3 on 3 OT? Like it or not?

[ruxpin]

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?

LMAO. Fair point.

[SpikeDDS]

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?

You are correct. They didn't say that. The SO was an ill-conceived attempt to eliminate ties. The 3v3 is an improved format. Not perfect, but still improved over both, and FAR over the SO. It took the league a while to be able to swallow their pride and admit they got that wrong. 3v3 rights the wrong to a significant degree.

[SpikeDDS]

Where do I sign?

So instead of a 5 minute period where teams played not to lose, there will now be a 10 minute period where teams play not to lose.

BRILLIANT!

(And yes, that is sarcasm! What is the emoticon for sarcasm anyway?)

Even Bettman knows better than to do that! He may be dumb, but he's not THAT dumb! The avoidance of that very thing is what birthed the loser point in the first place, which you guys HATE. (Me too, except that it does have a tendency to spur the boys to actually play to win, but I still don't like it overall.)

The pure 5 minute OT ending in a possible tie was a contrivance too. Need proof? Watch two teams play not to lose. Sorry, the only thing worse than contrived hockey is BAD contrived hockey! Correction: the one thing worse than BAD contrived hockey I.e. 5-min OT ending in a possible tie is BADLY CONTRIVED bad hockey I.e. The shootout.

[radoran]

So instead of a 5 minute period where teams played not to lose, there will now be a 10 minute period where teams play not to lose.

 

If you still give out a point for losing, yes.

 

If you're coming down the stretch and you really need points, are you going to risk getting zero points or trying to be getting two?

 

I think they'll be trying to get two.

 

Unless you give them one for losing.

 

3v3 rights the wrong to a significant degree.

 

Except when it still goes to a shootout. Which it already has this year - not even a week into the season.

 

What is the emoticon for sarcasm anyway?

 

[JackStraw]

So instead of a 5 minute period where teams played not to lose, there will now be a 10 minute period where teams play not to lose.

BRILLIANT!

(And yes, that is sarcasm! What is the emoticon for sarcasm anyway?)

Even Bettman knows better than to do that! He may be dumb, but he's not THAT dumb! The avoidance of that very thing is what birthed the loser point in the first place, which you guys HATE. (Me too, except that it does have a tendency to spur the boys to actually play to win, but I still don't like it overall.)

The pure 5 minute OT ending in a possible tie was a contrivance too. Need proof? Watch two teams play not to lose. Sorry, the only thing worse than contrived hockey is BAD contrived hockey! Correction: the one thing worse than BAD contrived hockey I.e. 5-min OT ending in a possible tie is BADLY CONTRIVED bad hockey I.e. The shootout.

 

Playing conservatively in order to ensure gaining at least one point in a tie doesn't bother me in the least. ymmv.

 

Edit: and just to be clear, no "loser point". 2 pts for the winner, 0 for the loser, 1 each if a tie.

 

Edit #2: Oh, and teams will "play not to lose" in REGULATION if the score is tied. This happens all the time now since all you have to do to get 1 point is make it to OT.

[SpikeDDS]

If you still give out a point for losing, yes.

 

If you're coming down the stretch and you really need points, are you going to risk getting zero points or trying to be getting two?

 

I think they'll be trying to get two.

 

Unless you give them one for losing.

 

 

Except when it still goes to a shootout. Which it already has this year - not even a week into the season.

Wait. The score is tied in the third. Play for a tie, you get one VERY CRITICAL point. Take a risk to win, and you might open yourself up defensively to lose the point that you should have. Hence, you play not to lose. Same thing goes for in the OT. All you have to do is make sure THEY don't score, and you get your much needed point. Sorry, but that's just lousy hockey to watch.

This was the problem with the original OT concept. Too many ties resulted. How many times do you have to kiss your sister before you say enough is enough?

And now you (or someone else, can't remember who posted it originally) actually suggests that 5 minutes MORE of the same thing is the fix.

?

