My post from yesterday asking readers what they thought about playing the game 4-on-4 for the full 60 minutes seemed to kick up some ice chips -- and mostly negative reviews. Here's Jes Golbez:
A simple solution that everyone forgets aboutCALL THE FREAKIN OBSTRUCTION PENALTIES!!
Remember how great it was earlier in the season 2 years ago when the refs actually called obstruction penalties and the game opened up?
Indeed, the game did improve when Obstruction was called more often. Unfortunately, as Costa Tsiokos mentions over at Population Statistic (and congrats on the new digs), the trend didn't last, leaving us right back where we started.
Here's another comment by Costa that bears repeating, and refuting:
The only reason 4-on-4 OT seems more exciting and open is precisely because there is nothing to lose in that situation. If the 3-point nature of the OT didn't exist and it was still winner-take-both-points, we'd be complaining about how the OT period sucked.
Strictly in terms of game theory, Costas has a point -- adding that extra point while protecting one earned in regulation certainly has helped make NHL OT far more exciting than it used to be.
But can anyone dispute the fact that when we get a 4-on-4 situation in regulation that the game doesn't open up considerably? Why is it that whenever teams get matching minors, television commentators start buzzing like giddy teenage girls?
Even better, as DC Throwback mentioned, a power play becomes a 4-on-3 proposition. Ask any coach, which power play is more devestating: 5-on-4 or 4-on-3? They'll say 4-on-3 (rare as it is), every time.
Which leads us back to Game Theory. When you cut back to 4-on-4, you're raising the cost of a minor penalty high enough to change the arithmetic of the game. Know this, the New Jersey Devils play as tough as they do because they know they can kill off a 5-on-4 man advantage better than 85 percent of the time. But make that normal power play a 4-on-3 instead of a 5-on-4, and the math is all different.
Even better, a two-man advantage would now be 5-on-3, as teams would be allowed to add an extra skater just as in the current OT format.
With that sort of risk, something tells me John Madden and company are going to give folks more room to skate. Which leads us to this comment by Puck Cat:
Absolutely NO to removing a skater and playing the game 4 on 4. The result would be a scrambling mess and a distortion of the sport. The beauty of classic line rushes though rarely seen now would be long gone.
I'm sorry, but I don't know how much more invisible that kind of play can be than it is today. And in fact, this sort of evolution has happened before in ice hockey, a game that originally developed with 14 players on the ice -- six skaters and a goalie on each team:
First of all there was the guardian of the goal mouth, then called the Goal Tender or the Goal Keeper. In front of him and helping to guard against the other team getting close to the goal mouth were two stalwarts known as the Point and the Cover Point, the equivalents of today's Defencemen. Then there was the front line of four, the Three Forwards and an extra player called the Rover. The Forwards carried the game to the other team, while the Rover, who was notoriously the team's fastest skater, best stick-handler, and highest scorer, was allowed to play wherever he pleased on the ice, while the others continually tried to set him up for one man rushes.
Eventually, as the game evolved, and the skill of the other players increased markedly, the position of Rover was eliminated. The classic lines that existed at the dawn of the game were erased forever. Why mention this? Because I don't believe we should be eternally wedded to the way the game looks now.
Even at 4-on-4, the essence of the game -- skating, shooting, passing, and scoring -- would still exist. With the extra room on the ice, each player would be forced to cover more space -- creating a greater premium on speed and skill.
I don't want to pretend that this isn't a "radical" idea. But I propose it only because the folks in charge of the game at the NHL level have ignored the decay in play for so long that an idea like this one has to at least be considered.
Here in the States, the verdict on the current state of the NHL has been rendered in the television ratings and at the box office. Except in a limited number of local markets, the game is in trouble. And desperate times call for desperate measures.
To offer a parallel, basketball was originally played nine-to-a-side, with strict offsides ruled (three players in the froncourt, three in the middle, three in the back). IIRC, Dr. Naismith wanted a game where everyone could play at once. When this proved very slow and messy in practice, the teams were gradually reduced to five-per-side.
Want to improve NHL hockey without fundamentally altering the game? Move the goalposts back to where they belong, expand the width of the ice surface where possible, call obstruction consistently, and most importantly: eliminate four to six franchises. Contraction will clear the ice better than four on four in my opinion. There are still too many marginal NHL players who bring down the overall skill level. A smaller number of deeper, more highly skilled teams would vastly improve the quality of the sport.
Also, make Gary Bettman disappear.
“Contraction will clear the ice better than four on four in my opinion. There are still too many marginal NHL players who bring down the overall skill level. A smaller number of deeper, more highly skilled teams would vastly improve the quality of the sport.”
More depth costs more money. Are guys that play on the first and second lines of so-called marginal teams suddenly going to be happy to take less money and less ice-time to be third and fourth line players? Not likely.
Rather than straight-up contraction, I would propose allowing franchises to merge. It’s a radical idea for sports, but hardly an original concept within the larger realm of free market economics.
