Obscuring the Issue

The NHL, eventually, will be going to bigger nets. That will make some recoil in horror, but it's going to happen. Bet on it.

I support the concept. At the same time, I can easily accept that people don' t like the idea.

As long, that is, as they do so on a logical basis.

If you think the game is already wide-open enough and has enough scoring, for example, that is a solid argument against bigger nets.

So is the possibility that raising the crossbar for high shots to be goals rather than over the net might make life a little more dangerous around the net for forwards and defencemen.

Even the notion that moving to larger nets would fundamentally change the manner in which thousands of goalies have learned the sport has some traction.

Just don't tell me that it would be an affront to the NHL record book.

Don't try and argue that current scoring marks would somehow be unfairly under attack.

For starters, you have to understand that already the record book deals with apples and oranges by statistically scoring records from the 1930s, '40s and '50s with those of the '80s and '90s.

The game has changed so drastically over the decades that in some ways its not even the same game. Yet nobody minds that Max Bentley's scoring records are held up to those of Mike Bossy or Brett Hull.

What is true, however, is that because the net has remained the same size while the goaltenders have dramatically increased in size, the available scoring area has been gradually decreased over the past 20 years, in particular.

Phil Esposito could see a lot more net, for example, than Jonathan Cheechoo.

That's not opinion. It's fact.

Making the nets slightly higher and wider, then, would actually reset the balance between goalie and shooter.

It wouldn't ruin the NHL record book. It would actually make it more meaningful.

By comparison, the manner in which goalies are now able to record victories in OT and shootouts will make it far easier for netminders like Martin Brodeur, for example, to approach Patrick Roy's all-time wins record.

Brodeur has 18 wins this season, but four have come in shootouts. Roy didn't have the ability to win games that way and had to settle for ties.

Anaheim's Jean-Sebastien Giguere has 23 wins this season, two by shootout. Those extra opportunities to register victories may make it a lot easier for Giguere to break Bernie Parent's 1973-74 record of 47 wins in a single season.

Now that's distorting the record book.

But when I hear Jarome Iginla say larger nets would "change records and things," it makes me want to scream.

He might not like the idea for a whole host of reasons.

But the record book should not be included in that list.

Comments

[JKROSS]

I just can't go along with this. To me it's just too fundamnetal a change & would be difficult to accept. I wonder if it's really necessary. When I heard this I went back to the scores for the Monday games. I counted 11 games and 85 goals(if my math is correct)in cluding a couple of games where the winning side scored 7 times. That's an average of 8 goals per game which seems like an improvement to me. I feel the stricter penalties, the red line removal and the smaller goalie equipment is having a positive effect & allows more goals to be scored.

I am not really sure why the NHL is considering this. Is it a last resort to revive interest for an American market? They probably won't notice anyway.

[ido]

Hasn't a math geek/hockey nut done the math on the changes in hockey ie: nets to goalie, speed to reaction time, and just how big would an ice rink have to be for today's players to have the same reaction time to a play as, say, players in the fifties. Has it changed with every passing decade - just as the hundred metre dash time has dropped. I'm sure a computor model could be created.

[Reg Sackmann]

Sorry Damian,

I usually agree with you, but not on this one. Three factors mitigate against goal-scoring: style of play (ie, the dreaded trap), failure to call penalties as spelled out in the rulebook, and goaltenders' equipment. The style of play in the glory days of the 1980s was wide-open, as demonstrated by the success of the Oilers, Flames and Bruins, to name three of the more successful teams of that era. Offensive flair, coupled with crackdowns on hooking and holding infractions, ensured a more free-flowing style of game. Those teams that tried to compensate for their lack of talent, footspeed etc. were penalized when they tried to negate the skilled teams via mugging and hooking.

Also, take a look at goaltenders' equipment from that era: much smaller than now, yet players don't shoot the puck markedly harder than now. Advances in lightweight materials make it practical to return to sdmaller pads, blockers etc while still providing superior protection, which would open up more goalnet real estate for shooters withouit compromising goaltender safety.

