Friday, November 19, 2004
The Theory of Contraction
The Hockey News recently published a magazine with a series of hypothetical debates. While this is primarily something to fill the void as the current lockout continues, the debates to bring up several interesting talking points.
Among the highly-contested issues is whether the NHL should have ever expanded. A surprising majority of hockey writers maintained that the NHL should have remained a 21 team league -- that means no San Jose Sharks, Tampa Bay Lightning, Ottawa Senators, Florida Panthers, Anaheim Mighty Ducks, Minnesota Wild, Columbus Blue Jackets, Atlanta Thrashers, or Nashville Predators. These advocates feel that the talent pool has been diluted to such an extent that chopping off a third of the league is necessary.
Twenty-one-team supporters don't take into account that many players come from the United States and Europe. Considering the league first expanded into San Jose in 1991, that's over a decade of European and American-born talent that moved into the league. Saying that there should only be 21 teams means that players such as Marian Gaborik, Markus Naslund, Peter Forsberg, Ilya Kovalchuk, Chris Drury, Scott Gomez, Brian Rafalski, and Rick Dipietro have not contributed to the league.
These writers do make a point in that the league expanded much too quickly. Canadian players make up roughly half of the NHL, down from around 70% in the early '90s. To make up for that, the league should have expanded by 20%, as well. That would account for 25 teams, but let's round that up to 26 teams just to make things even.
Going by this logic, the Thrashers, Predators, Wild, and Blue Jackets should never have existed. If these franchises never came into being, the NHL landscape could look wildly (no pun intended) different. Let's look at the amount of NHL caliber players each team carries, discounting marginal talent and NHL/AHL borderline players using last season's roster.
Atlanta Thrashers (16 players)
Forwards: Ilya Kovalchuk, Shawn McEachern, Slava Kozlov, Marc Savard, Patrik Stefan, Dany Heatley, Randy Robitaille, Serge Aubin
Defense: Frantisek Kaberle, Andy Sutton, Daniel Tjarnqvist, Ivan Majesky, Chris Tamer
Goal: Pasi Nurminen, Byran Dafoe, Kari Lehtonen
Nashville Predators (16 players)
Forwards: Steve Sullivan, Scott Malker, Martin Erat, David Legwand, Vladimir Orszagh, Scott Hartnell, the late Sergei Zholtok, Greg Johnson, Denis Arkhipov, Rem Murray
Defense: Marek Zidlicky, Kimmo Timonen, Dan Hamhuis, Jason York, Mark Eaton
Goal: Tomas Vokoun
Minnesota Wild (15 players)
Forwards: Alexander Daigle, Andrew Brunette, Marian Gaborik, Antti Laaksonen, Pascal Dupis, Richard Park, Wes Walz, Jason Wiemer, Marc Chouinard
Defense: Filip Kuba, Andrei Zyuzin, Nick Schultz, Willie Mitchell
Goal: Dwayne Roloson, Manny Fernandez
Columbus Blue Jackets (14 players)
Forwards: Rick Nash, David Vyborny, Nikolai Zherdev, Todd Marchant, Trevor Letowski, Andrew Cassels, Manny Malhotra, Alex Svitov
Defense: Anders Eriksson, Jaroslav Spacek, Rostislav Klesla, Luke Richardson, Scott Lachance
Goal: Marc Denis
That's a total of 61 players here that would probably get an NHL job somewhere in the 26-team league. Essentially, most teams would get two more players, while a few would get three. If your team is carrying AHL-caliber players on its fourth line or last defensive pairing, this makes a world of difference.
If your team is one of the lucky ones that get upper level talent -- and if you're going by top two line forwards or top three defensemen, that's about a third of the talent here -- then your team suddenly gets a dramatic shot in the arm. Imagine Rick Nash playing alongside Olli Jokinen in Florida or Chris Pronger pairing with Marek Zidlicky in St. Louis.
Theoretical contraction to 26 teams essentially shifts off the very bottom rung of players and sends them back to the AHL. The adjustment of talent is subtle, but would have an overall positive effect on the league. However, the problems killing hockey these days are overcoaching and inferior officiating.
Would eliminating teams get rid of the neutral zone trap? Hockey writers in support of contraction would like to think so, but the truth of the matter is that the trap is a coaching tactic, not a measure of talent. It helps lesser-talented teams achieve victory, but plenty of talent-laden teams use it, as well.
Obstruction-hooking, clutching, grabbing-is the other primary evil in the NHL. If the refs called the rules instead of turning a blind eye to these minor infractions, speedy players would get more room to skate, forechecking would hit harder, and the pace would be faster. It may not necessarily generate more goals, but there would be increased flow to the game, which translates into excitement and entertainment for the fans.