Shutout x 5...

[BeeRYCE 2]

Last night's sworm of shutouts, is that the most in league history? I mean 5 shutouts, wow.

Pittsburgh, Carolina, NY Rangers, Montreal, and Dallas all won via shutout.

Maybe 5 shutouts isn't the record, but it has to be up there, or maybe a record considering 63% of the games played were shutouts.

[irishtemper14+25 11]

good thing i have cristobal huet and lundquist on my fantasy team =D

[Grittzkey 1]

i dont understand fantasy hockey =(

[auxlepli 17]

Too bad Calgary didn't get a shut out last night.

[Hank 0]

Last night's sworm of shutouts, is that the most in league history? I mean 5 shutouts, wow.

Pittsburgh, Carolina, NY Rangers, Montreal, and Dallas all won via shutout.

Maybe 5 shutouts isn't the record, but it has to be up there, or maybe a record considering 63% of the games played were shutouts.

Just goes to show that goalie equipment and defensive systems have taken the art and fun from what shutouts used to mean.

It's no different than if baseball had 5 no-hitters in one night.

I can remember a time when 5 SO's would top the league over an entire season. Pascal Leclaire already has that many and the season isn't even a quarter done yet.

Time to strip the goalies down.

[Opie 308]

Look at how the Rags play, everyone stays in the zone, blocking shots and lanes, the shots Lundquist does see are easier saves for a goalie of his caliber.

The Rags are weak on D so they stay in the zone dumping it out now and again catching one of their forwards streaking or they use the power play.

Last night on VS they interviewed Lundquist, and asked him what he thought about the D and how at the start of the season everyone thought that would the teams glaring weakness. Lundquist even said the forwards are helping out extra in the zone.

It was exciting hockey for a little bit when Philly was just taking the dumps into the neutral zone and turning it into potential offense, then it became redundant and boring!

This is the same hockey that the Devils used to win the east so many times. To me it is boring, I liked watching last years Buffalo team and the offensive explosion that was Ottawa, but this is getting boring. All the efforts that were put in the game to make it more exiting and fast paced have back fired and now teams are thugging up to beat up the better teams and playing 4 guys in their own zone at all times until they catch a break or get a pp against equal or lesser teams.

[Hank 0]

Look at how the Rags play, everyone stays in the zone, blocking shots and lanes, the shots Lundquist does see are easier saves for a goalie of his caliber.

The Rags are weak on D so they stay in the zone dumping it out now and again catching one of their forwards streaking or they use the power play.

Last night on VS they interviewed Lundquist, and asked him what he thought about the D and how at the start of the season everyone thought that would the teams glaring weakness. Lundquist even said the forwards are helping out extra in the zone.

It was exciting hockey for a little bit when Philly was just taking the dumps into the neutral zone and turning it into potential offense, then it became redundant and boring!

This is the same hockey that the Devils used to win the east so many times. To me it is boring, I liked watching last years Buffalo team and the offensive explosion that was Ottawa, but this is getting boring. All the efforts that were put in the game to make it more exiting and fast paced have back fired and now teams are thugging up to beat up the better teams and playing 4 guys in their own zone at all times until they catch a break or get a pp against equal or lesser teams.

You summed it up to a T.

Another big change that's happened because of upgrades to padding is how everyone collaspes on their goalie to block shots. It used to be that coaches and goalies would scream to 'get out of the way' when a player was winding up. Now everyone is expected to block shots. Players no longer have to try getting the puck past one player but now they have to get through 3 or 4 before it makes it's way to the over-inflated goalies.

Shutouts are completely boring and mundane nowadays, as are 'great saves'. With the exception of 1 or 2 goalies, all goalies are basically the same with only defenses making the difference.

The only way to rectify this is to make the nets bigger or shrink the goalie gear. But to be honest, I'm sick and tired of talking about this topic. I hate the idea of making nets bigger but I don't see the union allowing the league to cut back the padding as they'll only scream about having an unsafe work environment (which is complete bulls**t!).

But if there was more space to score then teams wouldn't be so inclined to sit back and wait for mistakes. Today's shooters are very dangerous. Even 3rd line guys. So if some team wants to sit back and let teams take the zone, they'll be on the wrong end of a lopsided score before they have to open things up. When teams realise it's much easier to score, and much harder to prevent goals, they'll be forced to win games by <gasp> generating offense.

