Abolishing the Trap

[foodfight]

OK, I have just discovered your site, and I am very impressed with all the intelligent and well thought out arguments. Hopefully, I don't ruin everything...... ;D

The NHL should impose a 2% payroll tax on all teams, and combine all of this money into a pool. The team that has scored the most goals at the end of the season gets the money. If the average team payroll was $40 million, the pool would contain $24 million. This would cause the owners to put pressure on a GM to generate more offense. It's obvious that coachs implement defense-first strategies, because they're easy to teach. Coachs will not change their defense-first strategy unless pressured to do so by the GM. Coachs will always find ways around rule changes, like 4 on 4, there has to be a change in philosophy. We all know that the owners would charge the fans for this increase, but a $100 admission would then be $102 - not too bad. This probably would not abolish the trap, but maybe NJ wouldn't have sat on a 2 goal lead the other night against Montreal. How boring was that game? Of course, this would only work if a salary cap was in place to keep the increasing cost of a goal scorer down to a level where most teams could afford them.

I'm sure this subject was probably debated to death previously, but I would like to hear intelligent viewpoints on this idea. I apologize if someone has brought this idea up before.

[BadCompany]

see next post for summary, if you don't feel like wading through a million words.

Welcome aboard!

That's an interesting suggestion, one that I have never heard before. I wonder though, would it lead to a downward spiral? If, say, the Colorado Avalanche score the most goals, and they "win" the extra $24 million, wouldn't they then be able to just buy more offensive players, meaning they would win the pool again the year after, and the year after?

I also don't think you could do that with a salary cap, as it would mean that the owners would be pocketing an extra $24 million that they then wouldn't have to (or wouldn't be able to) give back to the players. If there is a cap at $40 million, and the Avs are at $40 million, and they win the pool, then the Avs owner gets a free $24 million (or whatever), off of the player's backs. Sort of unfair, that the players do all the work, and the owner reaps the financial windfall.

But I think there is room to work there. There SHOULD be some sort of incentive to play a more offensive style of play. Personally, I am sceptical that a salary cap will ever be implemented, and I think its a mistake for some owners to insist on having one, leaving themselves no room for manouverability. So lets assume there is NO salary cap. In that case, your idea would work. But I would expand it to include the top 10 offensive teams, and I would offer additional rewards, like draft picks, or something.

Say every team ponies up $2 million at the beginning of the year - that would make $60 million available, no? How about changing the Rocket Richard Trophy for most goals to a cash bonus? The player with the most goals, receives $10 million from the league. The next highest player receives $ 5 million, then $3 million, then $2 million. So of the $60 million collected every year, $20 million would go to the best offensive players.

Then, divide the remaining $40 million amongst the top offensive teams.

First team: $10 million
Second team: $7 million
Third team: $6 million
Fourth team: $5 million
Fifth team: $4 million
Sixth team: $3 million
Seventh team: $2 million
Eighth team: $1 million
Ninth team: $1 million
Tenth team: $1 million

If a team finishes in the top seven, offensively, they "win" back the $2 million they initially paid out at the beginning of the year.

Then, just to balance things out, I would reward the team with the best defensive play, with draft picks. The team that wins the Jennings Trophy, for fewest goals allowed, gets a 1st round draft pick, 10th overall. Second team gets the 20th pick. Third team get the final pick in the 1st round (which I guess would be 33rd overall). My logic is this - first round draft picks - or at least the majority anyways, are usually spent on players with high upside. Usually, this means high "offensive" upside. If you look at last year's draft, at least 20 of the 30 players chosen in the first round were chosen because their teams thought they had offensive talent. Maybe 25 players. So, in an ironic twist, a "defensive" team is rewarded with draft picks, which they would probably use to draft an "offensive" player.

[BadCompany]

To summarize:

* Every team ponies up $2 million at the beginning of year. You have to ante up to play poker, why not to play NHL games?

* That money is then awarded on a reward basis, to both the players and owners, two-thirds to the top ten offensive teams, one third to the top 3-4 offensive players (either in terms of goals, or total points).

