NHL goalie debate: An expert and hater argue equipment, interference, bigger nets and more

Let us acknowledge the noble goaltender.

The last line of defense, tirelessly doing the thankless work of keeping pucks out of the net, sacrificing their own bodies to block vulcanized rubber fired at upward of 100 miles per hour, all the while knowing that theyll take the blame for the bad and rarely get the glory for the good.

Theyre hockeys unsung heroes, doing the hardest job in all of sports without credit or complaint.

Advertisement Well, unless theyre just big weird oafs in oversized equipment who are ruining the game we love, robotically sucking the excitement out of the sport in between bouts of flopping and crying about somebody barely brushing up against them in whats supposed to be a contact sport.

Thats the debate.

Or at least, it will be today, as two of The Athletics hockey writers have decided to go back and forth on various topics from the goaltending world.

Jesse Granger is our goaltending expert, who both plays the position himself and breaks down its intricacies for the rest of us.

Sean McIndoe is an old man who sits on his couch and complains about things, and he loves the very offense that goalies are there to prevent.

Like Patrick Roy in his prime, theyve decided that the best way to handle a dispute is to skate out to center ice and duke it out.

They got together for five mini-debates, presented below.

Argument No.

1: Equipment The question: Goalie equipment is larger today than it was decades ago.

But is it too big, or just right? Sean says: In a league in which all the other equipment continues to get smaller and more effective, goalie gear has ballooned up to sumo size.

We all know whats going on here, and the league should do something about it.

Jesse says: Im not opposed to the idea of slimming down some areas if its possible to do without compromising protection, but I totally disagree with the idea that goalie gear has ballooned in size.

All of the equipment regulations are tighter now than they were in the 1990s, which is when I believe we actually had an issue with oversized equipment.

Just to start, Id like to go over a quick history of the equipment size regulations so we understand the facts.

Goalies werent permitted to drop to the ice to make a save until 1917, and shortly after in 1925 the league set a limit of 12 inches in width for leg pads.

That standard has fluctuated slightly, narrowing to 10 inches in 1937 and returning to 12 inches in 1989.

In 2005, the league shrunk the maximum leg pad width to the current standard of 11 inches.

These pads have largely remained the same size throughout NHL history, and if anything, theyre covering less net now than they have over the last 30 years.

Advertisement The glove has also shrunk from a maximum circumference of 50 inches in 1998 to the current maximum of 45 inches (changed in 2005), and the blocker is only allowed to be eight inches by 15 inches (one inch shorter than it was prior to 2005).

The league also limited the size of chest protectors in 2018, but the dimensions vary much more due to individual goalie proportions.

The narrative of goalie pads being too large is overstated.

I also think that the idea that current goalies could survive a game wearing pads the same size as Jacques Plantes isnt based in reality.

The innovations in stick technology have turned most shots into rockets that simply didnt exist back then.

The biggest gripes I see about equipment size are typically in reference to the chest protector, and the current level of protection is absolutely necessary to avoid injury when facing 90-mile-per-hour shots on a regular basis.

Sean says: Youre right that this isnt a new problem, and I dont think anyone wants the goalies to go back to the Original Six gear.

But the NHL let the issue get completely out of hand in the 1990s, to the point where even a goaltending fan like you would have to admit it was ridiculous.

Then they eventually took action and reined it back ...

a little bit.

But it was only a little, and mostly focused on the leg pads.

Meanwhile, goalies are going out there with shoulder pads like linebackers, and were supposed to believe its about safety instead of an obvious attempt to take even more of the top of the net away.

Jesse says: I totally get why people want the chest protectors to be smaller.

Goalies look like the Michelin Man with them on, and a turtle without its shell when they shed their gear following the game.

The problem is, chest protectors need to be that size to adequately protect the goalie.

More surface area better distributes the impact of 100-mile-per-hour slap shots.

The league already reduced the size back in 2018, so theyve trimmed the fat.

Even with the current tank-sized equipment, goalies are still regularly hit in unprotected areas up high, causing stingers near the collarbone area (or worse).

Anyone whos faced shots will tell you the chest protectors arent as bulletproof as they appear.

If theres a way to minimize the gear size without increasing the risk of injury, Id be in favor of it.

Im sure youd hear gripes from plenty of goalies initially, but in the long run, it would probably be good for the position.

I think one of the biggest current issues with the position at the highest level is that its tough for the best to separate themselves from the pack.

Technical training has made goalies so efficient that outside of the few elite at the top, theyre all very close in skill.

That has resulted in teams being reluctant to sign long-term contracts at times.

Advertisement Shrinking the equipment could allow for a wider range of results, giving more-skilled goaltenders a bigger edge over the rest of the pack.

Unlike collarbone stingers, that doesnt sound like a bad thing at all.

Sean says: I appreciate the science, but I guess Im just a skeptic.

Ive seen equipment all throughout sports football players, baseball catchers, plus every other hockey position get sleeker and smaller but also more effective.