Bigger nets? Not necessary from where I sit. Reward those teams that play with offensive skill, call penalties as they are in the rulebook, and reduce bloated goaltender equipment. If nothing else, this will provide more opportunities for scoring, which is what fans want. More goals? Sorry Damian, soccer nets don't make soccer more interesting, nor do they guarantee more goals. It won't happen in hockey either.

[Sanj]

Sorry Mr. Cox. I don't agree with you. What purpose does it serve to increase the net size? So we can have 15 to 13 scores as opposed to 6 to 5? To me that is a total joke. The NBA players are generally taller than in previous years. You don't see the NBA increasing the size of the hoops do u?

[chad inglis]

what's the big deal with scoring more goals? has anyone ever tried to sit through a lacrosse game? they score all kinds of goals, but for me, very few of them are satisfying in the same way a hockey goal is. soccer is the most popular sport in the world and they consistently have nil-nil draws. maybe us north americans are just highlight junkies.

[moe]

I think Bettman and the gang are on the right track. Before they go enlargifying the net, let's refine the rules a bit. Now that they have dealt with the interference problem that had been plaguing the game for thirty years, they need to massively improve officiating.

You see - and I'm surprized guys like Cox et al. seldom mention it - NHL officiating is horrible. Ever notice during broadcasts that the play-by-play guys see the penalties so much better than the officials? This is because they have a much better view. You'll hear them say things like: "Try calling the game from ice-level... " or "it's a lot easiier from up here."

The NHL needs to take that to heart and implement a radical upgrade of the officiating. We need off-ice ref or refs who CAN actually see the game clearly. It would mean that we could eliminate the absurd "diving" penalty; which is simply a function of the officals inability to police the game. Similarly, they would be able to effectively call interference instead of blowing the whistle when someone's stick touches a player above the knee. I do not want to dwell on the details of it, suffice to say, off ice officials are the answer to a lot of the game's woes.

A final point. As with all major sport, money is absolutely killing the game. Team spirit and loyalty have been replaced with unbridled capitalism. This is a capitalism that pays a guy like McCabe 6 mil a year.

[Jim Boyd]

I have asked these questions many times but never really get an answer.

Why is goal scoring such an issue? And whose issue is it? (does his last name begin with B?)

Does someone out there have in their mind what number of goals would constitute making a hockey game an ideal spectacle?

What is the miracle number of goals? Are we looking for Lacross type scoring 15-12,
17-10?

Do we want hockey to be like basketball where the first 70 points by each team means nothing – just a show for the fans? Do we want the first 7-8 goals to mean nothing knowing every team scores 7-8 goals. The third period becomes like the last quarter of a basketball game? That’s all you need to watch?

So it’s not who wins or loses, it’s how many goals the fan gets to see. Why not just have a 60 minute shootout then?

Would it matter if last nights game was 12-9 instead of 5-2 or 3-1? One game would be better than the other?

It just puzzles me that some people think the game is missing something if we are not lining up at center ice 15-20 times per game.

[Red Plague]

If you really believe in this concept--and the absurd (colonized) mindset that believes fans are turned on by watching numbers on a scoreboard flicker more often--then, please, instead of taking on an easy straw man, just write a column campaigning for the necessity of larger nets on their own merit. I'd love to hear a coherent argument. Tell me that playmaking and creativty would improve, tell me why with current imporvements in stick technology that clearly offsets goalie growth spurts (and b.t.w. anyone making this argument notice that the shooters are bigger too???) this wouldn't just encourage players from shooting from everywhere and anywhere.
Perhaps there is a compromise. Instead of ruining the integrity of North America's best, most entertaining professional sport--an error whose ramifications are impossible to measure--just make every goal worth 7 points. You can easily multiply the existing records and now your average 4-3 game is 28-21. Besides, I always suspected the commish put that netting over the goals up as a pre-curser to installing uprights over the nets in an attempt to add some points and imporve that American "footprint" he's working on.