* Defensive teams are rewarded with 1st round draft picks, which can then be used to draft offensive players, perhaps breaking the vicious cycle.

[The Habitual Fan]

The bottom line is still to win the Stanley Cup. I like the idea, but generally there are only a few teams that will finish in the top of scoring, so if you know you don't have the offensive players to be one of those teams you play harder defense and try to shut the other teams down and win the game.
Also if your a team with money problems (Buffalo) or just looking to make money (Toronto) then you load up on offensive players but really don't care is you lose 7-6 every night.
You could be out of the playoff picture by every Christmas, but be making moneywith no incentive to improve.
A team like Atlanta with good young offensive players could tank every season but score a ton of goals and still make money, and thenget to pick the top offensive prospect in the draft.

[Goldthorpe]

I'm all for changes to make the game more offensive, but I don't think money "rewards" for offensive minded players/team are the solution.

[Montrealer]

-Make the nets larger, to account for the fact goalies and their equipment are much bigger today than in the 1920s.
-Allow two-line passes, and keep the red line for icing only.
-Whistle icings as soon as they cross the goal line.
-Allow touch-up offside waving, so teams trapped in the offensive zone can put themselves onside easily and join the play.
-Make the blue line 'thicker' (as tried in the AHL) to allow so-called "borderline" entries into the offensive zone now whistled to become allowed.

[BadCompany]

The said:

The bottom line is still to win the Stanley Cup. I like the idea, but generally there are only a few teams that will finish in the top of scoring, so if you know you don't have the offensive players to be one of those teams you play harder defense and try to shut the other teams down and win the game.
Also if your a team with money problems (Buffalo) or just looking to make money (Toronto) then you load up on offensive players but really don't care is you lose 7-6 every night.
You could be out of the playoff picture by every Christmas, but be making moneywith no incentive to improve.
A team like Atlanta with good young offensive players could tank every season but score a ton of goals and still make money, and thenget to pick the top offensive prospect in the draft.

League parity has actually made the possibility of “winning” one of these rewards rather high. For example, Montreal knows they can’t compete offensively with a powerhouse like the Avs, but top ten in the league? Hey, that’s doable. Currently, Montreal sits a mere 7 goals behind Los Angeles, occupying the 10th spot. 7 more goals, and Montreal wins a cash reward. Ten other teams are within 12 goals of the top ten. That means 20 NHL teams have a legitimate shot of finishing within the top 10, and winning some money.

In the goals against department, New Jersey, Ottawa and Calgary would “win” the draft picks. But 7 other teams are within striking distance (10 goals or less). So another 10 teams would be in that hunt. If you were to expand the reward, to the top ten defensive teams, then an additional 10 teams would be within 13 goals. So 20 teams would have a shot a finishing in the top 10, defensively.

The chances of Montreal finishing first in either the offensive, or defensive category, range from slim to none. And slim has been reading a lot of Atkins propaganda. But the chances of Montreal finishing in the top 10 in either category are actually quite good. As they are for just about every other team. Will it mean wholesale changes in the way the game is coached? Of course not. But maybe it will make a difference here and there. Baby steps.

Goldthorpe said:

I'm all for changes to make the game more offensive, but I don't think money "rewards" for offensive minded players/team are the solution.

Why not?

Montrealer said:

-Make the nets larger, to account for the fact goalies and their equipment are much bigger today than in the 1920s.
-Allow two-line passes, and keep the red line for icing only.
-Whistle icings as soon as they cross the goal line.
-Allow touch-up offside waving, so teams trapped in the offensive zone can put themselves onside easily and join the play.
-Make the blue line 'thicker' (as tried in the AHL) to allow so-called "borderline" entries into the offensive zone now whistled to become allowed.

There is nothing that says those changes can't be made in conjunction with foodfight's idea (though I don't like the red line one).

[Polarice]

The reason teams trap is to level the playing feild. Teams that cannot afford to spend the big money on the big players have to hire the mid level players. In order to compete with these guys, you have to slow them down, that means you use a trap like system.

