Riddle me this Batman: why haven't all of the rule changes implemented by the NHL over the last decade done anything to increase scoring and improve the flow of play?
I only ask because as I look back at many of the rule changes in North America's other three major sports, and the actions they've taken have all seemed to result in a more exciting game.
Who can argue that after the adoption of the three-point line, that NBA and College basketball wasn't improved? Can you imagine what things would look like today without it? It's much the same over in Baseball, where all of their changes, whether fans agreed with them or not, seemed to eventually work as advertised.
Not enough offense? MLB lowers the mound in time for the 1969 season, and then lets the American League adopt the Designated Hitter in 1973 (even if you hated it, you have to admit it worked as advertised). Not enough excitement down the stretch? Add the League Championship Series in 1969, expand it to best-of-seven in 1986, and re-align and add the Wild Card in 1994 (though it wasn't used until the following season after the strike that year).
Again, everything worked as advertised. But the best example has to be the NFL, where the league works every year to tweak the rules just so until they come out right. Let's take a look at just one example.
Back in the early 1990s, the NFL was getting more than a little concerned that kickers were having too much influence on the outcome of the game. Why? they just got better, booming kickoffs out of the end zone, and making field goals from beyond 50 yards with stunning regularity.
Bravo to the kickers, who through a combination of training and improved technique began to master their craft with stunning precision. But there was only one problem: Despite the drama inherent in a last second kick to win a game, watching somebody drop back deep and run back a kick or a punt across the length of the field is all the more exciting still.
So in time for the 1994 NFL season, the league introduced a whole bevy of changes to make life tougher for the kickers:
The starting point of all kickoffs will be the kicking teams 30 yard line (moved back 5 yards). Kickoff tees used can be no more than one inch in height (previously 3 inches) All field goals attempted and missed when the spot of the kick is beyond the 20 yard line, the defensive team taking possession will get the ball at the spot of the kick. On any field goal attempted and missed with the spot of the kick is on or inside the 20, the ball will go to the devensive team taking possession at the 20. The 11 players on the receiving team are prohibited from blocking below the waist during a play in which there is a kickoff, safety kick, punt, field goal attempt, or extra point kick with one exception: Immediately at the snap on these plays those defenders on the line of scrimmage lined up on or inside the normal tight end position can block low.
And there was much rejoicing in the land. But that wasn't all. After a few seasons, NFL HQ got wind of the news that kickers had figured out that if you keep a football warm, you can kick it a lot farther.
But before the 1999 season, all of that changed:
NFL rules regarding the handling of footballs during a game are specific.The home team provides all the footballs. For outdoor games, that's 36 footballs plus the 12 kicking or ''K-balls,'' which are stamped with a K.
The K-balls are sealed in a box by the manufacturer and opened by the game officials two hours before kickoff. Half the K-balls are kept on the home team sideline, half on the away team sideline.
One person on each sideline, wearing a vest with a large K, is designated to handle the K-balls. When it's time for a field-goal attempt, punt or kickoff, that person transfers a K-ball to an official.
For kicks by the home team, the K-ball is put into play from the visiting team's sideline. When the visiting team kicks, the K-ball comes from the home sideline.
The K-ball, which kickers say is harder and doesn't carry as far as a regular football, has been in use since the 1999 season. It was adopted to prevent kickers from doctoring footballs in order to improve distance and to keep kicking balls uniform from stadium to stadium.
The result: Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Dante Hall.
Now, tell me this, was watching Mr. Hall run back all those kicks and punts last year for touchdowns more or less exciting than a Jason Elam 60-yarder?
You better believe it, because the NFL knows exactly who it is the fans come out to see. And it protects those stars, and lets them perform to the best of their ability.
In contrast, this set of changes inaugurated before the 1998-99 NHL season are generally regarded as a failure. Add on top of that the consistent failure of referees to call obstruction penalties, and you're left with the boring clutch and grab fest that we have today?
What went wrong and why? Discuss.
Firstly, based on the study mentioned earlier, high scoring has a negative effect on attendance. Secondly, statistically, it appears competitive balance has a greater negative effect on goals/game averages than refereeing. The 1943-44 NHL season, because conscription in 1942 in Canada, directed 90 players to the war effort, was diluted and hardly competitive, at at until the playoffs. Montreal won 76%, (unheard of, but not unreasonable considering many suggest conscription was enforced ‘differently’ in Quebec) of their 50 games and the Rangers won only six. G/G averaged 8.17 in the regular season and PIM averaged 6.45/game. In comparison, in 1952-53 PIM rose to approx. 10 /game but G/G dropped precipitously to 4.9. A stats deviation of wins analysis in Excel, shows a league that was incredibly competitive. The Wings won 52% of their games with the Rangers winning 25%, (compared to 12% in 43-44), while finishing last. The Rodent also suggested obstruction entered the league in a big way in ’96, and indeed an analysis of three seasons post 96 saw PIM drop, on average, 5 per game. However, a stats dev analysis shows a significant increase in the league’s competitive balance. And this -
NHL FIGHTING MAJORS AND FIGHTING MAJORS PER GAME IN THE 1990s
Year Majors MPG
1990-91 1,519 1.81
1991-92 1,544 1.75
1992-93 1,257 1.25
1993-94 1,643 1.50
1994-95 997 1.60
1995-96 1,539 1.44
1996-97 1,793 1.68
1997-98 1,652 1.55
1998-99 1,309 1.18
1999-00 1,130 0.98
shows a significant decline in majors per game in the mid 90s, which may explain lower PIMs in the later 90s. In addition , the 50s, apparently, recorded 0.20 majors per game. It’s not definitive, however it appears a stronger competitve balance reduces scoring and that a lower majors/game factor reduces attendance.
