Jump to content

The Dearth of Offense in the NHL


Recommended Posts

Looking at the Habs and their difficulty scoring goals, it's easy to get negative. But I need to look at this in a different light.

Ovechkin is the best in the league right now. He's got 73 points in 71 games, and an impressive 47 goals - he'll have yet another 50 goal season. The thing is, he's the last of a dying breed - players of his offensive calibre barely exist anymore.

Crosby's 72 points in 66 games is technically better, on a Points-per-Game basis, but he only has 23 goals. Backstrom's putting up points only because he's feeding Ovechkin. Then you've got Tavares with 72 in 72, and Malkin's 68 in 63. Beyond that, not another player in the league is working at a point-per-game pace.

Max Pacioretty is 17th in points (62 points in 72 games), but 4th in goal scoring at 35.

Furthermore, the habs 191 goals scored in 72 games might be 2nd-worst among teams currently in a playoff spot, but it's not really all that much different from the others, either. Let's look at goals per game by team, rounded off to one decimal place (because beyond that it doesn't matter much):

Tampa Bay 3.2

St. Louis 3.1

NY Islanders 3.1

NY Rangers 3.0

Washington 2.9

Winnipeg 2.9

Anaheim 2.9

Detroit 2.9

Chicago 2.9

Nashville 2.8

Vancouver 2.8

Minnesota 2.8

Winnipeg 2.7

Pittsburgh 2.7

Los Angeles 2.7

Boston 2.7

Montreal 2.7

Tampa Bay outscores Montreal by a half goal per game. That's significant, for sure. But from Washington down, none of those teams significantly outscore Montreal. The caps outscore Montreal by a whole 0.2 goals a game.

Yeah, i want to see more offense out of Montreal, but I'd argue every team in the NHL with a playoff spot has the same problems except for the Rangers, Islanders, Blues and Lightning. There's just not a major offensive difference between Montreal and any of the other teams.

20 years ago... okay, due to work-stoppage shortened season making visual comparisons harder, we'll go 21 years ago... In 1994, 8 players broke 100 points. Wayne Gretzky, WAY past his prime, still lead the league with 130 points. Pavel Bure had 60 goals, to lead 9 people who broke 50 goals. Vincent Damphouse led the habs, tied for 20th (with a DEFENSEMAN) in scoring with 91 points. The Habs were actually further behind the offense curve in the early 90s than they are today.

Offense comes at a premium these days. Only a few teams actually have any, and they aren't sharing. Guys like Plekanec, Galchenyuk, and Gallagher are actually already offensive stars, even if they aren't on the leaderboard. And look at Pittsburgh! Even with Crosby and Malkin both, Pittsburgh isn't really outscoring Montreal.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent topic and one which has been on my mind lately. Coaching, culture, goalie technique and equipment size have all contributed to this. You can't take away safety equipment once it's introduced, so asking goalies to wear smaller gear is not really an option, but should be explored ensuring goalies are protected adequately. Put a better limit on equipment size. Nets need to be made larger by about 6" and posts oval shaped with an angle into the net. If you count the amount of goal posts hit in a game (probably 3 or 4), and a 3rd of those go in by changing angles, there would be more goals. These are the engineering changes I would make. I have found that rule changes too often come with a steep price. Speeding up the game by eliminating the two line pass, and reducing obstruction has created a faster game, but a much more dangerous one with high speed collisions and concussions. I would want to focus on equipment first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is indeed a great post - the Price is right. And although I'm not much of a stats guy to begin with, let alone an 'advanced stats' guy, I do think Montreal's weaknesses have tended to be overblown by just the tendency Machine talks about: i.e., to assess teams in light of their relative ranking in this or that statistical category, without paying sufficient attention to the absolute numbers themselves. If you're 30th in the league in shots against, but only give up on average two more shots per night than the #1 team, who really gives a rat's behind? It's a nearly meaningless measure. But it sure sounds ominous when they say 'you're 30th overall in shots against....' Oooooooo. Scary.