This system has been around since the start of hockey.
Some of the best teams in hockey used it and they will always use it.

[Montrealer]

BadCompany said:

There is nothing that says those changes can't be made in conjunction with foodfight's idea (though I don't like the red line one).

True enough, and I should mention that after thinking about it some more I for one like both his initial idea and your distilling of the idea into a Top Ten sort of competition... Good stuff.

I'm glad the one change I mention that you didn't like was the red line... I like that one because it would effectively neutralize any trap from functioning properly, but I realize it's a big change (bigger than simply enlarging the nets IMHO.

PS> foodfight, Great first post. Welcome to HabsRUs!

[foodfight]

That is why a salary cap would have to be in place for this lottery to work. A higher demand for goal scorers would theoretically drive their price up; teams would only be able to sign so many. Winning the lottery would not enable an owner to buy more goal scorers because of the financial restriction of the cap.

The league said it would try to open up the game by calling interference/obstruction. They lied !!!!! lol

Why not reward owners who place pressure on their management team for more offense. In my scenario, the owners would pocket the money - the players wouldn't get squat.

[BadCompany]

Montrealer said:

True enough, and I should mention that after thinking about it some more I for one like both his initial idea and your distilling of the idea into a Top Ten sort of competition... Good stuff.

I'm glad the one change I mention that you didn't like was the red line... I like that one because it would effectively neutralize any trap from functioning properly, but I realize it's a big change (bigger than simply enlarging the nets IMHO.

PS> foodfight, Great first post. Welcome to HabsRUs!

Some say it would abolish the trap, others say it increases the trap. While its true that some form of trap has been around forever, the current version of it actually comes from Europe, where of course, they have no red line. In fact, European teams started implementing the trap to STOP the two-line passes that came from not having a red line. If you look at European league statistics, they are actually MORE defensive than the NHL!

As I said though, its extremely debatable, and by people who would seem to have much more hockey knowledge than us. Pierre MacGuire, former, NHL coach, thinks removing the red line would eliminate the trap. Ken Hitchcok, a current NHL coach, thinks it would increase the trap. The current edition of the Hockey News asks NHL players whether or not they would eliminate the red line, and the majority of them said no (though it was close). I don’t have the stats in front of me, but I think it was 60-40 against. Oleg Tverdovsky, in a Russian interview, said having no red line was a bad thing (see the non-hockey board for the actual quote). Another NHL player (sorry, can’t remember who, but its in the Hockey News) said it would be a good thing.

I used to think removing the red line would be a good thing, until I played in a league that actually had that rule. Contrary to popular belief, it just moves the trap back one zone. Worse, and as Tverdovsky points out, it virtually eliminates any offense from the defense. Players aren’t stupid, and if they know there is a chance for a home-run pass up the middle, they will guard against it. Meaning that defenseman can’t hold the blueline in the offensive zone, they have to retreat and guard against the break-away. Defensemen can’t pinch, because the results would be disastrous.

As foodfight says, there has to be a change in philosophy. Eliminating the trap would just make coaches like Jacques Lemaire come up with a different type of trap. Right now, they all think “defense” first, and until that changes, rule changes like this won’t work.

foodfight said:

That is why a salary cap would have to be in place for this lottery to work. A higher demand for goal scorers would theoretically drive their price up; teams would only be able to sign so many. Winning the lottery would not enable an owner to buy more goal scorers because of the financial restriction of the cap.

The league said it would try to open up the game by calling interference/obstruction. They lied !!!!! lol

Why not reward owners who place pressure on their management team for more offense. In my scenario, the owners would pocket the money - the players wouldn't get squat.

Well, you have to give the players something, otherwise they won't go for it. And since this would have to be negotiated into the new CBA, you would have to give the players a piece of the pie.

As for the salary cap, you are then still stuck with the same problem - a team at $40 million can't spend more money, no matter how much they win. That would mean the money goes directly into the owner's pocket, which the players would never agree to. It wasn't so long ago that this was the norm, owners getting rich on players backs, and the players haven't forgotten...

