensive specialists ... I think you'd end up with a concentration of offense before defense ...

That's quite possible, but this is how I see it.

With contraction, you'd have more talented guys on each roster. The higher the talent, generally speaking, the fewer mistakes.

With expansion, the less number of talented guys, the more mistakes will happen. More mistakes will lead to more goals.

History is on my side here. The first round of expansion in 67-68 saw the NHL's scoring increase from 5.58 GPG to 5.96 GPG.

In the 70's when the NHL again began to add teams, scoring again went up. In 70-71 6.24 GPG, 72-73 6.55 GPG, 74-75 6.85 GPG. What happened in 76-77 when KC folded? GPG dropped to 6.24 GPG. Then in 79-80 with the WHL merger, 7.03 GPG.

The 90's saw expansion but no scoring increase to coincide with it. Some argue that this is due to the fact that this is when the "euro-invasion" began.

In 92-93 the NHL added two teams, and saw it's GPG go from 6.62 to 7.25.

The stats don't lie.

Here is the link to the article where I got most of the stats.

[lets go pavel 2]

That's quite possible, but this is how I see it.

With contraction, you'd have more talented guys on each roster. The higher the talent, generally speaking, the fewer mistakes.

With expansion, the less number of talented guys, the more mistakes will happen. More mistakes will lead to more goals.

History is on my side here. The first round of expansion in 67-68 saw the NHL's scoring increase from 5.58 GPG to 5.96 GPG.

In the 70's when the NHL again began to add teams, scoring again went up. In 70-71 6.24 GPG, 72-73 6.55 GPG, 74-75 6.85 GPG. What happened in 76-77 when KC folded? GPG dropped to 6.24 GPG. Then in 79-80 with the WHL merger, 7.03 GPG.

The 90's saw expansion but no scoring increase to coincide with it. Some argue that this is due to the fact that this is when the "euro-invasion" began.

In 92-93 the NHL added two teams, and saw it's GPG go from 6.62 to 7.25.

The stats don't lie.

Here is the link to the article where I got most of the stats.

you might be right, expansion may lead to an increase in scoring ... also because it thins out the quality goaltending ... but does that mean an increase in quality? i guess it's a matter of personal preference, but i'd rather watch a group of top-tier players in a potentially low-scoring chess match than a bunch of lower level players eating up icetime because goals come a dime a dozen ...

[#1redwingfan 0]

i havent watched every game so far, but i have watched my fair share of games and highlights and one thing i noticed is that the goaltending seems weaker this year than last... some random wristers or just snap shots that seem to be routine saves are finding their way in. might just be me, but thats what it seems like

Edited October 9, 2007 by #1redwingfan

[WhiteLightning91 105]

i havent watched every game so far, but i have watched my fair share of games and highlights and one thing i noticed is that the goaltending seems weaker this year than last... some random wristers or just snap shots that seem to be routine saves are finding their way in. might just be me, but thats what it seems like

I'd say that has more to do with it being the beginning of the year and goalies being rusty than the quality of goaltending.

[auxlepli 17]

That's quite possible, but this is how I see it.

With contraction, you'd have more talented guys on each roster. The higher the talent, generally speaking, the fewer mistakes.

With expansion, the less number of talented guys, the more mistakes will happen. More mistakes will lead to more goals.

History is on my side here. The first round of expansion in 67-68 saw the NHL's scoring increase from 5.58 GPG to 5.96 GPG.

In the 70's when the NHL again began to add teams, scoring again went up. In 70-71 6.24 GPG, 72-73 6.55 GPG, 74-75 6.85 GPG. What happened in 76-77 when KC folded? GPG dropped to 6.24 GPG. Then in 79-80 with the WHL merger, 7.03 GPG.

The 90's saw expansion but no scoring increase to coincide with it. Some argue that this is due to the fact that this is when the "euro-invasion" began.

In 92-93 the NHL added two teams, and saw it's GPG go from 6.62 to 7.25.

The stats don't lie.

Here is the link to the article where I got most of the stats.

That's very interesting. What happened in the last round of expansion?

[StaticWithABeat 0]

Today IMO we're seeing alot more of the half-shield wearing weasels by the likes of Perry, Tootoo, & Hartnell, & of course there's alot more disrespect for 1 another on the ice.

