GDT: Gm 22: St. Louis Blues @ Boston Bruins |11/21/13|7P ET|NESN, NHLN-US, RDS|98.5 FM

[Root]

all I want the NHL to do is take out the loser point for losing in OT.

so 2 points for winning in regulation/OT/shootout

loser only gets a point if they lose in the shootout. zero points if they lose in overtime.

another point system I wouldn't mind is 2 points for a regulation/OT win and one point for a shootout win.

zero points if you lose in regulation/OT/shootout.

this way you punish both teams for not winning in regulation/OT.

also ten minute overtime would be great

 

[DominicT]

all I want the NHL to do is take out the loser point for losing in OT.

so 2 points for winning in regulation/OT/shootout

loser only gets a point if they lose in the shootout. zero points if they lose in overtime.

another point system I wouldn't mind is 2 points for a regulation/OT win and one point for a shootout win.

zero points if you lose in regulation/OT/shootout.

this way you punish both teams for not winning in regulation/OT.

also ten minute overtime would be great

Why is losing in SO more valuable than losing in the OT ?

You'd still have some games worth 3 points and some worth 2.

A 3-2-1 point system makes every game worth 3 points. It makes winning in regulation more valuable than OT or SO.

A system where every game is worth 2 points (2 for a win and 0 for any loss) still has a fault. A regulation game is 60 minutes. A team should be rewarded for that "tie". Give a bonus point to winning in OT or SO. Game is still worth 3 points total. And this would be a true bonus point because the winning team in OT/SO would only be rewarded with 2 points instead of 3 for winning in regulation.

 

[Artemis]

Why is losing in SO more valuable than losing in the OT ?

You'd still have some games worth 3 points and some worth 2.

A 3-2-1 point system makes every game worth 3 points. It makes winning in regulation more valuable than OT or SO.

A system where every game is worth 2 points (2 for a win and 0 for any loss) still has a fault. A regulation game is 60 minutes. A team should be rewarded for that "tie". Give a bonus point to winning in OT or SO. Game is still worth 3 points total. And this would be a true bonus point because the winning team in OT/SO would only be rewarded with 2 points instead of 3 for winning in regulation.

Yeah, I don't get that at all. As I said, a SO is a crapshoot. Making it more valuable doesn't make sense.

I like the 3-2-1 system. Nothing's perfect, but that's the best notion, IMHO.

 

[Mr. Make-Believe]

Why is losing in SO more valuable than losing in the OT ?

You'd still have some games worth 3 points and some worth 2.

A 3-2-1 point system makes every game worth 3 points. It makes winning in regulation more valuable than OT or SO.

A system where every game is worth 2 points (2 for a win and 0 for any loss) still has a fault. A regulation game is 60 minutes. A team should be rewarded for that "tie". Give a bonus point to winning in OT or SO. Game is still worth 3 points total. And this would be a true bonus point because the winning team in OT/SO would only be rewarded with 2 points instead of 3 for winning in regulation.

I think we've spoken about this a couple of times in the past, Dom... And we couldn't possibly see more eye-to-eye on this.

You know what I think gets overlooked so often in this argument? If you make 3 points the reward for a regulation win - teams will be DESPERATE to WIN in REGULATION. Countless times we've all seen in the past, where teams will "kill the clock" in the last several minutes of the third period, just playing cautious hockey in order to get the free point. You make the reward substantial, you make that one point worth LESS and it ultimately leads to better hockey.

 

[Fossy21]

loser only gets a point if they lose in the shootout. zero points if they lose in overtime.

Yeah, that'll make teams play their hearts out in the OT and not just stand around waiting for SO.

Saw a comment recently from Springfield Falcons coach Brad Larsen that he had a professor at SLU who did a study on shootouts and determined that they were basically crapshoots.

Don't know about this. If that were the case, no teams would be consistently good/bad in shootouts and all teams would be around 50% long term. Also doesn't make sense in theory because some teams obviously have players who are more skilled and more clutch in those situations. Other than that I agree with you, though, get rid of them.

I also really liked the 2 point system when I started watching the NHL, being used to the 3-2-1-0 system... but now I'm not so sure. Could be worth implementing.

A five minute 4on4 sudden death followed by 3on3 for five more would be good by me. If it remains tied after that, just give both teams a point each.

 

[Sea Bass Neely]

I didn't really mind it either. I was a bit surprised to see him out there, but it's not like Clode picks his shooters based on point totals. An argument could be made for choosing Yeti over Kelly, but I don't think much about it either way.

I agree point totals should not dictate the pecking order of shooters in a shootout, but lineup decisions made during the shootout literally can be the difference between a win and a loss.

Sure, Kelly had that nice move on the penalty shot at the start of the season but his shootout %'s are decidedly pedestrian. Putting Kelly out there is one thing, but as the 4th shooter when everything is on the line??

