3 on 3 OT is awful.

[kvladimir]

Someone suggested basically this idea a couple years ago, and even though it's very unconventional for "overtime", I would actually prefer this over 3-on-3 or 4-on-4 + shootouts, and maybe even ties too:

After regulation time ends, teams would trade 4-on-3 powerplays with no clock running until someone scores. The one caveat would be that in order to give both teams the chance to win, the first powerplay can't result in a game-ending goal (i.e. if the team on that first powerplay scores, the opponent should get a powerplay opportunity after that and only lose if they fail to score).

If it was to play out like this, I think it should flow like this:

1st powerplay -> road team, lasts 1:00, goal ends the powerplay but not the game, if no goal is scored, then 4-on-4 until the next whistle.

2nd powerplay -> home team, lasts 1:00, goal scored with the score tied ends the game, goal scored while trailing ends the powerplay and keeps the game going, no goal scored and score still tied means 4-on-4 until the next whistle.

3rd powerplay -> road team, if necessary, lasts 1:00, goal scored ends the game, if no goal is scored, 4 on 4 until the next whistle.

After this, switch back to the home team getting a powerplay, and it's now 2:00 per team and sudden death at all times.

This would probably work, in my opinion, because 4 on 3 powerplays are a common game situation that results in ~20% odds of a goal being scored (maybe more, not sure what the stats for 4-on-3 are specifically), and are not a gimmick (despite not being real powerplays).

Of course, penalties can still happen and would be handled like normal. If that first powerplay is ended by the advantaged team taking a penalty, that would shift the play to sudden death, and they would play 4 on 4 until the original powerplay time expires, then 4-on-3 at the next whistle.

The vast majority of OT games would end in the first 5 minutes, sometimes 10. On the rarest of occasions, you might reach 20 minutes and have to take an intermission, but it would be so rare, I don't think it would be a problem.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

Bringing back ties would certainly put a stop to all the loser point nonsense, and an end to comments like "with the win their record is 12-12-5, they're back to .500!"

This is one thing that bothers me so much about OT records. I don't get why OTL/SO losses are disregarded. Even before 3 on 3 it was like this. I remember getting clowned in 2017 when I insisted that Nashville was .500 with their record of 41-29-12. I get that there's some difference between an OTL and a regulation. But when you just look at straight W and L their record was 41-41

 

[Dr Pepper]

This is one thing that bothers me so much about OT records. I don't get why OTL/SO losses are disregarded. Even before 3 on 3 it was like this. I remember getting clowned in 2017 when I insisted that Nashville was .500 with their record of 41-29-12. I get that there's some difference between an OTL and a regulation. But when you just look at straight W and L their record was 41-41

That's exactly it, it's maddening.

 

[Toby91ca]

To me, there are two solutions at play here:

3-2-1-0, as already elaborated on in the previous post.

2-0 / 1-1. Regulation results speak for themselves, in OT games 5-10 minutes at either 5v5 or 4v4 (not a big fan of 4v4 but it's still at least closer to the spirit of the game and 4v4 play isn't an entirely uncommon game state), still two points for the winner and zero for the loser, if the game ends tied then everybody goes home.

The American allergy to the tie is frustrating. Sometimes a tie is the most appropriate outcome for a game. Neither team was clearly better than the other, a tie best reflects that. I never once had a problem with games ending in a tie, and I wouldn't complain if they were brought back although quite obviously that will never happen.

This is to say little about how the "every game has a winner or loser" has damaged the records books post-2005 for everything wins-related. The 2018-'19 Lightning "tying" the 1995-'96 Red Wings for most wins in a single season (Lightning had six SO wins that year, the Red Wings never had the opportunity for any), Andrei Vasilevskiy being the "fastest" goalie to 300 wins...it's all bullshit. Those stats are bullshit and deserve zero credence or, at least, should have a post-2005 designation added to them.

I agree 100%. Someone said earlier that the league has been trying to fix the issue of ties for decades.....is that really true? I don't remember anyone really having any issues with ties when I was a kid. Agree....they'll never go back to that, but I do think it's the ideal.

So many people bring up the 3-2-1 point as the big solution....I get the logic in terms of what people think each thing should be worth, but altering the point system would do nothing in terms of game play. Teams already want to win in regulation instead of getting to OT.

This is one thing that bothers me so much about OT records. I don't get why OTL/SO losses are disregarded. Even before 3 on 3 it was like this. I remember getting clowned in 2017 when I insisted that Nashville was .500 with their record of 41-29-12. I get that there's some difference between an OTL and a regulation. But when you just look at straight W and L their record was 41-41

Except they only lost 29 hockey games.....the other 12 so called losses don't really have much to do with the actual hockey game.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

Except they only lost 29 hockey games.....the other 12 so called losses don't really have much to do with the actual hockey game.

Every team plays under the same parameters though, the 12 "so called losses" were games won by the other team.

Getting beat in OT or a shootout doesn't mean you don't lose, and winning a game in OT or a SO doesn't count as less of a win.

 

[TKB]

4 on 4 OT for ten minutes. If it ends in a tie, it's a tie.

 

[Fixed to Ruin]

How 3 on 3 OT started...

What it is today...