I know there are some that love defensive hockey. I used to appreciate it too. But that was in a time and era when shutting teams down was an actual challenge and a testiment to the hard work on the ice. Now, with all the systems, super-gear and conditioning/speed of today's players, getting a shutout or only allowing 1 or 2 goals is fairly easy and expected by most coaches and fans.

[toby91_ca 620]

Normally I cringe at a lot of shutouts, but offense wasn't a big problem in those games, I mean 3 of them were 5-0 shutouts.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

Goalies should be forced to play a standup style of goaltending. No more of this butterfly s***. I've been watching vintage hockey on the NHL network all weekend, and I forgot just how fast and wide open the game was back then. More hitting, more fighting, and as it pertains to this conversation, more bad goals given up, especially down low. One idea I'm not open to is making the nets bigger. That's bush league stuff.

[toby91_ca 620]

Goalies should be forced to play a standup style of goaltending. No more of this butterfly s***. I've been watching vintage hockey on the NHL network all weekend, and I forgot just how fast and wide open the game was back then. More hitting, more fighting, and as it pertains to this conversation, more bad goals given up, especially down low. One idea I'm not open to is making the nets bigger. That's bush league stuff.

So, maybe I'm confused, but are you suggesting that if goalies simply play stand up hockey instead of butterfly style, all of a sudden the game is going to be faster, more wide open and more exciting?

[Hank 0]

Goalies should be forced to play a standup style of goaltending. No more of this butterfly s***. I've been watching vintage hockey on the NHL network all weekend, and I forgot just how fast and wide open the game was back then. More hitting, more fighting, and as it pertains to this conversation, more bad goals given up, especially down low. One idea I'm not open to is making the nets bigger. That's bush league stuff.

I love watching vintage hockey too. So much more interesting than some of the hockey played today.

The reason why goalies all played stand-up back then was because the leg pads were so heavy and absorbed so much water that it made it harder to pop back up when they went down.

Not only that, but in the butterfly you gave up a lot of the upper net to shooters.

But that's all changed now. The equipment is twice as big, half as heavy and absorbs no water. So goalies can go into the butterfly and their upper-body gear will block out the sun. All the disadvantages of the butterfly in years past are gone to the point where playing stand-up is suicide.

On top of that, I can't tell you how sick I am of watching defensive systems. Watching teams send one forechecker of the redline is blasphemous in my book.

It's a shame that when you try to mention any of this on HF you get blasted by kids who've only watched hockey over the past 10 years. They never had the pleasure and privilege to watch hockey in the 80's where hockey was HOCKEY. Fights, hits, goals, great saves, ODD MAN RUSHES <gasp!!!>.

I guarantee you if hockey was played today like it was 20 years ago there wouldn't be an empty seat in any arena and people would be tuning in a lot more than they are now.

I know, I know, I'm an old geezer but today's hockey has a lot less character and flair than it used to. 25 of the 30 teams play the exact same style as do the goalies. It's so generic and sterile today to the point that almost every game is the exact same.

So, maybe I'm confused, but are you suggesting that if goalies simply play stand up hockey instead of butterfly style, all of a sudden the game is going to be faster, more wide open and more exciting?

I would argue 'yes'. And the reason is, if goalies were forced to play standup, there would be a lot more goals. And if a team realizes that they can't prevent half the goals they do by playing conservatively and trying to block every shot, they'll have to score too in order to stay in the game.

It would be like war games. Once one volley of missles was fired, the other side would be forced to respond. We'd have a lot more back and forth hockey where scoring could occur anywhere in the offensive zone. There's only one scoring zone in the game now - 8 feet around the net. Sure, you'll see the odd Kovalchuk or Heatley goal where they snipe it in from 10-12 feet away. But for the most part, 90% of today's goals are from rebounds or deflections.

[interminded 1]

Goalies should be forced to play a standup style of goaltending. No more of this butterfly s***. I've been watching vintage hockey on the NHL network all weekend, and I forgot just how fast and wide open the game was back then. More hitting, more fighting, and as it pertains to this conversation, more bad goals given up, especially down low. One idea I'm not open to is making the nets bigger. That's bush league stuff.

