Hitting seems to be disappearing from the NHL

[whcanuck]

Hey guys

 

Just wanted to share an observation, one I'm sure a lot of you guys may have noticed as well. Save for maybe one or two hard hits a game, it seems like the volume of good, solid, clean bodychecks has drastically dropped since the early 90s, and it seems to go down a little bit each year. If you watch the old Don Cherry Rock em Sock em videos, the real early ones, some of the hits are massive, and there are a ton of them (not all clean either). But back then the guys didn't seem to be getting concussed by every hit either (some could've been undiagnosed, but I think the speed and size of the players played a big part and the equipment wasn't yet made of the hard plastic that a lot of elbow and shoulder pads are made of now). I really miss when forwards had to actually be mindful of keeping their heads up, with guys like Scott Stevens and Rob Blake ready to knock them into next week if their eyes became fixated on the puck and they crossed the middle of the ice. Now if you lay a guy out it goes viral on youtube and we get newspaper and online articles about how evil and violent hockey is. So I'd like to hear your guys' opinion, if you agree that hitting seems to be disappearing from the game, why do you think it is? Do you think it's the rules, the types of players being drafted or the fact that maybe the owners eventually want to make it a no-contact league and have the NHL re-branded as the No Hitting League? Thoughts?

 

 

['NucK™]

2015: 1906

2014: 2049

2013: 1928

2012: 1142 (lockout) - extrapolated to 1951 over 82 games

2011: 1866

2010: 1864

2009: 1807

2008: 1719

2007: 1560

2006: 1467

2005: 1306

..

2001: 1871

2000: 1982

 

Average # of hits (per team) since 2000 don't actually support your argument, although this could just be attributed to the shot clock guys counting more hits and of course does not give any more weight to big hits.

 

I do think that, as you mentioned, due to the increased visibility of hockey to non-hockey fans (youtube), any 'violent' hits cause overactions and causes the league to overact as well.

 

I don't think there will ever be a 'no-contact' NHL, as the aggressiveness is a large part of the sport and the NHL won't risk losing the crowd that enjoys hockey for that than just purely for the skill. 

[whcanuck]

3 minutes ago, 'NucK™ said:

2015: 1906

2014: 2049

2013: 1928

2012: 1142 (lockout) - extrapolated to 1951 over 82 games

2011: 1866

2010: 1864

2009: 1807

 

 

Average # of hits per year don't actually support your arguement, but I do think, due to the increased visibility of hockey to non-hockey fans (youtube), any 'violent' hits cause overactions and causes the league to overact as well. I don't think there will ever be a 'no-contact' NHL as the aggressiveness is a large part of the sport and the NHL won't risk losing the crowd that enjoys hockey more for that than for the skill. 

Statistics don't lie, but I still feel it's nowhere near as gritty or sandpapery as the game used to be. The games I see on tv I see guys peel away from checks an awful lot, seemed to be a rare thing that a guy wouldn't put his check into the boards every chance he got 15-20 years ago. I completely agree that it's an arbitrary stat and smaller hits count the same as the big hits.They also could be counting just bumping into a guy as a hit, heavily inflating the stat. 

[numb3r 16]

15 minutes ago, 'NucK™ said:

2015: 1906

2014: 2049

2013: 1928

2012: 1142 (lockout) - extrapolated to 1951 over 82 games

2011: 1866

2010: 1864

2009: 1807

2008: 1719

2007: 1560

2006: 1467

2005: 1306

..

2001: 1871

2000: 1982

 

Average # of hits per year don't actually support your argument, although this could just be attributed to the shot clock guys counting more hits and of course does not give any more weight to big hits.

 

I do think that, as you mentioned, due to the increased visibility of hockey to non-hockey fans (youtube), any 'violent' hits cause overactions and causes the league to overact as well.

 

I don't think there will ever be a 'no-contact' NHL, as the aggressiveness is a large part of the sport and the NHL won't risk losing the crowd that enjoys hockey for that than just purely for the skill. 

Is that the average hits by team?

['NucK™]

Just now, numb3r 16 said:

Is that the average of the teams?

Yeah sorry I just edited it again - average # of hits per team in that given year. so x30 for totals.

[Fanuck]

2 decades of NHL policies/rules/lobbying to make the game less violence/dangerous has taken its toll on the game in both good and bad ways.

 

All in the name of what the NHL believes is the 'holy grail' of marketing - American network TV deals.

 

All the while Canadian fans - the true heart and soul of hockey - have to sit back while the NHL owners pimp out our beloved game to the highest bidder. Makes me sick,  yet I still watch every second of every Canucks game I can sadly. 

[-Vintage Canuck-]

Speed kills.

 

Teams around the league are getting younger and faster, rather than bigger and more gritty. The game has also changed, so it's much faster. It seems like the amount of fights is also declining.

[Toews]

The rules have been altered to protect players from the kind of hits that leave them popping pills for the rest of their lives. That is a good thing if you ask me. The headhunting that used to happen in the past has been effectively removed. I don't miss watching Stevens ruin the careers of two of the best players in the era in Lindros and Kariya. I don't miss Matt Cooke ending the career of Marc Savard.

 

We have already seen Crosby's career getting derailed right when he was at his very peak. So yeah I am glad to make this sacrifice because I prefer to see these players have long careers and lead happy fulfilling lives after hockey.

[canucksuberalles]

1 hour ago, Fanuck said:

2 decades of NHL policies/rules/lobbying to make the game less violence/dangerous has taken its toll on the game in both good and bad ways.

 

All in the name of what the NHL believes is the 'holy grail' of marketing - American network TV deals.

 

All the while Canadian fans - the true heart and soul of hockey - have to sit back while the NHL owners pimp out our beloved game to the highest bidder. Makes me sick,  yet I still watch every second of every Canucks game I can sadly. 

This...to my utter amazement, the most violent society on Earth is worried about hitting or fighting in hockey.  Blows my mind every time

[Putgolzin]

OP mentioned that a lot of the hits weren't clean hits. Actually they were.

 

They're not clean now, because the NHL has been very focused and insistent on removing certain types of checks from the game. 

 

So the very hits we grew up celebrating and high-fiving over (ie: Scott Stevens lining up a guy for a huge, open-ice explosion) are the exact ones that have (sadly, but correctly) vanished from the game. Still lots of hitting according to the numbers, just not the big, beautiful, highlight style hits...and accordingly, less people losing years of their lives to concussions...

[PlanB]

1 hour ago, Toews said:

The headhunting that used to happen in the past has been effectively removed. 

 

Some would argue the opposite actually.   That NHL rules and enforcement of said rules have in fact led to headhunting or targeting of skill players because there is little to no 'retribution or payback' tolerated anymore, and suspensions are a joke and arbitrarily enforced.  In the 80's, which I recall clearly,  stars were not targeted nearly as much if at all because you would answer the bell on the ice for your actions with your own career on the line - some monster like Semenko or Probert, Nilan, Brown,  Kordic or such wouldn't be as understanding as the NHL discipline committee.  And those on ice grudges lasted for years back in the day - nowadays a team like Vancouver can play Chicago or Boston with narry a penalty. That wouldn't have happened in the 70s or 80s. 

[Drakrami]

We just lost a series 2 years ago to Calgary because of hitting.. 

[Angry Goose]

45 minutes ago, Drakrami said:

We just lost a series 2 years ago to Calgary because of hitting.. 

It's about how effective can you be with it

[The Bookie]

5 hours ago, Fanuck said:

2 decades of NHL policies/rules/lobbying to make the game less violence/dangerous has taken its toll on the game in both good and bad ways.

 

All in the name of what the NHL believes is the 'holy grail' of marketing - American network TV deals.

 

All the while Canadian fans - the true heart and soul of hockey - have to sit back while the NHL owners pimp out our beloved game to the highest bidder. Makes me sick,  yet I still watch every second of every Canucks game I can sadly. 

Marketing sure, but there's also the whole lawsuit thing. I'm surprised it's not getting more attention in the dead season since it's the first really significant individual issue (arguably) in Bettman's tenure. 

