HOCKEY.ONTHEWEB MENU

Your browser is not Java capable or Java has been disabled.


This website is protected by copyright. Any use of the materials contained herein without the consent of Hockey.Ontheweb is strictly prohibited.

Google

The top site for Hockey.Ontheweb

http://www.hockey-ontheweb.com
http://www.hockeyontheweb.com

The Top Site for Hockey.Ontheweb!

WORKING OVERTIME
Originally posted December 5, 1999: Volume 2, Issue 8

At the beginning of this season, the NHL made a dramatic change to the rules governing overtime. Teams would now play four players aside during the five minute overtime. Teams that tied in regulation were guaranteed a point in the standings, with the team winning in overtime garnering an additional point for the victory. It was hoped that the changes would produce fewer ties and better hockey.

Stevie Y prefers the old ways
The anecdotal evidence has produced a remarkable consensus. But for the exceptional note of opposition, most observers have characterized four on four overtime as a great success. It is exciting, wide-open and deciding games. The only notable voice against four on four hockey is that of Steve Yzerman, who expressed a preference for the old-style five on five.

Is this euphoria supported by the statistical data? It appears so. In 1998-99, only 27.03% of overtime games resulted in a winning goal. In 1997-98, that figure was 24.65%. In the last ten seasons of overtime, an average of 31.43% of games have been decided in extra time. In other words, prior to this season the large majority of overtime games ended in a tie. This season, 83 games ended with a tie in regulation. Of those, 34 were decided in overtime -- 40.96% of those games. Not since the early days of overtime [41.48% in 1984-85] have so many overtime games produced a winner. So the new overtime format has produced a significant statistical change for the better.

Wayne would have loved four on four
A more interesting question concerns the cause of the statistical improvement. What is more responsible for the increase in games decided in overtime? Is it four by four hockey, or is it the fact that a team is guaranteed an additional point? The degree to which the guaranteed point is a factor in the improved overtime format is often understated. The significant drop in games decided in overtime between 1984-85 and 1998-99 suggests that teams learned to play for the tie. As defensive hockey became the norm in the NHL into the 1990s, scoring was at a premium. It became easier to ensure that you would not be scored on in the course of a mere five minutes of overtime, than to take the risk of going for the win, losing the game and getting nothing.

The new format supports the theory that teams that have nothing to lose will not simply play for the tie. Four on four hockey certainly gives offensive units more room to manoeuvre, but it is suggested here that teams would be playing just as conservatively as before if they were not guaranteed the point. Pointing to the confusion hockey fans have had reading the new standings format, many observers have suggested that the NHL should keep four on four overtime, but dispense with the guaranteed point. One writer -- Stan Fischler -- has gone so far as to suggest that four on four hockey will become the norm in the regular season within the next ten years.

This all completely misses the point, if one will pardon the pun. The overtime experience should, however, compel the NHL to consider going the route soccer has taken. Give teams three points for a victory -- regulation or overtime -- and one point for the tie. In such a scenario, the "win" comes to be accorded far greater significance than the lowly tie. The added incentive would produce more wins and fewer ties, for much the same reason that has made the new overtime format so successful. Three points for a win will force teams to play less conservatively in regulation time, and therefore such a change could also result in more goal scoring.

This is not to understate the question of having more room on the ice. But the value of having more room on the ice rests in how it affects the flow of the game. The wide international rinks do not necessarily produce better hockey. If you have one on one hockey, there will be lots of room on the ice, but hockey would not be the better for it. There are ways to improve the flow of the game that need not be as radical as reverting to a permanent four on four format. Instituting the "three point win" would not affect the integrity of the game itself, but it might well make it more exciting.

[Photo of Wayne Gretzky courtesy of Pictures Now!.]
[Photo of Steve Yzerman courtesy of Derek's Hockey Photos.]