R&D Camp

[skeeter14 0]

More often than not it's about trying to get to the shootout without giving up a goal and not scoring a goal to win.

I was just about to post the same....4 on 4 seems more like "playable-intermission-til-the-shootout-unless-someone-by-chance-scores".

[wrangler 157]

I'd also rather see the loser in OT get 0 points and loser in SO get 1 point, just because I don't think a "loser point" is appropriate, but at the same time losing in a shootout isn't really losing, in my eyes. It's a crappy way to end a game. But that's a whole other discussion, I suppose.

Then why give the shootout winner a point more than the shootout loser?

Doing that would take away any incentive for teams to try to win during overtime. The idea of giving the point at the end of regulation is that then the "extra" point is the incentive for teams to try to score during overtime. If a team has to make it through overtime tied before getting a point then nobody will try to score during overtime. They won't want to take the chance of losing in overtime and getting no points.

I agree. It's bad enough now, without further discouraging attempts to win in OT. And adding the third point to the pot for reaching OT creates the same situation in a tie game, when it's late in the third period. Teams can play to reach OT, with even more incentive (a guaranteed point) than they play in OT to reach shootout.

[Chadd 916]

I have no issue with the OT/Shootout loser getting a point, but a regulation winner should get three points. Having some games worth two points and others with three makes no sense to me at all.

[wrangler 157]

I hadn't thought about that alternative; at least there'd be the same number of points in the pot for each game, regardless of length, and how it's decided.

[CAmmon 2]

I have no issue with the OT/Shootout loser getting a point, but a regulation winner should get three points. Having some games worth two points and others with three makes no sense to me at all.

The loser points were put in to keep the standings close until the end of the season. While I agree with it, technically I want to see the overtime loss point go away but I digress, it goes against what the NHL wants and implemented the points for in the first place.

[Chadd 916]

The loser points were put in to keep the standings close until the end of the season. While I agree with it, technically I want to see the overtime loss point go away but I digress, it goes against what the NHL wants and implemented the points for in the first place.

I know why the NHL does it, I just think their reasoning sucks. They did change the tie breaker system to reward the teams that actually won in OT and shootouts and not just the ones that got there.

[TeamBlue96 3]

Some relevant R&D news -- NHL will be testing some sort of curved glass where the benches end and meets the rest of the boards. Basically, they're eliminating the giant pad there and using a closed piece of curved class. Same concept of having a puck deflect off a contoured/custom goalie mask instead of absorbing the brunt of impact.

Sounds interesting but i really want to see what it'll look like.

[pbhockey4 0]

Those new rules are brutal, the shorthanded team can now be called for icing? Stupid idea. I highly doubt any of those rules will actually make it to the NHL though.

I agree with the short handed team being called for icing thats kinda weird. But the mass teams tried it turns out it didnt work out so well.

[N00dl3 0]

All of these changes seem odd to me. The NHL just finished one of its most successful seasons in recent history, why go changing things now. The need to focus on keeping the game pure and not altering it to make it a spectacle for "casual fans". These changes seem as ludicrous as Fox's old lazer puck, which was designed to make the game better for casual fans.

Quoted for absolute truth.

The only change that might go into effect without really disrupting the game is rounding off the glass to eliminate bench turnbuckles.

Am I the only one already fearing Shanahan becoming Campbell 2.0?

My biggest frustration with every year is how the league pushes for more and more goals for the "fans" and disregards the fact that the same fans rip the goalies apart when they let up 6 goals in one game; the Catch 22 drives me absolutely mad. Personally, I'd rather watch an amazing 2-1 or 1-0 game than a mediocre 6-1 blowout.

[17D1998 1]

The thing is most 2-1 or 1-0 games are boring as hell and most 6-1 games are awesome (unless your team is the one that is losing, obviously)

[wrangler 157]

I find the close games far from boring; they keep me on the edge of my seat.

[17D1998 1]

That's cause the head coach of your fave team is not Jacques Martin ahah

[Apes44 7]

I like the full two mintues but the icing is a joke...why not just say you have to have a PK unit running on treadmills the whole game til a penalty then they can come kill the penalty! Or a penalty = goal, you'd get a few more 50 goal scorers!

[Chadd 916]

I like the full two mintues but the icing is a joke...why not just say you have to have a PK unit running on treadmills the whole game til a penalty then they can come kill the penalty! Or a penalty = goal, you'd get a few more 50 goal scorers!

And the gold medal for blowing things out of proportion is awarded to.....

[ibeck 38]

Shallower nets and the verification line seem to be whats going to be in the NHL next season.

