You know, it always amuses me that people bitch about how low scoring games make the game boring.
There are many valid complaints about how the low scoring matches and how each goal influences a team's chance of advancing, but saying the game is boring is stupid. There are still plenty of shot attempts made, and it's not like it's fucking golf where you're watching some guy stand still most of the time.
I really want to second this: Basketball is kinda low on my list of how exciting games are to watch. "Oh look, somebody scored...how exciting and different! I will remember this moment forever!" >_>
I actually remember when there was a vocal group of Ringette detractors who wanted to reform Ringette by making it
harder to score--arguing that it would be more exciting (totals like 4-7 are pretty normal in Ringette). (Honestly, no such change to Ringette was needed; a goal every 5 minutes is a large enough gap to be something worth cheering for). Of course, Ringette's problem is that it's a Canadian sport, so everyone compares it to Hockey (the lower scoring game) and assumes that Hockey must be doing everything right because it's more popular (when the reality is that Hockey is more popular because it's been around a lot longer...and was not a girls-only sport. Really: it's not because of the zone rules >_>).
Though, it is noteworthy that the NHL switched to 4-on-4 overtime to make things more exciting (lowering the number of players trends towards higher-scoring; Ringette being 3-on-3 near the goal, and all that. Similarly, 5-on-5 Soccer is a fairly high-scoring game). That said, the NHL only changed
overtime, not regular play (which makes sense--they want overtime to end).
Honestly...I'm not sure if there's necessarily better or worse scoring frequencies for player excitement. Most people tend to just swear by whatever scoring frequency they're used to, and complain that all other games are too high/too low.
