Pulling the goalie in 3on3 OT for an extra skater

[krutovsdonut]

That’s a good question but I can’t remember the last time I saw that happen at any point in any game.

canucks remember

 

[krutovsdonut]

the centre pic is loui watching the replay of the first goal he scored as a canuck.

 

[StoneHands]

But what if you are desperate for that one last ROW to push you into playoffs?

That's about the only time this would make any sense. You'd have to have a team get to overtime in the final game of the season AND the team would also have to have a tie in the first tie breaker and need to win the second tie breaker to get into the playoffs. So a scenario where pulling a goalie in OT makes sense might happen once a decade or so.

 

[tarheelhockey]

But what if you are desperate for that one last ROW to push you into playoffs?

I may be wrong but didn’t they change it to only regulation wins this season?

 

[SotasicA]

Say you are tanking, how about you pull your goalie in OT? You obviously want to take home the W, but points aren't necessarily beneficial anymore, so you can try and avoid the dreaded 1pt loss. Either win (always nice), or 0pt loss (helps the greater cause).

 

[Filthy Dangles]

Regardless of the fact that the team would lose the "loser point", this is still a terrible idea. It's much, much easier to skate the puck out of your zone on the 3 on 4 as opposed to a 5 on 6. There's still plenty of ice to make a quick pass, get over the red line and score.

Is it any riskier than a football team going for a 2 point conversion to win the game than kicking an extra point to tie it and taking chances in OT? That's already happened a couple times this year. I'd argue that's riskier than what I am suggesting. The forfeiture of the loser point is what really makes it not worth it.

 

[SotasicA]

I may be wrong but didn’t they change it to only regulation wins this season?

Considering ROW is still a column on nhl.com/standings I doubt it. Also, I haven't heard anything.

 

[StoneHands]

Is it any riskier than a football team going for a 2 point conversion to win the game than kicking an extra point to tie it and taking chances in OT? That's already happened a couple times this year. I'd argue that's riskier than what I am suggesting. The forfeiture of the loser point is what really makes it not worth it.

No, it's completely different and the math actually supports going for 2 in the NFL. NFL teams convert 60% of 2 point conversions and 95% of PATs. So if you kick a field goal you have a 5% chance that you miss the kick and lose the game outright and if you make the kick you essentially have a 50% chance to win the game in OT so overall the chances are less than 50% to win the game if you try kicking PAT that would tie the game and send it to OT. If you go for the 2 point conversion you have a 60% chance to win the game outright.

It's the same concept that NBA teams are adopting with shooting a ton of 3's. The percentages of shots that go in go down but the additional point for every shot that goes in makes up for the difference. If a team shoots 20 two point shots and makes 9 thats 18 points and 45% shooting. If a team takes 20 three point shots and makes 7 that's 21 points and 35% shooting. Those are both around league average numbers for the NBA. It's a risk/reward situation. Teams in the past didn't want to shoot a lot of 3's or go for the 2 point conversion because it looks bad when you fail more often but failing more often doesn't always mean it's the wrong decision.

On the other hand, if you pull your goalie in OT and get scored on, not only do you lose the game, you forfeit the point you already had in the bag. There are obviously no statistics to know what at what rate a team would win or lose since nobody does it but the odds are 50/50 in OT to begin with and I don't think pulling your goalie will increase those odds and certainly not enough to offset the 2 points you would lose compared to the 1 additional point you would win. The risk/reward is opposite in this scenario. There's far greater risk associated with pulling a goalie in OT.

 

[majormajor]

I think it might actually be a good idea, that's why they discouraged it with the loss of the point in the standings.

 

[StoneHands]

I may be wrong but didn’t they change it to only regulation wins this season?

Considering ROW is still a column on nhl.com/standings I doubt it. Also, I haven't heard anything.

They changed is so that regulation wins are the first tie breaker and ROW is second. The ROW column is really only there in case they need to use a second tie breaker.

 

[555Upstairs]

I may be wrong but didn’t they change it to only regulation wins this season?

Considering ROW is still a column on nhl.com/standings I doubt it. Also, I haven't heard anything.

Yes, they did change the first tiebreaker to regulation wins, just went somewhat under the radar:


As for the standings page on the NHL website, guess they're just lazy

 

[tarheelhockey]

They changed is so that regulation wins are the first tie breaker and ROW is second. The ROW column is really only there in case they need to use a second tie breaker.

Yes, they did change the first tiebreaker to regulation wins, just went somewhat under the radar:


As for the standings page on the NHL website, guess they're just lazy

Thanks

So the risk calculation here is a bit complicated. It takes about 4 minutes of 4-on-3 to generate a goal. And while I can't put an exact number on it, I feel like there's a very high chance that a team will score a 3-on-4 ENG in under that amount of time. Certainly the coin-flip chances of winning in a shootout seem like a safer bet, especially if you feel OK about your chances of winning straight-up in overtime without the goalie pull. So in a completely context-neutral situation, pulling your goalie seems to carry an unacceptably high risk of backfire.