[CAmmon 2]

Not sure I like shallower nets. I would try the clear plastic on the current nets for a season first if I was the NHL.

[dsjunior1388 81]

I think the point is being missed overall. This is testing, not absolute rule changes. The R&D camp is a lot of crazy ideas, maybe 5% of which will enter the game. Its a throw crap at the wall and see what sticks scenario, not a complete overhaul of the game. They've been doing this for several years and the game is still largley unchanged, just adjusted here and there.

I love that the NHL is willing to test out any and all ideas in this camp, willing to allow for the game to evolve. The agenda (force goal scoring) might be short sighted, but some of the ideas deserve a legitimate look, such as the changes to help with seeing goals in a video review, or the two many men on the ice box last year. Every year this camp is met with a "sky is falling" reaction when no drastic changes are really coming.

[bostonjuniorblackhawks 1]

I agree with the short handed team being called for icing thats kinda weird. But the mass teams tried it turns out it didnt work out so well.

I hated that

[ibeck 38]

Not sure I like shallower nets. I would try the clear plastic on the current nets for a season first if I was the NHL.

I like the idea. More room behind the net,players can be faster on wrap arounds. why o they have to be so big anyway, you know?

[Jason Harris 31]

Do you want to know why the NHL is experimenting with rule changes to possibly increase scoring? Here's why:

1968–69 Phil Esposito Boston Bruins 126

1969–70 Bobby Orr Boston Bruins 120

1970–71 Phil Esposito Boston Bruins 152

1971–72 Phil Esposito Boston Bruins 133

1972–73 Phil Esposito Boston Bruins 130

1973–74 Phil Esposito Boston Bruins 145

1974–75 Bobby Orr Boston Bruins 135

1975–76 Guy Lafleur Montreal Canadiens 125

1976–77 Guy Lafleur Montreal Canadiens 136

1977–78 Guy Lafleur Montreal Canadiens 132

1978–79 Bryan Trottier New York Islanders 134

1979–80 Marcel Dionne Los Angeles Kings 137

1980–81 Wayne Gretzky Edmonton Oilers 164

1981–82 Wayne Gretzky Edmonton Oilers 212

1982–83 Wayne Gretzky Edmonton Oilers 196

1983–84 Wayne Gretzky Edmonton Oilers 205

1984–85 Wayne Gretzky Edmonton Oilers 208

1985–86 Wayne Gretzky Edmonton Oilers 215

1986–87 Wayne Gretzky Edmonton Oilers 183

1987–88 Mario Lemieux Pittsburgh Penguins 168

1988–89 Mario Lemieux Pittsburgh Penguins 199

1989–90 Wayne Gretzky Los Angeles Kings 142

1990–91 Wayne Gretzky Los Angeles Kings 163

1991–92 Mario Lemieux Pittsburgh Penguins 131

1992–93 Mario Lemieux Pittsburgh Penguins 160

1993–94 Wayne Gretzky Los Angeles Kings 130

1995–96 Mario Lemieux Pittsburgh Penguins 161

1996–97 Mario Lemieux Pittsburgh Penguins 122

1997–98 Jaromir Jagr Pittsburgh Penguins 102

1998–99 Jaromir Jagr Pittsburgh Penguins 127

1999–00 Jaromir Jagr Pittsburgh Penguins 96

2000–01 Jaromir Jagr Pittsburgh Penguins 121

2001–02 Jarome Iginla Calgary Flames 96

2002–03 Peter Forsberg Colorado Avalanche 106

2003–04 Martin St. Louis Tampa Bay Lightning 94

2005–06 Joe Thornton Boston Bruins / San Jose Sharks 125

2006–07 Sidney Crosby Pittsburgh Penguins 120

2007–08 Alexandre Ovechkin Washington Capitals 112

2008–09 Evgeni Malkin Pittsburgh Penguins 113

2009–10 Henrik Sedin Vancouver Canucks 112

2010–11 Daniel Sedin Vancouver Canucks 104

Only three seasons in the past thirteen years exceeded Orr's 120 points in 1970, and the highest of those three was Jagr's 127 points in 98-99.

1) REMOVING TRAPEZOID BEHIND NET:

Like it. It never should have been put in because it penalizes teams whose goalies are great puck handlers.

2) AFTER OFFSIDE, FACE-OFF GOES BACK TO OFFENDING TEAM'S END / NO LINE CHANGE FOR TEAM COMMITTING AN OFFSIDE:

Don't like them. Sure, some off-sides are blatant, but sometimes they're an inch off-sides; that's too big a deterrent for something so close.