Some might argue Soderberg already had his chance on the breakaway at the end of OT... but that is different IMO. Yeti had backward pressure to deal with there (so he was rushed) and Halak was well-positioned outside his net to deprive Soderberg of any quality shooting angles.

But it's not just Soderberg... although yes i would rather have seen Yeti taking the shootout attempt that an extra point was hanging on. Especially since he was feeling it all game long, and it was HIS filthy snipe of a wrist shot that tied up the game to begin with.

I would also rather see Krug out there than Kelly. Or Marchand, ERIKSSON, Lucic, for that matter. Smith, ehhhh not so sure but maybe even Reilly too.

It might be a crapshoot of sorts but i do believe in trying to maximize the team's chance of stealing that extra point as much as possible.

This is not a knock on Kelly, but the guy just does not have the greatest hands or any kind of consistent scoring touch. I like CK, but he should not be 4th in the shootout pecking order with the game hanging in the balance IMHO.

 

[Fossy21]

To be fair, having followed Söderberg extensively in SHL and a little in the HA: I don't see him as a go-to shootout guy by any means, at either level, let alone at the NHL level. I'm not saying he wouldn't have been a better choice than Kelly, but he's fanned on a breakaway and had a couple saved (not the same situation, I know) so far this season. He has also scored on one, with a shot that to be honest barely squeezed through. Also he took one of the shots against Dallas, which he missed (and got a little flaming for on here, albeit not as much as Loui). I'm still not saying I don't trust him in those situations, but it might be that coach did, at least at the time, trust Kelly (who has scored on practically his only breakaway/penalty shot this season) over him. It may even be that he was picked to shoot it but opted not to, whether it was because he wasn't feeling it or didn't want to risk missing it after just missing on a breakaway - which might spoil his otherwise stellar performance.

Again, I'm (quite obviously) probably Yeti's biggest backer (mayhap behind GD, I don't know how that's possible, but still!), so it's not a slight against him in any way, just throwing it out there.

 

[Sea Bass Neely]

I've been begging for years for them to go to 8 minute OTs. I'd say 10, but I don't know if the ice would hold up that long.

I dislike the 3-3 idea almost as much as the shootout. But I guess (ugh) it would be better.

The NHL really just needs to go to 3 point games.

On a side note, i also don't like Iginla in the shootout and i have a bad feeling Clode will end up keeping him in the top 3 [shootout guys] longer than he should simply because Iggy got lucky with his truly ridiculous shot that went in off the post against Anaheim.

Not sure why Krejci is still treated like he's a a reliable shootout guy, he hasn't converted consistently for a pretty long time now.

But speaking to the comment i quoted; i also dislike the 3-on-3 OT period proposal. Only instead of finding it slightly preferable to the shootout, i actually find the shootout slightly preferable to a 3-on-3 OT period. I do like the 4-on-4 OT period, i only wish it were 10 minutes instead of five.

People hate on the shootout because it is basically like deciding a game on a skills competition. BUT, in some ways, a 3-on-3 is essentially a skills competition itself.

The team that can roll faster trios of players -- namely, quicker teams -- would enjoy an overwhelming advantage in a wide-open 3-on-3 hockey contest. It would almost be tantamount to a skills competition for speed.

As many have noted, the shootout might just as well be a crapshoot. But a crapshoot is more fair, at the end of the day, than a 3-on-3 OT/tie-breaking setup.

I can only speak for myself, but i would prefer a crapshoot (however flawed that crapshoot is, in and of itself) to an OT/tie-breaking format that heavily favors teams with an abundance of ONE SINGLE dimension... speed.

That's all i have to say regarding the 3-on-3 idea and/or shootouts.

 

[Fossy21]

[...]

What do you mean by "tie-breaking format"? Aren't they all tie-breaking formats?

 

[Bruinswillwin77]

C'mon fellas the new GDT is up lets talk about the future and what we want to optimistically see.

 

[Sea Bass Neely]

What do you mean by "tie-breaking format"? Aren't they all tie-breaking formats?

Yes, they all are tie-breaking formats, hypothetical or not.

.... as opposed to the old format where each team gets a point and the game ends in a tie after OT. See what i mean?? Any arrangement that makes official ties impossible features some sort of tie-breaking format. Whether it's a 20 min 5-on-5 OT, 10 minute 3-on-3 OT, 5 minute 4-on-4... followed by a shootout. And as much as people hate the shootout, IMO it's here to stay. The NHL won't go back to ties.

So all the formats are tie-breakers.

 

[nycbruins*]

Everyone talks about the loser point for losing in a shootout. But that's always how it's been, getting a point for being tie thru overtime. The real change is getting an extra point for winning the shootout, which inflates all the #'s without really earning it

 

[bruinsfan1970]

C'mon fellas the new GDT is up lets talk about the future and what we want to optimistically see.

I couldn't agree more.