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

[KnightofBoston]

Having the two team's best fighters go out at center ice for a decision would be better than the shootout

 

[OutspokenMinority*]

yes, but that's only because nobody ever listened to my idea to speed up the shootouts by going with a rapid fire approach and either continuing to alternate or going with 5 shooters from one side boom boom boom one after the other with no delay (next skater goes once the puck is retrieved) followed by the other team as needed.

also, it goes without saying that the fans of each team should be able to choose the players for a shootout in realtime via mobile apps. of course it's hopefully a matter of weeks not months before we see the emergence of a legitimately crowd-coached sports team of one sort or another. i think i'm going far afield and need to re-center.

the danger of a 3-on-3 is that it may quickly become obvious that trying real hard defensively in a 3 on 3 situation is a waste of time, which could lead to guys just kind of going through the motions like the B's did with the shootout last year. if that happens, watching it kind of feels like a waste of time as well.

i honestly think that going back to ties is probably the best way to go with no overtime in the regular season at all.

 

[GloryDaze4877]

Better? Yes. Still gimmicky? Absolutely.

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

I love 3 on 3 vs the SO.

While I get that some may find it a bit gimmicky, I like seeing the skills on display, while not making it an individual thing.

Added bonus: I think the B's will be better at 3 on 3 than the SO.

 

[Fire Sweeney]

Defensive coaches already hard at work to ruin it like they've ruined the game since the 2005 lockout:
http://www.tsn.ca/opinions-all-over-the-map-on-3-on-3-ot-1.373112

This three-on-three OT, I mused that night, just can't be coached. This is going to be fun.

Talk about having your bubble burst.

"Don't kid yourself," an NHL general manager told me on the eve of the 2015-16 regular season, "the (NHL) coaches will have this dummied down in no time."

Really?

"Give us some time," an NHL head coach added, "and we'll make three-on-three as boring as four-on-four had become."

They're probably right. We would be foolish to think otherwise. Give 30 NHL coaching staffs the incentive to break down every aspect of what superficially looks like just five minutes or less of fun hockey and they're bound to find way to organize it, execute it and, ultimately, stifle it.

"The Fun Police," the unnamed NHL GM added, "are on the case."

 

[Therick67]

Anything that keeps me from having to watch the Bruins lose in a shootout is a good ideal IMO.

 

[cbatson730]

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

The 36% must not be real hockey fans... the love the trick shots.

 

[Scotto74]

Yes it is much better but I still don't like 4 on 4 or 3 on 3. If you won't use it to determine the results of a playoff game I don't think it should be used to determine the results of any game.

Give me 10 minutes of 5 on 5 and then end in a tie.

 

[Fire Sweeney]

The 36% must not be real hockey fans... the love the trick shots.

Or they hate both gimmicks that aren't hockey.

 

[BMC]

**** yes !

Quoted for truth. I hated the shootout.

 

[Sturm]

Anything but a shootout, a tie would be better.....

 

[Jean_Jacket41]

Yes. But it shouldn't count as a real win (ROW). It should only be regular time wins that are taken into account for the tie-break wins.

 

[Kate08]

I love 3 on 3 vs the SO.

While I get that some may find it a bit gimmicky, I like seeing the skills on display, while not making it an individual thing.

Added bonus: I think the B's will be better at 3 on 3 than the SO.

Not a fan of the shootout, and I agree that 3 v 3 is better, but to me, winning on any kind of a gimmick shouldn't be worth as much as winning over the course of a game played as the game was intended to be played.

I hate the loser point. HATE IT. A team that plays conservatively when tied late in the 3rd, ultimately goes on to lose, and gets the same number of points as a team that has a blow out win? That's crap. It's changed the course of play late in games, inflated the standings, made teams miss the playoffs on a gimmick, and gotten teams in on a gimmick.

Get off my lawn.

 

[Fenway]

3 points for a regulation OR OT win - Shootout winner gets 2 and loser 1 would make so much more sense.

Not a fan of the shootout, and I agree that 3 v 3 is better, but to me, winning on any kind of a gimmick shouldn't be worth as much as winning over the course of a game played as the game was intended to be played.

I hate the loser point. HATE IT. A team that plays conservatively when tied late in the 3rd, ultimately goes on to lose, and gets the same number of points as a team that has a blow out win? That's crap. It's changed the course of play late in games, inflated the standings, made teams miss the playoffs on a gimmick, and gotten teams in on a gimmick.

Get off my lawn.

 

[Kate08]

3 points for a regulation OR OT win - Shootout winner gets 2 and loser 1 would make so much more sense.

What's wrong with shootout winner getting 2 and the losing team getting nothing? They didn't win. It's essentially a participation trophy.

 

[Fenway]

What's wrong with shootout winner getting 2 and the losing team getting nothing? They didn't win. It's essentially a participation trophy.

I could live with that but just change it to 2 points for a win - zip if you lose.

 

[Kate08]

I could live with that but just change it to 2 points for a win - zip if you lose.

Exactly.

 

[BMC]

Not a fan of the shootout, and I agree that 3 v 3 is better, but to me, winning on any kind of a gimmick shouldn't be worth as much as winning over the course of a game played as the game was intended to be played.

I hate the loser point. HATE IT. A team that plays conservatively when tied late in the 3rd, ultimately goes on to lose, and gets the same number of points as a team that has a blow out win? That's crap. It's changed the course of play late in games, inflated the standings, made teams miss the playoffs on a gimmick, and gotten teams in on a gimmick.

Get off my lawn.

Yes, yes, yes!!!!

 

[BMC]

2 points for a win, 1 point for a tie (the two teams split the 2 points for a win) and zero zilch zip for a loss.

 

[CharasLazyWrister]

Or they hate both gimmicks that aren't hockey.

I'm convinced you are at least 200 years old.

 

[talkinaway]

I'd go for 3/0 for a regulation win, 2/1 split for a shootout. I don't care too much which of those two you chose for an OT win/loss, but I'd lean towards 3/0 to cause the urgency to not lose a point when the clock hits 65.

This is the best of both words: no "loser points" are created ex nihilo. You get 3 points for winning. If you go to the shootout, each team gets 1 point for the tie, and you play a 1 point shootout. And both teams have the incentive to avoid SOs.

Of course, you won't be able to compare point totals in the future to point totals from the past, but who cares? Parity in salary cap should, in theory, cause teams to be equal strength and cause more OT/SOs, so today's NHL teams should be getting more points anyway due to loser points being generated.

 

[BruinsBtn]

Wait until teams are playing keep-away for the entire 3-on-3.

Guys are going to be going in on 2-on-1s and not seeing a hole and then circling back to their own zones.