3) IN-NET GOAL LINE CAMERA:

Love it. This is a no-brainer, because it should actually help speed up those times when they are reviewing goals.

4) OVERTIME VARIATION: FOUR MINUTES OF 4-ON-4 FOLLOWED BY THREE MINUTES OF 3-ON-3:

Don't think I like it. It's obvious their intention is to have more wins while playing a semblance of the game, as well as have better effort for teams playing for the win, but I think there's a much cleaner way to accomplish this. Give three points for a regulation win, two for winning in OT or shootout, and one for reaching but losing in OT or shootout. And if you want to be even more radical, maybe have two for OT win, one-and-a-half for a shootout win, and one for reaching yet losing in OT. I've said it before, but once teams are in a playoff push they won't coast at the end of a game to make sure they pick up one point; they'll go all out to try to win the three points, because they might need to make up twelve points in eight games.

5) NO ICING PERMITTED WHILE SHORTHANDED:

Absolutely love this! I've never understood why the NHL went easy on teams that committed infractions. "We know you tripped that guy, but we feel kind of guilty about having to call a penalty on you, so we'll go easy on you by allowing you to ice it during the next two minutes." Requiring teams to have to carry the puck out puts a greater onus on skill than the current rules do. Yet those teams that don't have as much skill will suffer the true penalty of committing infractions -- giving up more goals. Finally, an increase in goals scored on power plays might lead to less penalties committed, which in theory leads to more scoring opportunities in even strength play.

[goaliemanshark 6]

That's what happens when goalie come up with a goal tending style that works really freaking well.

Also if you went through all that effort to copy pasta the point totals why not do it to the current years so its easy to compare?

[mhkehoe 1]

5) NO ICING PERMITTED WHILE SHORTHANDED:

Absolutely love this! I've never understood why the NHL went easy on teams that committed infractions. "We know you tripped that guy, but we feel kind of guilty about having to call a penalty on you, so we'll go easy on you by allowing you to ice it during the next two minutes." Requiring teams to have to carry the puck out puts a greater onus on skill than the current rules do. Yet those teams that don't have as much skill will suffer the true penalty of committing infractions -- giving up more goals. Finally, an increase in goals scored on power plays might lead to less penalties committed, which in theory leads to more scoring opportunities in even strength play.

I also found this rule a little off, especially considering that the team on the PP is still forced to obey the icing rule as well as offsides. It basically forces the offensive team to dump the puck in because there is no room to skate in, and then the PK unit can clear the puck if the dump isn't successful. Removing offsides for the offensive team could also make things interesting, but I think the d-man's responsibility to keep the puck in the zone creates a lot of entertaining chaos with breakaways that lead to short handed goals.

[tiax 0]

I think the low scoring games are better overall. It keeps the games close and puts more emphasis on making good plays every time. I would like to see the nets get changed though. Allowing more room to skate and make places s hard to imagine being a bad thing.

[Chadd 916]

I think the low scoring games are better overall.

It depends on what keeps the score low. If it's holding and hooking, that doesn't make anything better.

A lot of people are under the misconception that it's about creating scoring, it isn't. It's about creating scoring opportunities. Goalies making 40 saves in a game, tends to be way more exciting than goalies making 12 saves a game.

[Jason Harris 31]

Also if you went through all that effort to copy pasta the point totals why not do it to the current years so its easy to compare?

Sorry, you're right, I should have posted all the years! I've added the remaining years to the list.

I also found this rule a little off, especially considering that the team on the PP is still forced to obey the icing rule as well as offsides. It basically forces the offensive team to dump the puck in because there is no room to skate in, and then the PK unit can clear the puck if the dump isn't successful. Removing offsides for the offensive team could also make things interesting, but I think the d-man's responsibility to keep the puck in the zone creates a lot of entertaining chaos with breakaways that lead to short handed goals.

I read Shanahan said something similar regarding shorthanded goals could increase, although he thought it might come from having more highly skilled players on the PK.

I think the low scoring games are better overall. It keeps the games close and puts more emphasis on making good plays every time. I would like to see the nets get changed though. Allowing more room to skate and make places s hard to imagine being a bad thing.

The low scoring games from the turn of the century weren't from goalies standing on their heads as much as they were defensive systems that stifled scoring opportunities. That's why the NHL made some of their rule changes after the lockout, including the emphasis to call the rules as they are written. They knew they were losing fans due to games that lacked passion, such as 14-12 shot snooze fests.