Just how I see it.

Back in the 80's Perry, Avery, Tootoo, etc would've been hunted down and made into decorative rugs by the likes of Probert, Tony Twist, Marty McSorely, or Joey Kocur. Nowadays with the new rules and massive crackdown on violence, players barely have to worry about on-ice retribution anymore, and think nothing of throwing around elbows and late hits. The players can't effectively police themselves anymore because of the instigator rule, new fighting restrictions, and of course the NHL's wacky disciplinary policy so it's no surprise people are getting cold-cocked left and right.

[BringHomeTheCup! 0]

That's very interesting. What happened in the last round of expansion?

In 2000, the NHL expanded by two teams, the Jackets, and Wild. GPG was 5.49 in 2000, and in 2001 (the first season for those two teams) goal scoring indeed went up again. Albeit just to 5.51 GPG, it still went up.

[Sergei Fedorov91 24]

I've noticed it's harder to have a favorite player, thereby decreasing interest in individual cities. Seems young players coming up touted as future cant miss all-stars are traded away for cap money, or a veteran to make a playoff push. Willie Mitchell, Gleason, Commondore, Abeischer, Lupul. I dont know maybe i'm biased being a wings fan and until recently having much of the same intact for a decade.

[seeinred 1,488]

If you want teams to try to outscore each other again, and not just make sure the other team scores less, how about making total GF play into the standings somehow. I realize that would never happen, and in itself is a terrible idea, but there's got to be something that can be done if your main point of contention is goal scoring.

[Grittzkey 1]

Getting rid of teams is the best way to improve the quality of the product on the ice. Less teams means wayyy more competition for roster spots. Basic supply and demand. Then we could weed out the dozens of borderline NHL players and be able to focus on the star players.

Not only would taking out a few teams increase the competivness, id also increase ticket sales for people who want to watch 4 lines of good players and id help out the ahl. because alot of above average players would be forced to play there. or hop on the oversea's boat.. possible increase a team or 2. when hockey becomes the top sport in zeeeh WERLD@@@

[eva unit zero 271]

Not only would taking out a few teams increase the competivness, id also increase ticket sales for people who want to watch 4 lines of good players and id help out the ahl. because alot of above average players would be forced to play there. or hop on the oversea's boat.. possible increase a team or 2. when hockey becomes the top sport in zeeeh WERLD@@@

This is seriously the most moronic position. As I have detailed COUNTLESS times on these boards for the many clueless people who think the problem is that talent in the NHL has been watered down since the 80s:

There are fewer Canadians in the NHL now than there were in the 80s. This is in spite of there being an increase of 250 players.

Some players whose spot among Canadian players would have been starters in goal, or top six forwards, etc. in 1987 are now third liners and backups.

I'll reiterate my example of this:

181 forwards, or six per team, scored 34 points or more last season. We'll use that to define 'top six forward' because scoring is the primary purpose of a top-sixer. If the quality of talent has gotten worse because of expansion, then there should be more than 120 Canadian forwards in that group, as that's the approximate number of top six forwards who were Canadian in 1987. Yet there are only 90 Canadians who fall into that group.

Alright, so we've established that about half of top-six forwards are Canadian. Let's look at goaltenders. the 20th (and last) ranked Canadian goalie in save percentage among qualifed guys was Marc Denis. That would have made him 'starter caliber' in 1987. Denis was ranked 44th out of 44 qualified goalies last season. So at best, he's a mediocre backup. Martin Biron is the lowest ranked Canadian in the top 30 at #29, and he was 12th among Canadians. So less than half of the starters in the NHL are Canadian.

Based on these numbers, we'd be seeing about 30 guys who now play on the third line getting second line ice time. We'd be seeing about 8 backup goaltenders getting starter jobs.

In other words, despite the fact that since 1991 the NHL has expanded by 43%, the NHL's talent pool has expanded by about 70%. If you want 80s hockey, the best way to get it by changing the number of teams is to add six or seven more teams. I personally support the idea of a 32 team league, as it would cut down travel and allow for better scheduling and division breakdowns.

