PDA

View Full Version : Rumor/Report: 'Full Steam Ahead' with Streamlined Goalie Equipment



Phil in Absentia
03-15-2016, 02:48 PM
The slimmer the better.

ESPN's Pierre LeBrun reports from the GM meetings in Boca Raton, Fla., that the "sense" is it's "full steam ahead" with slim-fitting streamlined equipment for goaltenders next season.

He notes that it will be NHL goaltending consultant Kay Whitmore's duty this summer to fit the league's goaltenders with new gear.

http://www.thescore.com/news/983695

--

If you haven't seen it yet, Corey Hirsch did a whole video segment for Sportsnet a few months ago illustrating how to cut down goalie pads and not sacrifice the integrity of the game (net sizes) or run the risk of increasing injuries. You can watch it here:

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/hirsch-explains-how-to-fix-the-problem-with-goalie-equipment-2/

Morphinity
03-15-2016, 02:55 PM
RIP Henrik Lundqvist

But holy shit, that before/after at the end of the video. Crazy how much of a difference that is.

Phil in Absentia
03-15-2016, 03:24 PM
RIP Henrik Lundqvist

But holy shit, that before/after at the end of the video. Crazy how much of a difference that is.

Right? Honestly, I think Lundqvist gives up more goals up high out of this, but ultimately it won't kill his career.

But when you look at goalies who probably stand to have their pads reduced, he's one of them. His shoulder pads are like football pads sticking up off his shoulders.

http://image.cdn.ispot.tv/ad/7gY0/fast-acting-advil-rhino-featuring-henrik-lundqvist-large-2.jpg

Future
03-15-2016, 03:34 PM
I still think this is a really dumb idea. Why is it a sin for goalie equipment to get better when there's no issue with the fact that stick technology can make average shooters great shooters. That extra couple of inches that larger pads give just mitigates the extra 10 mph that shooters get because of their sticks. I mean, 100mph shots never even existed until players started using different sticks in the mid-90s. All that reducing goalie gear is going to do is add some goals that sneak through between the arm and the chest or between the legs, and that doesn't make anything more exciting.

What the NHL would be smarter to do, instead of cheapen goals by allowing more weak ones, is to increase chances. It's chances that are exciting, not goals...does anybody really enjoy a 6-4 game? The elimination of the two-line pass helped and there's more they can do in that regard. For one, they should absolutely adopt the rule that you can't leave your feet to block a shot. That leads to more pucks getting through for more scrums around the net, tips, goals and, inevitably, excitement. They should also actually call penalties. In 1992-3, teams averaged 3.63 Goals Per Game, but had 5.28 Powerplays, and that's when you couldn't ice the puck. Last year, the number was 2.73 but teams averaged 2 full fewer PPs, at 3.13. I don't like the idea of calling more penalties, necessarily, but if the NHL wants more goals, that's a good place to start. Do that and get rid of the 5-6 man goalie defense, and you've got more goals immediately.

Additionally, I would love to see a study that shows the number of saves a goalie actually makes with those added areas. 5 a year? Without painfully watching tape of thousands of saves, it's impossible to prove, but that would at least ad some proof that this would make a tangible difference.

Future
03-15-2016, 03:36 PM
Right? Honestly, I think Lundqvist gives up more goals up high out of this, but ultimately it won't kill his career.

But when you look at goalies who probably stand to have their pads reduced, he's one of them. His shoulder pads are like football pads sticking up off his shoulders
Shortening shoulder pads isn't going to result in a bunch of top shelf goals, b/c goalies will simply cut the angle more. What it will open up is backside rebounds. Henrik - and really any other goalie - would then struggle to make the save like the one he did on Crosby on Sunday, for example.

Mike
03-15-2016, 03:51 PM
I don't like making the gear smaller.

Pete
03-15-2016, 04:48 PM
Seems like we talk about this every year, and nothing changes.

I'll repeat my argument...To protect the body, pads don't need to get wider, shoulder pads don't need to get higher, gloves don't need to get bigger. The padding that protects a goalie should extend from his body forward, not up and down or to the left and right. There's no reason pants and jerseys can't be form fitting.

Gear today is protecting the goalie, but also giving them an advantage over shooters, physically and psychologically. You can talk about the extra pad on the shoulder not actually making the save, but it's less net to shoot at and that absolutely effects a shooter. These guy pick corners, they aren't just trying to hit a quadrant like rec-leaguers.

ThirtyONE
03-15-2016, 06:49 PM
I'm not against smaller pads but I don't think more goals equals a better product or higher ratings.

If the nets get bigger, I might actually stop watching.

