Change OT to 3v3

[Bratwursten1]

What would you say about playing 3v3 in the OT? I would say it's a great idea since more games would be solved during actual playtime instead of the freaking shootout... And yes im a Detroit fan, but I would still vouch for it if i supported some other team!

10 minutes of 4on4 would be okey to I guess but I dont think they will extend the OT period, seems like it's closer that the NHL would go for 3v3 for 5 minutes at the time being.

Also you should of course get 3 points for regular win, 2 points for OT/SO win and 1 point for OT/SO loss

Click to read more...

 

[SladeWilson23]

I agree, but this topic has been beaten to death.

 

[Bratwursten1]

I agree, but this topic has been beaten to death.

ah okey! Im new to this board so didn't know..

 

[Brooklanders*]

What would you say about playing 3v3 in the OT? I would say it's a great idea since more games would be solved during actual playtime instead of the freaking shootout... And yes im a Detroit fan, but I would still vouch for it if i supported some other team!

How is 3 on 3 better than a shootout?
Neither are real hockey and both are a skills competition.

 

[Bratwursten1]

What would you say about playing 3v3 in the OT? I would say it's a great idea since more games would be solved during actual playtime instead of the freaking shootout... And yes im a Detroit fan, but I would still vouch for it if i supported some other team!

How is 3 on 3 better than a shootout?
Neither are real hockey and both are a skills competition.

I would prefer no OT at all during regular season, but since I dont think the 5 min OT and shootout will dissapear I rather see that you win during OT over the Shootout

Dont got any statistics on it but seems like most games going to OT ends up with a shootout

 

[Brooklanders*]

I would prefer no OT at all during regular season, but since I dont think the 5 min OT and shootout will dissapear I rather see that you win during OT over the Shootout

Dont got any statistics on it but seems like most games going to OT ends up with a shootout

No guarantee 3 on 3 will end in a goal scored and what happens if a player takes a penalty?
3 on 2?

 

[Pavels Dog]

No guarantee 3 on 3 will end in a goal scored and what happens if a player takes a penalty?
3 on 2?

Doesn't need to be a guarantee, as long as it reduces the number of shootouts in the season.

And it would become a 4 on 3, pretty simple.

 

[Tekneek]

3v3 is just another parlor trick designed to fix something that was never broken to start with. As far as I am concerned, we don't even need OT during the regular season. Win, lose, or tie. Pretty simple.

If you really want to encourage teams to win games, then take away the loser point and reduce the number of points available as the game continues. Teams will push harder for a regulation win if it is worth 3 points.

Let's go with a 3-2-1-0 system:

3 points for regulation win
2 points for overtime win
1 point for shootout win
0 points for losing

If you're determined to have the loser point, but really want to encourage teams to try to score during regulation, give the team with the most shots on goal during regulation a man advantage for the entire overtime. In the unlikely event they are tied, then you just play 4v4.

Once teams get better at forcing 3v3 to a shootout, what do you do then? You can't just keep reducing the players on the ice to the point that it becomes 2v2, 1v1, or just goalies dueling for the puck. You need a sustainable solution that encourages teams to seek victories, not one novelty after another.

 

[TT1]

pls do this so i can watch PK skate around the rink 100 times

 

[PenguinMario]

Sometimes neither team earned a win. Contorting the game even further to pretend that one did isn't a solution. Ties are fine for the regular season.

 

[Smidster]

While I would love the 3 point format it is never going to happen in a world where the league want to keep as many team in the race for as long as possible.

Of the other options the AHL format has been very effective (so far) in reducing the number of shootouts. The link has a nice little info graphic to illustrate the difference. Of Overtime games the proportion decided by hockey has gone from 35% last year to 75% this term. This compares to the NHL where nearly 60% of OT games (and 10% of all games) go to a Shootout

ending-games-in-extra-frame/

It does however show the importance of the 6th and 7th minute which are not expected to be considered by the NHL

Personally my preferred solution would be 5 mins 4 on 4 followed by 5 mins 3 on 3 after which it is a tie - The NFL shows that the odd tie is not a disaster but even if you then have to have a shootout it is back to being a novelty.

 

[Tekneek]

Sometimes neither team earned a win. Contorting the game even further to pretend that one did isn't a solution. Ties are fine for the regular season.

Indeed. Been seeing mentions of teams winning more games before Christmas than ever before, or most wins during first 20 something games and such. Those numbers are meaningless without the context of how the win was acheived. It is ridiculous that a shootout win gets you the same 2 points that a 12-1 victory in regulation does. You should always do better in the standings with a regulation win than a shootout win, otherwise the standings don't really mean what they should.