[Goldthorpe]

BadCompany said:

Why not?

Simply put, because by rewarding in cash teams that follow a certain "style" of play, we are entering dangerous ground. Hockey is a sport, and winning should be all that matters, not some monetary advantage.

For example, let say that a team badly in need of cash choose to trade all their defense for top scorers, become an offensive powerhouse, lose all their game because they get trounced defensively, but still get their monetary compensation because of their high scoring output, even if they basically suck on ice. Would that scenario be a good thing for the sport and for the spectacle?

The trap may be a problem, but peoples are forgetting that teams use it because it actually works. Defensive-minded teams are generally better than offensive one. Defensive-minded teams win championships.

The trick to stop the trap is to change the odds on the ice. Game rules changes should be made so that it is no longer advantageous to follow a defensive-minded strategy. The teams will then follow naturally, because it's in their business to win.

I agree that the monetary-reward idea COULD work, but I just think it's too risky and could bring its whole share of troubles. I believe there are other avenues that we should try before doing something like that.

I've been trying for a while to put all that into some kind of game-theory system, and I'm pretty sure it would give an interesting insight on the problem and the possible solutions.

[insomnius]

What about an illegal defence call?

If a team sets up in a formation like the trap, then the play is called and a face-off takes place in the defensive zone of the team trying to trap...

[foodfight]

Sorry Bad Co, I just read your posts. Great ideas!! Thanks for the welcome guys.

[Goldthorpe]

Insomnius said:

What about an illegal defence call?

If a team sets up in a formation like the trap, then the play is called and a face-off takes place in the defensive zone of the team trying to trap...

I'm not sure, but I think it is the way the NBA handle zone coverage. Mind you, I don't know Jack about basketball, so I might be wrong.

But the problem with this concept is: how do you define "the trap"? How can you objectively tell if a team is doing the trap or simply "happen" to be in specific position on the ice?

Maybe we could limit the number of players in the same zone. The rule could say "no more than 4 (or 3?) players from the same team in the neutral zone at the same time" or something similar.

[BadCompany]

Goldthorpe said:

Simply put, because by rewarding in cash teams that follow a certain "style" of play, we are entering dangerous ground. Hockey is a sport, and winning should be all that matters, not some monetary advantage.

For example, let say that a team badly in need of cash choose to trade all their defense for top scorers, become an offensive powerhouse, lose all their game because they get trounced defensively, but still get their monetary compensation because of their high scoring output, even if they basically suck on ice. Would that scenario be a good thing for the sport and for the spectacle?

The trap may be a problem, but peoples are forgetting that teams use it because it actually works. Defensive-minded teams are generally better than offensive one. Defensive-minded teams win championships.

The trick to stop the trap is to change the odds on the ice. Game rules changes should be made so that it is no longer advantageous to follow a defensive-minded strategy. The teams will then follow naturally, because it's in their business to win.

I agree that the monetary-reward idea COULD work, but I just think it's too risky and could bring its whole share of troubles. I believe there are other avenues that we should try before doing something like that.

I've been trying for a while to put all that into some kind of game-theory system, and I'm pretty sure it would give an interesting insight on the problem and the possible solutions.

I have to disagree. The monetary reward, while nice, is nowhere close to being enough to compensate for not making the playoffs. $10 million is what? 5 home playoff games? If a team makes the playoffs, they would make the same amount of money as the 2nd - 10th offensive teams. So just making the playoffs, just "winning" would be more of an incentive than trying to obtain the financial reward for just being offensive. A team that sucks big time, would end up making LESS money than a team that makes the playoffs even if that sucky team wins the offensive bonus.

Plus, there is nothing that says offensive-minded teams can't actually win. The Avs certainly don't seem to think so. The top 5 offensive teams last year were Detroit, Vancouver, Ottawa, St. Louis and Colorado. All powerhouses, with Cup ambitions.

It would be very hard for a team to tank a season, and still finish 1st offensively. Finishing second in the lottery isn't worth it, as just making the playoffs would equal your offensive bonus. It would have to be first, or nothing. Chances are, if a team has a ton of offensive talent, and is scoring a ton of goals, they are going to win a lot of games. Only one of the top 10 offensive teams last year didn't make the playoffs (Atlanta).