Enough with contraction…. No company ever downsized it’s way to greatness. That goes for sports leagues too. Contraction would not be a rejuvinator of the NHL, it would be the death knell.
I was tempted to mention the dearly-departed Rover last time… The current displays of 4-on-4 we see in the NHL is in highly specialized situations. I’m not married to the idea of keeping 5 skaters due to tradition, but I don’t see a reduction as opening up the ice that much — if it becomes the norm. The trap can work just as well 4-on-4; it just becomes 1-1-2 instead of 1-2-2, and when you’re facing 4 guys on the opposite side, you get right back to what we have now.
Do I have an alternative to 4-on-4? If I did, I’d be bending Bettman’s ear right now
Frankly, I’m not convinced this era isn’t a cyclical occurence. Again, I’ll point to my local team, the Lightning: A team noted for rejecting the trap, and it got them a Cup. Given how copycat the league is (like all sports league are), I’d expect to see a lot more teams to emulate a more open style of play.
Ben — “More depth costs more money.”
Under the current CBA, you are correct. Teams cannot afford to pay for 3-4 lines of high-quality players. Why? Because these skilled players are scarce and hence expensive. But I think the economics of contraction would change this dynamic and benefit everyone: the league, the owners, the fans and even the players. As it stands now, many teams cannot field (or ice) two decent lines. If you reduced the number of NHL “jobs,” more teams will be able to put together 3-4 good lines. Being a third-liner won’t have the negative connotations it does today, and ice time (and salaries) will be more equitably distributed. Not everyone will be “happy” with the new arrangement, but the remaining players will be enriched as the economics of the league overall improve.
“But I think the economics of contraction would change this dynamic and benefit everyone: the league, the owners, the fans”
Except for the fans who lose their teams. Being in a southern market I hate the idea of contraction because everyone wants to get rid of my team. Screw that, ask people in Hartford how they feel about contraction. I don’t buy into the idea of talent dilution due to all of these teams. There seems to be enough talent to fill leagues all over the world and many of them are damn good. Again if you truly want to make the game better call the penalities. Oh and make Bettman go bye bye.
Oh and I know the Whale wasn’t truly contracted, but you get the gist of what I’m saying.
“Enough with contraction…. No company ever downsized it’s way to greatness.”
“Being in a southern market I hate the idea of contraction because everyone wants to get rid of my team.”
CT & Charlie, too — The NHL has certainly upsized its way to mediocrity. There just aren’t enough “world-class” hockey players to distribute among thirty franchises. And, sadly, there aren’t enough hockey fans in the U.S. to support 24 domestic NHL teams, especially when the one-ice product is less-than entertaining. Of course, contraction would be painful for many hockey fans, but sometimes the best course of action is the toughest to take.
Regarding penalties, I too would like to see the rules against obstruction enforced more consistently, and I think this would improve the game immensely. But maybe clutching, grabbing, and hooking are so prevalent because a marginal NHL player can only compete with his skilled opponents by adopting such forceful tactics. I’d rather see these players otherwise employed.
And get rid of Gary Bettman, of course.
I know this is supposed to be the “Free Market” sports fan site, so let me inject a little economic theory here….
Sports is not a free market — it’s a closed market. The talent level is fixed — you can’t make Jerome Iginla in a factory. So if you increase the demand by adding teams, marginal talent gets priced higher.
I’m a Sabres fan and I’m realistic enough to know if anyone get contracted the Sabres and Senators will be the first to step to the executioner’s block. It would kill me to see that happen, but the NHL screwed up by adding too many teams over the past 10 years. Now it’s time to pay the bill.
God, I hate Gary Bettman!
Eric, if you’re ultimate objective is increasing the game’s popularity, I think you’re grasping for straws here. The game will never become popular outside of its current markets, as hockey has always been a regional game. I’m not in favor of altering the game’s dynamics to satisfy the “casual” hockey fan, if only for the reason that it’s relatively impossible.
I can’t offer conclusive evidence to back up my claim that hockey will never be national, but I do think it’s time for some of these radical propositions to be put in perspective. I think people that play the game can tell you with confidence that the quality of hockey WILL NOT improve if the 4-on-4 format were instituted. If you really want, I’ll provide you with some theoretical diagrams for coaches’ approaches to 4-on-4 to show you what I mean.
It seems to me that in order to improve the game, the owners are going to have to spend money. The surest means to improve the game is to increase the size of the ice. Think back to the last winter Olympics or those rare instances where we see european hockey (occasionally appearing on the Scola network on some cable systems. Swedish Elite League–in Swedish!). Wasn’t that the best hockey you’d seen in years? And don’t tell me that *all* of the players at the Olympics were better than NHL quality…
Relying on the league to call obstruction penalties is an exercise in futility. Get rid of the instigator penalty & let the players police themselves. Not only will it cut down on cheap shots, but it will bring back some of the casual fans. Why do most people watch NASCAR? For the wrecks! Why do casual NHL fans watch hockey? For the fights!
Get rid of the center red line to increase breakaways, and have automatic icing. The fewer stoppages, the better.