Change OT to 3v3

[sharski]

my proposal:
- make overtime 10 minutes
- eliminate shootout (so yes, ties are possible)
- discard the entire loser point idea... teams just have wins/losses/ties shown in standings... overtime wins/losses only matter for tiebreaker purposes... and likewise, ties are only useful to a team as a tiebreaker, so no more passing teams in the standings by losing in overtime/shootout or tying... you actually have to, you know, win to progress in the standings

so...
if still tied after 10 minutes of overtime = both teams get a tie
standings determined by:
- overall wins
- head-to-head record
- division record
- regulation wins
- overtime losses (less is better)
- who cares, use goal differential or something

 

[Frozen Fiend]

So why do you hate the SO?

Why not end a game in a SO?

IMO, the only thing it's done for me was dedramatize the penalty shot. I think the shootout is certainly an exciting way to end a game (mostly)...

I can understand how some may think differently if they don't have star players that can pull entertaining moves like Patrick Kane or Toews. I certainly wouldn't want to see the 2003 Blackhawks in a shootout either lol.

I'm not in favor of eliminating the shootout. I'm in favor of adding 3 on 3 then proceeding to the shootout afterwards.

 

[Duke749]

I just wanna see ten minutes of 4on4.

 

[Machinehead]

my proposal:
- make overtime 10 minutes
- eliminate shootout (so yes, ties are possible)
- discard the entire loser point idea... teams just have wins/losses/ties shown in standings... overtime wins/losses only matter for tiebreaker purposes... and likewise, ties are only useful to a team as a tiebreaker, so no more passing teams in the standings by losing in overtime/shootout or tying... you actually have to, you know, win to progress in the standings

so...
if still tied after 10 minutes of overtime = both teams get a tie
standings determined by:
- overall wins
- head-to-head record
- division record
- regulation wins
- overtime losses (less is better)
- who cares, use goal differential or something

So a tie is basically a loss for both teams...

 

[Roomtemperature]

So a tie is basically a loss for both teams...

The sports populous at large hated ties when they were worth something let's drive hockey further into the niche by making them utterly useless

 

[sharski]

ties pretty much by definition are the most useless result you can have for a game between 2 teams... you literally did not decide anything in a tie, so it makes sense for them to only come into play as a tiebreaker (same as in the NFL) where they really are just counters for "games we managed not to lose, which is better than outright losing"...

oh the irony of ties being tiebreakers

 

[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!

Rather see 4 on 4 for 10 minutes with nets being widened.

Im starting to get tired of the shootout also but to me 3 on 3 is no different then the SO.

 

[NoMoreRusselCrowin4u]

It's a shame it's gotten so out of hand, because I genuinely do like a lot about the current system. I definitely like the proceedings of a shootout. It feels like like a decent compromise if the alternative would just be allowing ties, but the way it determines the standings just seems a bit backwards - the loser point makes your actual ROWs less valuable.

Does anyone have the stats for teams who've had playoff runs largely attributed to SO points? Do they tend to be first-round exits, or anything like that?

I can live with 3v3, since it seems it's only a matter of time, but I'm not entirely convinced success in the AHL will translate to the NHL. Maybe I just don't watch enough AHL games, but the jump in skill set going to the NHL might skew things a bit.

Also, while it's supremely gimmicky, I'm curious how some form of no-goalie OT would pan out. It seems like a surefire way to end the game quickly, and it would force teams to get kind of creative defensively - or result in significantly more shot-blocking injuries. I'm not saying it's a good idea, but if it were to follow, say, 7 minutes of 4v4 (would prefer 5v5 but whatever) OT, and then 3 minutes (if needed) of no-goalie 5v5, I'd be really into that. Has this been discussed before?/Is there some massive issue with this that I'm overlooking?

 

[Smokey McCanucks]

My solution is to extend OT to ten minutes, and give the loser point for shootouts only, not for OT losses. This gives teams a greater incentive to end the game quickly and reduces the incentive for dragging games out to the shootout, especially in games with playoff implications.