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results = insanity. In this case it is also marketing suicide.

[Podein25]

How many times do you have to kiss your sister before you say enough is enough?

 

 

Depends?

[SpikeDDS]

Playing conservatively in order to ensure gaining at least one point in a tie doesn't bother me in the least. ymmv.

 

Edit: and just to be clear, no "loser point". 2 pts for the winner, 0 for the loser, 1 each if a tie.

 

Edit #2: Oh, and teams will "play not to lose" in REGULATION if the score is tied. This happens all the time now since all you have to do to get 1 point is make it to OT.

We will have to agree to disagree. I would rather see a more exciting, albeit contrived 3v3 OT than watch 2 teams play not to lose for the same amount of time.

And without the loser point, there s no difference between the end of a tied 3rd and the OT. They will play the same way. At least with the loser point, teams still get their point even if they lose, so why not try to get the extra one, unless (and here's where the SO screws it up) your team is so good at the SO that you are much more likely to get the second point than your opponent on any given night. If you suck at the SO, you play hard in that OT. The Wings were like that last year with Jimmy Howard in net.

[ruxpin]

How about this (warning, I haven't completely thought this through):

You play a full extra period/sudden death.

You win, it's a win.

You lose, it's a loss.

You tie, it's a loss for both (you failed to win).

No special column for OTL or tie or any other crap.

Just win or loss (remember loss for both teams in the event of a tie after full overtime period).

Wins/(total games) = PCT

No reason to play conservative in OT because you get nothing unless you win.

I know, that's so 1950s North America.

[hf101]

You play a full extra period/sudden death.

 

Nope! It won't happen.  These tie games at the end of regulation need to end quickly.

 

TV, the League and the Players want games to end in a reasonable time frame throughout the long season.  In order to play a whole OT an extra icemake will have to be done.  Far too much time.

 

You also have to figure there are back to back games and team travel over an 82 game season.

[ruxpin]

Nope! It won't happen. These tie games at the end of regulation need to end quickly.

TV, the League and the Players want games to end in a reasonable time frame throughout the long season. In order to play a whole OT an extra icemake will have to be done. Far too much time.

You also have to figure there are back to back games and team travel over an 82 game season.

I know that's the prevailing wisdom, despite the fact baseball players play 6 nights a week and 162 games and at least some of their fans are employed and have to go to work the next day, yet they can play extra inning games several nights in a row.

Fine, keep everything I said but play 10 minutes. I still think the whip of "you get nothing unless you win" would prevent most ties.

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

Well, this topic has certainly wavered all over the place, but I will just reiterate what I basically posted pages ago:

 

Since we MUST have reduced manpower OT, and the shoot outs won't be going away soon AND the commish insists on having a point system in place that still rewards teams losing (and giving shoot out winners the same point status as regulation winners), I say the 3 on 3 format is pretty good.

 

From the looks of it, games decided via shoot out should be vastly reduced, and while one can argue the pros and cons of the 3 on 3 format, it at least resembles more actual game-hockey than the pure shoot out, and well, frankly, the 3 on 3 format is exciting........and likely will be over the long haul over the short lived excitement of seeing a shootout just about every other game the general NHL fan watches.

 

LOTS of imperfections with this still (and indeed still lots of imperfections with how the Gnome runs the league), but I will be enjoying the 3 on 3 format for the regular season knowing that the shoot outs will be fewer and farther between.

[SpikeDDS]

I know that's the prevailing wisdom, despite the fact baseball players play 6 nights a week and 162 games and at least some of their fans are employed and have to go to work the next day, yet they can play extra inning games several nights in a row.

Fine, keep everything I said but play 10 minutes. I still think the whip of "you get nothing unless you win" would prevent most ties.

You comparing playing hockey vs a game of baseball made me laugh and shoot soda up and out of my nose!

I would like you to compare:

1. The sweat dripping off of the average baseball player after playing a 9-inning game to a hockey player who has participated with average ice time in a regulation hockey game...or even just for 1 period of hockey.

