News Article: 3 on 3 OT?

[Number8]

I'm more than ok with it. Is it a bit gimmicky? Yes. But at least it's hockey - sort of like the pond hockey we'd play as kids. Sometimes it would be 10 v 10 plus on the reservoir in our town at the start of the day.. By the end of the day it'd be down to 3 v 3 and we'd all be gassed but still laughing.

Anything that gets rid of the shootout though. I didn't like it when it first started, but now it's just ridiculous.

In a real game i could at least envision a situation where a 3 v 3 would happen.

I can never ever envision a scenario where some guys weaves in big arcing curves towards the net at about 30% speed and waits for the goalie to make a move before taking a shot. NBA-like and ridiculous.

 

[Scotto74]

I suspect it may have to do with minimizing the number of games that go to a shootout, which is the primary point of the exercise. Unfortunately nobody has data on 4x4 for 8 minutes, but it would be good to see. Some preliminary AHL data on the 4x4 then 3x3 shows something like only 16% of games that went beyond regulation got to the shootuout (http://www.thehockeynews.com/blog/new-overtime-rules-letting-hockey-not-shootouts-decide-games/). So we have:

Current NHL format: 57% of games beyond regulation go to shootout

Current AHL format: 16% of games beyond regulation go to shootout

8 minutes of 4x4: ???

If 8 minutes of 4x4 only drops the percentage to shootout to about 45%, then the additional 'gimmick' of 3x3 becomes more palatable. However, if the additional 4x4 time would drop the percentage to shootout to 25%, then I'd probably prefer the 8 minutes of 4x4.

If the point is they want to minimize the number of games that go to a shootout then I can solve that for them.


elimiate the shootout. This minimizes the number of games going to a shootout by 100%

 

[nycpunk1]

If you aren't going to bring back ties, you need a shootout at some point, because otherwise injuries are going to skyrocket. Minimizing the SO should be the goal, not eliminating it (unless you go back to ties, which I think is a separate debate).

What's wrong with more 4-on-4? 10 minutes sudden death seems doable. Not sure anything over that is worth the risk of injury. 3-on-3 is just too lopsided in favor of one style of play in my mind. After half a period of open play, teams can't really complain about losing in a gimmick. Plenty of chances to finish in 70 minutes.

 

[ThomasJ13]

If the point is they want to minimize the number of games that go to a shoot then I can solve that for them.


elimiate the shootout. The minimizes the number for games going to a shootout by 100%

In order to do that you would have to propose limitless OT like in the playoffs (not going to happen for obvious reasons), or to bring back ties (which the NHL has established it does not want to do, although I'd be more than fine with it). So you're left with various options that minimize shootouts in the event a game ends in a tie. At least the league seems to be trying to minimize shootouts amongst the various options out there.

 

[OutspokenMinority*]

5 minutes of overtime at 4x4 and no points for a tie?

want the 3x3 after that? fine.

seems to solve all problems (course that means it's probably got a gaping hole somewhere).

 

[Scotto74]

In order to do that you would have to propose limitless OT like in the playoffs (not going to happen for obvious reasons), or to bring back ties (which the NHL has established it does not want to do, although I'd be more than fine with it). So you're left with various options that minimize shootouts in the event a game ends in a tie. At least the league seems to be trying to minimize shootouts amongst the various options out there.

I am in the bring back ties camp so that is how I would solve it but I understand what you are saying.

 

[Bad Hat Harry]

If the point is they want to minimize the number of games that go to a shoot then I can solve that for them.


elimiate the shootout. The minimizes the number for games going to a shootout by 100%

Genius post.

 

[talkinaway]

If you aren't going to bring back ties, you need a shootout at some point, because otherwise injuries are going to skyrocket. Minimizing the SO should be the goal, not eliminating it (unless you go back to ties, which I think is a separate debate).

What's wrong with more 4-on-4? 10 minutes sudden death seems doable. Not sure anything over that is worth the risk of injury. 3-on-3 is just too lopsided in favor of one style of play in my mind. After half a period of open play, teams can't really complain about losing in a gimmick. Plenty of chances to finish in 70 minutes.

Curious if there's data behind the "more injuries happen in OT than in other periods". I assume it's acute injuries that you're talking about, and not long term injuries - adding on another 20-25 minutes MAX of game time per NHL season by expanding OT from 5 minutes to 10 shouldn't cause a ton of "mileage stress" on players.

In fact, if anything, 4v4 OT play is more conservative in terms of injury. Our last foray into OT against TBL notwithstanding, there seem to be fewer penalties - but again, that's just my impression. I can't remember an injury this season or last season that happened after 60 minutes in a Boston game.

You DO have to have a set endpoint to games - it's one thing to have games go on forever doing the playoffs. It's the end of the season, and they're important games. I wouldn't mind playoffs going to 4v4 after the first period of OT, but again, separate debate. But in the regular season, where, for example, one team could be playing the first game in a back-to-back while the other has a 2 day break, there's a lot of asymmetry going on. The team on a break is ready to head into 2OT, while the back-to-back team wants the pain to end.

It's possible that expanding 4v4 does enough; if I recall the stats correctly, about half of the games that ended in OT ended in the 4v4 period, while another half ended in 3v3. It would have been nice for the AHL to try a 10 minute 4v4 OT to see if that does the trick - because, yeah, I'm not a huge fan of 3v3, but it's a LOT better than a shootout.

And if we get 95%+ of the games decided in 65-70 minutes, then I can hold my nose and deal with the shootout. I'd like to think that shootout fans could hold their noses and deal with a tie, but I don't think that's ever going to happen.