BUT, let's say you really need the OT win due to the tiebreaker. Now a shootout effectively has a 0% chance of success. That changes the equation quite a bit, because you're now comparing the chances of 4-on-3 success against the risk of a backfire AND the threat of failure in the event that nobody scores. In that situation, your calculation is purely based on the chance of the other team scoring the ENG before you can score or before time ends. With every second that passes, there's a little bit more incentive to take the goalie out and increase the pressure at the other end.

I don't have the data to put my finger on it, but arbitrarily I'd say that in an end-of-season situation where you absolutely must have the OTW to advance, it's to your advantage to pull the goalie in the final minute or so.

 

[SotasicA]

Yes, they did change the first tiebreaker to regulation wins, just went somewhat under the radar:


As for the standings page on the NHL website, guess they're just lazy

Now they should put in a new column there, RW or RegW. Because otherwise you can't see the first tiebreaker at all. W and ROW are not it.

 

[ottawa]

I completely forgot about that. What a **** rule that is....

It's actually a smart rule so stupid ideas like this one aren't realized.

 

[StoneHands]

Thanks

So the risk calculation here is a bit complicated. It takes about 4 minutes of 4-on-3 to generate a goal. And while I can't put an exact number on it, I feel like there's a very high chance that a team will score a 3-on-4 ENG in under that amount of time. Certainly the coin-flip chances of winning in a shootout seem like a safer bet, especially if you feel OK about your chances of winning straight-up in overtime without the goalie pull. So in a completely context-neutral situation, pulling your goalie seems to carry an unacceptably high risk of backfire.

BUT, let's say you really need the OT win due to the tiebreaker. Now a shootout effectively has a 0% chance of success. That changes the equation quite a bit, because you're now comparing the chances of 4-on-3 success against the risk of a backfire AND the threat of failure in the event that nobody scores. In that situation, your calculation is purely based on the chance of the other team scoring the ENG before you can score or before time ends. With every second that passes, there's a little bit more incentive to take the goalie out and increase the pressure at the other end.

I don't have the data to put my finger on it, but arbitrarily I'd say that in an end-of-season situation where you absolutely must have the OTW to advance, it's to your advantage to pull the goalie in the final minute or so.

Correct. I said earlier in the thread that the only time this would make sense is if you need that ROW to make the playoffs but the odds that a team would be tied late in OT on the final game of the season while also needing to win the not the first but the second tie breaker to make the playoffs are pretty low. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if sometime in the next decade we see it happen though.

I ref youth hockey and I've seen a handful of times in tournaments where a team is tied late in a game and they pull their goalie. When I asked the coach about it after the game I was told that a tie wouldn't have gotten them to the championship game and that they needed the win. I can't say that I ever remember it working but it's certainly worth the risk.

 

[Mobiandi]

Came across this. Wasn't sure if a thread had been made

 

[cactusjack]

I’m wondering what would happen if habs pulled goalie in a tie game vs a 8-12th team, trying to plead they need 2 net point.
Anyway, wont happen because they would need to be tied late in a game

 

[gtrower]

What’s the actual rule wording for avoiding an “ENG.” like is it just the goaltender being on the ice? Somebody in goalie pads being on the ice? Do they have to be in the crease? Their own third?

I feel like a clever coach could stretch that rule if the wording isn’t bulletproof and the right situation arose.

 

[Atas2000]

No. This is an incredibly stupid idea.

It did work in the KHL for Sergei Fedorov. It's not stupid, just risky, but pulling the goalie always is.

And it's differet rules in the KHL. The NHL just prevents it by the rulebook.

 

[Atas2000]

It's not a dumb rule, it's specifically there to prevent this.

It is a dumb rule. Why prevent this? It's a risk. The coach who risks it takes the blame if he loses.

 

[GirardSpinorama]

Don't you lose the bonus point if you pull your goalie in OT?

What really???

 

[Atas2000]

What? Is this real?

it is. Didn't know that either until recently the situaton occured in the KHL(KHL has no such rule, so it was mentioned).

 

[PROGFAN66]

so if you have a delayed penalty in ot and you pull the goalie for an extra attacker then accidentally score on yourself, does that cost you the loser point?

The delayed penalty rule in OT would be the same in regulation play. I saw this tactic used the other day in OT. However, I would think under your scenario, I don't think you would lose a point.

 

[T REX]

It's not a dumb rule, it's specifically there to prevent this.

Thank you. Close the thread

 

[Divine]

What’s the actual rule wording for avoiding an “ENG.” like is it just the goaltender being on the ice? Somebody in goalie pads being on the ice? Do they have to be in the crease? Their own third?

I feel like a clever coach could stretch that rule if the wording isn’t bulletproof and the right situation arose.

Well, a goalie isn't allowed to play a puck across center ice, so I can't imagine how that will be beneficial to the team. Even if you got a skater on the ice claiming to be the goalie, can't imagine it to be more beneficial than a goalie in 3 on 3.