[lets go pavel 2]

This is seriously the most moronic position. As I have detailed COUNTLESS times on these boards for the many clueless people who think the problem is that talent in the NHL has been watered down since the 80s:

There are fewer Canadians in the NHL now than there were in the 80s. This is in spite of there being an increase of 250 players.

Some players whose spot among Canadian players would have been starters in goal, or top six forwards, etc. in 1987 are now third liners and backups.

I'll reiterate my example of this:

181 forwards, or six per team, scored 34 points or more last season. We'll use that to define 'top six forward' because scoring is the primary purpose of a top-sixer. If the quality of talent has gotten worse because of expansion, then there should be more than 120 Canadian forwards in that group, as that's the approximate number of top six forwards who were Canadian in 1987. Yet there are only 90 Canadians who fall into that group.

Alright, so we've established that about half of top-six forwards are Canadian. Let's look at goaltenders. the 20th (and last) ranked Canadian goalie in save percentage among qualifed guys was Marc Denis. That would have made him 'starter caliber' in 1987. Denis was ranked 44th out of 44 qualified goalies last season. So at best, he's a mediocre backup. Martin Biron is the lowest ranked Canadian in the top 30 at #29, and he was 12th among Canadians. So less than half of the starters in the NHL are Canadian.

Based on these numbers, we'd be seeing about 30 guys who now play on the third line getting second line ice time. We'd be seeing about 8 backup goaltenders getting starter jobs.

In other words, despite the fact that since 1991 the NHL has expanded by 43%, the NHL's talent pool has expanded by about 70%. If you want 80s hockey, the best way to get it by changing the number of teams is to add six or seven more teams. I personally support the idea of a 32 team league, as it would cut down travel and allow for better scheduling and division breakdowns.

Your argument doesn't work ... you are comparing the # of Canadian top sixers in 1987 to the # now and saying that since the # goes down the talent level must have risen in spite of expansion ... but you are assuming that the talent level of the Canadian forwars is the same now as it was in 1987, and there's no basis for that ... if anything, the fact that there are fewer Canadian top sixers now would lead one to think that there is more competition for the top spots and Canadians aer no longer the dominant nationality. However, it doesn't mean that these players are better or worse than those, and it doesn't mean the quality o fplay is better or worse either.

It's kind of a silly argument anyway, because people have different ideas of what makes good hockey ... some people like high-scoring, some people want more physical, some people want higher skill ... i personally prefer the latter, and logically if you want to concentrate the talent then contraction would accomplish that. It doesn't mean scoring would go up, it would just be a different product on ice ...

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

I hate being a 'downer' but I couldn't help realize something after the opening week of the NHL; every team is basically the same.

Now don't get me wrong, I think the quality of games has far surpassed anything that was offered during the dead-puck era. It's night and day in regards to the speed and openness of the game.

But basically, because of all the money involved and too much expansion in the late 90's and early 2K's, each team is forced to play a very defense-first style. The only thing that separates the Wings from the Wild or Avs from the Devils is the amount of scorers on the top lines. But every team plays a sort of trap while not allowing any of the players to showcase any kind of creativity.

In the 80's (again, I'm showing my age), it seemed that teams tried to outscore each other. It's the opposite now.

I have ideas how the NHL can rectify this, but I think it's gotten to the point where I need to shutup and just enjoy any kind of hockey there is. Because I don't see any changes coming anytime soon.

Coaches jobs and millions are on the line and the easiest way to win is defense. Anyone can be taught to backcheck, but not everyone can be taught to thread passes or pick top corners.

Am I way off base? How does everyone else here feel?

Again, I hate bashing on the NHL as it's so cliche and seems to be the most popular thing to do in pro sports. And I really, really do like the quality of play since the lockout. But I guess I long for the day where the star player on each team was gettin 25-35 minutes of ice time a night and had free reign to let their skills take over games.

I think the talent pool has reached a certain equilibrium. By that I mean most teams bottom 8-12 forwards suck so hard it makes me want to stop eating burritos, hop on a treadmill and get my arse into shape so I can go tryout for somebody.

If you look at the teams that seem to have more better than average players grouped with their stars, you're going to see goals, goals, and more goals from them. I'm talking about Ottawa, Tampa Bay, the Rangers when they get going, Colorado, maybe Detroit (big maybe right now) and Pittsburgh are going to be over that 3 GPG mark. And the stats will bear that out for the elite guys like Z, Lecavalier, Heatley, Spez, etc... There's going to be no shortage of strong player statistics this season.

