Abolish the high-tech sticks

[blaise]

I think at least some of the excessive high sticking results from the use of ultralight composite sticks. When they meet the opponent's stick they ride up to the face because they're so light. (This wasn't the case with Dagenais, who deliberately went headhunting.) A partial solution: outlaw high-tech sticks, make players return to the old heavy wooden sticks. This would cut down on the suddenness and velocity of shots and make it harder to blow the puck by the goaltender, but it could be compensated for by downsizing goaltender equipment even more (the goaltenders complain that they need the padding to prevent injury from the hard shots). Another excellent reason for abolishing high-tech sticks is to avoid the epidemic of breakage all over the ice. Have you noticed the number of times a D playing on the PK unit breaks his stick, leaving his team in a virtual 3-on-5 situation?

[MC Habber]

MC said:

Not to mention the number of times a stick breaks when a player takes a shot. Rather than legislating what kind of sticks can be used, how about imposing a penalty on any player who's stick breaks, or who's stick breaks more than once in a game?

EDIT: Blaise? Where's the post I was responding to?

Aha.

Well that's what I think, although I'm not totally against abolishing the newer sticks, I don't think the PA would go for it.

Another option would be to penalize the team for breaking more than x number of sticks during the game.

[blaise]

I moved it to a new thread because I thought it would get lost if attached to the other one. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Giving penalties for breaking sticks other than on an opponent doesn't seem like such a good idea. Even the wooden sticks break. Didn't you ever take a broken one home as a souvenir from an NHL game when you were a kid?

[PTH]

Blaise said:

I moved it to a new thread because I thought it would get lost if attached to the other one. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Giving penalties for breaking sticks other than on an opponent doesn't seem like such a good idea. Even the wooden sticks break. Didn't you ever take a broken one home as a souvenir from an NHL game when you were a kid?

Well, a penalty for a broken stick could lead to an interesting situation, where a broken stick means a penalty - either to one team for excessive slashing, or to the other for having a stick break.

Strangely enough, this rule would at least clean up the slashing.

[blny]

If Major League Baseball can tell the players what they'll be using so can the NHL. It's time for some backbone. I'm sure it will get burried as an issue though. IMO there is only one positive to using one these sticks, and a raft of negatives. The one positive is everyone and their dog can shoot the puck as hard as Al MacInnis. The negatives include a structural weakness a third of the way up the shaft that everyone knows about, a great sense of feel is lost, the cost, the message it sends to the youth, and the interesting point made by Blaise to start this thread.

The fact is that no where near enough testing was done on these sticks before they were brought to market. If a bat were brought into MLB with this kind of performance it would have been pulled. Conventional products brought to market with this kind of track record would have been pulled long ago.

Many close to the game have stated that much of the feel associated with the use of a conventional stick (or even the early composites with blade inserts) has been lost with the use of the new one piecers. It's one thing for pros to make this sacrifice, but in a day and age where we are struggling to produce players with the offensive skills of 20-40 years ago I don't think it's good that these products are trickling down to the lower levels. We're seeing less and less creative players make it to the top league, and this isn't helping.

At $200-300 a pop the product is out of reach for anyone or any team without a stick budget. Rep teams at the minor league level might, might, have a stick budget. However, you can bet that trickles down to the parents who are already paying several thousand dollars a year in fees for their child to play at the highlest levels. Without one, kids are left to buy them on their own. This inevitably means that some kids will have the money and some kids won't. The sport is expensive enough without the sticks.

I think the CHA needs to look long and hard at banning the sticks at levels below midget AAA. Heck, even Major Junior. Kids learning the game should be learning with tools that best aide in that learning. A composite stick doesn't accomplish that. Kids should learn to handle the puck and create and not worry about who can shoot it the hardest. Besides, at many of these levels, the goalies aren't yet good enough for pure velocity of the shot to make that much of a difference. Send a message to the kids that everyone will be on a level playing surface; that no one will have a stick up on another just because of ones social standing. Preach skills and not technology. Reward hard work and desire, not a deep pocket.

