ZBBM
Active member
CarltonTheBear said:Zanzibar Buck-Buck McFate said:The question I was referring to is your first one.
So: if they doubled the size of the nets, say, to REALLY increase scoring to amp up the entertainment value, such that the average score of the game doubled (it would probably increase even more, but leave that aside) -- tell me how you would draw comparisons Before v After.
Well, no, I think we can have a more realistic discussion about the limits. Like I said in my last post, the goal of making the nets bigger would be to offset the changes in goalie equipment that have been made. Basically I want to be able to see SOME of the net when a goalie is standing in front of it. You would also want to make sure it doesn't become so big that an average-sized goalie can't be expected to make a save when he's standing up.
Ideally the goal would be to make the average shooting percentage go from 8-9% to closer to around 10-11%. That would be accomplished by a) giving a player more net to shoot at thus making it easier for them to score and b) having coaches rely less on defensive tactics especially once they get a 1-0 lead because they know that the opposing team can score easier.
So with that in mind doubling the size of the nets would obviously be absurd because it would be be overboard. It would require some experimentation but I'd imagine something in the 2-4 inch range could do the trick.
I totally agree, doubling would be absurd, and I think almost everyone would concur. I made the example extreme to illustrate my central point, which is that there is no increased size level at which we all can say, OK, this doesn't change the game TOO much (and after all, that imprecise but understandable objection is the only reason that we call a doubling of net size "absurd"). Sure, 2-4 inches sounds reasonable, but is it more reasonable than, say, 4-8 inches? At some point, the size increase becomes unacceptable, but there's no objective way to determine that. And that principle holds for ANY size increase.