3on3 & PMD

[Rals]

Currently 75% of 3on3 games end with a goal (small sample, granted)

It is my opinion that this significantly raises the value of smooth skating offensive defensemen since offense is paramount, but when the inevitable turnover rush happens you need someone on D that can skate back with the quickness and shut it down.


Does this not sound like its taylor made for EK?

Using EK as an example, I can see his perceived value to a team skyrocket (a-la T.J Oshie) because of the value of such a specific skill set (that can end games in RoW).

I feel nature of 3on3 will handicap Shutdown defense.

Hybrid defensemen may not have the elite level skill to really break the game.


Anyways I welcome thoughts and discussion.



Could this rule change dark horse EK for best player in world?

Click to read more...

 

[Sun God Nika]

Ovechkin, and Crosby also exist...

 

[aragorn]

From what I have seen of 3 on 3 in the preseason I'm not a fan of it. It's usually over pretty quickly & one mistake by someone out there can end the game. While people are not making a big deal of it in preseason or when Ottawa wins, if they start losing these on a regular basis I think we will hear a lot of criticism of 3 on 3. There is just so much room out there it looks more like pond hockey. If people thought the shootout is a gimmick, then surely this is as well. 4 on 4 hockey at the least is more like normal hockey & should be kept first & if the matter is not settled then go to either 3 on 3 or the shootout.

While we have two pretty good skating defencemen in Karlsson & Wideman (Karlsson lite) & they should have there fair share of success out there on a 3 on 3, I can also see these two making some big mistakes that could cost games. I guess the same can be said for anyone, hopefully with Hoffman & Prince & a few other excellent skaters Ottawa can make this special team a strength for them this season.

 

[Rals]

Ovechkin, and Crosby also exist...

dark horse
noun
: a person (such as a politician), animal, or thing that competes in a race or other contest and is not expected to win
: a person who has interesting qualities or abilities that most people do not know about

 

[starling]

Yes, it is, but I don't think the difference between "great" and "just good" PMD is such a big deal given the small sample size of 3-on-3 play.
Shootout wizards like Silfverberg or Oshie will probably still win more games for their teams.

 

[internetdotcom]

Speaking of 3 on 3, if a team takes a penalty in 3 on 3, do they then play 3 on 2, or does the non-penalized team get an extra skater to make it 4 on 3? I assume the latter, but I'm curious.

Also, if a team is shorthanded going into OT, does the non-shorthanded team start OT 4 on 3 as opposed to 3 on 2? Similarly, if the shorthanded team was 2 men down going into OT, I assume OT would start 5 on 3 as well?

Could you imagine if a team was down 2 men going into OT and had to start OT 3 on 1? LOL

 

[Flamingo]

Your intuition is right.

Use the force.

 

[Flamingo]

I like the 3 on 3 format. Pond hockey is exciting. I agree that it's so very different from normal NHL play, and I would prefer a regular 5-on-5 decision. But just try to come up with a game to resolve a tie (NHL requirement) within 5 minutes (NHLPA requirement) and not lean so heavily on the shootout (consensus of GMs and fans, I suppose).

3 on 3 seems to fit the bill. If you really don't like it, may I propose a coin toss, and the winner picks an NHL All-Star Skills Competition event to settle the tie?

 

[Babych Moustache]

Speaking of 3 on 3, if a team takes a penalty in 3 on 3, do they then play 3 on 2, or does the non-penalized team get an extra skater to make it 4 on 3? I assume the latter, but I'm curious.

Also, if a team is shorthanded going into OT, does the non-shorthanded team start OT 4 on 3 as opposed to 3 on 2? Similarly, if the shorthanded team was 2 men down going into OT, I assume OT would start 5 on 3 as well?

Could you imagine if a team was down 2 men going into OT and had to start OT 3 on 1? LOL

I believe that when a penalty in 3 on 3 occurs, the PP team puts an extra player on to make it 4 on 3 for the duration of the penalty. Then, should the PK team kill off the penalty, the player returns to the ice and they play 4 on 4 until the next stoppage in play.

And to respond to the OP, yes, puck moving D are super important in 3 on 3 situations, but you'd also want that D to have a modicum of defensive mindedness because as soon as one rush down the ice takes place, the opposing team is coming back quickly right away... EK65 has those skills I think, as well as Ceci to a lesser extent.