[Wardo]

What a terrible idea. If you're going to make the nets bigger, you have to make the rinks bigger too, just like the other poster said. The skaters got bigger too.

But this isn't the problem. Today's goalies aren't just a bit bigger (if that - prove it) - they're BETTER. Much better than their forefathers. Until a couple seasons ago, it was considered crazy to have a goalie coach on staff to mentor the netminders - and even today, most teams still don't have one. Goalies were considered half-crazy witch doctors you don't dare speak to just in case you frigg up the mojo that's enabling them to stop pucks.

But now, the advances in goaltending technique are far outstripping any upgrades to skater offensive technique. Some of these guys go to schools in the off-season and spend their entire summer sharpening up their skills, like Ray Emery did this year. Worked out pretty well for him, huh?

Changing the net size is a fundamental alteration to the game, and it's wrong to say today's NHL can't compare to Bentley's era. Goalies in that era might have been smaller, but the skaters loafed around for 2-3 minute shifts and enjoyed a smoke after the game. The skills of all players have improved in those days - it's just that in recent years, the goalies have gotten much better than the skaters have. Coaching, too - the 90's trap era showed us all the value of effective coaching, systems play, and game preparation (thanks to Roger Neilson, RIP), which all naturally benefit the goalie.

Like somebody else said - why is the formula: more goals = better game anyway? I hate 7-6 games. It's obvious the target in this instance is Americans, and frankly, I don't give a crap what they think. This is Canada's game, and we like it the way it is.

Again to piggyback another poster - further refine officiating to be as good as it can be (why is the whistle of the ref sacrosanct? Why can't their authority be questioned by those upstairs?) and leave the fundamentals of the game design the same.

And perhaps, further reduce the size of goaltending equipment to compensate for physical size.

But you know what? Until a study comes out conclusively proving that modern goalies cover more net anyway, this argument came straight from your colon without any backup at all. Show us the studies, backed up by math, proving that "x" amount of area is now covered up by today's giant goalies. A statistically significant "x" at that. Just because a goalie is now 6'3" instead of 5'10" doesn't mean he's 5 inches wider, too.

Or what about the argument that a smaller goalie is faster, more nimble? Hasek weighs 160 and he's still one of the best in the game. Belfour, future Hall of Famer, 6'0", 180? You mentioned Giguere - 6'0", 200. This is a "dramatic increase" in size, really? Huet, 6'0" 200...Kiprusoff, 6'1", 180? The best goalies in the game are regular-sized guys.

Leave the nets alone.

[Derek Parkin]

Goaltenders are larger and have larger equipment than in decades past but the players are larger, faster and equipment technology has improved dramatically over the last decade, especially hockey stick technology. More goals does not necessarily make for better hockey, more scoring chances do. If you raise the cross bar and then you're going to have every player shooting high increasing the chances of goaltenders taking pucks off the masks and throat area not to mention players standing in front of the net without face protection taking pucks off the face.

[Rodger Cuff]

Hey Cox, first of all - the game is not broken and I'm sick and tired of listening to people who feel it needs to be fixed. You dont want hockey, you want another game altogether. Leave this one alone and go start the one you want. Second of all, why do you care if Iginla mentions that the records will change, will they not? Im sure there are other, more valid reasons, he just mentioned that one. Take yourself out of context someday.

[Billie Bob]

Iginla is right, the guys that play the game have more insight as to what will be the cause and effect than some stupid american lawyer named Bettman.

Making the net larger will simply allow my wife to hold me to a promise. I told her that if the NHL enlarges the net, then I will walk away from hockey. This will be the last straw for me.

The best goalies in the league are the same size as goalies back in the 70's, 80's, and 90's. Go check out the stats on any goalie you wish. Goalies back then had beer guts, so they may appear larger. Ken Dryden was huge, the differences you see now are that they are athletes now, and the equipment is much larger. The defensive systems for the teams are better as well. If you doubt this turn on LeafsTV and watch a classic game. I watched a game the other night that was 80-81 Leafs vs Chicago. It sucked, those guys were terrible. If you compared one of those teams to an OHL team today, they would get killed.