Keirik
03-16-2016, 01:28 PM
Additionally, I would love to see a study that shows the number of saves a goalie actually makes with those added areas. 5 a year? Without painfully watching tape of thousands of saves, it's impossible to prove, but that would at least ad some proof that this would make a tangible difference.

There actually is no way to ever answer that kind of question logistically. It's not even about how many times a puck hits the extra protected area. It's about how much a goalie can cheat just because of it's existence. It's just not a measurable quantity. Besides you sort of answered your own question with your own post right after.

Shortening shoulder pads isn't going to result in a bunch of top shelf goals, b/c goalies will simply cut the angle more. What it will open up is backside rebounds. Henrik - and really any other goalie - would then struggle to make the save like the one he did on Crosby on Sunday, for example.
So yeah, those extra parts really do nothing to protect and are around more to hinder target availability. Eliminating those things makes a goalie HAVE to play the position in a way it was meant to be rather than just "taking up as much of the net as possible" without any repercussion.

Mike
03-16-2016, 01:52 PM
Make yourself look big. That's the key. Stance and positioning won't change ... Square up with the puck, hands out and off the body slightly, stick square and on the ice straight from heal to toe.

Dunny
03-16-2016, 02:28 PM
How many people here have actually faced an NHL calibre shot as a goalie? This is necessary to make any comment on goaltender equipment.

Mike
03-16-2016, 02:40 PM
How many people here have actually faced an NHL calibre shot as a goalie? This is necessary to make any comment on goaltender equipment.

I agree. They're on another planet. I'm not a goalie, but I've been on the ice with a couple of NHLers, and AHLers ... It's actually disgusting. Makes me wanna burn my gear.

Phil in Absentia
03-16-2016, 02:44 PM
How many people here have actually faced an NHL calibre shot as a goalie? This is necessary to make any comment on goaltender equipment.

No, it isn't. This is a type of "played the game" argument. It's possible to use deductive reasoning along with a visual study of game footage to make an informed opinion. Having played the game, or seen an NHL shot only gives you more of an advantage or an additional avenue of insight. But it's not at all a requirement. In all the same ways having played hockey at a professional level, or even at all, is not at all a prerequisite for being able to speak about the game with credibility.

It's a silly chest-thumping tactic that those who play use to dismiss those who don't when they don't like what the latter have to say. Case in point — every advanced stats nerd on the planet who had to battle through waves of Moneyball-decrying old schoolers telling them they have no foot to stand on. Fast forward to today and you can find all these metrics on NHL.com.

Future
03-16-2016, 03:00 PM
How many people here have actually faced an NHL calibre shot as a goalie? This is necessary to make any comment on goaltender equipment.
I played street hockey goalie against a kid who played DIII hockey. That counts I think.

I didn't wear any pads, but having massive traps wasn't much of an advantage.

Dunny
03-16-2016, 03:01 PM
This is a safety issue Phil. In this regard I think someone should have to face a NHL howitzer from 15 feet before they can argue what a goalie should have on. It's fucking scary.

Kay Whitmore is obviously qualified to do so.

I more or less agree with everything else you wrote.

Mike
03-16-2016, 03:17 PM
No, it isn't. This is a type of "played the game" argument. It's possible to use deductive reasoning along with a visual study of game footage to make an informed opinion. Having played the game, or seen an NHL shot only gives you more of an advantage or an additional avenue of insight. But it's not at all a requirement. In all the same ways having played hockey at a professional level, or even at all, is not at all a prerequisite for being able to speak about the game with credibility.

It's a silly chest-thumping tactic that those who play use to dismiss those who don't when they don't like what the latter have to say. Case in point — every advanced stats nerd on the planet who had to battle through waves of Moneyball-decrying old schoolers telling them they have no foot to stand on. Fast forward to today and you can find all these metrics on NHL.com.

While all those advanced stats are on NHL.com, that doesn't mean coaches, management, etc. use them in the same fashion as others do. I sent you one email where the person says they use it as "more stats". Also, if coaches used it as much as the people that invented it, Girardi would have been out of league 3 times over. With that said, I'm not disagreeing with your post as a whole.

Phil in Absentia
03-16-2016, 03:22 PM
This is a safety issue Phil. In this regard I think someone should have to face a NHL howitzer from 15 feet before they can argue what a goalie should have on. It's fucking scary.

Kay Whitmore is obviously qualified to do so.

I more or less agree with everything else you wrote.

Right, which is why he's being consulted here. As will the NHLPA and other experts. What I'm saying is that fans can still have an informed (enough) opinion on whether NHL goaltenders can stand to look smaller while leaving the intriquite details to the experts.