Well, Martin Brodeur is somewhat of a standup goaltender.

And (besides his horrendeous season start thus far..) we really can't say it's easy to score against hum because of his non-butterfly style.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

So, maybe I'm confused, but are you suggesting that if goalies simply play stand up hockey instead of butterfly style, all of a sudden the game is going to be faster, more wide open and more exciting?

Not faster, but there will be more goals scored.

[toby91_ca 620]

Not faster, but there will be more goals scored.

Of course, but to me, that doesn't = better hockey. I've said this time and time again and I will bring it to my grave. If you make the nets bigger, or change the way a goalie plays for example, the same game played with the same quality shots will result in more goals, but how is that more exciting? It's the same game.

Picture this: Player races down the ice, gets over the blueline and rips a shot on goal, but the goalie makes a great save. Picture the same play, except the goalie doesn't make that save and the puck goes in the net. Does that simple change make the game more exciting? I tend to give the fans of the game a little more credit than that.

[auxlepli 17]

Time to strip the goalies down.

I agree. Maybe even get rid of their masks. Helmets sure, but no masks.

[Kutcher 0]

The problem isn't the equipment. The thing is , goalies are just that much better than they were, they have much better conditioning and they are more athletic. Also they mostly play a hybrid system of stand-up/butterfly and play shots based on percentages. That and the defensive systems is the blame for the lack of scoring not this bogus reason that equipment is too big.

[OsGOD 3]

I just assume remove all helmets and face masks... bring it back old school like the jerseys are trying to do.

This serves as two purposes:

1) it fuglies up the pretty boys hidding behind the masks

2) it will make goalies 2nd guess doing their JOB!

Edited November 6, 2007 by OsGOD

[Opie 308]

The problem isn't the equipment. The thing is , goalies are just that much better than they were, they have much better conditioning and they are more athletic. Also they mostly play a hybrid system of stand-up/butterfly and play shots based on percentages. That and the defensive systems is the blame for the lack of scoring not this bogus reason that equipment is too big.

Equipment is way bigger than it used to be there is no denying that. The Hockey News did an article on this showing the pads Roy used every year of his career, they are nearly 3x the size they were when he started.

Shrinking the pads would allow for more goals, except for against the elite and agile goalies.

The slower goalies and less flexible ones would not be able to make the saves they would if the pads are smaller. Or they wold be forced to cut the angle off more to cover the area that used to be covered by larger pads. Thus creating more back door opportunities.

Having bigger pads is essentially the same as cutting down the shot, it is all about angles. Do the goalie's pads cover the whole net, No. However if the pad is an inch thicker than it used to be, step out a couple of feet and what was once an inch of covered space is now a matter of 4-6 inches of covered space.

Enlarging the nets makes no sense when you can shrink equipment.

I agree I think the D system is the biggest factor in this but the padding doesn't help. I am not saying a guy like JS is the only one this impacts, I think all goalies pads are too big. Go back to the late 80's early 90's and look at the leg pads and shoulder pads these guys had, they make today's goalies look like giants.

Edited November 6, 2007 by Opie

[Echolalia 2,961]

Keep the pad sizes, keep the net sizes. No amount of change is really going to alter the game all that much, unless you turn the NHL into a dictatorship with ridiculous rules like 'goalies can't fall to their knees to block a shot', or 'you cant play the trap'.

Players adapt to what they have to play under. Thats always going to be the case. Back when the NHL was experiencing an offensive explosion a couple decades ago, teams adapted by playing the trap. People decided to shrink goalie equipment to increase scoring, now 2-3 players are trying to block shots in addition to the goalie.

If anything, I say we make the rink size wider and spread everything out a little more. I honestly think thats the best bet at "fixing" alot of the "problems" that people have complaints about. But even that would require every arena to adjust their floorplans, which is still asking alot.

Edited November 6, 2007 by Echolalia

[StormJH1 231]

I guarantee you if hockey was played today like it was 20 years ago there wouldn't be an empty seat in any arena and people would be tuning in a lot more than they are now.

