What we have learned in most sports, it is hard to coach offense over coaching defense. Defense in many cases is effort and positioning. With advance analytics and film study, even what used to be such an individual sport like baseball now have softball like configurations in the field, shifting based on the likelihood of where a batter hits the ball. It is why averages have dipped. And batter's haven't adjusted yet and likely they will. This is just an example of how coaching and defense affects the game.
We already have seen this in basketball. Efforts are made in college basketball to increase scoring and combat the defense and athleticism that dominates the sport. It is easier to coach defense. You devise schemes, you coach effort, condition your players, and drill baby drill until they get it right. While you can "coach" offense, there comes an element of free form art (skill) where you can't coach a Michael Jordan, Steph Curry or Kevin Durant into doing the they do, they just can do. All you can do as a coach is devise ways to try and stop or slow down.
Same with hockey. Hockey is being overcoached from the lowest of levels. Kids aren't developing skills or at least the confidence and freedom to utilize these skills. Some of the biggest advances from coaching and filmstudy is goaltending. People have figured out being "square" to the shooter at all times lessens the probability of a goal. What also has happened is the nets are the same 4x6 foot entities they were 50 years ago. 25 years ago (1990) most goalies were under 6 foot. Now, they average around 6'3". And without restrictions on equipment, a big goalie with oversized pads, jersey, etc...and there is almost nothing to shoot at. Nothing. Save percentages used to be in the .880 range. In 1990, that is what exactly the average was. Now, that would get you sent to the minors. Today, you have to go through 35 goalies to get to one that has a sub 0.900 save percentage. There is ONE goalie out of 44 that has a save percentage below the 1990 average of 0.880 today, and he is obviously benched.
Goaltending's evolution in style, film study and coaching and physical size just makes it that much harder to score. Then there is the obstruction and all of the interference that makes it hard to get scoring chances. Scoring is down to the 1950's level. It is boring. Things need to be changed.
Here is what I would do:
1) It is easy to say "call the rules", but it is obvious that referees don't want to call the rules. Just like football where likely there is a hold on every play, there is some form of obstruction on every play. Unlike football, obstruction away from the play in many cases more affects the play than they do in football. So yeah, enforce obstruction more rigidly, but what is going to happen is again it will be called more at first then gradually relaxed. Refs don't want to affect outcomes of the games in their minds, calling penalties do that.
2) The nets. How many times does a puck hit the goal post or crossbar? Actually, shots that hit the posts are better shots than those hitting the goalie square in the middle of their chest. I would think on average of 2 times a game, shots hit the post. Here is my solution #1. Widen the space between the posts 1" on each side. Raise the crossbar 2". There are no longer standup goalies and therefore take away the bottom of the net. You can move the posts out an inch on each side, raise the crossbar 2" and not affect anything with the rink, the goalies don't have to completely relearn angles, what you are doing is rewarding snipers more for trying to pick corners and open spots. To me, this is a no brainer. Easy.
3) Get a bit realistic on goalie equipment. Force their pads and shirts to be a bit more tapered. If you think about it, in football, jerseys have become more tight and tapered and streamlined as it helps prevent holding and grabbing. So why not do this here? Again, an easy fix.
4) Bring back the redline. Originally thought to open it up it has done the opposite and allows teams to trap more effectively. If you think about it, when scoring was up, the redline (center line) existed for "2 line" passes, as it was taken away, scoring has continually gone down.
I think those are reasonable items that would lead to some more scoring, while not turning it into a Big 12 football game.
5. This is esoteric, but attitude. The Board of Governors (GMs) meet and come up with the most innocuous and silly rule emphasis, like having a coaches challenge on an offsides play. In a game you are trying to have more offense, all this does is take away from the game. I can see an obvious offsides play being reviewed and a goal disallowed. BUT...what has happened, just like in baseball now where every slide is challenged for the possibility that the slider for a millisecond loses contact with the base even though he beat the throw by a second, this is now happening in hockey. It again reflects an attitude of "not getting it", and continually to put in rules that take away from skill. Hockey needs to change its attitude to promote skill, not neutralize it.
What I wouldn't do is:
1) Bigger ice. A natural response is bigger, faster players, make the ice bigger. The opposite effect actually happens as it pushes more play along the perimeter and generates less scoring opportunities. We see in Olympic hockey, this does not increase scoring.
