Wysh List: How to increase scoring in the NHL

The National Hockey League is offensive.

As in, there are a lot of goals being scored.

Why, what did you think we meant?

Through the quarter mark of the 2019-20 season, about 317 games, scoring has continued to surge. There have been 529 different skaters with at least one goal, 72% of all skaters. That's the highest percentage of skaters since the 1992-93 season, when Teemu Selanne had 76 goals and Mario Lemieux scored 160 points.

Around 44% of all games have featured a team coming back to win. There have been 66 third-period comeback wins, the most ever at this stage of the season. There have been 45 multi-goal comeback wins, second-most ever, behind only last season's pace.

The 1,956 goals scored and the 6.2 goals per game on average are the second-highest in 23 years, ranking only behind the anomalous 2005-06 post-lockout season, which gave us a Carolina Hurricanes vs. Edmonton Oilers Stanley Cup Final about 14 years before it was plausible.

That cancelled season remains a point of frustration, and more than a little embarrassment, for the league. They cringe when you bring it up. But the "NHL 2.0" rule changes that were born from it laid the groundwork for what we're seeing today.

"We took an extended holiday," said vice president of hockey operations Colin Campbell, with a slight sigh. "It's never worth it, but we tried to make something out of it at the time. We came out of ... what did they call it? The dead-puck era."

Yes, that's what they called it. The offensive nadir of the sport. As of Thursday, NHL teams are averaging 3.08 goals per game. Twenty years ago, in the middle of that dead-puck era? The goals per game stood at 2.64.

"Two things I heard at the time scared me. First, was the players saying they weren't having any fun playing the game. And that the fans would shut it down after a one-goal lead. Now, teams are overcoming four-goal leads in the third period," said Campbell. "The adjustments that we keep making every year, without making major rule changes, that's been our theme since 2004 or 2005. To reward as much offense as you can."

So why can't they reward it even more?

Why can't the NHL get really offensive?

That the NHL sends out a press release touting goal totals is indicative of two things: Decades of guilt over the dead-puck era framing hockey as a tedious, trap-happy sport; and an acknowledgement that offense is a narcotic for mainstream North American sports fans. We like having our ticket expenditures rewarded with the cathartic thrill of a score. We like betting the over. We like the thrill of a record-breaking chase. Offense saved baseball after 1994. Offense rescued football from a quagmire of attacks on its morality.

But go back to that Campbell quote: Scoring has increased "without making major rule changes." Which is very much in keeping with the NHL's track under Gary Bettman: Incremental increases rather than dramatic gains, because the league is imprisoned by its devotion to tradition.

I believe it was the great philosopher Kylo Ren who said: "Let the past die. Kill it, if you have to. That's the only way to become what you are meant to be."

The NHL was meant to be an offensive league. Here are a few radical ways to get it there:

Get rid of offside

Enough already. The annual debates over what constitutes it are tedious. We've even gone back to "breaking the plane" of the blue line with a skate that's not on the ice. Here's something much tidier: Get rid of offside altogether.

I wasn't always in favor of this. There was a time when I felt it was too radical. But in discussing it through the years, I'm attracted to its reinvention of the game. Would you defend with four players and position one down the ice? Would the stretch pass become more beautiful than it already is? Could a player like Connor McDavid become even more wizardly without the confines of the blue line? I'd like to see it.

Go 4-on-4 all the time

This is an obvious one. The ice is too crowded. Taking one player off of each side opens it up and ratchets up the pace. It would also present a heck of a challenge for coaches insofar as figuring out line combinations and who goes over the boards and when. Scoring would increase. Speed would increase. Maybe the NHLPA would go for it if the rosters expanded to additional players to aid in the track meet.

Two-minute majors go the full length

I'm with Lou Lamoriello on this one. Every minor penalty goes for the full two minutes, even if the attacking team scores. Maybe you throw in a little caveat that the only way to kill it is with a short-handed goal, for extra offensive incentive. Go ahead, we dare you to take a penalty. Please note this might be born of our desire to see Alex Ovechkin break Wayne Gretzky's all-time goal-scoring record by next February.

