krutovsdonut
eeyore
- Sep 25, 2016
- 16,908
- 9,596
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
That’s a good question but I can’t remember the last time I saw that happen at any point in any game.
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.But what if you are desperate for that one last ROW to push you into playoffs?
But what if you are desperate for that one last ROW to push you into playoffs?
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.
Considering ROW is still a column on nhl.com/standings I doubt it. Also, I haven't heard anything.I may be wrong but didn’t they change it to only regulation wins this season?
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.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.
I may be wrong but didn’t they change it to only regulation wins this season?
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.Considering ROW is still a column on nhl.com/standings I doubt it. Also, I haven't heard anything.
I may be wrong but didn’t they change it to only regulation wins this season?
Yes, they did change the first tiebreaker to regulation wins, just went somewhat under the radar: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.
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
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
I completely forgot about that. What a **** rule that is....
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.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.
It did work in the KHL for Sergei Fedorov. It's not stupid, just risky, but pulling the goalie always is.No. This is an incredibly stupid idea.
It is a dumb rule. Why prevent this? It's a risk. The coach who risks it takes the blame if he loses.It's not a dumb rule, it's specifically there to prevent this.
Don't you lose the bonus point if you pull your goalie in OT?
it is. Didn't know that either until recently the situaton occured in the KHL(KHL has no such rule, so it was mentioned).What? Is this real?
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?
Thank you. Close the threadIt's not a dumb rule, it's specifically there to prevent this.
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.