[Remi ST.Germain]

I don't agree with you Mr. Cox,leave the nets the way they are and stop changing some rules.They are ruining the game with stupid penalties,stupid shootouts.If they ever agree to make the nets larger,a lot of people will be very disapointed and will stop watching the hockey games.Real hockey was played in the 50s and 60s and whoever is responsible for changing the game is very stupid and I sure hope that they don't make any more changes because the game doesn't need any more changes.

[Don]

More goals is not the answer here. More scoring plays yes. Chances on goal is the most exciting thing about hockey, that is the key. Whether it gets stopped or not doesn't matter to me, unless it's my favourite playing. Do things to the game to improve chances. More penalities until the players and coaches learn you can't hook and impede.
If they still want more goals. Goaler equipment is still too large, plain and simple. They all still look like the michelin man. I"m looking at a old photo of Ken Dryden, he was a tall toothpick. NOT a ball of pads.
Enlarging the net, is not the answer. I would give it more attention if Bettman and Co. had already looked at the goaler equipment. Go there first, not the nets.
Has anyone done experiments to see what happens with pucks off goalposts/crossbaar, inside and outside the posts? Will that puck rebound upwards because of the curves? hit players and goalers at odd angles,faces, eyes? I"ve never seen any tests, has anyone built one of these nets and used one? I think it changes the physics too much. Give the goalers smaller gear.
Personnally I think they need to look at all the gear, Cherry as mouthy as he is has a point about these "hard" pads too, change the forwards and dman pads while we are at it.
Good Column though.

[Adam Peard]

This is ridiculous...Bigger nets would ruin the record books. And that would not sit well with me. Also, I'm going to say what eveyone else is saying, would the hell wants games with scores of 10-9??? The Leaf game on saturday was 9-2. I wasn't even paying attention to the third. It was exciting. I would much rather watch a 1-0 hockey game that have tons of chances and excitment. A goal in hockey should be something to celebrate, not just something to acknowlege like in basketball. Every true hockey fan should agree with this. And Damien Cox...you really shouldn't be writing about hockey if you truely believe bigger nets is a good idea. Stick to covering baseball and nascar.

[Rick Grace]

Damien. I just don't get where you're coming from? Like hasn't the game being changed enough for your liking? I mean bigger nets? Whats next? Three on three?

Why even have goalies? We can get a bouncing puck and have players slam dunk the puck into a hoop! We call it hockeyball.

I don't get where you people are coming from? The game has been popular for 100 years. It has NEVER been popular in most of the USA. Howe couldn't do it. Orr couldn't do it. Gretkzy couldn't do it. Lemeiux couldn't do it. So why bastardize the game to suit them?

Why not turn your attention to baseball or basketball? I mean few people in Canada care about those sports. Shouldn't we change thos sports rules? Or if its good enough for the Americans, its good enough for us I guess?

Bottom line. Enouhg of screwing around with hockey. YOu don't like it, cover baseball? Hockey fans won't miss you.

[Andrew Barrie]

I already take all new records with a grain of salt. For instance, it does not make sense to compare total goals in a season now to decades ago when their were less games played in a season. it would make more sense to follow points per game average, whether it is an 82 game season or 60, that kind of stat won't change its meaning.

[Mark Thomas]

Don't make the nets bigger. Just reduce the size of goalie equipment to what it was thirty years ago. That will "reset the balance between goalie and shooter" as you say. They can keep their masks though.

The points in your blog about the goalies and overtime wins I certainly agree with.

[Martin]

If it ain't broke don't fix it. I agree for the most part what your posters have said but at the same time I respect you for posting so many dissenting opinions to your own point of view. I'm old enough that I remember the Leafs winning 3 cups in a row. We didn't need bigger nets back then to make the game exiting....