As for the wider question of offence drying up in the league, it doesn't bother me too much. I think this is another case where folks fixate on numbers instead of what counts. What counts is: are the games exciting? Are they entertaining? The idea that you can just quantify this - as in, the game with the most goals scored is automatically the most exciting - is absurd. Give me a 2-1 nail-biter over an 8-1 blowout any day. A lot of the goals scored back when offence was off the chart had to do with crummy goaltending anyway; what's so electrifying about goalies letting garbage get by them?

It's interesting to ask whether we could quantify 'excitement' in a more effective way than just counting up goals scored. E.g., are quality scoring chances down? How about scoring chances off the rush? Maybe that'd be a better yardstick.

Falling back on subjective measures, I'd say that, in terms of entertainment value, the game is in pretty good shape. It's not as fantastic as it was when they first cracked down on obstruction; but it's still vastly better than it was in the dead puck era. The 'scoring' problem is a PR problem, not a real problem IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CC and Habnut;

Both your posts highlighted something I've always had in the back of my mind, but never really articulated until right now.

When the NHL was considering various rule changes to increase scoring in the NHL, some I disagreed with, some I agreed with. For instance, removing the two-line-pass violation, I was good with that. That speeds up the game and creates more scoring chances. However, increasing the size of the net/reducing the size of goaltender equipment didn't interest me at all. As Chicoutimi Cucumber points out, it's not the scoring itself that is exciting - it's the quality scoring chances. A great save is just as amazing as a great goal. I don't care about the eventual score, I care about offensive chances, when it comes to exciting games. The late 90's New Jersey Devils were boring to watch, whether you beat them or they beat you didn't matter. Their style of play limited scoring opportunities. Brodeur's talent between the pipes didn't make the game less exciting, but the neutral zone trap most certainly did.

Any rule-changes designed to boost scoring should take that into account - boosting scoring alone isn't interesting. It's increasing the number of scoring chances that is exciting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is indeed a great post - the Price is right. And although I'm not much of a stats guy to begin with, let alone an 'advanced stats' guy, I do think Montreal's weaknesses have tended to be overblown by just the tendency Machine talks about: i.e., to assess teams in light of their relative ranking in this or that statistical category, without paying sufficient attention to the absolute numbers themselves. If you're 30th in the league in shots against, but only give up on average two more shots per night than the #1 team, who really gives a rat's behind? It's a nearly meaningless measure. But it sure sounds ominous when they say 'you're 30th overall in shots against....' Oooooooo. Scary.

As for the wider question of offence drying up in the league, it doesn't bother me too much. I think this is another case where folks fixate on numbers instead of what counts. What counts is: are the games exciting? Are they entertaining? The idea that you can just quantify this - as in, the game with the most goals scored is automatically the most exciting - is absurd. Give me a 2-1 nail-biter over an 8-1 blowout any day. A lot of the goals scored back when offence was off the chart had to do with crummy goaltending anyway; what's so electrifying about goalies letting garbage get by them?

It's interesting to ask whether we could quantify 'excitement' in a more effective way than just counting up goals scored. E.g., are quality scoring chances down? How about scoring chances off the rush? Maybe that'd be a better yardstick.

Falling back on subjective measures, I'd say that, in terms of entertainment value, the game is in pretty good shape. It's not as fantastic as it was when they first cracked down on obstruction; but it's still vastly better than it was in the dead puck era. The 'scoring' problem is a PR problem, not a real problem IMHO.

I can enjoy Price's impossible saves as much as goals but it gets scary when he has to make to many of them in a game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes of the top Save% career leaders are all recent/current goalies (cept Hasek).

Is conditioning or size of equipment a bigger reason?

