NHL to go to 3-on-3 overtime
- Thread starter Corsi
- Start date
Eh. I'll be the turd in the punch bowl.
I don't like this. It too fundamentally changes the game and becomes even more gimmicky. Yes, it will be exciting. But it's not (to me) hockey.
Going from 3-3 to the shoot out - what's the point? You're deciding the game on which team has more offensively skilled players, not who is a better hockey team.
Plus you know the Bruins are going to suck at it.
I don't like this. It too fundamentally changes the game and becomes even more gimmicky. Yes, it will be exciting. But it's not (to me) hockey.
Going from 3-3 to the shoot out - what's the point? You're deciding the game on which team has more offensively skilled players, not who is a better hockey team.
Plus you know the Bruins are going to suck at it.
They are also going to vote on coaches challenges for offsides and goalie interference. Love it for GI, not so sure offisides.
There is absolutely no correlation between the shootout and regulation win/loss (0.01 in 2015). There is at least some correlation between OT success and regulation (0.399), despite the obvious differences (4 on 4, etc.). While I would expect that the correlations may get worse with 3-on-3 OT, anything that reduces the number of shootouts cannot be all that bad. Last season, nearly 14% of games were decided by the gimmick.
I agree with lex.
While it may not be hockey for the purist, it will keep the number of shootouts down - which is a good thing.
According to NHL.com, they used a similar model in the AHL last season (I think they did 4-4, then ramped down to 3-3, but I'm not positive):
"By adding a 3-on-3 element to its overtime format, the AHL had 75 percent of its games that went past regulation time decided in overtime this past season.
The number was 35.3 percent in 2013-14, when they played under a strict 4-on-4 overtime format. "
While it may not be hockey for the purist, it will keep the number of shootouts down - which is a good thing.
According to NHL.com, they used a similar model in the AHL last season (I think they did 4-4, then ramped down to 3-3, but I'm not positive):
"By adding a 3-on-3 element to its overtime format, the AHL had 75 percent of its games that went past regulation time decided in overtime this past season.
The number was 35.3 percent in 2013-14, when they played under a strict 4-on-4 overtime format. "
The Long Tater said:
The AHL did 4 minutes of 4-4, and 3 minutes of 3-3.
The NHLPA would not sign off on the extra 2 minutes of ice time.
NHLPA never wants to add to the # of minutes players play in a given year without at the very least a matching % increase in pay.
In this case, say it adds even 1:30 on average to game lengths in terms of ice time. The NHLPA would want a matching 2.5*(4/20) - for an added 2.5% of ice time for 4/20 players at a given time on the ice - or 0.5% increase in average salary. ~$12.5k may not seem like much but the owners would balk at it for ~750 players.
In this case, say it adds even 1:30 on average to game lengths in terms of ice time. The NHLPA would want a matching 2.5*(4/20) - for an added 2.5% of ice time for 4/20 players at a given time on the ice - or 0.5% increase in average salary. ~$12.5k may not seem like much but the owners would balk at it for ~750 players.
On top of it, it's added ice time for the best players too. I understand their position, never give anything away for free, and this wasn't worth enough to the owners to pay for it.
Personally I think 10 full mins of 3 on 3 would basically eliminate the shootout entirely, but it's never going to happen. No matter what, less shootouts are better.
Personally I think 10 full mins of 3 on 3 would basically eliminate the shootout entirely, but it's never going to happen. No matter what, less shootouts are better.
Basically this is an argument to go back to 5 on 5 OT and ties. Which is fine, but we've crossed the Rubicon on gimmicks with shootouts and, to a lesser degree, 4 on 4 OT and we're not going back. If we're going to have gimmicks, I'd rather they be entertaining ones.TheShynessClinic said:
And yes, the Bs will likely suck at it. But in an exciting way!
Teams should get points for winning. Not for failing to win. Five minutes of overtime, be it 5-on-5, 4-on-4, or 3-on-3. 2 points for regulation win, 1 point for overtime win, 0 points for tie, 0 points for loss in regulation or overtime. No win? No points.
I would think teams would play less conservatively at the end of the game if they didn't know they were guaranteed a point no matter what if they continue to OT. I could be way off base, I don't watch a ton of hockey outside the Bruins, but it seems like in tie game most teams kind of settle in defensively and play for the point. Anything else is gravy. I could easily be corrected on that by more knowledgable people here though, I'm sure.