For example, I can look at Henrik Lundqvist and say "his shoulder pads look big to me. They take up, IMO, excess surface area well off his body that I don't think are integral for his safety." Nothing I said there is inherently wrong, and I'm not willingly sacrificing his safety to reduce the amount of surface area he takes up in the net. The specifics over exactly how to reduce his pads will be left up to the qualified consultants here, in conjunction with the NHL and NHLPA.

I'm just trying to dispell the idea that we shouldn't talk about this, or that anyone's opinion on it is completely unfounded. That's not true. But I do agree that there is a detailed line in the sand we probably don't belong crossing, similar to the ones on discussing injuries, for example, as none of us are medical doctors or have access to the medical records of players.

Phil in Absentia
03-16-2016, 03:28 PM
While all those advanced stats are on NHL.com, that doesn't mean coaches, management, etc. use them in the same fashion as others do. I sent you one email where the person says they use it as "more stats". Also, if coaches used it as much as the people that invented it, Girardi would have been out of league 3 times over. With that said, I'm not disagreeing with your post as a whole.

No, I get that. I was just using it to illustrate how it's wrong to abjectly dismiss the opinion of anything that is "new" or outside the comfort zone of tradition.

How they are used, or if they are even used at all, is a secondary issue. That's up to team management, really. I just meant to shine a light on traditional NHL thinking rejecting this new set of data because it was coming from outside traditional NHL media/insight. That's where the "played the game" thing comes in. For example, if Brian Burke somehow comes up with this set of data, is it rejected as fast and as fervently as it was? I doubt it. That speaks to the inherent bias that still exists that values NHL-lead thinking over non-NHL lead thinking, even though both avenues can actually be of the same value.

Morphinity
03-16-2016, 03:46 PM
Corey Hirsch, who was describing/calling for the changes in the video (if you even bothered to watch it), was an NHL goaltender. He's faced NHL shots. He seems to think it's a good idea, even though he knows it's unpopular within the goalie community.

Phil in Absentia
03-16-2016, 03:53 PM
Right. And is it unpopular because it's actually unsafe, or because goalies want to maintain that extra edge?

Mike
03-16-2016, 03:54 PM
This is a safety issue Phil. In this regard I think someone should have to face a NHL howitzer from 15 feet before they can argue what a goalie should have on. It's fucking scary.

Kay Whitmore is obviously qualified to do so.

I more or less agree with everything else you wrote.
Hirsch showed how to shrink everything while still having all body parts covered properly. There's some "extra padding" that he shows isn't necessary.

Phil in Absentia
03-16-2016, 04:00 PM
The cheater, oversized pants and jerseys, etc. are obvious targets IMO.

Morphinity
03-16-2016, 04:51 PM
Exactly. He showed things that serve no safety purpose other than to aid the goaltender in making a save or controlling a shot.

Mike
03-16-2016, 05:10 PM
I still think they shouldn't shrink anything.

Dunny
03-16-2016, 06:21 PM
They already did shrink the shit. This is just further shrinking. Just make the the nets a 1/4" bigger. It's the same difference.

I'm 32 and I look at what I wore in Bantam, Midget and Junior just 15 years ago and I'm pretty sure there would be deaths if that's what they had to use.

Mike
03-16-2016, 06:43 PM
They already did shrink the shit. This is just further shrinking. Just make the the nets a 1/4" bigger. It's the same difference.

I'm 32 and I look at what I wore in Bantam, Midget and Junior just 15 years ago and I'm pretty sure there would be deaths if that's what they had to use.
I don't disagree. Even the kids are shooting harder now. I can't post pics of Michael in his gear from my phone, but you've seen them on fb. Do you think his gear is oversized? And he's a big kid at 5'9 150 so if you look at him in the net imagine what the reduced sized gear would make the net look like.

Dunny
03-16-2016, 06:56 PM
No, he looks like every other goalie now, and if you aren't cheating you aren't trying anyways. Goalie equipment has evolved so fast and the prices have come down immensely. I have a 19 yo little brother who's also a goalie, he sucked and played House his whole life but Dad could afford to dress him up to the 9's because it's all cheaper. I played junior as a 14 year old and never played a day of House in my life and I didn't get hand me downs, I got hand me downs of hand me downs and a Cloutier mask.

Dunny
03-16-2016, 07:23 PM
BTW, 5'9"? What do you feed the kid? You aren't really tall are you?

Mike
03-16-2016, 07:28 PM
BTW, 5'9"? What do you feed the kid? You aren't really tall are you?

No, I'm not tall. I'm just under 5'10. My brother is 6'1, and so was my grandfather. My dad is 5'11 but he shrunk now. I got fucked.

Dunny
03-16-2016, 07:34 PM
I'm 5'9 and all 4 of my Dutch uncles on my Mom's side are 6'5+. I feel you.