2) I have heard that make a PP last the entire 2 minutes, regardless of if a goal is scored. My aversion to this if you think powerplays are down now with refs being reluctant to call penalties, imagine if this was too happen?
We already have seen this in basketball. Efforts are made in college basketball to increase scoring and combat the defense and athleticism that dominates the sport. It is easier to coach defense. You devise schemes, you coach effort, condition your players, and drill baby drill until they get it right. While you can "coach" offense, there comes an element of free form art (skill) where you can't coach a Michael Jordan, Steph Curry or Kevin Durant into doing the they do, they just can do. All you can do as a coach is devise ways to try and stop or slow down.
Same with hockey. Hockey is being overcoached from the lowest of levels. Kids aren't developing skills or at least the confidence and freedom to utilize these skills. Some of the biggest advances from coaching and filmstudy is goaltending. People have figured out being "square" to the shooter at all times lessens the probability of a goal. What also has happened is the nets are the same 4x6 foot entities they were 50 years ago. 25 years ago (1990) most goalies were under 6 foot. Now, they average around 6'3". And without restrictions on equipment, a big goalie with oversized pads, jersey, etc...and there is almost nothing to shoot at. Nothing. Save percentages used to be in the .880 range. In 1990, that is what exactly the average was. Now, that would get you sent to the minors. Today, you have to go through 35 goalies to get to one that has a sub 0.900 save percentage. There is ONE goalie out of 44 that has a save percentage below the 1990 average of 0.880 today, and he is obviously benched.
Goaltending's evolution in style, film study and coaching and physical size just makes it that much harder to score. Then there is the obstruction and all of the interference that makes it hard to get scoring chances. Scoring is down to the 1950's level. It is boring. Things need to be changed.
Here is what I would do:
1) It is easy to say "call the rules", but it is obvious that referees don't want to call the rules. Just like football where likely there is a hold on every play, there is some form of obstruction on every play. Unlike football, obstruction away from the play in many cases more affects the play than they do in football. So yeah, enforce obstruction more rigidly, but what is going to happen is again it will be called more at first then gradually relaxed. Refs don't want to affect outcomes of the games in their minds, calling penalties do that.
2) The nets. How many times does a puck hit the goal post or crossbar? Actually, shots that hit the posts are better shots than those hitting the goalie square in the middle of their chest. I would think on average of 2 times a game, shots hit the post. Here is my solution #1. Widen the space between the posts 1" on each side. Raise the crossbar 2". There are no longer standup goalies and therefore take away the bottom of the net. You can move the posts out an inch on each side, raise the crossbar 2" and not affect anything with the rink, the goalies don't have to completely relearn angles, what you are doing is rewarding snipers more for trying to pick corners and open spots. To me, this is a no brainer. Easy.
3) Get a bit realistic on goalie equipment. Force their pads and shirts to be a bit more tapered. If you think about it, in football, jerseys have become more tight and tapered and streamlined as it helps prevent holding and grabbing. So why not do this here? Again, an easy fix.
4) Bring back the redline. Originally thought to open it up it has done the opposite and allows teams to trap more effectively. If you think about it, when scoring was up, the redline (center line) existed for "2 line" passes, as it was taken away, scoring has continually gone down.
I think those are reasonable items that would lead to some more scoring, while not turning it into a Big 12 football game.
5. This is esoteric, but attitude. The Board of Governors (GMs) meet and come up with the most innocuous and silly rule emphasis, like having a coaches challenge on an offsides play. In a game you are trying to have more offense, all this does is take away from the game. I can see an obvious offsides play being reviewed and a goal disallowed. BUT...what has happened, just like in baseball now where every slide is challenged for the possibility that the slider for a millisecond loses contact with the base even though he beat the throw by a second, this is now happening in hockey. It again reflects an attitude of "not getting it", and continually to put in rules that take away from skill. Hockey needs to change its attitude to promote skill, not neutralize it.
What I wouldn't do is:
1) Bigger ice. A natural response is bigger, faster players, make the ice bigger. The opposite effect actually happens as it pushes more play along the perimeter and generates less scoring opportunities. We see in Olympic hockey, this does not increase scoring.
2) I have heard that make a PP last the entire 2 minutes, regardless of if a goal is scored. My aversion to this if you think powerplays are down now with refs being reluctant to call penalties, imagine if this was too happen?