Not a fan of the 3-on-3, it's like, shootout is too gimmicky so here is another gimmick? That just makes things worse. 3-on-3 is neat because of its rarity, it's like how a penalty shot isn't so cool anymore because we have shootouts all the time. Penalty shot used to be a big deal. Four on four OT is okay, I like that. Stick with that.

 

[Hawksfan2828]

My solution is to extend OT to ten minutes, and give the loser point for shootouts only, not for OT losses. This gives teams a greater incentive to end the game quickly and reduces the incentive for dragging games out to the shootout, especially in games with playoff implications.

Not a fan of the 3-on-3, it's like, shootout is too gimmicky so here is another gimmick? That just makes things worse. 3-on-3 is neat because of its rarity, it's like how a penalty shot isn't so cool anymore because we have shootouts all the time. Penalty shot used to be a big deal. Four on four OT is okay, I like that. Stick with that.

That will never happen because the NHL doesn't want 3 hour games anymore and I can't blame them. Why do you think they got rid of the red line? for two reasons 1) offsides were becoming a massive problem and B) it made the game faster as far as style.

 

[Tekneek]

The 3 on 3 is showing to be very effective in the AHL... that's a fact.

Effective because it is new and teams play 3v3 so rarely that they aren't that good at it. 10 years from now, they will be wondering what gimmick they can introduce to solve the problem of 3v3 shutdown hockey causing too many shootouts. The reason is because gimmicks aren't solving the problem, they're just making it all look more ridiculous.

 

[cujoflutie]

I'd be careful with throwing the words "casual hockey fans" around if you can't even grasp the simple concept of 3v3 hockey being more rare and therefore less defining for the game of hockey than penalty shots are.

Both are gimmicks and should be avoided at all costs.

3 on 3 is still playing hockey and utilizes all the skills and elements of 5 on 5, alternating penalty shots is not


You can go on all day about how the general public hated ties but what about the actual hockey fans? Each an every person who supports hockey games decided in a manner other than playing hockey is at best a casual fan so why pander to them?

 

[IU Hawks fan]

ties pretty much by definition are the most useless result you can have for a game between 2 teams... you literally did not decide anything in a tie, so it makes sense for them to only come into play as a tiebreaker (same as in the NFL) where they really are just counters for "games we managed not to lose, which is better than outright losing"...

oh the irony of ties being tiebreakers

You're wrong. A tie in the NFL is half a win and half a loss. 8-6-2 is as good as 9-7 by NFL rules.

 

[Brooklanders*]

A three point scoring system would be fairer also.

 

[sharski]

You're wrong. A tie in the NFL is half a win and half a loss. 8-6-2 is as good as 9-7 by NFL rules.

I stand corrected

Then I disagree with the NFL's rules too... 9 wins is better than 8 wins & 2 ties IMO... To me this is completely obvious... Am I crazy or something for thinking this?

To me, that rule is like awarding 1 goal to a team every 2 posts/crossbars they hit... Like "congrats, you got really close and failed enough times, that we're going to reward you as if you actually accomplished the thing you were trying to do"

 

[TheOtherOne]

Sorry if I missed this, but what happens when a team takes a penalty during 3v3OT?

Penalty shot?

 

[Tekneek]

Sorry if I missed this, but what happens when a team takes a penalty during 3v3OT?

Penalty shot?

4 on 3 until the penalty expires, then 4 on 4 until the next stoppage. It is a kludge.

 

[txpd]

check out the number of penalty shot goals scored in the nhl during a season. then check the number of 3 on 3 goals scored during a season. 1 I think since the start of last season.

question for those wanting to revert to ties. how many of those do you expect to see in today's defense first, don't lose first league? do you really want to see teams with 20-25 ties in a season?

 

[IU Hawks fan]

I stand corrected

Then I disagree with the NFL's rules too... 9 wins is better than 8 wins & 2 ties IMO... To me this is completely obvious... Am I crazy or something for thinking this?

