Four-on-four hockey? Don't dismiss it so quickly

Sporting News, The, March 1, 1999 by Larry Wigge

Zero. Zip. Nada. Sorry, but a 0-0 stalemate last Thursday between the Panthers and Blues in St. Louis was as much fun as watching the ice melt. It was the 15th tie in 17 overtime games for Florida and the 10th tie in 12 over time games for St. Louis.

In the past three seasons, the number of tie games has become exorbitant-201, 214 and 219 games have been tied after 60 minutes. And this season we're on another 200-plus stalemate pace.

The International Hockey League and the Olympics have used a shootout to decide games for the past few years, and that's certainly an option for the NHL. A variety of other gimmicks have been discussed, including a bigger net, removing the red line and giving each team one point after regulation, then playing for another point in the five-minute overtime.

All gimmicks to put on a good face with the fans, who are paying more and walking away without a winner and loser like they see when attending games in baseball, basketball and football. Last Friday, ironically, one day after the B-O-R-I-N-G Florida-St. Louis game, the American Hockey League agreed to an experiment for the NHL in which each team plays four-on-four through five minutes of overtime to try to break ties.

Another gimmick? You bet.

"I know what our numbers are," Panthers coach Terry Murray says. "I don't mean to sound smart, but if they want to play four-on-four, why don't they play the whole game four-on-four? Personally, I'll take a tie on the road anytime."

And there you have it. Coaches are in such jeopardy that they no longer play to win-they play to not lose.

Breaking 26 percent of the ties this season is actually not so different from the 24.6 percent tie-breaking rate of a year ago, so the perception that this season's plight is so outrageous is preposterous.

"I think they should just go back to playing 60 minutes and forget the overtime," Hall of Fame defenseman Denis Potvin says. "There were not as many ties when I played-and I'll tell you the final two minutes of games were more exciting than most overtimes I see today.

"Now, all of the elements are against the overtime because teams are playing three games in four nights more often, players are fatigued--some injured--and still play, but, most of all, the ice is awful in most of these new buildings today. You risk a $5 million or $6 million a year investment every time you send him out there on that ice. I've never seen so many times 2-on-1 or 3-on-2 breaks where a player simply loses control of the puck, or a pass bounces over a stick because of the bad ice surfaces. And it only gets worse in overtime because they don't resurface it."

Capitals coach Ron Wilson does a complete about face, saying, "Sometimes I wish they'd just let us play until there's a winner. That's what we do in the playoffs--and no one seems to mind."

Blues G.M. Larry Pleau focuses on the ties as an aberration in a business that simply has grown too fast for its own good. "We've been seeking parity for a long time," he says. "Well, we've got it now. But that doesn't mean that a company that grows too fast doesn't catch up and eliminate the flaws you see while growing."

Says Stars G.M. Bob Gainey, "The ice surface is still 200-by-85 and the players are getting bigger and stronger and faster. Four-on-four would open up the ice the way it did when Wayne Gretzky and Mark Messier and Jari Kurd and Glenn Anderson would take those 100-foot passes for the Oilers in the 1980s and bring everyone out of their seats waiting for something exciting to happen."

One thing is clear: Four-on-four hockey, whether it is all the time or just in overtime, would give a team with two or three great offensive players an advantage over the rest. And with more ice, the top defensive players would not be as effective as checkers. The style of play would put a premium on skilled players.

"We found out quickly at the Olympics that you can get lost out there when there is more space to work with," Stars center Mike Modano says.

A couple of years ago at the All-Star Game, I asked Detroit's Steve Yzerman who in the NHL he would pay to see. His response was interesting. "I'd say Paul Kariya and Teemu Selanne, Mario Lemieux and Jaromir Jagr, Wayne Gretzky and Mark Messier, Peter Forsberg and Joe Sakic and Eric Lindros and John LeClair," he said. "Why? Because I've learned how important it is for one player to learn a teammate's moves-and because odd-man situations result in most of the pretty goals you see in this game. Seeing two players play as one, to me, is one of the most beautiful parts of our game."

When I think back to that Florida-St. Louis yawner last week, I wonder how the overtime might have looked if the Panthers had a healthy Pavel Bure with Ray Whitney up front and Robert Svehla and Bret Hedican on defense vs. Pierre Turgeon and Pavol Demitra up front for the Blues with Al MacInnis and Chris Pronger on defense. All those marvelous players with plenty of room to display their marvelous talents.

"Gimmicks," Predators G.M. David Poile says. "The game has more flow this season and will continue to get better."