2. The stink of the average hockey uniform after a hockey game vs. that of a baseball uniform--I'll wash baseball uniforms all day long, thank you very much!

3. Whether there is more sweat on the floor of the dugout vs. a hockey bench--there's more spit from chewing tobacco on the floor of a dugout than there is sweat!

4. Which player is more exhausted after playing a full game 3 nights in a row, a baseball player or a hockey player

5. The sweet stench of manhood that even overwhelms the first two rows of seats behind the bench at a hockey arena during a game vs. the smell of hot dogs and beer when sitting in the first row behind the dugout.

You've made some points which are compelling to at least think about, but this one is just laughable, rux. To think that because you can do it in baseball makes it good to do in hockey is so wrong, I have a hard time believing that you actually typed that. That's not apples to oranges; its apples to blood oranges!

Perhaps, just perhaps, there is a reason that a baseball season has 162 games while the hockey season has merely 82.

Goodness gracious, but I never DREAMED that you would go there!

I'm sorry, HF. Please note that I'm not going after @ruxpin personally, just his idea here.

[ruxpin]

You've made some points which are compelling to at least think about, but this one is just laughable, rux. To think that because you can do it in baseball makes it good to do in hockey is so wrong, I have a hard time believing that you actually typed that. That's not apples to oranges; its apples to blood oranges!

Goodness gracious, but I never DREAMED that you would go there!

I'm sorry, HF. Please note that I'm not going after @ruxpin personally, just his idea here.

 

You're not going after me at all and I didn't take it that way.  It's good.  You're shooting down a comment.  I think that's fair game.

 

I was aware of many of your points when I typed it.   HOWEVER,  One extra period of hockey even if you do play the next day and then have off for a day or two is not reason to kill an idea to remove ties and an idiotic shootout from the game.   The main point is I really don't think it's that big a deal.   Here's an idea:  Try really hard for the goal instead of floating in OT waiting for the shootout and maybe you can go home early if you play tomorrow.

 

By the way, I generally agree with your opinion on hockey vs. baseball, but I think you undersell baseball players a little.  And this from a guy who thinks baseball has become a snoozefest (there are fans on this board and I used to be one backinaday, but really, it doesn't keep my attention).  

 

But you go 15-16 innings as a starter and have to stay focused for 4-5 hours, etc., it's tiring.   They still go back out the next day.   I realize it's a lot more strenuous physically, but even the leader in ice time only plays 28 minutes.

 

Yeah, no matter where I go with this it's still a ridiculous comparison, but the point is that the "the extra period will make them tired in back-to-back games" is a really weak one to me (though not uncommon).

[radoran]

As long as you are going to give away a loser point, you're going to have teams playing not to lose.

If there MUST be a "winner" and a "loser" then get rid of the loser point.

[hf101]

I'm sorry, HF. Please note that I'm not going after @ruxpin personally, just his idea here.

 

great post!  ...definitely  not a personal attack,  lol.

 

There might be some 98 degree days with 90% humidity that a fan will put up a good sweat in the stands, but not because there is any real cardiovascular work going on.  

[Old School Hockey]

As long as you are going to give away a loser point, you're going to have teams playing not to lose.

If there MUST be a "winner" and a "loser" then get rid of the loser point.

It's really about Gary's desire to put the round peg in the square hole!!! False parity!!!

[SpikeDDS]

As long as you are going to give away a loser point, you're going to have teams playing not to lose.

If there MUST be a "winner" and a "loser" then get rid of the loser point.

I'm not sure that I understand this. I think it's the other way around.

 

If you know you'll get a point if all you do is not let the other team score (ending with a tie) why would you take a chance to score and possibly blow your chance at getting at least a point? The play there is to play not to lose = lousy hockey.