Vodka Drunkenski
03-16-2016, 07:35 PM
Line up boys, I'll show you what an NHL shot is like

Dunny
03-16-2016, 07:51 PM
You probably could. Hardest shot I ever faced was this guy: http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=42339 or this guy: http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=108772 and obviously they ain't no NHL'ers.

Lot's of guys can absolutely rip it.

SaveByRichter35
03-16-2016, 08:28 PM
How many people here have actually faced an NHL calibre shot as a goalie? This is necessary to make any comment on goaltender equipment.

I have, several times from several guys. They shoot fast and they shoot heavy. Obviously some more than others. Regarding the Hirsch video I agree some things need to be reduced but in my opinion, as a goalie who's played for over 20 years at various levels, not everything should be cut down just for the sake of cutting it down.

Chest protectors and shorts are the biggest problems and can absolutely be cut down. Bear in mind that not all models are the same. One company's pad is not the same design as another company. A Bauer pad is not the same as a CCM or a Vaughn or a Brown. For that matter, one model within a company is not the same as the other model within the same company. A Vaughn Velocity is not the same as a Ventus, a Brown 2400 is not the same as a 2200. With that in mind I totally agree with forcing the shoulders to be more contouring but the arms already took a big hit the last time they made changes and I don't think there is a whole lot else there to remove. I think the arms are fine as they are.

Shorts can absolutely stand to be slimmed down as well. There are 2 main issues that contradict what Corey said is his video when it comes to shrinking the shorts though. A lot of goalies tuck their chest pad into their shorts which is a big reason why you get a guy who is a 32-34 waist wearing shorts that are a 40+" waist. Same goes with the leg portion of the shorts. He says you can remove some thighrise from the leg pads because goalies can wear knee pads. Well, if you shrink the legs of the shorts then you can no longer fit them over the very big and bulky knee pads that goalies need to wear to protect their knees from the loss of thigh rise. See where the problems start building?

Leg pads can probably lose another inch or two from the width. After the 04 lockout pads were mandated to be 11" in width and no more than 38" in height. That's what opened the door for guys having the large thighrises. They may have only needed a 34" pad but they were allowed the extra 4". This is what led to the change a few years ago of making leg pads sizes proportionate to the leg. They have since tweaked that proportion calculation a couple times since. Make the pads nine or ten inches in length and tweak the proportion calculation again if you want to but I don't agree with slashing the thighrise the way Hirsch suggests. I can get on board with reducing the vertical roll but I wouldn't want to get rid of it all together. They certainly don't hold the same purpose they originally had when pads were stuffed with deer hair but I think pads would look silly with no vertical roll at all.

Make the blocker smaller again. Personally I enjoyed the reduction that was made in the gloves last time around and I'm sure I would enjoy another few inches off the blocker again. Removing the curve in the blocker is dumb though. The amount of times that actually does something is negligent. Removing that is just changing it for the sake of saying you changed something.

Wanna reduce the glove again? Fine. Make the cuff smaller again and reduce the perimeter again. Removing that "cheater" portion on the thumb is stupid though. Its called a cheater because some gloves used to legitimately be made with an extra piece of blocking surface added to that area of the glove. Those are now illegal, the name just stuck to that area of the glove.
http://i66.tinypic.com/j7vsht.jpg

See the difference?
http://i67.tinypic.com/bijy8z.jpg
The reason the gloves are made solid in that spot is to help keep rigidity in the thumb. Without it you're going to see a lot of hyper extended/broken thumbs on pucks that aren't caught in the pocket.
See, there's really not that much space being taken up to be able to be removed.
http://i64.tinypic.com/2ibbyn5.jpg

His ideas for making the stick shorter are fucking stupid. The goalie stick has always been meant to stop/deflect/redirect pucks. That's why the blade and paddle are bigger. Reducing the shaft? Seriously? So are goalies no longer allowed to play the puck now? Not only are they confined to the area within the trapezoid but now we're taking away the ability to actually use the stick to play the puck? Come on. Again, this is changing something to say they changed it.


No, he looks like every other goalie now, and if you aren't cheating you aren't trying anyways. Goalie equipment has evolved so fast and the prices have come down immensely. I have a 19 yo little brother who's also a goalie, he sucked and played House his whole life but Dad could afford to dress him up to the 9's because it's all cheaper. I played junior as a 14 year old and never played a day of House in my life and I didn't get hand me downs, I got hand me downs of hand me downs and a Cloutier mask.

Can i have some of whatever it is you're smoking? haha

Dunny
03-16-2016, 08:50 PM
First of all, awesome gear and great post.

You can still pay whatever you want for goalie equipment but there wasn't such a glut of it when I played. If you didn't fork out major cash for Vaughn or Brian's you played with shitty Coopers or something like it. Now they all make a lower end line that makes you look like a Pro.