Just about the only exception is hockey goalies, the one position that just happens to benefit from being as big as possible.

I guess its all just a weird coincidence.

Argument No.

2: Interference The question: Goaltender interference remains a confusing rule for many fans.

But in general, do goalies get the right amount of protection from the league? Sean says: First of all, the rule isnt that confusing .

And for once, the league gets it just about right and if anything, we should loosen the rules to make a few more of those waved-off goals count.

Jesse says: I agree with you that the amount of protection for goalies to perform their job is pretty spot-on at the moment, and your explanation of the rule is the best Ive seen, including the one in the actual rulebook.

To me, the only real area of the rule that needs more clarification is when it comes to players battling for loose pucks in and around the crease.

The most obvious example of this confusion happened in November 2024, when Connor Hellebuyck was driven into his net on a goal that somehow counted .

After that play, Hellebuyck revealed that he had made a 45-minute presentation to the rules committee outlining the changes he would like to see to the rule.

I really, really want to see Hellebuycks presentation skills, and I also think its an area where the rules could be worded better to provide clarification.

Outside of that, I dont have many gripes about the rule.

Advertisement Sean says: Ive defended the interference rule over the years, so Im not going to completely rewrite it here.

But this league needs more goals, and letting teams call for lengthy reviews to figure out a way to take them off the board works against that.

The NHL has been much better over the last few seasons at only overturning the call on the ice in extreme cases, which is how it should be.

If the ref on the ice sees a goal, it should stay that way unless the replay is obvious.

And sure, since were here, Ill just say it: You goalies might get a few more calls going your way on interference if you didnt embellish the crap out of the most minor contact.

Its hockey, theres going to be the occasional contact, maybe dont flop around every time a light breeze hits you.

Jesse says: This may come as a surprise, but I completely agree with you on this one.

I cannot stand the flopping.

I get that a goalie thinks he needs to sell the contact in order to get the correct call, but with slow-motion replay, we should be able to get it right without the acting.

In terms of the actual rule, I think it would help to separate what happens inside and outside of the crease even more dramatically than they already have.

If a goalie knows that any contact no matter how slight inside his crease will result in goalie interference, he wont feel the need to sell the contact as much.

Along those same lines, if goalies know theyre not protected from contact outside of the blue paint, it will give them interesting decisions to make.

Do I engage in a net-front battle with this forward in order to gain those extra few inches of precious depth and net coverage? Argument No.

3: The Hart Trophy The question: Only three goalies have won the Hart Trophy in the nearly six decades of the expansion era.

Should goalies get more MVP love from voters? Sean says: There have been years when Id vote for a goalie, including this one.

But can you really be the leagues MVP when you only play 50 or 60 games? Jesse says: Its a fair argument, especially with the leagues current trend toward goalie tandems.

Workhorse netminders are a dying breed, but they still exist, and are the exact types who should be considered for the Hart Trophy.

If a goalie is in a true tandem, rotating starts, I dont think they should necessarily be considered for the Hart, no matter how brilliant they are.

Advertisement The best example of this is Linus Ullmark in 2022-23.

He lapped the field in most goaltending metrics that season and was the deserved Vezina Trophy winner, but starting only 58.5 percent of his teams games should rule him out for Hart consideration.

However, when a goalie is putting up historically great numbers while playing a huge share of the games like Hellebuyck this season he should be heavily considered for Hart.

Even playing fewer games than his forward and defenseman counterparts, a goalie affects his teams wins and losses far more.

Not only is he on the ice for the entirety of the game, his performance plays a bigger factor in team success.

Sean says: What about the argument you hear sometimes that says that goalies already have their own specific award in the Vezina? Between that, two postseason All-Star slots, and the Masterton, arent we already blowing enough smoke up the goaltenders well-padded behinds? Jesse says: Id simply point to the giant glass case housing the hardware for the Art Ross, Maurice Rocket Richard and Frank J.

Selke trophies.

If were going to change the Hart Trophy to a most valuable skater award, then so be it, but as long as its for the most valuable player, goalies should be in consideration.

I think its a good way to differentiate historically great goaltending seasons and separate them from past Vezina winners.

Sean says: Its also worth noting that even a goalie who only plays 45 games is still spending more minutes on the ice than the leagues most-used forward or defenseman.

Wait, Im arguing Jesses side of this one now, lets just move on ...

Argument No.

4: The nets The question: There was a day when heavy equipment meant that goalies had to be smaller, with most under 6 feet.

Now, thats often considered too small for an NHL goaltender, and we have guys as big as 6-foot-7 protecting a net thats the same size.

Is it time to make the nets bigger and restore some of that balance? Jesse says: If these 6-7 goalies were coming in and dominating the league, I might be able to get behind this, but thats not the case.

Of the 97 goalies to play in the NHL this season, only three are 6-7.