The NHL should be happy with its offensive upswing. The on-ice product is better than it's been in decades. But this should just be a precursor to an offensive era that could transform the game.

Just don't cancel another season to do it.

Spitting mad

When I heard Washington Capitals forward Garnet Hathaway was getting an NHL hearing for spitting on Anaheim Ducks defenseman Erik Gudbranson, I figured he might get suspended for a game. They usually don't schedule hearings for fines, after all.

(Here's the incident, for those who missed it):

Got a chance to visit Staples Center for the first time last weekend. Still torn if this kids jersey is awesome or a #JerseyFoul pic.twitter.com/QKC1Lmzx6a

— Adam Forsythe (@adamforsythe) November 20, 2019

And then he got three games.

What an absolute joke on the part of the NHL.

The suspension was handed down by the NHL hockey operations department, the crustiest of crusty old-school men in the league hierarchy. It was Colin Campbell specifically, who handles suspensions outside the realm of player safety issues. I figured Campbell might look at this incident as any rational person would, which is that Hathaway was sucker-punched in the face and then responded with an unfortunate loogie for which he was given a match penalty. He acknowledged it was unsportsmanlike conduct after the game. But Campbell took a different old-school tact, which is that spitting on another player is an ultimate sign of disrespect and warrants not one, not two, but three games banned from playing in the league.

If only Hathaway had utilized one of the alternatives instead:

Punching Gudbranson in the face. While he might have still gotten a misconduct penalty, he would have avoided a match penalty and there's a reasonable chance that he might have only gotten two minutes for roughing. Because the NHL is a league where punching someone in the face after the whistle isn't worse than spitting at them.

Spearing Gudbranson in the groin. Hathaway could have taken his stick, looked Gudbranson straight in the face and stuck it right in the how-do-you-do. It was only two years ago that there was an "epidemic" of sticks to the store in the NHL, and the punishments ranged from misconduct penalties to NHL fines to a two-game suspension for repeat offender Brad Marchand. Because the NHL is a league where spearing someone in the groin isn't worse than spitting at them.

Licking Gudbranson on the cheek. Hathaway's biggest failure was projecting his saliva at the Ducks defenseman, rather than delivering it via his tongue, and slathering it on an opposing player. He could actually do that, and then do that again, and the NHL would only say it's somewhat concerned, but would not actually levy any punishment. Even if it's a playoff game! Because the NHL is a league where licking someone -- or multiple someones -- on the face isn't worse than spitting at them.

Fake sneezing on Gudbranson. Perhaps the best course of action for Hathaway. Campbell said he's legislated incidents in which players have spit at referees, which set a quasi-precedence for players spitting on players, one imagines. But a well-masked fake sneeze could not only deliver the payload on Gudbranson, but avoid any comparable actions. Because the NHL is a league where ... well, we assume it can be hood-winked by an expertly placed fake sneeze.

The people this suspension hurts most are the ones in the Department of Player Safety. First, because most fans believe they're the ones who hand out these kinds of suspensions, which isn't true, as it's not their jurisdiction.

Second, because all suspensions -- boarding, stickwork, hits to the head, drugs, attacking a ref, spitting -- inevitably get compared to each other, fairly or unfairly. So, going forward, the department will have to hear things like, "Oh sure, two games for an elbow to the skull but spitting gets three games?!" And that stinks.

Spitting is gross. Spitting should be discouraged. A fine would have sufficed. A three-game suspension for it, within any context, doesn't make a lick of sense.

Jersey Fouls

From Hollywood:

@wyshynski live in game jerseys foul.
I like the #CUJO jersey but you can't tuck an #NHL Jersey into your pantalones !#Isles #Leafs #JerseyFoul #LeafsForever #IslesTwitter pic.twitter.com/xqst3JQCcF

— Jay Dugan (@jaydugan) November 14, 2019

We're all for repping your favorite game system, and frankly this is a much better decision than, say, a "PS 3" jersey. But it remains a Foul, unless it was hand-delivered by the company as a promotional tie-in for an NHL title. Frankly, we're sad for poor Matt Luff, a.k.a. the player who has worn No. 64 for the Los Angeles Kings for 37 games over the last two seasons.

From the Island: