Leafs @ Wild - Dec. 3rd, 8:00pm - TSN4. TSN 1050

[ZBBM]

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.

 

[Kin]

It's perfectly easy and reasonable to distinguish between the number of goals that we'd see if pucks that currently hit the post would go in and if pucks that completely missed the net would go in.

 

[ZBBM]

It's perfectly easy and reasonable to distinguish between the number of goals that we'd see if pucks that currently hit the post would go in and if pucks that completely missed the net would go in.

That doesn't tell you how many more goals per game is acceptable before you think it gets "absurd." 

Incidentally, the only way to test various levels of increased scoring is to compare results using various net sizes over a statistically significant period of time.  Further, using the AHL as testing ground won't do, you'd need to test under NHL conditions with NHL-quality players.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

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.

What do you mean there's no objective way of determine that? You think if the NHL decided to make the nets bigger they'd just throw out a random number like I did? They'd spend millions probably on R&D trying to figure out what size increase would best suit what they're trying to accomplish. It'd be tested countless times throughout the summer and pre-seasons and an entire AHL season before the NHL gave the OK.

I could say the same thing about goalie equipment. Having them wear nothing would be absurd. Taking 1/8 of an inch off the top of their pads wouldn't change the game too much. How on earth are we going to ever figure out a middle ground there? May as well just leave it as is.

 

[ZBBM]

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.

What do you mean there's no objective way of determine that? You think if the NHL decided to make the nets bigger they'd just throw out a random number like I did? They'd spend millions probably on R&D trying to figure out what size increase would best suit what they're trying to accomplish. It'd be tested countless times throughout the summer and pre-seasons and an entire AHL season before the NHL gave the OK.

I could say the same thing about goalie equipment. Having them wear nothing would be absurd. Taking 1/8 of an inch off the top of their pads wouldn't change the game too much. How on earth are we going to ever figure out a middle ground there?

That's not my argument, so please stop trying to make it appear that way.  I never said all change is bad; I said any change (up or down) to the size of the net is.

You are missing the point.  You can do all the R&D in the world but at some point somebody has to decide whether the amount of extra scoring is acceptable or not.  No matter how "informed" that decision is, it's still subjective.  Just as it was completely subjective when they first sized the nets at 6x4.  They could have chosen 12x12 and we'd be arguing about the integrity of a game where the matches throughout history would have had scores more like those of basketball games.  But somebody, somewhere, made the subjective decision to go 6x4.  Once that was done, there's no objective way to change it without leaving yourself open to the charge that it's a fundamentally different game.

 

[Kin]

That doesn't tell you how many more goals per game is acceptable before you think it gets "absurd." 

Great but the NHL isn't interested in testing the limits of absurdity. They're interested in increasing scoring by a certain amount. They're going to have a number in mind, they'd study the issue to see how much bigger the nets would have to be to hit that target and they'd be the ones implementing the change.

 

[Kin]

But somebody, somewhere, made the subjective decision to go 6x4.  Once that was done, there's no objective way to change it without leaving yourself open to the charge that it's a fundamentally different game.

I'm sorry but that doesn't even begin to make a modicum of sense.

 

[ZBBM]

That doesn't tell you how many more goals per game is acceptable before you think it gets "absurd." 

Great but the NHL isn't interested in testing the limits of absurdity. They're interested in increasing scoring by a certain amount. They're going to have a number in mind, they'd study the issue to see how much bigger the nets would have to be to hit that target and they'd be the ones implementing the change.

And what is that amount?  And what evidence can you provide, other than an opinion, as to whether it's too much or not?

 

[ZBBM]

But somebody, somewhere, made the subjective decision to go 6x4.  Once that was done, there's no objective way to change it without leaving yourself open to the charge that it's a fundamentally different game.

I'm sorry but that doesn't even begin to make a modicum of sense.

You'll need to do more than just post a put-down if you want to have a convo.

 

[Kin]

And what is that amount?  And what evidence can you provide, other than an opinion, as to whether it's too much or not?