Masks have especially come down. They were a minimum $1000 investment in 1995. For stock white. Now look at it.

SaveByRichter35
03-16-2016, 09:16 PM
None of that gear is mine, I just took pictures from google. As far as gear costs, its cheap if you get the lower level stuff like you said but I always get pro level gear. Top of the line gear is not cheap. Although it can be if you get it from the smaller guys like Simmons, Passau, Boddam, etc. Vaughn, Bauer, CCM, Brian's, Brown is still all pretty expensive stuff. Masks too. My mask is a $13-1500 mask but I got it for a great deal at about $800 iirc.

Respecttheblue
03-16-2016, 10:32 PM
I still think this is a really dumb idea. Why is it a sin for goalie equipment to get better when there's no issue with the fact that stick technology can make average shooters great shooters. That extra couple of inches that larger pads give just mitigates the extra 10 mph that shooters get because of their sticks. I mean, 100mph shots never even existed until players started using different sticks in the mid-90s. All that reducing goalie gear is going to do is add some goals that sneak through between the arm and the chest or between the legs, and that doesn't make anything more exciting.

What the NHL would be smarter to do, instead of cheapen goals by allowing more weak ones, is to increase chances. It's chances that are exciting, not goals...does anybody really enjoy a 6-4 game? The elimination of the two-line pass helped and there's more they can do in that regard. For one, they should absolutely adopt the rule that you can't leave your feet to block a shot. That leads to more pucks getting through for more scrums around the net, tips, goals and, inevitably, excitement. They should also actually call penalties. In 1992-3, teams averaged 3.63 Goals Per Game, but had 5.28 Powerplays, and that's when you couldn't ice the puck. Last year, the number was 2.73 but teams averaged 2 full fewer PPs, at 3.13. I don't like the idea of calling more penalties, necessarily, but if the NHL wants more goals, that's a good place to start. Do that and get rid of the 5-6 man goalie defense, and you've got more goals immediately.

Additionally, I would love to see a study that shows the number of saves a goalie actually makes with those added areas. 5 a year? Without painfully watching tape of thousands of saves, it's impossible to prove, but that would at least ad some proof that this would make a tangible difference.

I think the stick technology issue is a fair argument for the current level of goalie armor. I'm not saying expand goalie gear any further, but maybe it could be capped where it is or reduced slightly if it can be done without diminishing safety and safe coverage?

If any case is to be made to scale it back, then it ought to be on solid science that it won't diminish protection from dangerous injuries. We've seen Hank have them slip inside the pads and get hurt, we've seen it under the neck guard too. Flukey as it was. I've also seen shots skitter of his shoulder pads over the crossbar, so there's something of that type to be argued to the contrary. How much lower profile could his shoulder pads go and deliver protection? Maybe science and ballistics, ANSI standards of some sort can answer like they do for the military.

FWIW I sympathize from both points of view goal scorer and goalie. I've played goalie and forward in soccer, forward in field hockey (we didn't have ice), and faced hard projectiles flung full tilt by the fastest bowlers on school teams in cricket, I've broken enough fingers stopping hard shots and ended up in the hospital once too many times from being run into in the kidneys (without any protection). Rugby (played that too) was not so bad by comparison sometimes.

There's a lot to be argued from the POV of an over-padded goalie being able to perhaps unfairly block the forward's view of the net to the point of dissuading shots.

Maybe there's a compromise that can be found that doesn't jeopardize the goalie's safety from 100 mph shots, whether in terms of coverage or in terms of impact protection.
And if players are going to continue to barrel into the goalie and run him into the net, retain some protection from some of that, too.

McDougalfaschnitzer
03-17-2016, 01:04 AM
I'm not really a fan of Hirsch's knee pad solution because having a leg pad away from your knee does a much better job of protecting your knee compared to a pad that is right up on it. Taking a direct shot to even the most protective knee pad can sting, so if you are increasing the number of shots hitting that area, you are increasing chance for injury.

SaveByRichter35
03-17-2016, 02:36 AM
I'm not really a fan of Hirsch's knee pad solution because having a leg pad away from your knee does a much better job of protecting your knee compared to a pad that is right up on it. Taking a direct shot to even the most protective knee pad can sting, so if you are increasing the number of shots hitting that area, you are increasing chance for injury.
Agreed

Mike
03-17-2016, 08:05 AM
Everyone wears the knee pad anyway. This isn't some new invention.

Keirik
03-17-2016, 12:29 PM
Well, to be honest, i've been on board for a while to say that NHLers should have to use wood sticks still. Velocity of shots doesn't always correlate to higher offense anyway. It will never ever ever happen but still.