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Welcome aboard foodfight! Provocative first post.

Hmmm, I enjoy gazing into the fog of the future as much as the next pundit, but perhaps in carefully examining the past a cure for what ails the game can be uncovered.

Was the game *ever* satisfactory as an entertainment vehicle? If so, during what time period(s), and what made it a worthy spectacle then? How can those elements be successfully reintroduced to the benefit of the game?

[insomnius]

Goldthorpe said:

I'm not sure, but I think it is the way the NBA handle zone coverage. Mind you, I don't know Jack about basketball, so I might be wrong. It used to be that way. They are moving in the opposite direction of the NHL. But for a long time, a zone defense was illegal in the NBA and was cause to lose possession of the ball.

But the problem with this concept is: how do you define "the trap"? How can you objectively tell if a team is doing the trap or simply "happen" to be in specific position on the ice? The same way they define and call high sticks....

Maybe we could limit the number of players in the same zone. The rule could say "no more than 4 (or 3?) players from the same team in the neutral zone at the same time" or something similar.

That is the type of idea I have. More than a certain number of defenders in a certain zone would constitute a trap...whistle blows, play stops and a face-off happens in the defensive zone...

[roke]

The latest issue of the hockey news was how 90 players would improve the game, 3 players from each team. Montreal was represented by Joe Juneau, Craig Rivet and Sheldon Souray. Junuea was quoted as saying that they should prevent forwards from skating backwards in teh neutral zone. I don't know if it would work, if the forwards couldn't skate backward there might be more hooking and holding from behind and such. Oppinions?

[blaise]

I'm with Bad Company on this issue. Doing away with the red line would cause bunching up at the blue line so that there would be an almost impenetrable wall. The rinks are only 85 feet wide, and each of 5 players would have a relatively small area to cover on defense. You don't have to be a great skater to do that. On the other hand, defensemen would be afraid to rush because they'd have to skate back a great distance if the other team gets the puck.

As for the tax-financed bonuses, I don't like the idea at all. They would cost the teams in the middle tertile of the goals-for and the goals-against categories a lot of money that would just go to subsidize their rivals. They'd never collect, just pay. It wouldn't be fair.

The only changes I'm in favor of (besides banning high-tech sticks) are moving the goal nets to their original position, reducing goaltender pads and gloves, and WIDENING THE RINKS TO INTERNATIONAL DIMENSIONS to improve the flow of the game and increase scoring.

[insomnius]

Yes yes yes - International Size Ice - that's the only real solution....

[The Habitual Fan]

All of the rules to open up the game are there already, but they are just not being called. It is not bigger nets, 4 on4, or some radical rule changes.
I forget the game, but I know sombody here will, when Zednick was carrying the puck into the opposition zone, all the time being hooked and grabbed by the other player. Zednick finally had enough and threw an elbow to the players head and was called for a penalty. The opposing player got nothing.
If players were called every time they hooked or grabbed a player in the neutral or defensive zone then they would learn to adjust.
Make the rule simple so a player cannot hook or obstruct another player from behind, unless you are tying up his stick only.
It still allows players to play the body and defense to play the man, as long as they are in front of the player.

[Polarice]

Insomnius said:

Yes yes yes - International Size Ice - that's the only real solution....

They traped at the Olympics, and at the World Jrs. Big ice dosent make any difference.

[blaise]

Polarice said:

They traped at the Olympics, and at the World Jrs. Big ice dosent make any difference.

So the trap is as effective with 100-foot-wide rinks as it is with 85-foot-wide rinks? I think not, unless you have better skaters. The slow, plodding ones would become liabilities.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Blaise said:

So the trap is as effective with 100-foot-wide rinks as it is with 85-foot-wide rinks? I think not, unless you have better skaters. The slow, plodding ones would become liabilities.

They wouldn't have jobs, or least there wouldn't be as many available to them, if the NHL cut the number of teams in the league from 30 to, say, 18.

But slow plodding skaters are helping to create parody in the NHL by their clutching, holding and the other forms of obstruction they need so desperately to resort to against the faster, more talented players, in order to ensure their employment in the league.

Give me a fast trap over a slow trap any day. It's much less painful to watch.

[Montrealer]

mr said:

They wouldn't have jobs, or least there wouldn't be as many available to them, if the NHL cut the number of teams in the league from 30 to, say, 18.

I wish I could show people the guide I have from 1985, which has shows what kind of talent was in the league back then.

But then, what's the point? It'll be ignored by those whose ideas are firmly entrenched in concrete. I'm growing tired of banging my head against the wall.

[BadCompany]

Blaise said:

So the trap is as effective with 100-foot-wide rinks as it is with 85-foot-wide rinks? I think not, unless you have better skaters. The slow, plodding ones would become liabilities.

Unfortunately, they wouldn't. Good coaches would simply ignore the extra ice space, and trap accordingly.

Belarus successfully trapped a much faster, talented Swedish team during the last Olympics, to a standstill. They never entered the Swedish zone, and simply trapped them one zone back. Heck, even their winning goal was scored from outside the blueline. The no talent expansion teams play the trap because it minimizes the deficiencies of their slower, more plodding liabilities. The trap is essentially a zone defense, and zone defenses in any sport are designed to protect the weakest player - he don't have to play man-to-man, in other words. A good coach simply adjusts.

5 guys lined up on the blueline is still 5 guys lined up at the blueline, regardless of how big the ice is. Again, European leagues are just defensive, if not more so, than the NHL. And they got big ice, no red line, and allegedly superior skaters.

[BadCompany]

Quick research:

Swedish Elite League (No red line, big ice): 2.656 goals per game, per team
stats.swehockey.se/default.htm

NHL (Red line, small ice): 2.488 goals per game, per team
www.nhl.com

Russian Super League (Red line, big ice): 2.212 goals per game, per team
rushockey.com/teamstats.php?i=goals

Feel free to verify my stats.

Now consider that this is the lowest scoring season in the NHL since, like the 50s, and you can see that having a smaller ice, with a red line, isn't all that more defensive than the other leagues. If one were to look at last year, and the year before, I bet the NHL might even be the most offensive of the three.

So doesn't that kill the "no red line, big ice will solve all the NHL's problems" theory?

[Polarice]

BadCompany said:

Now consider that this is the lowest scoring season in the NHL since, like the 50s, and you can see that having a smaller ice, with a red line, isn't all that more defensive than the other leagues. If one were to look at last year, and the year before, I bet the NHL might even be the most offensive of the three.

So doesn't that kill the "no red line, big ice will solve all the NHL's problems" theory?

My point exactly, no matter what you do to change the game the trap willbe there in some form. It's just common sense, when you get a lead, you sit back and protect it. The habs in the 70's did it as did the Islander and Oilers of the 80's. And you cant get much more Offensive then them.

[insomnius]

The said:

All of the rules to open up the game are there already, but they are just not being called. It is not bigger nets, 4 on4, or some radical rule changes.
I forget the game, but I know sombody here will, when Zednick was carrying the puck into the opposition zone, all the time being hooked and grabbed by the other player. Zednick finally had enough and threw an elbow to the players head and was called for a penalty. The opposing player got nothing.
If players were called every time they hooked or grabbed a player in the neutral or defensive zone then they would learn to adjust.
Make the rule simple so a player cannot hook or obstruct another player from behind, unless you are tying up his stick only.
It still allows players to play the body and defense to play the man, as long as they are in front of the player.

I remember that - it was Martin St Louis of Tampa Bay and boy did Zednik clobber him nicely...St Louis was hacking at him from the goal line to the red line at which point Zednik finally turned around and POUNDED him - Zednik got the only penalty....

Even though it was later in the game I thought that was a good penalty. If I was on the bench watching that I'd want to jump on the ice and clobber the first opponent I saw...very inspiring...

We did kill the penalty...btw...