When I started watching the NFL as a wee lad of 12 or so, there were no (as in 'zero', 'none') 300lb players. It was unheard of.
In 1989 Canadian born offensive lineman Tony Mandarich a 6'5" 310 behemoth was picked 2nd overall by the Packers - ahead of hall of famers Troy Aikman and Barry Sanders. He was considered to be a freak of nature (later revealed to be a steroid user) to be so massive and yet so athletic.
Last year in the NFL roughly a third (10 or so players) in just the first round were over 300lbs, including 6'5" 331lb Mike Iaputi.
What's been clear all along is that there is an evolutionary pressure on the NFL to produce bigger and stronger and heavier linemen, and the results have been a dramatic increase in the size of the players.
Its long been obvious that the size of the players in the NHL was also getting bigger. I recall a lot of coke-machine drafts where certain teams (Islanders) didn't select players under 6'2", and a super-heavyweight of players was emerging lead by poster-child Eric Lindros.
As an aside, one of these swift skating refrigerators (Shawn Antoski) so enticed the Pittsburgh Penguins they traded their slower footed merely average sized Euro winger for him (Marcus Naslund).
But what is interesting to me about Mirtle's math is that while this instinct regarding players is true - they are an inch or so bigger on average and a few pounds heavier, the real difference in growth is in goal where the players are 3 inches taller and 20lbs heavier.
I had long thought that the problem with the drop in scoring in the league was largely the result of three factors:
1. Improvements in Coaching, but more specifically, the 'Trap'. I recall vividly that the 'Canadian' way of playing hockey was characterized by liberal use of a two-man forecheck that was expected to hound the other team in their own zone, and lead to big hits, lots of turnovers, breakaways, and all-round exciting hockey. Think 1987 Canada Cup.
Then I recall the Polish Olympic team playing a 1-2-2 style that was deadly dull, but helped them to build on their only strength (Peter Sidorkiewicz?) goaltending, and to throttle other teams until a powerplay would help them to get some offense going. Not long after, the 'Trap' seemed to be everywhere in the NHL.
In particular, there was one year we all watched in agony as Anaheim and Detroit trapped each other into Kafkaesque multiple overtime scoreless draw - and the fruition of this coaching tactic reached its absurd singularity where like a black hole, nothing, no scoring of any kind could escape.
2. The increase in quality of player at the mid/bottom of the roster. Ponderous thugs, guys who can't skate backwards, even one dimensional offensive players (the current exception being Robbie Schremp) are all but a thing of the past. Nowadays a teams fourth line is much more likely to have a high-energy checker who is safe in his own zone than a cement footed grunt who has trouble with his pivots.
- Goaltending pads. Here is Patrick Roy around the time he entered the league.
In particular note:
- Leather pads that get heavier as the game goes on
- Size of his catching mit
- Size of his stick
- Size of his blocker
- Size of his helmet
- Width of Roy's shoulders
Compare it to this:
This is what Roy looked like at the end of his career. Go figure that the older Roy got, the better his stats got. Were his reflexes better? His positioning? No, he was just 10% bigger everywhere and wearing gear that was 50% lighter than when he began his career.
Now these are to some degree all still factors. But Mirtle's point about the increase in size for goaltenders is still troubling to me.
There appears to me to be no point in complaining that the bottom end roster guys are more capable than they were 20 years ago even if it does stifle offense.
Similarly, I simply don't see anyone ever making the Trap illegal. It will always make periodic sense for coaches to want to play defensively, so even if it is way overused, it isn't going anywhere.
So with those two options all but moot, I have long suggested that goaltending pads be reduced to 1980 levels (and I think they should all use wood sticks too, but I digress), but if goaltenders aren't just getting bigger because of the pads - but because they are actually being selected for their massive frames, reducing the pads isn't going to make all that much more net available.
Nor will making the nets bigger necessarily change things (though scoring would go up in the short term) - afterall, that could just increase the selective pressure for bigger goaltenders even more.
How do we find a way to make more net available before every netminder is the NHL version of Mike Iaputi?
1 comment:
I think the size of the pads has played a huge factor personally. I lok in particular at Roy's glove. As a skater coming in it's tough to imagine spaces around that thing to shoot at let alone score. I know they can still be beat but Looking at the difference I think the glove is a huge factor in stopping far more shots.
the blocker shares the same issue but to my mind a lesser degree. I think the blocker is more a foctor of more goalies being better at using it. Although most goealies leave less space on that side to compensate for their blocker not being as good as their glove.
The leg pads are crazy how much of a difference there is. I can only imagine what some of the greats from past ages of hockey (what I wouldn't give to see Glenn Hall in modern pads, I'm not sure he would ever be scored on) would have done with equipment like that they are wearing today.
Size of players is also a factor though as you said. If the players are that much bigger of course they are going to cover that much more of the net, making that much more difficult to score. I don't really like the idea of making the nets bigger but if the size of goalies keeps increasing what are our other options? That being said there have been some games this year where scoring doesn't seem to be an issue at all. Not an easy question but fun to discuss!
Post a Comment