3 on 3 OT? Like it or not?

[ruxpin]

Hey! When ties were part of the game, guess what? We didn't stop going to the games, we didn't stop watching them on TV, we didn't do anything different.

Agree. I mean, it's not like I went to a game saying, "I hope there's a tie," but it was just kind of a fact of life.

There were, of course, ties where I left the game saying, "well, that sucked!" But I think that was more about how the tie came about. Because there were some games where both teams just skated around the entire third period trying to preserve the point.

But there were games where the tie was achieved late. If you were the team that came back you felt pretty good. If you were the team that coughed it up, you felt like you lost.

I do appreciate trying to move away from this, but not with the shootout. I don't think 3v3 is ideal, but it's better (to me) than the shootout.

I'm also okay with a full OT period first, followed (if necessary) by a five minute 3v3. I'm aware of the ice surface concern at that point, I don't, however, have much patience for the "but I have to go to work tomorrow" thing.

I was okay with the ties, but we're apparently not going to go back to that. That's fine.

[Old School Hockey]

Actually your revenues went up when you eliminated ties and introduced shootouts.

But with all statistics correlation does not imply causation

It's certainly geared towards catering to keep the casual fan interested.

Revenues went up because the NHL FINALLY decided to market the game better.  I don't remember any marketing plan/advertisement saying "hey come to the game and watch another great shootout"?  Please find the quotes on that for me?

[NRH]

So what you're saying is people go to games to see a SO? That seem a bit odd? Why don't they all just wait until the 3rd period and get in for half price?

No what I said is in the post you should read it

Majority of revenue is from TV as well.

[hf101]

Please refrain from futher personal attacks in this discussion topic as it will be easily locked if I read more of them.

 

[Old School Hockey]

Agree. I mean, it's not like I went to a game saying, "I hope there's a tie," but it was just kind of a fact of life.

There were, of course, ties where I left the game saying, "well, that sucked!" But I think that was more about how the tie came about. Because there were some games where both teams just skated around the entire third period trying to preserve the point.

But there were games where the tie was achieved late. If you were the team that came back you felt pretty good. If you were the team that coughed it up, you felt like you lost.

I do appreciate trying to move away from this, but not with the shootout. I don't think 3v3 is ideal, but it's better (to me) than the shootout.

I'm also okay with a full OT period first, followed (if necessary) by a five minute 3v3. I'm aware of the ice surface concern at that point, I don't, however, have much patience for the "but I have to go to work tomorrow" thing.

I was okay with the ties, but we're apparently not going to go back to that. That's fine.

There were teams who did nothing in OT and played for the shootout.  Phoenix was one several years ago.  I think they had 16 SO wins?

 

But this why I support 3 on 3.  If you attempt to sit back in 3 on 3 you'll lose.

[Old School Hockey]

No what I said is in the post you should read it

Majority of revenue is from TV as well.

You should read what I said.  The NHL started marketing MUCH more and better.

[ruxpin]

There were teams who did nothing in OT and played for the shootout. Phoenix was one several years ago. I think they had 16 SO wins?

But this why I support 3 on 3. If you attempt to sit back in 3 on 3 you'll lose.

Exactly. All the shootout did, often, was push back which period the teams skated for a point.

Completely agree with all of that.

Look, 3v3 amounts to a gimmick. I find it oddly entertaining, but it's a gimmick.

Given the choices at hand, I guess it is what it is. I'll definitely take it over the shootout (not that it matters as a Flyers' fan as we'll lose 90% of either!)

[NRH]

Exactly. All the shootout did, often, was push back which period the teams skated for a point.

Completely agree with all of that.

Look, 3v3 amounts to a gimmick. I find it oddly entertaining, but it's a gimmick.

Given the choices at hand, I guess it is what it is. I'll definitely take it over the shootout (not that it matters as a Flyers' fan as we'll lose 90% of either!)

Well if anything give the teams a choice, if 2 teams can agree on a shootout rather than additional periods of hockey might as well let them play them.

Less teams would drag out overtimes if they knew there were no points for losing in overtime or if the difference between winning and losing in overtime was greater like 3 points to 1.