However, if you go look at the 3rd, 4th lines. Take a team like Colorado, they may have a guy like Wolski or Svatos, guys with great offensive instincts, buried on the 3rd line occassionally. That's a team that's going to put up goals and win with offense. Unfortunately, you look at teams like Minnesota, Columbus, Atlanta, Edmonton, Phoenix, St.Louis, NYIslanders, these teams will rely heavily on about 4 players and the rest will all just be fodder.

My prediction: There will be more 80+ point guys this year than last. And 5 years down the road we won't be seeing too many Jarko Ruttu's, Tyson Nash's, etc.... It's just going to take time for the talent level of the league as a whole to increase from where it is now.

[redwing711 0]

you might be right, expansion may lead to an increase in scoring ... also because it thins out the quality goaltending ... but does that mean an increase in quality? i guess it's a matter of personal preference, but i'd rather watch a group of top-tier players in a potentially low-scoring chess match than a bunch of lower level players eating up icetime because goals come a dime a dozen ...

The problem with contracting the league so only superstars would be on the ice, is that when do the young guys get a chance to play and develop their talents so they may one day be superstars. We already have people complaining that it takes too long for young talent to actually get to play with the Wings because of the talent we have. Imagine how much more difficult it would be if all team had so much talent they couldn't afford to risk bringing in young players.

[redwing711 0]

If you want teams to try to outscore each other again, and not just make sure the other team scores less, how about making total GF play into the standings somehow. I realize that would never happen, and in itself is a terrible idea, but there's got to be something that can be done if your main point of contention is goal scoring.

If all you want is goals, you could just pay one team to take a dive and let the other team score about 30 goals. I like goals (for my team) as much as the next guy, but to be honest the closer the score, the more competetive the game. That's why watching teams play Phoenix is so boring. There is no competition.

[The Enforcer 13]

I hate being a 'downer' but I couldn't help realize something after the opening week of the NHL; every team is basically the same.

Now don't get me wrong, I think the quality of games has far surpassed anything that was offered during the dead-puck era. It's night and day in regards to the speed and openness of the game.

But basically, because of all the money involved and too much expansion in the late 90's and early 2K's, each team is forced to play a very defense-first style. The only thing that separates the Wings from the Wild or Avs from the Devils is the amount of scorers on the top lines. But every team plays a sort of trap while not allowing any of the players to showcase any kind of creativity.

In the 80's (again, I'm showing my age), it seemed that teams tried to outscore each other. It's the opposite now.

I have ideas how the NHL can rectify this, but I think it's gotten to the point where I need to shutup and just enjoy any kind of hockey there is. Because I don't see any changes coming anytime soon.

Coaches jobs and millions are on the line and the easiest way to win is defense. Anyone can be taught to backcheck, but not everyone can be taught to thread passes or pick top corners.

Am I way off base? How does everyone else here feel?

Again, I hate bashing on the NHL as it's so cliche and seems to be the most popular thing to do in pro sports. And I really, really do like the quality of play since the lockout. But I guess I long for the day where the star player on each team was gettin 25-35 minutes of ice time a night and had free reign to let their skills take over games.

You are right. The NGBHL sucks. I wouldn't pay for a ticket to the Joe now with HD.

[lets go pavel 2]

The problem with contracting the league so only superstars would be on the ice, is that when do the young guys get a chance to play and develop their talents so they may one day be superstars. We already have people complaining that it takes too long for young talent to actually get to play with the Wings because of the talent we have. Imagine how much more difficult it would be if all team had so much talent they couldn't afford to risk bringing in young players.

True, and you'll never please everyone ... what we have now does a pretty good job of giving opportunity to young talent, not every team but most ... even our team has some young guys on it and in significant roles, moreso than in years past, though I think that has more to do with the salary cap than league size, at least for our team, because we can't pay a team of HOFers anymore. Personally, I would rather sacrifice some of the young players' ice time and see better players on the ice more often, that's just the kind of hockey I prefer. But like I said, it's a matter of personal preference ...