I know, I know, I'm an old geezer but today's hockey has a lot less character and flair than it used to. 25 of the 30 teams play the exact same style as do the goalies. It's so generic and sterile today to the point that almost every game is the exact same.

I would argue 'yes'. And the reason is, if goalies were forced to play standup, there would be a lot more goals. And if a team realizes that they can't prevent half the goals they do by playing conservatively and trying to block every shot, they'll have to score too in order to stay in the game.

It would be like war games. Once one volley of missles was fired, the other side would be forced to respond. We'd have a lot more back and forth hockey where scoring could occur anywhere in the offensive zone. There's only one scoring zone in the game now - 8 feet around the net. Sure, you'll see the odd Kovalchuk or Heatley goal where they snipe it in from 10-12 feet away. But for the most part, 90% of today's goals are from rebounds or deflections.

You have to be kidding me. Return to the glory days of the 80's? Or the glory days of the 20's where it was against the rules to use a butterfly?

I've said it a million times: Hockey is a game that has to be appreciated for what it is. Much like soccer, the average U.S. fan isn't programmed to appreciate a sport that has long stretches of action with no quantifiable gains or losses, until somebody scores a goal. As a hockey fan (and former goaltender), watching a tightly played, professional game where goalies are either standing on their heads or playing the angles so perfectly that there's nothing to shoot at IS exciting for me, particularly if it's on the team I'm rooting for. Last night's VS. game might have been a snoozer by conventional standards (2-0), but the NYR fans chanting "Henry! Henry" for the last 45 seconds of the game probably got their money's worth.

There were tons of empty seats and practically zero television exposure in the 80's, despite the glorious offense and fighting you remember. Hockey was actually much more popular in the 90's during a time when goalies like Hasek and Brodeur were allegedly "ruining" the game by posting sub 2.00 GAA's. (The reason is because of the sucess of the Rangers and Devils and the East Coast bias that fuels national media coverage, but that's neither here nor there...)

The game is evolving and becoming more professional. Rather than freak out and try and change the rules everytime we see a bad game or television rating, why not appreciate the fact that we have athletes doing things that Howe, Sawchuk, and even Gretzky were never physically capable of. Appreciate it for what it is instead of complaining about how good the goalies are, and how we have to make it "sexy" for the public at large, which, frankly, couldn't care less.

[vangvace 12]

Keep the pad sizes, keep the net sizes. No amount of change is really going to alter the game all that much, unless you turn the NHL into a dictatorship with ridiculous rules like 'goalies can't fall to their knees to block a shot', or 'you cant play the trap'.

Players adapt to what they have to play under. Thats always going to be the case. Back when the NHL was experiencing an offensive explosion a couple decades ago, teams adapted by playing the trap. People decided to shrink goalie equipment to increase scoring, now 2-3 players are trying to block shots in addition to the goalie.

If anything, I say we make the rink size wider and spread everything out a little more. I honestly think thats the best bet at "fixing" alot of the "problems" that people have complaints about. But even that would require every arena to adjust their floorplans, which is still asking alot.

I see what you are saying, but I would counter with the fact that many shots are already being blocked or attempted block by players.

[Hank 0]

Of course, but to me, that doesn't = better hockey. I've said this time and time again and I will bring it to my grave. If you make the nets bigger, or change the way a goalie plays for example, the same game played with the same quality shots will result in more goals, but how is that more exciting? It's the same game.

Picture this: Player races down the ice, gets over the blueline and rips a shot on goal, but the goalie makes a great save. Picture the same play, except the goalie doesn't make that save and the puck goes in the net. Does that simple change make the game more exciting? I tend to give the fans of the game a little more credit than that.

To me, yes. Because scoring a goal is way more exciting than a chance to score a goal.

And besides, there are very few times where the situation you described occurs. Most of the time it's

Player races down the ice and is forced to the outside because of a defensive trap. Player rips a standard 25 foot shot that goalie easily sees and even if he didn't his ginormous equipment would have made the save for him.

Goals bring people out of their seats. Scoring chances entice but don't come close to generating the joy and excitement a goal does.

