The new overtime

[MM658]

After 242 games, it looks like this year's OT change has rolled back the rate at which games are being decided without a shootout.

this year: 13% of games are decided in OT. 10% are decided by SO.
last year: 18% of games were decided in OT. 6% were decided by SO.
prev year: 9% of games were decided in OT. 16% were decided by SO.

It would seem that the extra 2 minutes last year meant more than reducing the # of players on the ice down to 3-on-3.

Click to read more...

 

[210]

 

[offkilter]

I've only seen the 3 on 3 once this season and the best way I can describe it is hilarious, nerve wracking, and thrilling.

Neither team seemed sure what lines to throw out there so there was a lot of fumbling around. One botched line change or a guy falling down and you're giving up an odd man rush. Both goalies made huge saves as the play went back and forth. I really think extending it to 7 minutes would all but eliminate the shootout.

 

[210]

I've only seen the 3 on 3 once this season and the best way I can describe it is hilarious, nerve wracking, and thrilling.

Neither team seemed sure what lines to throw out there so there was a lot of fumbling around. One botched line change or a guy falling down and you're giving up an odd man rush. Both goalies made huge saves as the play went back and forth. I really think extending it to 7 minutes would all but eliminate the shootout.

...or you could read the chart I posted.

 

[Hoodaha]

I've only seen the 3 on 3 once this season and the best way I can describe it is hilarious, nerve wracking, and thrilling.

Neither team seemed sure what lines to throw out there so there was a lot of fumbling around. One botched line change or a guy falling down and you're giving up an odd man rush. Both goalies made huge saves as the play went back and forth. I really think extending it to 7 minutes would all but eliminate the shootout.

3 vs 3 is a gimmick. It's no better than the shootout.

 

[HansH]

3 vs 3 is a gimmick. It's no better than the shootout.

It's exciting, but so is being hunted by a pack of wild dogs. Neither activity is actually "hockey", however.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

Ties were fine. The only way I'd be in favor of a shootout is if we ditched the points system then I wouldn't mind a skills competition deciding it.

 

[Hoodaha]

It's exciting, but so is being hunted by a pack of wild dogs. Neither activity is actually "hockey", however.

My point exactly.

I'd rather see a tie.

 

[Quack Shot]

I hate ties and never want them back. 3 on 3 is exciting and entertaining which are the reasons why I watch the sport.

 

[AdmiralsFan24]

I hate ties and never want them back. 3 on 3 is exciting and entertaining which are the reasons why I watch the sport.

This. There's nothing satisfying about going home knowing your team tied.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

With the points system I don't have a problem with ties. I've never understood why a points system is needed. No other sport needs them. The only suggestion I have if we HAVE to keep them is to give no points to losers of any kind and change the system for a win. 3 for reg, 2 for OT and 1 for SO

 

[MM658]

The only suggestion I have if we HAVE to keep them is to give no points to losers of any kind and change the system for a win. 3 for reg, 2 for OT and 1 for SO

That's a good idea. It's similar to my idea, which is a little more complex:
Regulation win = 4
OT win = 3
SO win = 2
OT/SO loss = 1
regulation loss = 0

 

[offkilter]

That's a good idea. It's similar to my idea, which is a little more complex:
Regulation win = 4
OT win = 3
SO win = 2
OT/SO loss = 1
regulation loss = 1

So you are rewarding a team a point for just showing up and playing?

 

[MM658]

So you are rewarding a team a point for just showing up and playing?

Oops! Good catch. That last line was supposed to be a '0'.

In short, make each game worth 4 points max, and reduce the winner's share by 1 point per extra session...instead of each game being worth 2 points and ADDING a point to the loser's share by reaching the end of regulation.

Regulation outcome = 4 pts - 0 pts
Overtime outcome = 3 pts - 1 pt
Shootout outcome = 2 pts - 1 pt

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

My point exactly.

I'd rather see a tie.

Ties are weak

 

[axecrew]

Ties are weak

Really? Do you really believe that? I'd rather see a well played, great 1-1 tie than a crappy played game that ends in a shoot-out.

 

[MM658]

Really? Do you really believe that? I'd rather see a well played, great 1-1 tie than a crappy played game that ends in a shoot-out.

Taking that line of thinking even a step further, I'd rather see a well-played, great 1-1 tie than a well-played, great 1-1 game that goes into a shootout and gets turned into a loss by a glorified skills competition.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

That's a good idea. It's similar to my idea, which is a little more complex:
Regulation win = 4
OT win = 3
SO win = 2
OT/SO loss = 1
regulation loss = 1

Why reward losing? Basically you're giving points for EVERY outcome.