Dunny
03-17-2016, 12:47 PM
I tend to agree but that cat is out of the bag. I don't even know a 7 year old that uses a wood stick.

Keirik
03-17-2016, 12:53 PM
I tend to agree but that cat is out of the bag. I don't even know a 7 year old that uses a wood stick.

Oh i know and that's the problem. Even from a sponsor angle, the NHL and PA themselves would never go for this. I just liken it to baseball in that way. Wood for the pros, other materials for amateurs. The players these days are just too strong and too fast. They don't need that added help.

Pete
03-17-2016, 12:57 PM
Well, to be honest, i've been on board for a while to say that NHLers should have to use wood sticks still. Velocity of shots doesn't always correlate to higher offense anyway. It will never ever ever happen but still.


I tend to agree but that cat is out of the bag. I don't even know a 7 year old that uses a wood stick.

Agreed.

SaveByRichter35
03-18-2016, 01:53 AM
Everyone wears the knee pad anyway. This isn't some new invention.

If this is directed at me I never said it was something new. :confused:

Mike
03-18-2016, 07:14 AM
If this is directed at me I never said it was something new. :confused:

It wasn't

Pete
03-18-2016, 07:43 AM
HNL had an interesting take on this.

Shorten the pads and goalies will have to drop quicker, exposing top of net.

Not sure how true it is, but that was their take.

Mike
03-18-2016, 08:08 AM
HNL had an interesting take on this.

Shorten the pads and goalies will have to drop quicker, exposing top of net.

Not sure how true it is, but that was their take.
Vally's take on it. It becomes a timing issue. I can see it for dekes and fakes, but not when guys are defending. Even if you cut the gear down I can't see it making a huge difference, if any from the shots outside the dots. Goalies have the angles nailed down now.

Pete
03-18-2016, 08:37 AM
Vally's take on it. It becomes a timing issue. I can see it for dekes and fakes, but not when guys are defending. Even if you cut the gear down I can't see it making a huge difference, if any from the shots outside the dots. Goalies have the angles nailed down now.
His argument was exposing the 5 hole let's more goals in and fucks with goalies lateral movement and timing.

Seems legit.

Mike
03-18-2016, 08:58 AM
His argument was exposing the 5 hole let's more goals in and fucks with goalies lateral movement and timing.

Seems legit.

Yes, I'm not disagreeing with it. I'm saying that it won't change anything on the outside shots. Distance is a huge factor.

Pete
03-18-2016, 09:00 AM
Yes, I'm not disagreeing with it. I'm saying that it won't change anything on the outside shots. Distance is a huge factor.

No way to know, really. 5 hole open means more goals the wickets, goalies closing the wickets means other holes may open (especially with more form-fitting top gear). Hard to say definitively that nothing would change.

Mike
03-18-2016, 09:07 AM
No way to know, really. 5 hole open means more goals the wickets, goalies closing the wickets means other holes may open (especially with more form-fitting top gear). Hard to say definitively that nothing would change.

The further it comes from the outside, the more time they have to react. Unless there's a deflection chances are these guys won't get beat cleanly. It can matter from inside the house, a little tighter in. Outside the dots you can put a scarecrow in net and he'll stop it. Vally gave an example of how many goals Hank has let in from the outside. That's why I'm bringing it up as a factor.

Pete
03-18-2016, 09:15 AM
The further it comes from the outside, the more time they have to react. Unless there's a deflection chances are these guys won't get beat cleanly. It can matter from inside the house, a little tighter in. Outside the dots you can put a scarecrow in net and he'll stop it. Vally gave an example of how many goals Hank has let in from the outside. That's why I'm bringing it up as a factor.

I understand but there is still no way to know what will happen unless is happens. It's chaos theory. Anything than can happen, will happen.

McDougalfaschnitzer
03-18-2016, 08:21 PM
Everyone wears the knee pad anyway. This isn't some new invention.

I wasn't really talking about that. I meant that in current gear the frequency of taking shots off the knee pad is a lot lower compared to if the pad was cut down substantially.

DiJock94
03-20-2016, 02:45 PM
I always compared pictures of richter and lundqvist in the net. Huge difference in pad sizes.

McDougalfaschnitzer
03-20-2016, 02:56 PM
I always compared pictures of richter and lundqvist in the net. Huge difference in pad sizes.

Richter's pads were 12" wide at the top and like 15" wide at the bottom so they were only shorter in size, and the gloves and blockers he used were much bigger than what is used now. Pants and chest protectors were definitely smaller (although if you look at the pics near the end of his career Richter was wearing a much bigger chest protector with superwide arms). If you also compare stances older goalies look smaller because they were so compacted while today goalies are wider and more spread out which makes them look bigger.

Mike
03-20-2016, 03:17 PM
Lundqvist also has 3+ inches on Richter. Goalie's bodies are a lot bigger now than they used to be.