And lets not forget that crowds used to get excited over the anticipation of a goal because there were a lot more scoring zones from the blueline in. Now everyone on the ice and in the stands knows nobody's going to score unless they're standing on top of the goalie. When 'cycling' gets a buzz going in the crowd you know there's something wrong with the game. 3-on-2's and 2-on-1's used to get people to the edge of their seats. But you'd sooner see Bigfoot than an odd man rush nowaday's.

You have to be kidding me. Return to the glory days of the 80's? Or the glory days of the 20's where it was against the rules to use a butterfly?

I've said it a million times: Hockey is a game that has to be appreciated for what it is. Much like soccer, the average U.S. fan isn't programmed to appreciate a sport that has long stretches of action with no quantifiable gains or losses, until somebody scores a goal. As a hockey fan (and former goaltender), watching a tightly played, professional game where goalies are either standing on their heads or playing the angles so perfectly that there's nothing to shoot at IS exciting for me, particularly if it's on the team I'm rooting for. Last night's VS. game might have been a snoozer by conventional standards (2-0), but the NYR fans chanting "Henry! Henry" for the last 45 seconds of the game probably got their money's worth.

There were tons of empty seats and practically zero television exposure in the 80's, despite the glorious offense and fighting you remember. Hockey was actually much more popular in the 90's during a time when goalies like Hasek and Brodeur were allegedly "ruining" the game by posting sub 2.00 GAA's. (The reason is because of the sucess of the Rangers and Devils and the East Coast bias that fuels national media coverage, but that's neither here nor there...)

The game is evolving and becoming more professional. Rather than freak out and try and change the rules everytime we see a bad game or television rating, why not appreciate the fact that we have athletes doing things that Howe, Sawchuk, and even Gretzky were never physically capable of. Appreciate it for what it is instead of complaining about how good the goalies are, and how we have to make it "sexy" for the public at large, which, frankly, couldn't care less.

Whether you want to believe it or not, you're in the vast minority.

Lundqvist's performance last night might have been special if 4 other goalies hadn't done the same thing on the same night.

I don't pay $100 a game or $200 a year for Centre Ice to watch goalies play great angles. Snore. 50 years from now people will still be talking about Ovechkin's fantastic falling down, behind the back goal, not how Lundqvist played a perfect angle on a Briere shot from the far dot.

P.S. You're right, the players of today can do things that Gretzky and Howe could never have dreamed. Too bad we never get to see it because of the horrible defensive systems and goalies that are the size of Mount Everest.

Imagine watching an NBA where Lebron James was averaging 8 points per game because the hoop was shrunk in half and teams were told to always play defense and not even worry about the ball. Lebron James, physically, might be the most gifted basketball player of all time. But nobody would get to see that because of what I described above. I'm sure fans would flock to the arena or their TV's to watch that.

Edited November 6, 2007 by Hank

[Echolalia 2,961]

To me, yes. Because scoring a goal is way more exciting than a chance to score a goal.

...

Goals bring people out of their seats. Scoring chances entice but don't come close to generating the joy and excitement a goal does.

Theres still plenty of scoring in the nhl. Last night there were 38 goals scored in 8 games, for an average of 4.75 goals per game. Thats about the equivalent of a 3-2 game, which is quite a normal pace for scoring. Factor in the fact that there were 5 shutouts also, and you get the average for each team that scored last night at about three and a half goals.

And last night was by no means the norms for nhl, whether you're talking about today's nhl or the game played in the 80s or 20s.

I see what you are saying, but I would counter with the fact that many shots are already being blocked or attempted block by players.

By increasing the width of the rink you open up more space, which ultimately spreads the defense out more to cover more ground. Shooting lanes will get wider, and it will be easier to skate around defensmen because there will be more open space to move around in.

Edited November 6, 2007 by Echolalia

[Hank 0]

I don't think theres a lack of scoring at all. Last night there were 38 goals scored in 8 games, for an average of 4.75 goals per game. Thats about the equivalent of a 3-2 game, which is quite a normal pace for scoring. Factor in the fact that there were 5 shutouts also, and you get the average for each team that scored last night at about three and a half goals.

And last night was by no means the norms for nhl, whether you're talking about today's nhl or the game played in the 80s or 20s.

By increasing the width of the rink you open up more space, which ultimately spreads the defense out more to cover more ground. Shooting lanes will get wider, and it will be easier to skate around defensmen because there will be more open space to move around in.