[radoran]

But this why I support 3 on 3. If you attempt to sit back in 3 on 3 you'll lose.

 

Fine, but that's exactly why "it's not hockey."

 

To be clear. the shootout isn't either.

 

I'll definitely take it over the shootout (not that it matters as a Flyers' fan as we'll lose 90% of either!)

 

Which is all fine and good - but they haven't actually eliminated the shootout. Just tried to make it less likely.

 

And we've already had at least one, not even a week into the season.

[Old School Hockey]

Well if anything give the teams a choice, if 2 teams can agree on a shootout rather than additional periods of hockey might as well let them play them.

Less teams would drag out overtimes if they knew there were no points for losing in overtime or if the difference between winning and losing in overtime was greater like 3 points to 1.

Giving teams the choice is not a good thing?  Who decides?  1 says yes and 1 says no, then what?

 

Wins and losses is the best way to rid the NHL of the BS of sitting back.  But the NHL will NEVER go for it because too many teams will be out of it by Feb.

[radoran]

Well if anything give the teams a choice, if 2 teams can agree on a shootout rather than additional periods of hockey might as well let them play them.

Less teams would drag out overtimes if they knew there were no points for losing in overtime or if the difference between winning and losing in overtime was greater like 3 points to 1.

 

I'd be happier with the gimmicks if it wasn't for the loser point.

[Old School Hockey]

Fine, but that's exactly why "it's not hockey."

 

To be clear. the shootout isn't either.

 

 

Which is all fine and good - but they haven't actually eliminated the shootout. Just tried to make it less likely.

 

And we've already had at least one, not even a week into the season.

I'd have to say 3 on 3 looks a lot more like hockey than a shootout does?

[radoran]

I'd have to say 3 on 3 looks a lot more like hockey than a shootout does?

 

It does. It looks "more like" hockey.

 

It's not NHL hockey. It's pond hockey.

 

And the loser point is the trophy they get for just showing up.

[NRH]

Giving teams the choice is not a good thing? Who decides? 1 says yes and 1 says no, then what?

Wins and losses is the best way to rid the NHL of the BS of sitting back. But the NHL will NEVER go for it because too many teams will be out of it by Feb.

No, I said it was a good thing, if they disagree they play the normal overtime.

Hell they know their full schedule before the season starts, they could make agreements on how and what will be a deciding factor in case of a tie way before the games are played.

Maybe two teams will want to play 4v4, 15 minutes, no sudden death. Maybe some will agree to 3v3, maybe some want to solve it in a full period of hockey. I'm sure a few would simply solve it via shootout right away.

All this would be way less likely if you stop rewarding the losers of games or you simply start rewarding winners more points.

[Old School Hockey]

No, I said it was a good thing, if they disagree they play the normal overtime.

Hell they know their full schedule before the season starts, they could make agreements on how and what will be a deciding factor in case of a tie way before the games are played.

Maybe two teams will want to play 4v4, 15 minutes, no sudden death. Maybe some will agree to 3v3, maybe some want to solve it in a full period of hockey. I'm sure a few would simply solve it via shootout right away.

All this would be way less likely if you stop rewarding the losers of games or you simply start rewarding winners more points.

Teams will NEVER agree to something that there's the slightest chance the other team has an advantage.  Hence take out their hands.

[radoran]

Maybe two teams will want to play 4v4, 15 minutes, no sudden death. Maybe some will agree to 3v3, maybe some want to solve it in a full period of hockey. I'm sure a few would simply solve it via shootout right away.

 

How about the weird idea of a 5on5 overtime for 10 minutes followed by a tie?

 

I know. I know. That could never work. There's no evidence for it whatsoever.

 

The biggest indictment of the regular season OT gimmicks is that "once the games start to really count" no one would ever think of using them.

 

They'll only use them to help determine who gets to play the "games that really count."

 

Because they're not NHL hockey.

[ruxpin]

Fine, but that's exactly why "it's not hockey."

To be clear. the shootout isn't either.

