What We Learned: Should the NHL switch to 4-on-4 hockey?

(Hello, this is a feature that will run through the entire season and aims to recap the weekend’s events and boils those events down to one admittedly superficial fact or stupid opinion about each team. Feel free to complain about it.)

This is not going to be a popular opinion shared by many hockey traditionalists, but sports always evolve.

I know we like to act as though the game today is in many ways fundamentally similar to how it was played 20, 30, maybe even 40 years ago. Or at least, it would be if not for these giant goalie pads and everyone trying to block shots. It is not. The neutral zone is a different size. There’s more space behind the nets, sticks are longer, there’s video review, and so on. There didn’t used to be a puck-over-the-glass minor. The two-line pass came and went. It used to be that all minor penalties ran the full two minutes. They didn’t even used to have delayed penalties. They got rid of ties, for pete’s sake.

Hell, there are guys in the Hall of Fame who played a decade before they decided you could pass the puck forward.

So the game changes, always.

And with the second year of a 3-on-3 tournament All-Star Game now in the books, I wonder if at some point the NHL, in its desperate search for offense wherever it can be created, doesn’t eventually trim down the number of players on the ice to 4-on-4.

This isn’t a new idea, of course. When the League first announced it would go from a 4-on-4 OT to 3-on-3, many wondered whether that meant there was a future for the game going 4-on-4 in regulation. Others openly advocated for it.

At this point, it seems as though the League has seized on the 3-on-3 All-Star format as something that works for all involved. Players seem to like it more, fans and media both in the building and watching on TV seem to have altogether stopped complaining about the lack of Playing Hard. This is also a great way to unlock the skills-y aspects of the game that sometimes don’t shine through when you’re playing 5-on-5. If the League is smart, this doesn’t change.

With this in mind, it’s very plausible that the League, coming out of some future lockout yet unimagined, decides the best way to get fans back is to give 4-on-4 regulation play a try.

Sounds silly to say right now, but again, take film of today’s game back to even 1988 and people will be amazed at the speed and obstructionism. They’ll gape at the fact the best players are bailing on attacking zone time after 60 seconds at the very most. They will marvel at Jonathan Toews not-smoking a pack a day during the offseason.

I’m not here to say switching to 4-on-4 in regulation would be better or worse for the game. That’s entirely subjective. I think I’d probably like it better in theory. But obviously if you’re playing 60 minutes with eight skaters on the ice rather than 10, everything about the game changes immediately. More so than if you do something like making the nets bigger. In actual practice, it might be difficult or impossible to pull off for a number of reasons.

The number of goals scored every 60 minutes of 4-on-4 versus 5-on-5 isn’t as significant as you might think, and would more likely return scoring to levels observed in the ’80s, which is what everyone over the age of 35 seems to want the NHL to do in the first place. One thing we don’t really talk about is that in this, the most stifled Dead Puck Era ever, we’re only seeing about two fewer goals per game

But the more impactful changes ushered in by a 4-on-4 regulation would be how players are used. With only four guys on the ice at the same time, there’s more skating, but one wonders if time on ice numbers would change appreciably. By and large, NHL players are hyper-conditioned athletes who could probably stand to play as many minutes at 4-on-4 as they do at 5-on-5. Not all of them, of course, but you understand.

At this point 4-on-4 hockey is so rare that we just don’t know the kind of impact playing a lot of it will have on guys’ endurance. And similarly, you have to also consider that what data we do have might be based heavily on guys emptying the tanks because they’re trying to earn the extra point in the standings with an OT win. If the League goes 4-on-4, does Connor McDavid still play 21 minutes a night? Does a guy like Dustin Byfuglien or Drew Doughty keep getting 27? Is it physically possible to play that much 4-on-4 for 82 games plus the playoffs? Probably, but you wonder how it affects performance as the season goes along. Even if guys pace themselves,

The bigger question in this regard is whether it would change NHL roster sizes, and specifically whether they cut a few guys from the active in-game lineup. Obviously that’s not something the NHLPA would go for. It wants more jobs, not fewer. And given the way the guys at the bottom of the average NHL roster are asked to play the game, do we really want to see a few shifts in a row of today’s third-pairing defensemen and fourth-line forwards with that much extra space?

The thing that makes 3-on-3 and 4-on-4 attractive as it stands is that all the time on ice there is going to skill players. That wouldn’t be physically possible without a wholesale change in the way teams sign, draft, and develop players. And look, that’s something the league would benefit from in the first place, because the sooner we eradicate the term “stay-at-home defenseman” from the lexicon, the better off everyone but the tall guys who can’t skate is.

Honestly, this might not be worth worrying about. As far as tinkering with the underlying machinations of the sport, this might be a bridge too far for even Gary Bettman and Co. to enact. Especially because a move to 4-on-4 helps to eliminate the League’s Precious Parity: Teams with more skill players would instantly start racking up a lot of points on those without 10 or so guys who can play the game at a fast pace.