I'm not trying to be a prick but I have to argue that point about 4.75 goals per game or close to 5.00 goals per game. The NHL hasn't seen scores that low since the late 1930's. That's when players were not allowed to pass the puck forward and there were 6 skaters aside.

When people talk about the golden era of hockey a lot of them are referring to the hockey that took place between 1970 to 1990. In those two decades the average goals per game was 7.15.

I've spoken to other people that followed hockey during the 70's and I grew up watching hockey in the 80's and I don't ever remember anyone complaining that there was too much scoring. Not one person. People loved watching guys like Esposito, Orr, Bossy, Gretzky or Yzerman lighting teams up.

But this, again, all extends beyond how many actual goals are being scored, but rather how milk toast the game has become. In the 70's and 80's there was an abundance of goals scored from the high slot and parameter. Sharp shooters would score from 15-20 feet out with a nice top-shelf goal wrister and most of the time the goalie wasn't to blame because the player was just a good shooter. If you watched 1 game, chances are you'd see that kind of goal once or twice (or more) over the course of 60 minutes. In today's game, you might see that goal once in every 20 games. Kovalev scored a goal like this a few weeks back and everyone in the media blasted the goalie because tenders today are expected to stop that shot. That's what enormous goalie gear has done to alter how goalies are judged or the reason why those types of goals have dried up.

If the league averaged only 5 goals per game but each goal was exciting I wouldn't have as much a problem. I'd much rather see only 5 goals in one game if they were generated off of odd-man rushes, breakaways, sniper goals on the short side or clean slapshots from 20 feet out. That to me would be much better than watching 9 goals a game where every goal is like it is today: screen shot, rebound, deflection.

As much as the players have gotten so much better, the creativity in the game has gone down the toilet. There are exceptions of course and every now and then you see something special but for the most part, every goal is the same and within the same 8 foot radius of the net.

By increasing the width of the rink you open up more space, which ultimately spreads the defense out more to cover more ground. Shooting lanes will get wider, and it will be easier to skate around defensmen because there will be more open space to move around in.

If you think the hockey now is bogged down by boring defensive systems, just wait till you see the game on Olympic style ice. It would be 10x as worse and European players have said as much.

Instead of Ovechkin needing only 1 step to get to the net after beating a dman in the corner, he'd need 3 or 4. And by then, someone would be there to block his shot or check him off the puck.

Coaches like Jaques Lemaire or Brent Sutter would salivate at the thought of how many 1-0 or 2-1 games they could generate with that much ice surface to play defense on.

This is a very unrealistic fantasy, but I'd rather see the ice get shrunk and go to 4-on-4 full time before they went to a larger ice surface.

Edited November 6, 2007 by Hank

[Hank 0]

Not sure if anyone's interested in this, but I was looking over the goalie stats for the 1987-1988 season.

In that year the SO leaders were:

Grant Fuhr - 75GP, 4 SO

Clint Malarchuk - 54GP, 4 SO

Glen Hanlon - 47 GP, 4 SO

Grant Fuhr won the Vezina with a 3.43 GAA and .881 Save %.

Patrick Roy was the only goalie to post a save % over .900 with 30 games or more. The next closest was Pete Peters with .898 in 35 contests followed by Tom Barrasso with .896 in 54 GP.

The average GAA for all 66 goalies was 3.328 with the average save % being .872.

In that era SO actually meant something. Chicago actually didn't get 1 shutout all year. Pascal Leclaire has 5 in his 6 starts.

This alone should make goalie buffs angry. The goaltender is no longer as special. Saves are mundane and boring as are shutouts. Any GAA above 2.4 or Save % below .910 is AHL material.

I know I'm biased but I remember this season, and most seasons in the 80's, very fondly. Hockey was a joy to watch. Nowadays, it's almost like self-inflicted torture to watch some games. That Philly-NYR game was a snore fest. And that says something when you look at the talent on either side. It should have been a dandy.

I guarentee you if the game last night, with all the talent on the ice, was played in the same fashion as in the 87-88 season (complete with NORMAL SIZED GOALIE GEAR) the game would have been 20x as exciting.