In Carey's case it is skill. He is very technically sound. Whoever taught him to play goal knew what he was talking about. It helps that he is 6'4 and incredibly athletic. The equip is bigger and much lighter. In particular the leg pads. Believe me them horsehide ones weren't light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goalies are bigger now (e.g., Dryden was considered abnormally huge - he's Price's size); the equipment is better; and most importantly, goalies are now the beneficiaries of systematic coaching throughout their careers. That's the innovation that Roy inaugurated, really - scientifically approaching the position.

And none of this has anything to do with whether games are exciting. Last night's game against the Sharks was a humdinger. The score? 2-0. I've got many quarrels with the NHL, but the quality of the product isn't among them. (Anyway, look at scoring back in the pre-expansion era - nobody was getting 130 points. We've merely returned to the level of scoring that characterized the game when its quality of play was highest. What's wrong with that?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike Bossy was the guest yesterday night at Dave Morissette's show, after the game. The best scorer of all time IMO had some very interesting comments about the Habs and the game in general nowadays. He said that the goalers and the systems in place were the main reasons for the low scoring in the NHL. It's very difficult to score, because five players are defending the net almost all the time and that a large percentage of the shots are blocked or deflected.

The most interesting point however was that in his time his main objective when he was shooting was to hit the net. He did not really aim for any particular point, except maybe between the legs of the goaltender which is in the centre of the net anyway. He was extremely frustrated when he missed the net altogether.

Well, IMO Bossy has a good point, and one the coaches could learn from. Yesterday night I don't know how many shots missed the net, but it was a lot. I think it is highly unproductive and that the coaching staff should address this lack of efficiency. Of course, goaltenders are hard to beat, but a shot that they don't have to block should be counted as a mistake, as much as a turn over IMO. The Habs are certainly not an offensive powerhouse, but they would do better if they hit the net more often when they have a good opportunity to shoot. That's not a very a complicated message to send to the players. Stop trying to hit a small spot, just shoot on the goal, and fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike Bossy was the guest yesterday night at Dave Morissette's show, after the game. The best scorer of all time IMO had some very interesting comments about the Habs and the game in general nowadays. He said that the goalers and the systems in place were the main reasons for the low scoring in the NHL. It's very difficult to score, because five players are defending the net almost all the time and that a large percentage of the shots are blocked or deflected.

The most interesting point however was that in his time his main objective when he was shooting was to hit the net. He did not really aim for any particular point, except maybe between the legs of the goaltender which is in the centre of the net anyway. He was extremely frustrated when he missed the net altogether.

Well, IMO Bossy has a good point, and one the coaches could learn from. Yesterday night I don't know how many shots missed the net, but it was a lot. I think it is highly unproductive and that the coaching staff should address this lack of efficiency. Of course, goaltenders are hard to beat, but a shot that they don't have to block should be counted as a mistake, as much as a turn over IMO. The Habs are certainly not an offensive powerhouse, but they would do better if they hit the net more often when they have a good opportunity to shoot. That's not a very a complicated message to send to the players. Stop trying to hit a small spot, just shoot on the goal, and fast.

The main reason why I don't give a ###### about Corsi/Fenwick and all that stuff.

Shot attempted, what a bullshit stat.

If your shot was blocked or misses the net, it means that you didn't take enough time to shoot and "tried" something. Not that you dominated the game cuz you took wide/blocked shots.

I'll take a 2 goals on 5 shots performance before a 1 goal on 50 shots performance everyday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that Joe, I agree completely. The advanced stats only say a little bit of what goes on in a hockey game, and are for the most part thrown out the window when the real season starts...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goalies are bigger now (e.g., Dryden was considered abnormally huge - he's Price's size); the equipment is better; and most importantly, goalies are now the beneficiaries of systematic coaching throughout their careers. That's the innovation that Roy inaugurated, really - scientifically approaching the position.

And none of this has anything to do with whether games are exciting. Last night's game against the Sharks was a humdinger. The score? 2-0. I've got many quarrels with the NHL, but the quality of the product isn't among them. (Anyway, look at scoring back in the pre-expansion era - nobody was getting 130 points. We've merely returned to the level of scoring that characterized the game when its quality of play was highest. What's wrong with that?).