I think it's exciting, I like that it ends more games before the shootout, and while it might seem a bit gimmicky or pond-hockey-ish, it's still a part of the game that could (if not very rarely) occur during regular time.

Growing up I played in tournaments where OT was decided by 5 on 5, then 4 on 4, then 3 on 3, then (and this was too far in my opinion), 2 on 2 right down to 1 on 1... after than I believe that the goalies would be removed and you'd have just one skater from each team... this was done in round robin to have the games over somewhat quickly, but seems ridiculous now...

 

[CDN24]

Currently 75% of 3on3 games end with a goal (small sample, granted)

It is my opinion that this significantly raises the value of smooth skating offensive defensemen since offense is paramount, but when the inevitable turnover rush happens you need someone on D that can skate back with the quickness and shut it down.


Does this not sound like its taylor made for EK?

Using EK as an example, I can see his perceived value to a team skyrocket (a-la T.J Oshie) because of the value of such a specific skill set (that can end games in RoW).

I feel nature of 3on3 will handicap Shutdown defense.

Hybrid defensemen may not have the elite level skill to really break the game.


Anyways I welcome thoughts and discussion.


Could this rule change dark horse EK for best player in world?

I don't expect to see shutdown d used 3-3. It will favor the elite PMD and EK65 should have success but he will have to make better decisions than he did in that preseason game against the Leafs where his giveaway at Leqafs blueline and Turris attempt at a change lead to the goal against the Sens.

I think elite face-off guys will be just as important. Coaches will adjust to the 3-3 and those that succeed will be the ones that can skate and remember some defensive responsibility. Key is to gain posession and maintain it.

 

[internetdotcom]

I believe that when a penalty in 3 on 3 occurs, the PP team puts an extra player on to make it 4 on 3 for the duration of the penalty. Then, should the PK team kill off the penalty, the player returns to the ice and they play 4 on 4 until the next stoppage in play.

And to respond to the OP, yes, puck moving D are super important in 3 on 3 situations, but you'd also want that D to have a modicum of defensive mindedness because as soon as one rush down the ice takes place, the opposing team is coming back quickly right away... EK65 has those skills I think, as well as Ceci to a lesser extent.

I think it's exciting, I like that it ends more games before the shootout, and while it might seem a bit gimmicky or pond-hockey-ish, it's still a part of the game that could (if not very rarely) occur during regular time.

Growing up I played in tournaments where OT was decided by 5 on 5, then 4 on 4, then 3 on 3, then (and this was too far in my opinion), 2 on 2 right down to 1 on 1... after than I believe that the goalies would be removed and you'd have just one skater from each team... this was done in round robin to have the games over somewhat quickly, but seems ridiculous now...

Thanks for the reply. Are you in agreement re: when a team is SH going into OT as well?

I find it (slightly) odd that the NHL wanted to limit the gimmicky shootouts, yet didn't choose to remove them altogether and either keep ties after OT or find another resolution if it is still tied after OT. Also, to me, 3 on 3, given how rare it is to see in regulation time, is a bit gimmicky as well, though not to the same extent, as at least it involves actual hockey team play.

 

[Here I Pageau Again]

If the team SH going into OT, it starts 4 on 3 (it happened during a Leafs-Habs 3-3 preview).

I would agree with you, that it is funny that shoot outs are still there -- why can't ppl just be happy with a tie??

Ideally, I'd like to see 10 min OT 4-4 and then just end if it is still tied. Heck, they could even do 5 min 4-4 then 5 min 3-3 and then end it there as most of those games would end with a winner. And if not -- a TIE!

But we shall see how this plays out.

 

[tony d]

3 on 3's pretty good, I think Karlsson is going to thrive in this style of play.

 

[Sensinitis]

Our team is made for 3-on-3 with Hoffman and Karlsson ...

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Pretty sure most if not all NHL teams can ice a pretty excellent 3 man lineup.

Edmonton, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Washington, Tampa, .... the list goes on

 

[Holdurbreathe]

Our team is made for 3-on-3 with Hoffman and Karlsson ...

While speed and skill will definitely be factors, puck possession and smart line changes are as likely to lead to wins.