Of those three, only one has played more than a handful of games Philadelphias Ivan Fedotov and he has been statistically one of the worst goalies in the league.

Advertisement Meanwhile, the vast majority of the goalies in the NHL are between 6-2 and 6-4.

Shesterkin (6-1) and Sergei Bobrovsky (6-2) are dominating and Calgarys Dustin Wolf looks like a future star, standing only 6-0.

Athletes have gotten bigger in just about every sport over time.

I dont think the strategy of putting a massive human in the crease has worked well enough to consider changing the rules because of it.

Sean says: Its not just the bigger goalies.

Its bigger goalies wearing bigger equipment with better technique.

Watch any replay of Wayne Gretzky winding up and scoring on some tiny 1980s goalie, then compare that to what Leon Draisaitl has to shoot at these days.

One guy had a ton of space to shoot at; the other is aiming for slivers.

The fact that anyone scores much at all these days is a testament to the skill of todays forwards, but all that skill is at least partially being wasted by having them try to fit the puck into a thimble.

The big objection to larger nets has always been tradition that when in doubt, we should keep the sport as is.

I agree.

And for decades, the sport was meant to have enough open net for the shooters to target.

Weve lost that over the last few decades, and it wouldnt take a huge change to restore some of that balance.

Jesse says: I agree with a lot of your points here, but the adjustment would be absolutely brutal on the goalies.

Theyve trained their entire lives to feel the net behind them.

They are so in tune with the angles (both consciously and subconsciously) that I imagine adjusting to even an extra inch of net would be incredibly difficult.

This is less of an argument against it, and more of an expression of dread for how many extra goals Id be giving up for the Beer League Bullies every Sunday night.

Sean says: For the record, I consider the adjustment would be absolutely brutal on the goalies to be a feature, not a bug.

If todays goalie-bots are so well-programmed that adjusting to an extra inch would throw them off, then maybe we need to shake things up.

Ill leave you with one final argument, but it wont be mine.

How about this essay from a legendary big goaltender: Ken Dryden, who made the case for bigger nets a few years ago under the headline Hockey has a gigantic goalie problem.

Are you really going to tell the hockey worlds single most-respected author, historian and intellectual that hes wrong here? Because Im not, and neither is Ken Dryden.

Argument No.

5: Fun factor The question: Theres little question that modern goalies are better now than theyve ever been.

But what about the entertainment value of the sports most important position? Are goalies more fun to watch these days? Sean says: Goalies are way harder to score on today than they were when I was growing up.

But theyve achieved that with bigger equipment, perfect positioning and smothering rebound control that means half the scoring chances just seem to hit them in the chest.

Hockey was more fun when goalies actually had to move to make a save.

Advertisement Jesse says: This is going to be a tough one to argue because Im a weirdo who finds it really fun to watch a goalie spring into perfect position with brilliant edgework, cut off any potential shooting angles and watch as the shooter has no option but to helplessly fling the puck into the crest of the goalies jersey.

Sean says: Who hurt you, Jesse? Jesse says: The crease can be a lonely place, Sean.

Sean says: Ill just go straight Old Man Mode here.

I grew up in an era in which goalies had to actually move their limbs to make saves.

The heavier equipment meant goalies had to be smaller, which meant they couldnt take away the entire net just based on their presence.

(Hikes up pants.) Theyd get into position, as best they could, but then they had to watch the shot and see where it was going and actually respond to it.

(Waves cane around.) That led to windmill glove saves and sliding pad stacks and all sorts of other highlight-reel moves that you just dont see much these days.

Today, the only time a goalie has to actually react to the puck instead of just letting it him is when he makes a mistake and ends up out of position.

So, once every few weeks or so.

Modern goalies are the worst.

Jesse says: Goalies are still reacting to shots and making saves with their limbs; theyre just doing it in a more efficient way.

Ill be the first to admit, I love a good windmill.

It doesnt get much better than Igor Shesterkin bringing Madison Square Garden to its feet with a flamboyant flash of the leather, but that save selection has become less common for a reason.

Goalies are playing with their hands more in front of their body, projecting the gloves toward the puck to cover more net.

Then, when they see a high shot, they stab their glove or blocker forward, which is simply taking the shortest route to the puck.

It requires less movement, is more repeatable, and allows the goalie to maintain vision of the puck all the way into the glove or blocker, which improves rebound control.

The same goes for pad saves, which have transformed from dramatic kicking motions to a widely flared butterfly.

It has less room for error and makes the rebounds more predictable.

Advertisement I dont disagree that its less visually impressive to watch, but good luck convincing goalie coaches to teach extravagancy over efficiency.

Sean says: Or we could make the nets a bit bigger and force those boring goalies and their coaches to adjust, you big weird oafs.

(Top photo of Jets goalies Connor Hellebuyck and Eric Comrie laughing: Jonathan Kozub / NHLI via Getty Images).

This article has been shared from the original article on theathleticuk, here is the link to the original article.