Pete
03-20-2016, 03:29 PM
Lundqvist also has 3+ inches on Richter. Goalie's bodies are a lot bigger now than they used to be.
Hextall was 6'3"...I don't think he had gigantor pads. He was pretty good. Tom Barrasso... Also 6'3". Also pretty good.

Today, pads come up to the jock. They didn't always, and shouldn't.

McDougalfaschnitzer
03-20-2016, 03:42 PM
Hextall was 6'3"...I don't think he had gigantor pads. He was pretty good. Tom Barrasso... Also 6'3". Also pretty good.

Today, pads come up to the jock. They didn't always, and shouldn't.

Hextall had a big chest protector and pants with short pads. Tom Barasso played long enough to enter the era of goalies with big gear where he adopted butterfly style pads and such. Also, the huge size of the gloves and blockers tend to make the rest of the gear look smaller than it actually is.

Even if old school goalies did wear equivalent-to-today sized pads when it comes to height, the style of play back then wouldn't have made use of the extra length. They all went straight down on their knees in a narrow fashion.

Pete
03-20-2016, 03:45 PM
Hextall had a big chest protector and pants with short pads. Tom Barasso played long enough to enter the era of goalies with big gear where he adopted butterfly style pads and such. Also, the huge size of the gloves and blockers tend to make the rest of the gear look smaller than it actually is.

Even if old school goalies did wear equivalent-to-today sized pads when it comes to height, the style of play back then wouldn't have made use of the extra length. They all went straight down on their knees in a narrow fashion.
I understand that...But there is extra pad, that isn't protective, that closes the 5 hole for butterfly goalies. That shouldn't be allowed.

That's the reason I brought up Barrasso and Hextall. Those risers on the pads are there to stop pucks. They are not required to protect the goalie from being hurt, or they'd have been there 20 years ago.

McDougalfaschnitzer
03-20-2016, 04:09 PM
That's the reason I brought up Barrasso and Hextall. Those risers on the pads are there to stop pucks. They are not required to protect the goalie from being hurt, or they'd have been there 20 years ago.

That is what happens when the style of play changes. Back then, goalies stood up more, and when they went down it was straight down on their knees. Given that style of play, you had shorter pads that were much wider at the bottom to seal things up on the ice coupled with short skates. You had gloves and blockers that were very large to try to close gaps while standing up while the goalies held their arms down their sides. You had extra thigh protection under the pant to protect your front-facing knee area when you went down. You also had a higher percentage of goalies being made to look extremely foolish as they were scored on.

Butterfly pads of today aren't meant to go straight down like the old pads. So you can't really compare them at all. I think a fair sizing of them would be that when a goalie is in their butterfly, the length of the pads should come together when the knees are together. That way your knees are protected, and you aren't taking up any more blocking space than what your knees would cover anyway. I think they are pretty close to that now, and that is why I think it is dangerous given the style goalies play today to reduce that part of the pad.

Pete
03-20-2016, 04:11 PM
That is what happens when the style of play changes. Back then, goalies stood up more, and when they went down it was straight down on their knees. Given that style of play, you had shorter pads that were much wider at the bottom to seal things up on the ice coupled with short skates. You had gloves and blockers that were very large to try to close gaps while standing up while the goalies held their arms down their sides. You had extra thigh protection under the pant to protect your front-facing knee area when you went down. You also had a higher percentage of goalies being made to look extremely foolish as they were scored on.

Butterfly pads of today aren't meant to go straight down like the old pads. So you can't really compare them at all. I think a fair sizing of them would be that when a goalie is in their butterfly, the length of the pads should come together when the knees are together. That way your knees are protected, and you aren't taking up any more blocking space than what your knees would cover anyway. I think they are pretty close to that now, and that is why I think it is dangerous given the style goalies play today to reduce that part of the pad.
Right, I understand all this. But my point is that gear is meant to protect goalies, not to help stop more pucks.

Mike
03-20-2016, 04:31 PM
I understand that...But there is extra pad, that isn't protective, that closes the 5 hole for butterfly goalies. That shouldn't be allowed.

That's the reason I brought up Barrasso and Hextall. Those risers on the pads are there to stop pucks. They are not required to protect the goalie from being hurt, or they'd have been there 20 years ago.

The shorts are a shock absorber more than they are a protective piece of gear. The pads now are definitely built for butterfly style goalies, but if you look at an 80's goalie vs. a goalie today while in their stance you'll see a big difference in the protection of the thigh. A goalie can't use the butterfly with those pads without exposing themselves to potential injury.