This is indeed an interesting topic. Statistics have away of trumping themselves, just with the change of style of game. I have seen many games in the new era (last two years) that were quite frankly hard to watch. I am not sold on this new speed possession game as more exciting yet. I am looking forward to playoffs hoping for teams to ramp up so we can get an idea where this new style is heading. I want to see more body checking ,plain and simple, added to the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bossy also explained that in the NHL you can't take your time to shoot. If you do, the goalie has the time to cover the crease or a defenseman will interfere somehow with the shot. Your release has to be real fast. It's more instinctive than anything. Some players have the ability to hit the corners, but they have incredible ability and therefore are very few. Most of the guys in the NHL, IMO, should concentrate on shooting fast and hitting the net.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every nhler can hit the corners..if they have the time and space. Today's game has sped up so much that available time and space have been minimal. The snipers create space and find the open areas, and will shoot from anywhere. Idk whether it's instinct, luck, timing or what, but that certainly explains why snipers are so unique.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Stamkos, Ovechkin-types simply outthink opponents, have god given skills as well as the confidence to try toe-drag on anyone, or try to tuck puck into top corner from terrible angles.

And if they had of played in post-expansion 80s' they would of piled up some huge goal totals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goalies are bigger now (e.g., Dryden was considered abnormally huge - he's Price's size); the equipment is better; and most importantly, goalies are now the beneficiaries of systematic coaching throughout their careers. That's the innovation that Roy inaugurated, really - scientifically approaching the position.

I completely agree. Go back and take a look at goals that were scored in the 70's and 80's. The goalies sucked!!! Plain and simple. they would let these horrible shots go in. Ovechkin/Stamkos would have scored 100 goals per year had they played in the 70's and/or 80's!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll take a 2 goals on 5 shots performance before a 1 goal on 50 shots performance everyday.

But 5 shots means you spent the entire game in your own zone, relying on your defence and goaltending to keep you in the lead. Players will exhaust and break down faster. In a one goal in 50 shots situation, yes your scoring is anemic and if you don't get a shutout you're likely losing but you just put the pressure on them. That's why shots are paid attention to. The playoffs are all about pressure and endurance. One is a little more sustainable for success than the other.

Where I think Montreal doesn't get enough credit from the Internet on (but you hear it in every opposing player and coach talking about the Habs) is how dangerous our transition is and good of a job the team does in capitalizing mistakes. It's very hard to play a perfect game, it's more luck than skill, and Montreal knows how to make teams pay for their mistakes in the neutral zone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But 5 shots means you spent the entire game in your own zone, relying on your defence and goaltending to keep you in the lead. Players will exhaust and break down faster. In a one goal in 50 shots situation, yes your scoring is anemic and if you don't get a shutout you're likely losing but you just put the pressure on them. That's why shots are paid attention to. The playoffs are all about pressure and endurance. One is a little more sustainable for success than the other.

Where I think Montreal doesn't get enough credit from the Internet on (but you hear it in every opposing player and coach talking about the Habs) is how dangerous our transition is and good of a job the team does in capitalizing mistakes. It's very hard to play a perfect game, it's more luck than skill, and Montreal knows how to make teams pay for their mistakes in the neutral zone.

No, it doesn't. Could mean that you spent 30 minutes circling around the opposing net without taking any shot.

You can hit 50 shots by entering the zone and taking a wild slapshot at the goalie's chest as well.

Doesn't mean shit on scoring chances. Scoring chances is the ONLY indicator that matters, IMO. Shot attempted = bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't mean shit on scoring chances. Scoring chances is the ONLY indicator that matters, IMO. Shot attempted = bullshit.

It all matters, and that's the real crux of this. All of the statistics matter. It's about applying them properly and knowing what matters more than what. If you want an all or nothing then just say the score is all that matters. Especially since scoring chances are subjective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...