Which is all fine and good - but they haven't actually eliminated the shootout. Just tried to make it less likely.

And we've already had at least one, not even a week into the season.

Yeah. I don't have a good argument for that.

And I can't argue with your position on 3v3. To me, it's preferable to the shootout, but if you're going to end up with that with any regularity anyway, then they really have to come up with a better option. I don't know what that would look like.

[NRH]

How about the weird idea of a 5on5 overtime for 10 minutes followed by a tie?

I know. I know. That could never work. There's no evidence for it whatsoever.

The biggest indictment of the regular season OT gimmicks is that "once the games start to really count" no one would ever think of using them.

They'll only use them to help determine who gets to play the "games that really count."

Because they're not NHL hockey.

Actually I'm all for the 5on5 hockey overtime, the only thing I don't like is the sudden death aspect. It should be the full overtime regardless.

[JackStraw]

How about the weird idea of a 5on5 overtime for 10 minutes followed by a tie?

 

Where do I sign?

[ruxpin]

How about the weird idea of a 5on5 overtime for 10 minutes followed by a tie?

I know. I know. That could never work. There's no evidence for it whatsoever.

The biggest indictment of the regular season OT gimmicks is that "once the games start to really count" no one would ever think of using them.

They'll only use them to help determine who gets to play the "games that really count."

Because they're not NHL hockey.

Yeah, that's fine. I still don't think ties would be as rare as, say, the NFL, but you could still incorporate that into the PCT standings (which I'm really advocating for).

But for people who are existentially against ties, I would think 70 minutes for that result would be a gruesome experience.

[radoran]

But for people who are existentially against ties, I would think 70 minutes for that result would be a gruesome experience.

 

I'm from the people who are really against watching 10 minutes of the third period with both teams "playing for the loser point."

 

And from the people who don't want the NHL stats to be so ridiculously inflated by 3v3 play - both for the scorers (good!) and the goalies (bad!).

 

I'd have less of a problem - not much, but less - if they didn't count any of the stats from the 3v3 play. Just like the shootout.

[ruxpin]

I'm from the people who are really against watching 10 minutes of the third period with both teams "playing for the loser point."

And from the people who don't want the NHL stats to be so ridiculously inflated by 3v3 play - both for the scorers (good!) and the goalies (bad!).

I'd have less of a problem - not much, but less - if they didn't count any of the stats from the 3v3 play. Just like the shootout.

I'm okay with that. My only contrary thought with that is that the players risk injury in the 3v3 just as they would in other situations. *Maybe* they should get credit for whatever points they get. Maybe. (I guess one could blow a tire in the shootout out or a goalie crash or something but it's much less likely).

I'm okay, though, with the stats not counting to keep some kind of consistency with points in the record books, etc.

[radoran]

I'm okay with that. My only contrary thought with that is that the players risk injury in the 3v3 just as they would in other situations. *Maybe* they should get credit for whatever points they get. Maybe. (I guess one could blow a tire in the shootout out or a goalie crash or something but it's much less likely).

 

Sure, but the goalie doesn't have a "defense" in front of him like they would in other situations.

 

Game one is a perfect example. Mason plays strong for 60 minutes of hockey with a 2.00 GAA and gives up a game winner in 3v3 OT to see his GAA go to 2.91.

 

AND NO, THIS IS NOT SIMPLY BECAUSE HE'S ON MY FANTASY ROSTER

 

[ruxpin]

Sure, but the goalie doesn't have a "defense" in front of him like they would in other situations.

Game one is a perfect example. Mason plays strong for 60 minutes of hockey with a 2.00 GAA and gives up a game winner in 3v3 OT to see his GAA go to 2.91.

AND NO, THIS IS NOT SIMPLY BECAUSE HE'S ON MY FANTASY ROSTER

Yeah, for goalies, in particular, that's a great point.

[Old School Hockey]

What I find funny about this whole loser point debate is this.  When talking with folks who support the loser point, shootout and so on they quickly say it's not a loser point, it's point for achieveing a tie at the end of regulation.

 

And I say wait a minute what?  Did you just say tie?