 

[PenguinMario]

Indeed. Been seeing mentions of teams winning more games before Christmas than ever before, or most wins during first 20 something games and such. Those numbers are meaningless without the context of how the win was acheived. It is ridiculous that a shootout win gets you the same 2 points that a 12-1 victory in regulation does. You should always do better in the standings with a regulation win than a shootout win, otherwise the standings don't really mean what they should.

I agree - games that end in regulation are much more reflective of team quality than OT or SO, and should be weighted accordingly.

(Just as an aside, I think the Pens' excellent record in SO and to a lesser extent OT games propped up Dan Byslma for a while, and papered over the fact that they were a good but not great team under his management for most of that time.)

 

[Buck Aki Berg]

Solves the problem but doesn't address the issue - overtime is too short.

I don't care for ties, but I'd rather see ten minutes of overtime end with a tie than five minutes of overtime (regardless of the number of players on the ice), followed by a shootout.

 

[Tekneek]

Solves the problem but doesn't address the issue - overtime is too short.

I don't care for ties, but I'd rather see ten minutes of overtime end with a tie than five minutes of overtime

Sudden death OT or a full 10? I'm not a fan of any extra time that ends with the first score in any sport.

 

[PenguinMario]

Sudden death OT or a full 10? I'm not a fan of any extra time that ends with the first score in any sport.

I'm actually okay with that in hockey - each team has an equal chance of gaining initial possession, which is then fluid.

 

[FirewagonChange]

I had an idea of each team in OT going on a power play instead of playing 4 on 4. I think games would end more in OT, plus 5 on 4 is still considered legit hockey. And you'd see more goals scored because both teams can score in OT and it could still go to a shootout. Even with that possibility I still think the potential for games ending in OT would still be greater than the way it is now.

 

[boredmale]

Let's be honest 3 on 3 is just as gimmicky if not more gimmicky they a shootout. How often do we see 3 on 3 play during a normal season? Maybe like 1 or 2 times for 30 seconds each time over the coarse of 30 teams playing 82 games each. It's more rare to see 3 on 3 play in a hockey game then a non shootout penalty shot

Maybe they can make hockey the way it's ment to be played in OT, 2v2

 

[LetsGoBLUES91]

4 on 4 is awesome. 3 on 3 I think would be a little ridiculous.

 

[Buck Aki Berg]

Sudden death OT or a full 10? I'm not a fan of any extra time that ends with the first score in any sport.

Definitely keep it sudden-death.

 

[byfuglien]

3 v 3, sudden. We all want to see it and its going to happen. Just a matter of time.

 

[Tekneek]

Definitely keep it sudden-death.

I'm actually okay with that in hockey - each team has an equal chance of gaining initial possession, which is then fluid.

I can see the point and don't really disagree.

I hope they do avoid 3v3. 4v4 and shootouts are bad enough as it is. I'm tempted to just turn those games off anyway, because I know they've all got at least 1 point and whatever gimmicky idea they come up with to hand out the second point is nowhere near as entertaining as how they got the first point.

 

[Thatguystevie]

Doesn't need to be a guarantee, as long as it reduces the number of shootouts in the season.

And it would become a 4 on 3, pretty simple.

And what happens when that penalty expires? A player from the team on the PP is supposed to run off the ice? Or the team on the PK gets another player back making it 4 on 4 again till the next whistle?

It's really not that simple.

 

[Roomtemperature]

Okay let me pull out my stock responses for this type of thread

Penalty shot has been around for 80 years so stop saying the shootout isn't hockey.

3 on 3 won't be this two forward one d-man offensive paradise people think. When coaches get their hands on it and practice it everyone will be playing to conservative to have anything happen and it will just be one player having position on the outside trying not to give up the odd man rush while waiting and not having as many options as 4 on 4.

Ties are/were stupid and the culture as a whole made fun of us for having so many. The fact they are gone is good for the game and going back means a step backwards and not looking forward like we should be.

 

[Tekneek]

Or the team on the PK gets another player back making it 4 on 4 again till the next whistle?

That is exactly how it would be. It's a dumb idea.

The answer to stop shootouts is not even more gimmicky ideas. The teams want points in the standings. People want more games decided before shootouts. Encourage this by rewarding them with points in the standings. If they know they can have 2 by winning in OT and only 1 for a shootout, they will try harder. If they can get 3 for a regulation win, but only 2 for OT and 1 for shootout, they will push harder for a regulation win. It is simple economics. They stall through OT because the incentive is not so great. They've both banked the loser point already and aren't that motivated (obviously) to go all in for that second point.