[The Habitual Fan]

I agree that the league would be better if all players were using a wood stick similar to MLB only allowing a wood bat, but it isn't that simple.
MLB does it because you can hit the ball a greater distance with a composite bat and it would distroy every batting and home run record.
In the NHL companies like Easton, Nike and all equipment manufacturers pay hundresds of thousands of dollars to the NHL to allow their products to be used.
If the NHL were to ban certain products they would lose a great deal of revenu and face lawsuits from some of these companies.
I don't think it would be a PA problem except for the average players that suddenly have an all star shot using the lighter stick.
Brodeur once said in an interview that Mats Sundin could never score on him from the point using a wood stick, now that he uses a composite stick he can, although not often.

[blny]

The said:

I agree that the league would be better if all players were using a wood stick similar to MLB only allowing a wood bat, but it isn't that simple.
MLB does it because you can hit the ball a greater distance with a composite bat and it would distroy every batting and home run record.

More people are shooting the puck 90-100mph than ever before.

In the NHL companies like Easton, Nike and all equipment manufacturers pay hundresds of thousands of dollars to the NHL to allow their products to be used.
If the NHL were to ban certain products they would lose a great deal of revenu and face lawsuits from some of these companies.

I disagree. These companies made sticks for the league before. They'd continue to make sticks too, just not the BS ones that out now.

Brodeur once said in an interview that Mats Sundin could never score on him from the point using a wood stick, now that he uses a composite stick he can, although not often.

That says it all right there. A great way to encourage creativity would be to remove the canon from the arsenal of all except those that can naturally. Instead of working for a one-timer or just slapping away, you encourage passing and crisp plays with previous generation sticks. Change the tools and the game changes too. In this case I think for the better.

[Polarice]

I heard someone on TV say if the change the sticks back they have to make the nets bigger just to level the playing feild.

[blny]

Polarice said:

I heard someone on TV say if the change the sticks back they have to make the nets bigger just to level the playing feild.

If the goalies want to keep the gear they have fine. I have been a proponent of increasing net sizes by 10% to offset the increase in size of goalies, the size of their gear, and their athleticism. However, I would rather we see goalies be restricted to the size that Brodeur wears. Marty is the best in the league, and he wears gear that was the norm 10 years ago. There is no need to wear anything bigger than that.

Half of the saves made nowadays are more akin to lacrosse than hockey. Goalies just stand there and let it hit them, whereas in the past hockey goalies moved around. I'm not saying goalies today don't move, but the gear many wear allow them to play more of the middle. They let shots hit them now instead of saving them.

[Montrealer]

BLNY said:

Half of the saves made nowadays are more akin to lacrosse than hockey. Goalies just stand there and let it hit them, whereas in the past hockey goalies moved around. I'm not saying goalies today don't move, but the gear many wear allow them to play more of the middle. They let shots hit them now instead of saving them.

Another thing is that they're trained so much better. I mean honestly, when you watch footage of the 1970s, don't the goalies look........a little slow? A little bit untalented? Like a goalie standing there, and then flinging himself at the puck, so it ends up passed to another guy who has an open net. This seemed to happen all the time........also no butterfly style, so everyone is either trying to kick it out while standing up or they're falling awkwardly on it, or to the side.....

Goaltending has changed more in the past twenty years than the preceding sixty before that.

[blny]

Montrealer said:

Another thing is that they're trained so much better. I mean honestly, when you watch footage of the 1970s, don't the goalies look........a little slow? A little bit untalented? Like a goalie standing there, and then flinging himself at the puck, so it ends up passed to another guy who has an open net. This seemed to happen all the time........also no butterfly style, so everyone is either trying to kick it out while standing up or they're falling awkwardly on it, or to the side.....

Goaltending has changed more in the past twenty years than the preceding sixty before that.