Eric, you’re taking a lot of subjective value judgments and masquerading them as objective facts. For example, I question whether the three-point line “improved” basketball. It may have improved college basketball in that it allowed teams to shoot their way back from larger deficits, thus improving competitive parity. But I’m not convinced it substantially helped the NBA.
I have no statistical evidence to back this up…worse, I’ve watched less hockey each year since the Rangers won the Cup, so I’m pretty much talking out of my ass. But for me, the biggest mistake was getting rid of the offsides tag-up rule. There’s so much more flow to the game when guys can put themselves back onsides by leaving the zone and coming back in. No idea if that means more offense – but I think it means a better game.
People talk about scoring from around a decade ago, or let’s say 90-92. High scoring, most teams pretty fun to watch. When people ask about how we can get back there – one thing’s clear: start with the rules used back then and work from there. We now know the direction the game went in was wrong – and not just from a numbers game, but from a flow/excitement game. The NHL will not admit mistakes (until this year and declaring the old CBA a mistake); hopefully they can overcome that, just say things didn’t go as planned, and revert a few things.
If you want to go back to the “High scoring, most teams pretty fun to watch” early 90s, argue for a salary cap. Reducing salaries by 30% will dilute the NHL because European teams will provide competitve salaries. The Euros stay home and replacements, (undoubtedly less skilled) will fill their skates (effectively expansion) and historically when that happens G/G averages shoot up.
1. No visors or helmets unless you have had a concussion/eye injury
2. No third man in rule
3. No curve restrictions on sticks
4. New OT standings scoring: You win, you get 1 point only instead of 2; you lose, you LOSE a point; you TIE, both teams DEDUCT a point
5. Less teams=more talent per team
For one thing, reducing salaries by 30% will not allow any European teams to compete. Not even close. The average salary would go to $1.3 million. The average salary on any European team isn’t even close to that. Some mid-level talent in the NHL might be able to walk away from some good money (for them) over there. That’s about it. Only if one league actually has any sort of desire to actually try and start sinking continuous money into their league will they ever make a dent in what we have over here (can happen, it’s just not set up to now).
Anyway, that’s besides the point – you don’t need lopsided talent levels on teams to have a fun league to watch. Perhaps if you want really high scoring or a college football-like feel; but not a goal or two a game higher then it is now.
However, goals per game is not the NHL’s problem, as much as some want to blame it all on lack of offense. It’s flow. Competition between all the best athletes does not equal trap teams or a boring game; and that’s the main issue. The comparison to 10-15 years ago is an excitement-level one, not a numbers game.
Washingtonhockey.com suggest that about 54% of NHLers make $1m or less. Reduce that amount by 30% and its not impossible for European clubs (who pay their soccer players lots) to be competitive. The down side is that the IIHF get about $7.7m annually from the NHL based on supplying 60 players annually, so they may not wish to lose that tidy sum.
I have to agree with Seth about the off-sides rule. I have no numbers or anything, but I think the game seemed to flow better then. I also think the power play should not end when the team scores. Have the player serve the full penalty time, and maybe you would get less clutching and grabbing if the other team can put two or three goals on you during one power play.
-Nicanor
We can argue about this new rule or more enforcement of that old rule, but I think it’s pretty clear the NHL doesn’t want stars because stars cost too much. Push down the quality, push down the ability, push down the cost.
Hasn’t worked out too well for Mr. Bettman, but then he is the dumbest commisioner in sports history. It hasn’t worked out because sports is a closed system and adding more demand (teams) will push up the cost of the available supply. Dump 1/3 of the teams then there is less demand on the existing supply. The quality goes up, but the price doesn’t. They were too greedy in the 90′s to realize they were slitting there own throats. Now fans of small market teams, like me (go Sabres) have to worry each month about our teams meeting payroll. I’d rather worry about which young goalie is going to breakout and when all that young talent is going to gel. This isn’t sports, it’s like rooting for the local convient mart to beat Wal-Mart. No wonder I’ve drifted from the game.
The evidence shows the exact opposite, John. By any measure quality is up and so is player’s ability. Attendance is also up over the last decade and atendance increases are fueled by expansion. In 92-93 & 93-94 2 teams were added each season & attendance jumped 11 & 14%. Average attendance was down, which follows the general practice of expansion, but recovered by 93-94. In general attendance (and presumably revenues) are up since 90-91 62%. The stupidity or highly competitive nature (paying Federov $28m for three mos. work) lies at the feet of the owners not Bettman. The salary cap is to protect the owners from their own cavalier behaviour.
Charles – what they pay their soccer players has zero relation to what they may pay their hockey players. It’s all about popularity of the sport, obviously. However – what I’m saying is that just because it’s not probably today, doesn’t mean it’s not tomorrow. I just think it’ll take a rich Russian entrepreneur to make a real-paying league (for all players) happen.
Oh, and while I don’t feel like Googling at the moment, your presumption that revenues are up is correct. The NHL freely releases how their revenues have gone up tremendously over the past decade; but just insist that because of skyrocketing salaries, they’re still losing tons of money.
I also agree with the pack that one of the most important rules changes was the touch-up offsides rule; and luckily for us, it’s coming back (whenever we have a season).
E- I don’t see how the three-point shot improved pro basketball. Scoring is down as a result, teams don’t fast break because of the arc, and not everyone has the shot selection to know when not to shoot it (the latter could be said of college)
David, Probably you’re correct about the rich Russian (an oil tycoon perhaps), however salaries are not necessarily zero correlatable. It proves there is a viable market. Reviewing the salary table above it appears that a higher percentage of NHLers make up to the $5m salary level than NFLers, despite the fact the NFL is a much more popular league. The difference, it appears, is a salary cap. It is difficult to confirm exact profitability for NHL teams however this data suggest salaries have increased fourfold since 92-93.