 

Lawyers in concussion lawsuit want to question Bettman again

[IBatch]

Hitting has changed with the rules.  Scott Stevens wouldn't have won the Conn Smythe for "Hitting" - he would be suspended for contact to the head, accidental or not.   I don't think the players are bigger now except goalies from the early 90's, which scews the stats a bit from 6'2" (90's) average to todays 6'3" average NHL player (Bishop, Rinne etc..6' used to be a "MONSTER" goalie).   There were a lot of big forwards and defenseman back then too - compare any other roster from post 2000 on with our 90's roster and you might be surprised to find out our teams back then were just as big, or bigger (even with Ronning lol).   Yes I would definitely say the game has tamed a bit  - players can't afford to be as reckless with their hits.  Fighting is down as the goon is gone (into hiding) too...at least until one team decides its' time to re-arm (Vegas?) and then off to the races again. 

[Westcoasting]

2 hours ago, IBatch said:

Hitting has changed with the rules.  Scott Stevens wouldn't have won the Conn Smythe for "Hitting" - he would be suspended for contact to the head, accidental or not.   I don't think the players are bigger now except goalies from the early 90's, which scews the stats a bit from 6'2" (90's) average to todays 6'3" average NHL player (Bishop, Rinne etc..6' used to be a "MONSTER" goalie).   There were a lot of big forwards and defenseman back then too - compare any other roster from post 2000 on with our 90's roster and you might be surprised to find out our teams back then were just as big, or bigger (even with Ronning lol).   Yes I would definitely say the game has tamed a bit  - players can't afford to be as reckless with their hits.  Fighting is down as the goon is gone (into hiding) too...at least until one team decides its' time to re-arm (Vegas?) and then off to the races again. 

Pretty sure hitting wasn't the reason for Conn Smythe, the hit on Lindros was a huge controversy at the time but it was in the second or third round not the finals. By the time the finals were done they probably flipped coins to determine a Conn Smythe winner as no one really stood out. Much like when Lidstrom and Neidermayer won, they give it to the Captain who is a superstar.

[Westcoasting]

Open ice hitting is gone or close to it. If a player skates with his head down or looking away and you hit him, you are getting a suspension because sure as hell his head will make contact. I don't agree with this even though a lot of injuries have happened this way. 

 

Back in the day watching hockey and the Oilers are on Tv and Gretzky coming up ice with the puck.... "hit em, hit em"  Guess what no one could ever hit Gretzky open ice because his vision was so good. If you went at him, he would avoid contact and at same time send Kurri in for a goal.

[shazzam]

Prior to all these stricr crackdowns on hits to the head, charging, blind side, etc. It was a lot easier to make a big hit without much consequence. Now it takes more skill and good timing to deliver one. Some players are probably hesitant to make a big hit which could potentially lead to a suspension.

[IBatch]

2 hours ago, Westcoasting said:

Pretty sure hitting wasn't the reason for Conn Smythe, the hit on Lindros was a huge controversy at the time but it was in the second or third round not the finals. By the time the finals were done they probably flipped coins to determine a Conn Smythe winner as no one really stood out. Much like when Lidstrom and Neidermayer won, they give it to the Captain who is a superstar.

Well I remember that playoffs pretty well, he laid Kariya out cold in the finals too, and focused his checking on the stars in each series and took them off their game both with punishing hits, and with intimidation (fear of getting ruined).  He was an absolute beast, and the only example of a person winning that trophy via checking/hitting that I can remember.  It was pretty big news back then and he by a reasonable margin represented his team the best throughout the playoffs and was very deserving of the trophy.  There wasn't any question that Neidermayer was the best and most deserving when ANA won, with Pronger taking a little steam off his bid,  - Lidstrom was similar to this year with Crosby.  I think Osgood would have been a very good choice instead, and Letang would have been a decent choice this year as well Kessel, who took the easy assignments and did the most damage, but he wouldn't have done that if he faced the quality of opposition that Crosby, and even Malkin did.    I understand where you were going with this though....Stevens hit on Kariya provided one of the better pictures ever taken in the modern era...just crushed him.  He did come back but was pretty much a non-factor after that..tough player totally concussed and was never quite the same after either.   

 

 

[IBatch]

13 hours ago, Drakrami said:

We just lost a series 2 years ago to Calgary because of hitting.. 

You bet.  The Sedins dominated and carried the team on their back...we just had no back-up, Ferland didn't take them off their game, we just didn't have the depth or any answer to the hitting that was effective enough to overcome it.