pilldoc Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 You know who really get screwed stats-wise?The goalie.Mason put up a very good 60 minutes and his GAA goes from 2.00 to 2.91 in a five minute 3 on 3.As if the 3 on 3 goal is really the same as the 5 on 5 60 minute goal. yeah... like OC said..good catch. Never even thought about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aziz Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 they would be stupid not too...too many skilled players taking the shot. i dunno. you don't pick shooters on an in-game penalty shot. yeah, if giroux gets hauled down and is awarded a penalty shot, you let him take it. if, on the other hand, raffl is taken down, and cary price is in the other net...might'nt two minutes of zone advantage be a more attractive option? i think there are sets of circumstances and players involved that can make a powerplay the better choice, and it'd be used at least occasionally. realistically, penalty shots have something just north of a 33% conversation rate, right? two thirds of the time they don't pay off, and when they don't pay off you just get...nothing. nothing but the wind-out-of-your-sails at missing the chance. two minutes of power play, you can build on that dictating-of-pace even if you don't score...and you will score ~20% of the time. i don't think the choice is all that cut and dry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 realistically, penalty shots have something just north of a 33% conversation rate, right? Yeah maybe for other teams not called the Flyers.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlaskaFlyerFan Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 realistically, penalty shots have something just north of a 33% conversation rate, right? two thirds of the time they don't pay off, and when they don't pay off you just get...nothing. nothing but the wind-out-of-your-sails at missing the chance. two minutes of power play, you can build on that dictating-of-pace even if you don't score...and you will score ~20% of the time. i don't think the choice is all that cut and dry. I disagree. Why would you intentionally decrease your chance to score. That doesn't pass the logic test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 I disagree. Why would you intentionally decrease your chance to score. That doesn't pass the logic test. It depends on what numbers you really are looking at. Bottom line the Flyers are better on the PP than the penalty shot or shootout which basically is the same...one on one. The penalty shot you get one shot. The PP you can get multiple. So it really depends on what numbers you use to defend it, And are you going to use the Flyer's numbers or the leagues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlaskaFlyerFan Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 The numbers I posted are league wide. I'd be willing to bet the Flyers numbers are on par with the league numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 At least there is some sort of a historical reference for 3 on 3 hockey....it did not happen very often, but every once and a while (usually in the old days after a brawl) you were treated to it....not anything like this bastardization of our sport with the shoot out. This new 3 on 3 action (and yeah, like Pods, I LOVE IT BTW) will assure that the leading scorers will get into the 90's rather than the mid 80's like last year....or even triple digits. The Hawks with Kane, Toews, Panarin and Kieth are gonna be loving this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unleashed Fury Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 At least there is some sort of a historical reference for 3 on 3 hockey....it did not happen very often, but every once and a while (usually in the old days after a brawl) you were treated to it....not anything like this bastardization of our sport with the shoot out. This new 3 on 3 action (and yeah, like Pods, I LOVE IT BTW) will assure that the leading scorers will get into the 90's rather than the mid 80's like last year....or even triple digits. The Hawks with Kane, Toews, Panarin and Kieth are gonna be loving this.The Hawks took advantage of 3 on 3 play tonight against the Islanders. It was Toews getting the goal tonight in OT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aziz Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 I disagree. Why would you intentionally decrease your chance to score. That doesn't pass the logic test. everything else aside, if your shooter is zac rinaldo and your goalie is henrick lundqvist, you wouldn't be decreasing your chance to score. the reality that you have below average shooters and above average goalies in the league say there would be times a team would decline a penalty shot. the average PS conversation rate is above that of a PP, but half the time you are dealing with below average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NRH Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Did not know this man learn something new everyday.Maybe but think of it this way a PP will keep you on the edge of your seat longer.I like these stats but they didn't have 3 on 3 hockey then. How much higher is that % going to skyrocket if you simply made it 3on2 for 2 minutes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 How much higher is that % going to skyrocket if you simply made it 3on2 for 2 minutes? Why not make it 3 on 2 for 2 minutes and then the other team gets 3 on 2 for 2 minutes and whoever scores more goals wins? As long as we're not actually, you know, "playing hockey" out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Why not make it 3 on 2 for 2 minutes and then the other team gets 3 on 2 for 2 minutes and whoever scores more goals wins? As long as we're not actually, you know, "playing hockey" out there. Why not just pull both goalies and who ever scores the most goals in 5 minutes wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
radoran Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Why not just pull both goalies and who ever scores the most goals in 5 minutes wins. How about the goalies trying to score on skaters who aren't allowed to leave the crease? In full gear with goalie sticks. It would be interesting and something that the "casual fan" might appreciate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OccamsRazor Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 How about the goalies trying to score on skaters who aren't allowed to leave the crease? In full gear with goalie sticks. It would be interesting and something that the "casual fan" might appreciate. Only if we get to try it in the AHL first.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doom88 Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Why not have each team select a champion and have them fight without helmets to KO at center ice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter puck Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Overtime should be for all the marbles. A tie at the end of regulation shouldn't give you a point.It is just a extra chance to win two. All or nothing. At the end of overtime if it's still tied each team gets a loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.