 

[neelynugs]

But why can't 4-4 be extended to 8 minutes? That's what I don't get about this proposal.

i highly doubt the NHLPA is agreeing to 8 minute OT. in fact, i'd be surprised if they agreed to 7 minutes. think it's more likely we will see 3-on-3 for all 5 minutes. the PA literally argues anything and everything they can. 3 more minutes is "more wear and tear on the players". yet, the shootout is a lot more wear on tear on all the goalies (who are the most important guys on each team). logic has always escaped them.

 

[talkinaway]

Yeah, I was reading yesterday and today about the two proposals the GMs came up with - AHL vs 5 mins of 3v3. I like the AHL model much better - at least 4v4 is still real hockey. People will whine about a 5 minute 3v3 until the old version comes back.

 

[DoubleAAAA]

But why can't 4-4 be extended to 8 minutes? That's what I don't get about this proposal.

I agree, at least as a start.

 

[missingchicklet]

Yay. Now I have the potential to see gimmicky crap followed up by even more gimmicky crap if the first round of gimmickry doesn't determine the game.

 

[Mount Kramer Cameras]

Yay. Now I have the potential to see gimmicky crap followed up by even more gimmicky crap if the first round of gimmickry doesn't determine the game.

Hard to argue with this perspective. What's so bad about a tied game? Are they scared that fans won't be 'entertained' unless there's a clear winner? The overall standings would be 100% pure if a tie was simply a tie.

 

[Central Scrutinizer]

I hate it. Hate it hate it hate it.

Just expand the 4-4 to 8 minutes before the shootout.

4-4 for 10 minutes. after 10 minutes if there is no winner both teams get 1 point.

 

[RedeyeRocketeer]

I've heard 3 on 3 is a lock for next season, it's just a matter of the format.

But there's no chance of 8 or 10 minute OT's. They have no interest in making the playing time longer (for TV reasons).

 

[missingchicklet]

I've heard 3 on 3 is a lock for next season, it's just a matter of the format.

But there's no chance of 8 or 10 minute OT's. They have no interest in making the playing time longer (for TV reasons).

Playing a 5 min OT then a shootout takes more time than a few extra minutes of OT would take. I would like to see OT at 8-10 mins. Then if nobody scores call it a tie.

 

[Rubber Biscuit]

Just give me a 3-2-1 point system.

I don't like the shootout but clearly they aren't going to do away with it. It makes no sense for an extra point to appear out of nowhere once the game gets past regulation.

 

[wetcamelfood]

5 min 3 on 3 is OK with me. I don't want the AHL deal because I've been hearing the 4 on 4 part can run on due to long play without a whistle then they don't have much time left for the 3 on 3, which would be like having no change. So at least 5 min 3 on 3 would see if it really works at a realistic length.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

It just is too gimmicky. I don't think it is fun to watch. It isn't hockey to me, it is something else.

EM,

I'm sorry, but I am missing the delineation that makes 4 on 4 OK, but 3 on 3 not real hockey? I hate the SO, which is far, far more "gimmicky" than 3 on 3 IMO.

 

[LSCII]

They should just change the format of every game to be 3 on 3 at all times. It's just so exciting and fun to watch...

 

[GloryDaze4877]

i highly doubt the NHLPA is agreeing to 8 minute OT. in fact, i'd be surprised if they agreed to 7 minutes. think it's more likely we will see 3-on-3 for all 5 minutes. the PA literally argues anything and everything they can. 3 more minutes is "more wear and tear on the players". yet, the shootout is a lot more wear on tear on all the goalies (who are the most important guys on each team). logic has always escaped them.

Dreger made a good point about this though. Longer OT means more goals/points, (esp 3 on 3) which actually count in the stats totals.

At the end of the year, when the player is negotiating a new deal, more points = more $$$$.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

They should just change the format of every game to be 3 on 3 at all times. It's just so exciting and fun to watch...

They should just do "bravehearts" like in lacrosse. Have a faceoff, whomever wins is on offense, whomever loses plays D until someone scores. Best of 3.

At least there's an element of the game, unlike a SO.

 

[LSCII]

They should just do "bravehearts" like in lacrosse. Have a faceoff, whomever wins is on offense, whomever loses plays D until someone scores. Best of 3.

At least there's an element of the game, unlike a SO.

To me, a gimmick is a gimmick no matter what. It's fine if they want to move to 3 on 3, but so many people here and in the media are clamoring so much for this gimmick that it makes me wonder if they ever watch a game. If you need a 3 on 3, 4 on 4, or a 4 on 3 situation to make hockey exciting, then you clearly are not a fan. The sport is tremendous 5 on 5 or any variation therein.

 

[EverettMike]

EM,

I'm sorry, but I am missing the delineation that makes 4 on 4 OK, but 3 on 3 not real hockey? I hate the SO, which is far, far more "gimmicky" than 3 on 3 IMO.

Hockey is played 5-5. 4-4 is a gimmick, but closer to real hockey than 3-3. 4-4 also comes up in the course of normal games almost every single time. 3-3 might happen once a year.

They are going to use a gimmick, I'd prefer if they use one less gimmicky.

4-4 still feels like hockey to me. 3-3 doesn't.

I just don't see why we'd go to 3-3 when we could easily play a couple more minutes of 4-4.

 

[EverettMike]

Want less shootouts? That's the goal.

HAVE LESS GAMES GO TO OVERTIME.

Make all of these games 3 point games. 3 points for a regulation win. Holy **** that would be the best thing they could do to make the regular season games more intense.