I grew up watching hockey where guys like Mario Lemieux and Brett Hull were lighting up the lamp at a goal per game pace, and that made for some exciting hockey! Granted I was younger and my perception of the game is different from what it is today. The best playoff rounds I saw were the Pens/Hawks Cup Final in 1992, the 1994 Canucks/Rangers Cup Final, 1996 Pens/Caps (I want to say it was the 2nd round?).... Wings/Aves in the late 90's (best rivalries I witnessed), and the Pens/Wings Cup Final in 2008 and 2009. All those years had something in common, they had 100 point scorers.
I think that scoring should be up... and no not like an All-Star game. Again, people like when players hit certain benchmarks. Like in baseball, when a guy hits 50 homers and 100 RBIs, or in basketball when a guy gets 25 points-per-game. Hockey is no different. Records are meant to be broken. Stats are fun to follow. Granted stats are just one aspect of the game, but to say it's a ridiculous idea to get scoring up... well, I think that's seeing things from a narrow-sighted perspective. The game should evolve with the talent. I mean we did see it happen with the evolution of the game switching its name from bandy to hockey. From being played strictly on ponds to indoor rinks. To using horse dong, to rubber pucks. From flat hockey stick blades to curved ones. To added equipment like the goalie mask, and helmets. To face shields. To adding more officials on the ice. Adding lines to the game. It's constantly evolving. I just suggested, they should dial back and look at the bigger issues. To me the goalies are far superior and systems have improved. The game is smarter and more a 200 ft game than before, where it was more run-and-gun. But really, you can't compare a regular season game that goes towards a record to an All-Star game. People play harder for a game that counts for something. Were as the All-Star game is supposed to be taken as lite fun. . Why risk injury? It's like comparing apples to oranges.
I have seen the NHL in its offensive heyday... 1992/93 was the most offensive season on record and the worst, which you can argue was the last one. I am for meeting somewhere down the middle. Sure, you can make an argument that 2-1 games are fun and intense, but for every fun and intense 2-1 nail biter games I have seen during the regular season, I have seen far more boring 2-1 contests that drag on...much like this sentence does. To generally make a statement that suggests low scoring hockey is exciting is as ignorant as saying high scoring games are. It's how the games are being played. And I think there is definitely room for improvement. The hockey has been okay, good even at times... great at other times. But the great is far and few in between. There is definitely room for improvement. It's about finding what works. And I think some of the stuff I suggested hasn't... I do believe if you really want to bring up scoring, you have to call more penalties and you have to, at least, consider scaling up the nets. It doesn't have to be anything extreme. Then again, I am okay for not doing anything, except I really do want to see the end of the coaches challenge. Be honest, would any of us miss it? I know I sure as heck wouldn't.
