Is 3-on-3 a better way to decided overtime than a shootout?

[Fenway]

Inspired by poll question on NBCSN tonight. I am surprised 36% prefer the shootout.

I am guessing in advance we will be closer to 90-10

Discuss

Click to read more...

 

[Gee Wally]

**** yes !

 

[TP]

**** yes !

What G said.








Wait. Do the goals count toward stats?

 

[Fenway]

**** yes !

I agree with this message

 

[Bread and Circuses]

My god yes.

 

[Fenway]

What G said.








Wait. Do the goals count toward stats?

Yes they do.

 

[Ladyfan]

Yes !!!

 

[Kate08]

Better? Yes. Still gimmicky? Absolutely.

I don't like either option to be honest, but it's better.

 

[TP]

Yes they do.

Fantastic.

 

[Hali33]

Anything is better than the ****ing shootout.

 

[Gee Wally]

Wait. Do the goals count toward stats?

 

[13Hockey]

Spooner-Pasta-Krug

Go all out

What do people think about basically playing 3-2 if the puck is in our own zone just have say Pasta leave the zone and hang at center ice and just hope we don't give up a goal and get a breakaway

 

[bb_fan]

They both suck.

 

[TP]

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAH!!!!




Very nice.

 

[Ladyfan]

Better? Yes. Still gimmicky? Absolutely.

I don't like either option to be honest, but it's better.

This is the truth but I agree...It's better than just a shootout.

 

[Strange Universe]

Better? Yes. Still gimmicky? Absolutely.

I don't like either option to be honest, but it's better.

My exact thoughts as well on this subject of 3 on 3...

And what Ladyfan said is also true....

it is gimmicky but at least it should reduce the dreadful shoot out substantially.

 

[wintersej]

Spooner-Pasta-Krug

Go all out

What do people think about basically playing 3-2 if the puck is in our own zone just have say Pasta leave the zone and hang at center ice and just hope we don't give up a goal and get a breakaway

Too easy to just run a giant three man cycle. Bruins would never get the puck.

 

[Paddington]

People say you're more likely to see a penalty shot than 3 on 3 during the course of a game but I still think 3 on 3 is a better way to decide a game. But, for the record, I don't like either option. And while I'm at it, the OTL point is dumber than either of these things. What's wrong with a tie?

 

[wintersej]

People say you're more likely to see a penalty shot than 3 on 3 during the course of a game but I still think 3 on 3 is a better way to decide a game. But, for the record, I don't like either option. And while I'm at it, the OTL point is dumber than either of these things. What's wrong with a tie?

I don't mind the OTL point IF you get 3 points for a regulation win.

 

[BigGoalBrad]

I don't mind the OTL point IF you get 3 points for a regulation win.

This. So many games between rival teams at the end of the year become 3 pointers that it borders on collusion.

Plus I want 4-4 regulation hockey or at least wider rinks. Too much skill is negated 5 on 5.

 

[Paddington]

I don't mind the OTL point IF you get 3 points for a regulation win.

If an OTL point must be given, then I'm on board with 3pts for a regulation win too.

 

[Caper Bruins fan]

People say you're more likely to see a penalty shot than 3 on 3 during the course of a game but I still think 3 on 3 is a better way to decide a game. But, for the record, I don't like either option. And while I'm at it, the OTL point is dumber than either of these things. What's wrong with a tie?

I agree. Let it be a tie .

 

[talkinaway]

The more cromulent question is: Will 3v3 cause fewer games to go to the shootout - and if so, is the "loss of shootout gimmick" more than the "gain of gimmick by replacing 4v4 with 3v3", so that we're really improving the game? If you're preventing one shootout per team, but you're getting a lot more 3v3 time....that's not particularly helpful.

I'm optimistic. As long as 3v3 isn't able to be figured out by every coach in the league, we'll see fewer shootouts, which is an excellent thing. The AHL experiment last year was pretty good, but to me one difference is that there's probably more parity in the NHL than the AHL.

 

[Replicator]

The more cromulent question is: Will 3v3 cause fewer games to go to the shootout - and if so, is the "loss of shootout gimmick" more than the "gain of gimmick by replacing 4v4 with 3v3", so that we're really improving the game? If you're preventing one shootout per team, but you're getting a lot more 3v3 time....that's not particularly helpful.

I'm optimistic. As long as 3v3 isn't able to be figured out by every coach in the league, we'll see fewer shootouts, which is an excellent thing. The AHL experiment last year was pretty good, but to me one difference is that there's probably more parity in the NHL than the AHL.

It's not just the gimmick factor -- the shootout is downright boring. 1 on 1 action, 60 seconds between plays, what play action there is is very simple - skate forward, forehand, backhand, shoot.

The 3 on 3 is fast, team oriented, and there are 6+2 moving players. Definitely much more satisfying for connoisseurs of team sports.

We will see if it devolves into a cycle game or if it is all run & gun as the season develops.

I'd still be ok with tie games, but so far I love the 3 on 3.

 

[JOKER 192]

I'll choose the game ending in a tie before either choice but if I have to choose, I'll choose the 3 on 3 .