 

[axecrew]

Taking that line of thinking even a step further, I'd rather see a well-played, great 1-1 tie than a well-played, great 1-1 game that goes into a shootout and gets turned into a loss by a glorified skills competition.

Agreed 100% I have gone home after a tied game feeling like I saw great hockey game. Ive also gone home after a shootout win or loss feeling like I had been cheated because the game ended on a gimmick....kinda like settling ties with a 3 point shooting contest or a home run derby.

 

[plock]

I would have no problem with ties if the point system were; 3 points for a win, 1 point for a tie and zero points for a loss, just the shame.

3 v 3 is fast and exciting,but it is such a drastic departure from the previous 60 minutes of the game that I don't see it as being a good way to decide the game.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

Really? Do you really believe that? I'd rather see a well played, great 1-1 tie than a crappy played game that ends in a shoot-out.

I do, that doesn't neccessarily mean I like shootout but I want a winner and a loser, Ties aren't needed. Baseball doesn't have ties, neither does bssketball, Football does but It's so rare that It's almost not worth mentioning and the same can be said for MMA ties CAN happen but they almost never do.

To me If you believe in ties you are ONE step away from believing everyone is equal and children should get a trophy for participating.

When I watch a game I want to know my team WON or LOST usally they lose, sports is about finding out who is the BEST on the big stage, you CAN NOT do that with a tie.

 

[MM658]

Why reward losing? Basically you're giving points for EVERY outcome.

Read my follow-up. It was a typo that was caught by offkilter.
I've gone back and edited the original so that it doesn't come up again.

 

[Jackets Woodchuck]

Taking that line of thinking even a step further, I'd rather see a well-played, great 1-1 tie than a well-played, great 1-1 game that goes into a shootout and gets turned into a loss by a glorified skills competition.

Agreed.

I don't mind overtime to settle ties as it is still hockey, but if you have to go to a shootout, maybe that just means the game should be a tie.

 

[axecrew]

I do, that doesn't neccessarily mean I like shootout but I want a winner and a loser, Ties aren't needed. Baseball doesn't have ties, neither does bssketball, Football does but It's so rare that It's almost not worth mentioning and the same can be said for MMA ties CAN happen but they almost never do.

To me If you believe in ties you are ONE step away from believing everyone is equal and children should get a trophy for participating.

When I watch a game I want to know my team WON or LOST usally they lose, sports is about finding out who is the BEST on the big stage, you CAN NOT do that with a tie.

Absolutely they don't.....but they also don't settle ties based on a gimmick..in baseball they just keep playing which is why you have 5 and 6 and 7 hour games....not really possible in hockey....and they don't play 2 innings then have a home run derby to determine the winner. In basketball they play a 5 minute overtime and keep playing them until there is a winner, which is fine and it's a lot easier to score in basketball than in hockey, they don't use a 3 point shooting contest to determine a winner after the first overtime. Ties are much easier to avoid in those sports than they are in hockey.

As for what I believe in.....coming from a Leafs Fan for life I would think that one would respect the origins of the game...ties were around for decades and involved some of the greatest players the game has ever seen...including your leafs like Johnny Bower and Red Kelly right on up to Sittler and Gilmour. Ties were good enough for the greats of the game in the original 6 right on up to the modern era of Gretzky etc. Why are they not ok for the spoiled prima donnas of this era right up to and including the players and the people who run the league?

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

Absolutely they don't.....but they also don't settle ties based on a gimmick..in baseball they just keep playing which is why you have 5 and 6 and 7 hour games....not really possible in hockey....and they don't play 2 innings then have a home run derby to determine the winner. In basketball they play a 5 minute overtime and keep playing them until there is a winner, which is fine and it's a lot easier to score in basketball than in hockey, they don't use a 3 point shooting contest to determine a winner after the first overtime. Ties are much easier to avoid in those sports than they are in hockey.

As for what I believe in.....coming from a Leafs Fan for life I would think that one would respect the origins of the game...ties were around for decades and involved some of the greatest players the game has ever seen...including your leafs like Johnny Bower and Red Kelly right on up to Sittler and Gilmour. Ties were good enough for the greats of the game in the original 6 right on up to the modern era of Gretzky etc. Why are they not ok for the spoiled prima donnas of this era right up to and including the players and the people who run the league?

Just because something was good enough once doesn't mean it's good enough now. There was a time when forward passing wasn't allowed it was good enough at one point why not now right? Guessing you don't want to go back to that? Why not? because it would suck that's why.

Yes ties WERE good enough at one point, Women couldn't vote, that was also good enough at one point.

Doesn't mean either thing should be good enough now.