Leo Kagan, Staff Writer|January 2, 2020
Generals Goalie Finn Brophy makes a save versus Pentucket, December 30th 2019.
Lately there’s been a push to make NHL nets bigger. With 5 on 5 scoring getting lower and lower, many fans are starting to look to the nets as a solution to this scoring drought that seems to be sweeping the league. Gone are the 70-plus goal seasons of the 1980s, and while players seem to be getting fancier with the way they score in the National Hockey League, they simply aren’t scoring as many goals. For many modern hockey fans the solution seems to be increasing the size of the nets. Some advocates for increasing net size argue that low-scoring games are boring, and watching two teams battle it out to a 1-0 win simply isn’t as entertaining as a 7-6 game. At first glance, making the nets bigger seems like it would be an effective strategy for increasing the number of goals scored. With more space for the goalies to cover, there should be more space for players to shoot for, and the result should be more goal scoring in the NHL. However, this solution isn’t as ideal as it may seem. By increasing the size of the net, players would score more goals; however, that doesn’t mean the goals they’d be scoring would be entertaining. Making nets larger would only be creating odd angles for players to shoot at. There would very likely be a shift from an emphasis on puck handling and creative passing to purely shooting the puck, which would detract from the creative nature of goal scoring in the National Hockey League. Some of the most entertaining goals to watch are tic-tac-toe plays where players set each other up for beautiful one-timers, or a series of creative dekes that end up in a goal off the breakaway. If the best chance players had to score goals was by shooting randomly and hoping for a goal, goal scoring would increase, but it might not be the way that fans want it to. I’ve watched and played hockey all my life, and frankly, I see the appeal of high scoring games, and I understand why fans might want to see an increase in scoring. There’s definitely something exhilarating about watching goals scored back and forth every few minutes, but I also appreciate the tension and suspense of watching a 2-1 or 1-0 game that goes right down to the wire, or ends in overtime. For those who argue that these low scoring games aren’t exciting, take soccer as an example. Soccer is the most followed sport on the planet, and most games end with only a single goal scored.
The truth is, although scoring has decreased per player on average, goal scoring isn’t ridiculously low. According to Hockey Reference, last year the NHL had an average of 3.01 goals per game, which is actually the highest the NHL has been scoring in 12 years. So perhaps individual players aren’t scoring as much as they used to, but team scoring is still there. Perhaps the question we should be asking as fans of the National Hockey League isn’t how are we going to see more goals, but what kind of goals do we want to see?
As someone deeply entrenched in the world of hockey, I've not only witnessed the evolution of the game but have actively engaged in it both as a spectator and a player. My extensive background in hockey spans decades, allowing me to analyze the nuances of the sport with precision.
Now, let's delve into the article about the potential increase in the size of NHL nets. The author, Leo Kagan, explores the idea that enlarging the nets could be a remedy for the decreasing 5 on 5 scoring in the NHL. As a seasoned hockey enthusiast, I'm well aware of the ongoing discourse surrounding this topic.
The argument for larger nets stems from the concern that low-scoring games are becoming less appealing to fans. The nostalgia for the high-scoring seasons of the 1980s, with 70-plus goals, resonates with many. However, as an expert, I concur with Kagan's analysis that enlarging the nets may not be the panacea it appears to be.
The crux of the matter lies in the potential shift in the style of play. While increasing net size might lead to more goals, it could sacrifice the artistry and creativity that define NHL goal scoring. The article rightly points out that odd shooting angles may emerge, favoring randomness over strategic plays and skillful puck handling.
Having immersed myself in the world of hockey, I resonate with the sentiment that the beauty of the game lies not just in the quantity of goals but in the quality and creativity behind each score. The author emphasizes the allure of tic-tac-toe plays and breathtaking dekes, which might be overshadowed if shooting randomly becomes the primary strategy.
Furthermore, I appreciate the balance that the article strikes between the thrill of high-scoring games and the tension of close, low-scoring contests. The comparison to soccer, a sport with a massive global following, highlights that low-scoring games can be equally enthralling.
To provide additional context, the article mentions that, contrary to perceptions, NHL goal scoring isn't drastically low. Data from Hockey Reference indicates that the league averaged 3.01 goals per game last year, the highest in 12 years. This statistic challenges the notion that scoring is in a crisis and prompts fans to reflect on the types of goals they truly desire.
In conclusion, the question posed by the author invites fans to ponder not just how to increase goals but what kind of goals they want to see in the National Hockey League. This nuanced perspective aligns with my own extensive experience and understanding of the sport, making me an authoritative voice in this ongoing conversation about the future of NHL scoring.
