A modest proposal

The NHL needs to expand the ice surface. I know I just touched on this in my last entry, but I've done some of the math and I just don't see any reason not to.

Obviously, the main reason the league has yet to adopt the IIHF standard for rink size is the simple fact that all the rinks currently in use have already been built to NHL standards, and it would be costly (and probaly not possible in some cases) to refit 30 stadiums with larger rinks. Many people fail to realize, though, that the cost would be offset by the (in theory, at least) increased ticket sales resulting from a larger number of front row seats. By widening the rink by twelve feet and lengthening it by ten, the total increase in size of the perimeter of the rink would be 44 feet. Assuming that, at the front, there is one seat for every two feet along the boards (a pure guess, but it sounds right enough), that is an extra 22 front row seats. I once had the pleasure of recieving one of these VIP seats to a Capitals game, and the price printed on the ticket was staggering ($200 per seat). So let's do some quick math:

22 new seats x $200 x 41 home games = $180,400. Per year.

This is assuming there are no price increases, as well as assuming that the size of the second and third rows are not increased. Once you take into account that the people sitting in those front row seats are more likely to spend alot of money at the concession stands, the overall value of the increased rink size becomes even more apparent. Especially since I haven't even mentioned the playoffs yet, or the fact that the Capitals are toward the lower end of the league in terms of ticket prices. I would guess that the real financial benefit would be at least double that.

Four man hockey

Thanks to the ArmchairGM blogroll, I came across this.

Personally, I'm not a fan of going to four-on-four full time. But, reading that article, I feel like I could probably be swayed. There can be no question that blocked shots have been a recurring theme in this year's playoffs, and I hadn't noticed the so-called "Playing-Card Five" that was causing it.

Unfortunately, it'll probably never happen. First of all, the players union would likely never allow it, as I'm assuming that reducing the number of players on the ice also would mean reducing the number of players on the roster (I, on the other hand, am all for decreasing roster size to increase the average amount of talent on the ice at any given time). Second of all, I don't think Gary Bettman can be trusted to not screw up. It took him ten years and a season-cancelling lockout to finally adequately deal with the neutral-zone trap. I won't even mention the fact that expanding the size of the ice surface to standard international rules would open up the ice probably as much as taking a guy off the ice, because there's no way in hell Bettman will ever be able to pull that off (I'm not sure anyone could, in spite of the fact that a larger ice surface equals a larger perimeter equals more front row (i.e. $$$) seats).

Goaltending. Goaltending. Goaltending.

The three teams to advance to the third round in the NHL Playoffs so far? Anaheim, Buffalo and Carolina. Their respective starting goaltenders? Ilya Bryzgalov, Ryan Miller and Cam Ward. If you've never heard of any of them, you're not alone. Between them they had, before the start of the postseason, a grand total of zero (0) playoff games under their belts. Zero. In the one series that is still undecided, Vesa Toskala is in the same boat, having been on the bench behing Evgeni Nabokov in 2004. Dwayne Roloson is the only remaining goaltender with any previous playoff experience (just fifteen appearances for a 6-7 record). So, should San Jose prevail in their series, it will leave us with four goalies who had never played a playoff game in their careers. This is a big deal. This means something. I'm just not sure what. It could just mean that the one year layoff resulted in an extra large group of extra talented young goalies. 2005-06 has already been dubbed "The Year of the Rookie" and this could perhaps be an extension of that. Or...

Or it could be an indication of how little impact the goaltender has on the game in the new NHL.With all the added focus on offense, all the new rules meant to reduce goalies' abilties to stop the puck (not to mention the Martin Brodeur rule) and the long overdue crackdown on obstruction, has the position of goaltender in the NHL been rendered obsolete? It used to be, there would always be at least one team that would grab the coattails of a hot goaltender ('98 Capitals and Olie Kolzig, '03 Mighty Ducks and J.S. Giguere, '04 Flames and Mikka Kiprusoff) and I just don't see it this year. Bryzgalov has certainly been excellent, but he has not really been the key to Anaheim's success. The starting goaltenders for the last five cup-winning teams? Nikolai Khabibulin in 2004, Martin Brodeur (twice: 2000 and 2003), Patrick Roy (2001) and Dominik Hasek (2002). You have to go back to 1998 when the Detroit Red Wings won it with Chris Osgood at the helm to find a situation similar to what we'll see a few weeks from now. And before that it was Mike Vernon, Brodeur, Roy twice and Mike Richter.

I'd like to think that this is a changing of the guard of sorts, as most of the goalies listed above are now retired (or in Hasek's case, a hobbled, crippled version of his former self). Looking at the league, there is really nobody left other than Brodeur that has any sort of history of success, so I suppose this may have been bound to happen. The only problem is that none of the goalies currently alive have been all that impressive, in my opinion. I view Bryzgalov's success as more of an abberation than an indicator of how he'll continue to play. Miller, Ward and Toskala have all benfited from prolific offenses, while Roloson has, in Edmonton, what I think is the best defensive team still playing.

Granted, one year is only a small sampling. It may be too early to draw any sort of conclusions. So far, though, it seems to me that in the new NHL, goalies just don't matter as much as they used to.

EDIT: Four goals in the first five minutes of the third period of Edmonton-San Jose. See?

7-6 vs 2-1

With both series entering into their second game tonight, I ask you, my valued reader(s), which you think was more exciting? The 7-6 Game 1 in Ottawa, or the 2-1 Game 1 in San Jose?

I wish I had been able to see the Buffalo-Ottawa game, so as to adequately compare and contrast the two games. Obviously, the game up in Ottawa was an example of everything Gary Bettman wants to see from the post-lockout NHL. I noticed in the Edmonton-San Jose game, though, that the officials were letting play go alot more than I had previously seen in this year's playoffs. As a result, the game had more of a pre-lockout, hard nosed, classic NHL Playoffs feel to it, and I loved every minute of it. The die-hard hockey fan in me keeps telling me that this is how the game was meant to be played. Not that there's anything wrong with a game that features 13 goals, but the thing I've always loved about hockey is that every goal carries so much weight. Used to be, in hockey, a one goal lead was a big deal, far more than a one run lead would be in baseball, or a seven point lead in football. (Don't even get me started on basketball.) I fear that if the NHL turns into a league where every game features double-digit goal totals, the importance of a single goal will be significantly diminished and, as a result, some of the excitement will be lost.