But hell, you never know. They play 3-on-3 overtime then go to a shootout, and no one from the ’80s would recognize that as something they fundamentally understand the game of hockey to be.

What We Learned

Anaheim Ducks: Who knew a team coached by Randy Carlyle wouldn’t be that good defensively? Shocking turn of events, folks.

Arizona Coyotes: The awesome goal in the Skills Competition only serves as a reminder that Mike Smith is an All-Star. Thumbs down.

Boston Bruins: Fire Neely, sure, but not Sweeney? Hmm. That doesn’t seem right.

Buffalo Sabres: Kyle Okposo is one of those guys I can’t believe the Islanders just let walk. He’s been really, predictably good for the Sabres.

Calgary Flames: Hahaha imagine if they trade Sam Bennett? Haha.

Carolina Hurricanes: Can someone please just buy this team so it can be run properly going forward? They’re building something great but seem to need some help in addition to time.

Chicago: None of Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane, or Duncan Keith are even close to being in the 100 best players in the history of the league. This is idiotic. All the people that complain about too many mediocre-ass Canadiens in the getting into the HHOF and so on because they won those Cups, well, this is your generation’s dumbass take on the same theme.

Colorado Avalanche: This is the only successful avalanche in Colorado so far this season.

Columbus Blue Jackets: John Tortorella’s most endearing endearing quality by far is how much he loves dogs. Who can blame him? Dogs are very, very great.

Dallas Stars: Pretty crazy that Tyler Seguin likes going to a three-day party every year.

Detroit Red Wings: The fact that Ken Holland is still on the fence about how to approach the future tells me he shouldn’t be the guy who’s allowed to make those decisions.

Edmonton Oilers: This is all I want in hockey is these two nice boys playing together forever.

Florida Panthers: Ah yes, well-known Florida Panther Joe Nieuwendyk, who played 80 games there when he was 39. You’re just lucky we’re giving you Jagr on this one.

Los Angeles Kings: Jeff Carter is having one of the low-key best seasons in the league this year. Bless him.

Minnesota Wild: If you’re all-in on the Wild I can see why and I don’t all the way blame you but this isn’t an elite team or anything, man. It really isn’t.

Montreal Canadiens: This is what I was saying about the Cups thing. Like, almost a quarter of the best players in league history played for the Canadiens? There’s no way that’s true. Sorry.

Nashville Predators: This guy right here? This is the freaking guy.

New Jersey Devils: What do you mean, “should?”

New York Islanders: Hahaha. Oh yeah baby.

New York Rangers: The Rangers play 8 of 13 at home in February, plus two more in either Brooklyn or Newark. If they can’t turn their season around then, that’ll just about do it.

Ottawa Senators: The Senators definitely need a logo change. Agreed.

Philadelphia Flyers: I mean, in theory yes. In actual practice you need, like, some goaltending.

Pittsburgh Penguins: This says Sidney Crosby… went to an All-Star Game? That doesn’t seem right. Fake news, folks! Can you believe it!

San Jose Sharks: Hockey’s starstruck reaction to any celebrity having the slightest interest in the sport will never not be funny to me.

St. Louis Blues: This goaltending thing is really turning into a huge problem.

Tampa Bay Lightning: Luca Sbisa, of all people, isn’t wrong here.

Toronto Maple Leafs: Getting Shattenkirk would be pretty good for the Leafs. Shattenkirk is very good. All it’ll cost them is William Nylander!!!!

Vancouver Canucks: You’re not gonna believe this but the Canucks are on a 10-3-3 run since Christmas and they’re still not in a playoff spot. Because they’re bad and this winning isn’t going to continue. Their goaltending in that time is in the .940 range and won’t last. Thanks.

Vegas Golden Knights: Yeah the work of a PR guy for the Golden Knights isn’t going to be easy. Not like there’s a huge market of hockey fans in Vegas who will know all the No. 4 defensemen and No. 6 forwards they get in the expansion draft.

Washington Capitals: I love Jon Hamm for making fun of the Capitals for never winning a Cup but my man is a Blues fan, so.

Winnipeg Jets: Oh, uh, cool.

Play of the Weekend

Honestly the Mike Smith thing is bonkers. I don’t care what else happened this weekend, that was the coolest thing.

Gold Star Award

Minus of the Weekend

Toews, Kane, and Keith don’t read this.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Thornton, Iginla, and Chara hello.

Perfect HFBoards Trade Proposal of the Year

User “Mark Kandy” makes a trade proposal I want to marry!!!!!!

To Montreal:
Mark Giordano

To Calgary:
2017 1st Round Pick
2018 2nd Round Pick
Noah Juulsen
Alexei Emelin (mostly cap reasons)

That’s the good stuff, baby.

Signoff

As overlord, all will kneel trembling before me and obey my brutal commands. End communication.

—

Ryan Lambert is a Puck Daddy columnist. His email is here and his Twitter is here.

(All stats via Corsica unless otherwise noted.)