I agree that goalies are better than ever, but let's put the old gear on them and see how they do. I bet we at least return to scoring akin to the late 1980s when Roy had GAAs in the 2's and a save % around .900. By today's standards that's barely AHL worthy. I think the gear has as much to play in the success goalies have today as their talent levels. You can train all you want, but if you're 6' and 180lbs with 40-50lbs of gear on you block a lot of net without moving. That's why I brought up the reference to lacrosse. The goalies in that sport just stand there and get hit repeatedly. Hockey is becoming more and more like that.

[Montrealer]

BLNY said:

I agree that goalies are better than ever, but let's put the old gear on them and see how they do. I bet we at least return to scoring akin to the late 1980s when Roy had GAAs in the 2's and a save % around .900. By today's standards that's barely AHL worthy. I think the gear has as much to play in the success goalies have today as their talent levels. You can train all you want, but if you're 6' and 180lbs with 40-50lbs of gear on you block a lot of net without moving. That's why I brought up the reference to lacrosse. The goalies in that sport just stand there and get hit repeatedly. Hockey is becoming more and more like that.

I was looking through my NHL Guide and Record Book, 88-89 edition, the other day. I'll calculate it for the board sometime soon, but the average height and weight of an NHL goalie back then was somewhere around 5'9" or 5'10" and 175 lbs.

[blaise]

So using aluminum or other non-wood bats would break MLB scoring records? I'm afraid that's already been done with nandrolone and other "supplements." The reason for insisting on wood bats is not preserving "tradition" but to preserve the lives of pitchers against balls rocketed at them from souped-up bats. I'm against aluminum bats even though they're entrenched in colleges and youth leagues because they don't break and in the long run they save money.

The high-tech hockey sticks, unlike aluminum bats, break at an alarming (and annoying frequency). However, like aluminum bats they are dangerous. In the case of hockey they pose a threat to skaters--friend or foe--as well as goaltenders in the path of a shot. (Any stats on fractured ankles, head injuries, etcetera?)

[blny]

Montrealer said:

I was looking through my NHL Guide and Record Book, 88-89 edition, the other day. I'll calculate it for the board sometime soon, but the average height and weight of an NHL goalie back then was somewhere around 5'9" or 5'10" and 175 lbs.

Darren Pang and Allan Bester brought the average height down dramatically. ;D Still goalies are much bigger today. One need only look at guys like Burke, Cechmanek, etc. When Roy broke in he was considered above average to big. Today, 6' 180 means you're average in size and with many much bigger than that.

[blaise]

BLNY said:

Darren Pang and Allan Bester brought the average height down dramatically. ;D Still goalies are much bigger today. One need only look at guys like Burke, Cechmanek, etc. When Roy broke in he was considered above average to big. Today, 6' 180 means you're average in size and with many much bigger than that.

Shows you how good Théodore is to be able to thrive in today's company.

[The Habitual Fan]

BLNY said:

I agree that goalies are better than ever, but let's put the old gear on them and see how they do. I bet we at least return to scoring akin to the late 1980s when Roy had GAAs in the 2's and a save % around .900. By today's standards that's barely AHL worthy. I think the gear has as much to play in the success goalies have today as their talent levels. You can train all you want, but if you're 6' and 180lbs with 40-50lbs of gear on you block a lot of net without moving. That's why I brought up the reference to lacrosse. The goalies in that sport just stand there and get hit repeatedly. Hockey is becoming more and more like that.

Goalies like Brodeur, Roy, Theodore and many more would do just as well with the older equipment because they play a technically sound style of goaltending with great reflexes. Since about 80% of all goals are scored on the ice the development of the butterfly style has drastically cut down on the goals against. Brodeur actually wears some of the smallest equipment in the league and does very well, it is his technique and work ethic that makes him great. Goalies now are quicker, better conditioned and trained with even the best having goalie coaches.
There are goalies in the league that do try to even the playing field by being as big as possible. The reduction in goalie pads to 38" and the removal of cheater pads have already made a difference to some such as Giguirre and Garth Snow. Just this past weekend I was physically looking Snows pads from last season and they were 41" tall, well above the legal limit of this year.