Pete
03-20-2016, 04:39 PM
The shorts are a shock absorber more than they are a protective piece of gear. The pads now are definitely built for butterfly style goalies, but if you look at an 80's goalie vs. a goalie today while in their stance you'll see a big difference in the protection of the thigh. A goalie can't use the butterfly with those pads without exposing themselves to potential injury.
That's a great point.

Goalies are playing butterfly...and in order not to get injured, they require an extension of pads that covers 8" extra inches of net that would otherwise be open... You know my answer to that.

Mike
03-20-2016, 04:48 PM
That's a great point.

Goalies are playing butterfly...and in order not to get injured, they require an extension of pads that covers 8" extra inches of net that would otherwise be open... You know my answer to that.

Using the butterfly with shorter pads will expose you to injury. Does it cover the 5 hole? Yes. Does it prevent injury? Yes.

McDougalfaschnitzer
03-20-2016, 04:53 PM
Goalies are playing butterfly...and in order not to get injured, they require an extension of pads that covers 8" extra inches of net that would otherwise be open... You know my answer to that.

I would say the realistic number for that 8" is more like 1-2 inches of extra coverage, because if a goalies knees are together in a butterfly, it doesn't matter that is happening with the thigh.

http://athleticone.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/frozen_inside122007.jpg

Does Miller's extra thigh rise have anything to do with shutting the five hole when his knees are together? If anything, the thigh rise only protects his knees.

Mike
03-20-2016, 05:05 PM
Making the pads thinner also exposes the top of the thigh when you're in the butterfly

Pete
03-20-2016, 05:11 PM
I would say the realistic number for that 8" is more like 1-2 inches of extra coverage, because if a goalies knees are together in a butterfly, it doesn't matter that is happening with the thigh.

http://athleticone.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/frozen_inside122007.jpg

Does Miller's extra thigh rise have anything to do with shutting the five hole when his knees are together? If anything, the thigh rise only protects his knees.
I saw a clip of Varlamov warming up last night and his knees were MUCH further apart.

I'll split the difference at 6 inches... Still 2 pucks wide.

McDougalfaschnitzer
03-20-2016, 05:32 PM
I saw a clip of Varlamov warming up last night and his knees were MUCH further apart.

I'll split the difference at 6 inches... Still 2 pucks wide.

Yeah, my minimum pad would cover the knee when the knees are together. The problem arises with goalies that are more flexible in the knee area and can flare their legs out, because the pads will come together when the knees are apart due to the angle of the flaring.

more flaring=more coverage:

http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/henrik-lundqvist-of-the-new-york-rangers-tends-the-net-against-the-picture-id495721016

but in the case of that photo, if you took out the triangular area of extra coverage, you would wind up removing an area that is already being covered by the stick. There are just so many positional variables that I think need to be looked at before sweeping changes to the pads are made.

SaveByRichter35
03-21-2016, 04:13 AM
Leg pads are measured by the overall height plus the extra addition to the thighrise, IE 34+2. I ordered my last set of Vaughn Velocities as a straight 33" pad because I preferred the mobility of a shorter pad. They were officially a 33+0. Six inches is the standard size of the thighrise of a modern goal pad. My most recent set of Velocity pads are a 33+1. The thighrise on these pads are seven inches. The reason for the extra thighrise is twofold. It gives the first line of defense in protecting the knees when down in the butterfly while closing the gap in the five hole.

A goalie would choose his desired thighrise depending on the flexibility of his hips, knees, and ankles. I'm a pretty flexible guy so I have always been able to get my knees together enough to close my fivehole without the need of additional size. Some aren't so lucky so they'd get a thighrise big enough that it would close the fivehole without their knees being able to touch. As I stated in an earlier post, the restriction on goal pads after the '04 lockout was an overall 38" pad. So I could get a 33+5 and still be legal. That is absurd. What was going on back then was guys maxing out even if they didn't need it because they could make their butterfly flare take up even more room along the ice without having to keep their knees together. I'll use the two pictures above of Miller and Hank as examples to clarify what I mean for those who are more visual. Based on the uniforms the teams are wearing, it's obviously an old picture, my guess is mid 2000s. I don't remember the year the Sabres dumped the "Buffaslug" nor do I remember when the Islanders went to their present jersey. It's definitely after the lockout so lets say its 2007/2008/2009ish. Miller has his knees nice and tight closing his fivehole so he wouldn't need much of a thighrise to get it done. Given the timeframe, if he wanted to he could have used a taller thighrise that would let him separate his knees similar to how Hank(picture from this season) has his while still closing his fivehole. That would allow his feet to be that much wider thus taking up more room along the ice. Say his Flare goes from 5 feet across the ice to 6 feet across the ice. This is why the league started enforcing the sizes of pads to be proportionate to the goalie's leg. It puts a cap on what they can use.