To me, that rule is like awarding 1 goal to a team every 2 posts/crossbars they hit... Like "congrats, you got really close and failed enough times, that we're going to reward you as if you actually accomplished the thing you were trying to do"

But the team with 9 wins has more losses as well. You're basically saying losses don't matter, which is a bit farfetched.

 

[cujoflutie]

Sorry if I missed this, but what happens when a team takes a penalty during 3v3OT?

Penalty shot?

they play 4 on 3

but while discussing penalties, that is yet another completely ludicrous aspect of having shootouts; a team could end OT short handed and win the game without killing the penalty or scoring a short handed goal. That is absolutely ludicrous.


Discussing the NFL as mentioned a tie is considered half a win. When hockey had ties, wins were the first tie breaker. The NFL does not have wins as a tie breaker (so for instance 2 ties = 1 win) but ties are so rare they need not consider it. Since the NFL brought in OT in 1974 no team has had more than one tie in a season.

Now what is ludicrous is the current NHL system where a team winning the hockey game gets the same amount of points as a team which ties the game and wins the random skills competition.

 

[sharski]

But the team with 9 wins has more losses as well. You're basically saying losses don't matter, which is a bit farfetched.

true, i am cherry picking a bit in that I am saying wins mean more than losses although they are different sides of the same coin

but IMO, valuing 1 win over 2 ties encourages (hypothetically) teams to play to win instead of playing to not lose, which is a good thing

 

[cujoflutie]

true, i am cherry picking a bit in that I am saying wins mean more than losses although they are different sides of the same coin

but IMO, valuing 1 win over 2 ties encourages (hypothetically) teams to play to win instead of playing to not lose, which is a good thing

as I mentioned in my previous post (I know you didn't see it by the time you posted) in the NFL it's a moot point because no team has ever had more than 1 tie in a season since they brought in OT. But even if ties were more common, football wouldn't have to worry about teams playing for the tie. At any given time 1 team is on offense, 1 team on defense... unlike hockey where in the 3rd period of a tied game, both teams are playing defense.

 

[Butch 19]

3 on 3 is still playing hockey and utilizes all the skills and elements of 5 on 5, alternating penalty shots is not

um yeah, shooting in the shootout and trying to stop a shootout attempt don't take any skill at all, do they?

You can go on all day about how the general public hated ties but what about the actual hockey fans?

Can you tell who is an "actual hockey fan?" Is there a test one can take?

Each an every person who supports hockey games decided in a manner other than playing hockey is at best a casual fan so why pander to them?

Each an every person who watches the shootout is voting for what they want to see. Casual fans that do not like the shootout actually want to see less hockey so why pander to them?

 

[cujoflutie]

um yeah, shooting in the shootout and trying to stop a shootout attempt don't take any skill at all, do they?




Can you tell who is an "actual hockey fan?" Is there a test one can take?




Each an every person who watches the shootout is voting for what they want to see. Casual fans that do not like the shootout actually want to see less hockey so why pander to them?

I just explained who is an actual hockey fan; fans who only approve of deciding hockey games by playing hockey. There are shootout fans and there are hockey fans, the two are mutually exclusive categories.

Shootouts do not utilize even half the skills of the game; faceoffs, rebound control, board play, passing, positioning, endurance, goaltender puck handling and all facets of defense and coaching are skills which would be of use during 3 on 3 but of ZERO benefit during a shootout.

 

[Tekneek]

A 3v3 OT win should be worth less than a 4v4 OT win, just like a 4v4 OT win should be worth less than a regulation win. Shootouts should be worth less than all of the above. If you really want to do what the AHL is doing, then we need even more points in play for each game. A regulation win should always be worth at least 1 more point than the other possible outcomes, because that is how you encourage a team to not play for the other options. If you want more games decided in overtime, you make that outcome worth more points than the shootout option. You don't take players off of the ice.

These are behavioral economics problems ultimately, not size/skill/coaching problems. If those were the real problems, we'd have changed the regulation time rules for players on the ice. That part is not broken, so clearly the right incentive is not being provided to get the desired outcome.