 

[Marty9]

If the team SH going into OT, it starts 4 on 3 (it happened during a Leafs-Habs 3-3 preview).

I would agree with you, that it is funny that shoot outs are still there -- why can't ppl just be happy with a tie??

Ideally, I'd like to see 10 min OT 4-4 and then just end if it is still tied. Heck, they could even do 5 min 4-4 then 5 min 3-3 and then end it there as most of those games would end with a winner. And if not -- a TIE!

But we shall see how this plays out.

Watching 2 teams play super safe hockey to gain a point for making it to OT is pretty boring to watch.

Maybe change the points awarded in a game.

2 points for a regulation win, 0 for a regulation loss

2 points for an OT win, 1 point for an OT loss.

0 points to each team for a tie after 4 on 4 OT
It would force teams to really go after the win because a loss is better than a tie.

 

[Babych Moustache]

I would agree with you, that it is funny that shoot outs are still there -- why can't ppl just be happy with a tie??

Uncle Gary and his cronies at the NHL seem to think that the average (US?) fan doesn't want to see ties... they want a winner (like basketball or baseball... although NFL has the occasional tie and the world somehow keeps on turning...). I would have no problem with a tie, but am not vehemently against shootouts...

What does bug me is that some games are worth 2 points, and others are worth 3... that's what is ridiculous. I'd be fine with all games worth 3 points, historical opposition be danged.

Win in Reg: 3 points
Win in OT or Shootout: 2 points (winner) and 1 point (loser)

We would all get used to the new allocation of points and point totals soon enough... and it would make all games equal... but Gary seems to like that there is much more (fabricated) parity meaning more teams "in" a playoff race until later in the season (when that's not actually true - Sens 14-15 aside, teams rarely make up that type of ground late in the season)...

In any case, I think 3 on 3 is going to be pretty fun to watch, and interesting to see how teams adapt if it is too run and gun...

 

[internetdotcom]

Watching 2 teams play super safe hockey to gain a point for making it to OT is pretty boring to watch.

Maybe change the points awarded in a game.

2 points for a regulation win, 0 for a regulation loss

2 points for an OT win, 1 point for an OT loss.

0 points to each team for a tie after 4 on 4 OT
It would force teams to really go after the win because a loss is better than a tie.

Interesting... but I don't see it ever happening. The whole 'loss is better than a tie' thing just seems to go against all that is natural (though I understand the motivation behind it).

 

[Babych Moustache]

Interesting... but I don't see it ever happening. The whole 'loss is better than a tie' thing just seems to go against all that is natural (though I understand the motivation behind it).

Still... would make some games worth more than others, so I guess that's no different than now... but I'd rather keep the broken system we know now than the unknown...

 

[PatrickEaves]

You ask as if Karlsson isn't already the best player in the world.

 

[NyQuil]

I think 3 on 3 will make players look pretty foolish in the highlights.

Goals seem to result mainly from errors, turnovers and mistakes.

We'll see if teams start to adopt a more conservative strategy as the season moves along.

As far as Karlsson is concerned, I don't think he's going to be enough of a difference maker for a very specific type of play that occurs during ties to justify being called best in the world.

If he were the best shootout player in the league last season, would he be considered best in the world on that basis?

I think Oshie's impact is overstated.

 

[Marty9]

Interesting... but I don't see it ever happening. The whole 'loss is better than a tie' thing just seems to go against all that is natural (though I understand the motivation behind it).

yeah, that'll never happen.

I'm ok with some games awarding 3 points in the standings and some awarding 2.

But I would like to see:

3 points for a regulation win, 0 points for a regulation loss.
2 points for a 4 on 4 OT win, 0 points for an OT loss.
1 point for a shootout win, 0 points for a shootout loss.

You lose at any point of the game - you lose, no points.

When we reward a team for making it to overtime with a point in the standings, it promotes safe chess match hockey. The desire to gain the extra points would probably get teams to play a little more offensive and take some chances.

Why does the NHL award points to a team that loses the game (in OT or shootout)? This isn't elementary school.

After expansion, they'll probably start handing out participation ribbons with the loser point.

 

[Back in Black]

So is this 3 on 3 happening this 2015-16 regular season???

 

[UnHappyDude]

How come theres no more 4 on 4??? I thought the league was going to do a 4 on 4 then a 3 on 3?