 

With the loser point, you've already got the point in your pocket. You have NOTHING to lose if you try to score on the opponent, but give up a goal. If they score, you still get your one. Why WOULDN'T you try to score and get the second point, then?

 

The only reason the loser point doesn't work is because teams know that at the end, there's still a shootout, and many of them would rather take their chances there than risk losing the opportunity to get the second point before they get there. It is the shootout which keep teams playing not to lose in OT, not the loser point.

 

Having said that, I DON'T like the loser point, but you are blaming the psychology that causes lousy hockey to be played in OT on the wrong thing. If there was a loser point, but no shootout, you'd actually see some better play in OT, because neither team has anything to lose. Why not try to score? The ONLY way I like the loser point is in this scenario, but it means the end of the shootout, and even though I would LIKE that to happen, it's not going to happen. Dangit!

 

So long as the SO remains, 3v3 is better, because it lowers the likelihood of a game being decided that way.

[radoran]

If you know you'll get a point if all you do is not let the other team score (ending with a tie) why would you take a chance to score and possibly blow your chance at getting at least a point? The play there is to play not to lose = lousy hockey.

Which is exactly what we have now.

I'm not saying "ties" - I clearly said IF there NEEDS to be a winner and a loser, get rid of the loser point.

Then you have teams playing to WIN - not get a participation trophy.

[SpikeDDS]

Which is exactly what we have now.

I'm not saying "ties" - I clearly said IF there NEEDS to be a winner and a loser, get rid of the loser point.

Then you have teams playing to WIN - not get a participation trophy.

On this, we agree.

[BluPuk]

It's really about Gary's desire to put the round peg in the square hole!!! False parity!!!

 

The NHL (No Hitting League), is the laughing stock of professional sports because of this. Some games are 2-point, some are 3-point. LMAO.

 

C'mon Gary, how 'bout a participation point? Or do we already have that? I'm confused....

[WordsOfWisdom]

5. The sweet stench of manhood

 

 

Sorry, my eyes couldn't "unsee" that line after I saw it lol.

[WordsOfWisdom]

The NHL (No Hitting League), is the laughing stock of professional sports because of this. Some games are 2-point, some are 3-point. LMAO.

 

C'mon Gary, how 'bout a participation point? Or do we already have that? I'm confused....

 

I remember simpler times: 2 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, 0 points for a loss.

[TropicalFruitGirl26]

Well, the Minnesota Wild lost in a 3 on 3 OT last night....bummer for sure, giving the Kings their first win....but still, the OT itself was very exciting.

 

I am finding nothing wrong with the new OT format so far.

I now find myself riveted to the TV during an OT (because you just never know when that winning goal will come), as opposed to 4 on 4, where I would strategically try to find a point in the OT period where I could go 'check on something else', then get back to the game.

 

I don't compliment Gary Gnome very much, but on this idea he allowed to be implemented, I give him props.

Thank you Gary....you must feel really tall about now regarding this new format....almost 5 and a half feet's worth, eh?

[J0e Th0rnton]

Well, the Minnesota Wild lost in a 3 on 3 OT last night....bummer for sure, giving the Kings their first win....but still, the OT itself was very exciting.

 

I am finding nothing wrong with the new OT format so far.

I now find myself riveted to the TV during an OT (because you just never know when that winning goal will come), as opposed to 4 on 4, where I would strategically try to find a point in the OT period where I could go 'check on something else', then get back to the game.

 

I don't compliment Gary Gnome very much, but on this idea he allowed to be implemented, I give him props.

Thank you Gary....you must feel really tall about now regarding this new format....almost 5 and a half feet's worth, eh?

Sharks went to shootout, but I have to say, 3 on 3 OT was exciting as heck. The devils used some crafty moves to retain possession while they switched lines tired, passing to Schneider from our zone, etc

 

There were a few scare moments during transitions and line changes, but both goalies were up to it.

 

I might not be happy with how points are distributed compared to the old days, but the 3 on 3 OT was some exciting hockey