I don't know to what extent the NHL would like to increase scoring to. I'd guess that they'd like to see scores similar to what we saw in the late 80's and early 90's.

As to the second question, you're asking for evidence of a subjective notion, which is pointless.

 

[ZBBM]

And what is that amount?  And what evidence can you provide, other than an opinion, as to whether it's too much or not?

I don't know to what extent the NHL would like to increase scoring to. I'd guess that they'd like to see scores similar to what we saw in the late 80's and early 90's.

As to the second question, you're asking for evidence of a subjective notion, which is pointless.

Exactly my point.

 

[Kin]

You'll need to do more than just post a put-down if you want to have a convo.

And you'll need to do more than just repeat yourself.

 

[ZBBM]

You'll need to do more than just post a put-down if you want to have a convo.

And you'll need to do more than just repeat yourself.

If you think I'm just repeating myself, then save us all a bit of trouble and don't waste your valuable time telling me how how nonsensical I am.

 

[Kin]

Exactly my point.

I never once said anything subjective. I said the NHL wants to increase scoring, increasing the size of the nets would do that and that they're fully capable of determining the way in which various increases would affect the amount by which scoring would increase.

Whether or not it would be "too much" or "fundamentally alter the game" are your windmills.

 

[ZBBM]

Exactly my point.

I never once said anything subjective. I said the NHL wants to increase scoring, increasing the size of the nets would do that and that they're fully capable of determining the way in which various increases would affect the amount by which scoring would increase.

Whether or not it would be "too much" or "fundamentally alter the game" are your windmills.

Yours too, my friend.  It's just that in your zeal to win an argument you've never responded to the basic question: how much change is too much?  Unless you truly believe that it would be OK to do whatever the NHL wants ? double the size of the nets, or triple them, or halve them for that matter.

 

[ZBBM]

Let me wrap this up here.  People who think it's OK to increase the size of the nets presumably have some number beyond which they aren't willing to go.  My number is zero.  Which one is right?  There is no objective answer.

 

[Kin]

Yours too, my friend.  It's just that in your zeal to win an argument you've never responded to the basic question: how much change is too much?  Unless you truly believe that it would be OK to do whatever the NHL wants ? double the size of the nets, or triple them, or halve them for that matter.

You keep trying to push me into having the conversation you want to have where I say what change I would be ok with and you say "Yeah? Well I wouldn't be ok with that! STALEMATE!"

I'm not making an aesthetic argument and refuse to be drawn into one with someone who thinks increasing the size of the nets an inch would fundamentally alter the game. I can't answer for what other people have said to you. All I've said is:

1. The NHL wants to increase scoring
2. This would do that
3. They've tried everything else
4. All sports change as a reaction to the way the game evolves
5. I don't think net size is sacrosanct

 

[jdh1]

May I put my .01 or .02 cents in.If the NHL wants to go to the scoring level of the 1980,s,why not shrink the goalie equipment to the size it was back then and make the rest of the players use wooden sticks.

Sounds like a very easy solution to me.

 

[Kin]

May I put my .01 or .02 cents in.If the NHL wants to go to the scoring level of the 1980,s,why not shrink the goalie equipment to the size it was back then and make the rest of the players use wooden sticks.

We covered that. The NHL can't unilaterally mandate changes where it affects  player safety. That, as well as the simple reality that goalies have gotten bigger which makes any static limits on goalie equipment unfair, makes it something of a non-starter.

And I don't see why wooden sticks would help.

 

[jdh1]

May I put my .01 or .02 cents in.If the NHL wants to go to the scoring level of the 1980,s,why not shrink the goalie equipment to the size it was back then and make the rest of the players use wooden sticks.

We covered that. The NHL can't unilaterally mandate changes where it affects  player safety. That, as well as the simple reality that goalies have gotten bigger which makes any static limits on goalie equipment unfair, makes it something of a non-starter.

And I don't see why wooden sticks would help.

I,m thinking wooden sticks may slow the velocity on the shot somewhat for goalies and injuries,if indeed the equipment got smaller,as well for the shot blockers for injury sake.
As far as bigger goalies today,not much you can do with that.