 

[DrMartinVanNostrand]

Except they only lost 29 hockey games.....the other 12 so called losses don't really have much to do with the actual hockey game.

I would say though that you need to apply the same parameters to how many OT/SO wins they had as well. I agree, those 12 OT/SO losses...nonsense, but they didn't win 41 regulation games either. I'll look it up for the sake of this post...they had six OT/SO wins that year. Their regulation record was 35-29, so actually a decent margin above .500 all told.

The 2011-'12 Kings had a similar issue, as well as the 2018-'19 Avalanche. You look at that Cup-winning Kings team, and I think their record was 40-33-9, so actually below .500 if the losses were grouped together. They had 15 games that went to shootouts, though, and they were 6-9 in those games. (This was still 4v4 OT which I have no problem counting as straight wins and losses.) Their non-SO record was 34-33 which, well, still isn't great, but at least it's more wins than losses. As for the Avs, they were something like 38-30-14, but I'm pretty sure their OT/SO record that year was something wretched like 5-14, so a 33-30 team in regulation. (Then they won every OT game that postseason, so go figure.)

There's a flip side to this as well. The 2006-'07 Lightning had an overall record of 44-33-5. Their shootout record was 10-2. Their regulation record was 34-36. I think one or two teams in the East that year had better regulation records and missed the playoffs while the Lightning actually made it somewhat comfortably as a #7 seed.

 

[qc14]

I honestly think the current system (including the 2-1-0 points format!) is fine and there's no other solution that is less "gimmicky" without either adding a whole extra period and destroying players or going back to ties which they got rid of for a reason.

 

[Toby91ca]

Every team plays under the same parameters though, the 12 "so called losses" were games won by the other team.

Getting beat in OT or a shootout doesn't mean you don't lose, and winning a game in OT or a SO doesn't count as less of a win.

I get everyone plays by the same rules, but if you play 3 periods of hockey and if still tied, both teams sit down for a hot dog eating contest....same rules for both sides....you can't tell me one team won a hockey game and the other lost a hockey game. I'm obviously exaggerating for effect here, but the reality is, it's no longer a hockey game after the end of regulation.....it looks nothing like a game anymore. 4 on 4 was reasonable enough, but 3 on 3 just isn't hockey anymore and especially the way it's played now.....then shootouts have always been joke

 

[banks]

This is one thing that bothers me so much about OT records. I don't get why OTL/SO losses are disregarded. Even before 3 on 3 it was like this. I remember getting clowned in 2017 when I insisted that Nashville was .500 with their record of 41-29-12. I get that there's some difference between an OTL and a regulation. But when you just look at straight W and L their record was 41-41

Win percentage and points percentage are different things. That record is .500 for win percentage. But not .500 point percentage.

 

[Howboutthempanthers]

5v5 for ten minutes. Then just end in a tie.

Yeah. I'm on the same mind set. I would have it 5 minutes.

 

[gary559]

The NHL needs to tear the rulebook down and do a 5 year rebuild on the sport.

 

[Reality Czech]

I like this but I'd tweak it and go as far as to just remove the participation points all together.

regulation win = 2 points to winning team
3v3 OT until someone scores = 1 point to winning team

turn the hot water heaters off for the losing team, they get nothing but a cold shower

remove the shootout all together

Deciding games based on gimmick 3-on-3 would almost ruin the sport for me. 3-on-3 sucks.

I agree with the people who suggest the 3-2-1 method. 3 points for regulation win, 2 for ot/so win, 1 for ot loss. It's by far the most fair way to do it by the NHL likes all the teams bunched up in the standings so it will never happen. Every euro league uses this method.

Shit no one says.

3 on 3 is awesome. Reducing the strategy in it is stupid.

3 on 3 is awesome if you don't actually like hockey. If you grew up with video game hockey or have a short attention span, maybe it's more appealing to you. It's boring, predictable and takes 90% of the tactics out of the game.

 

[Dicky113]

It is awful, awful entertaining!!!

 

[Perfect_Drug]

When a strategy for a game plays out in a way people don't like, it's f***ing stupid how rapidly rule changes are suggested.

How about we just wait a bit to see if another wrinkle can change the dynamic a bit? Maybe wait to see if a player can overcome it with skill, or if a coaching strategy can shake something loose?

Why does hockey always revert to a rule-change when the game is played in a way we're not used to?



I felt this way about the Sean Avery rule too BTW. When he started blocking Brodeurs vision, I got a text from half my friends telling me HE STOLE MY MOVE.

Like why the f*** not distract the goalie? why the f*** did the league immediately pounce to make it a penalty?

I remember all these small rules Gretzky used to bend, that is now called, and I wonder why?
Why not just let it play out and see if the game figures out a counter?



Stop jumping to rule changes every god damn time. Let this shit play out for a bit.

 

[Reality Czech]

When a strategy for a game plays out in a way people don't like, it's f***ing stupid how rapidly rule changes are suggested.

How about we just wait a bit to see if another wrinkle can change the dynamic a bit? Maybe wait to see if a player can overcome it with skill, or if a coaching strategy can shake something loose?

Why does hockey always revert to a rule-change when the game is played in a way we're not used to?



I felt this way about the Sean Avery rule too BTW. When he started blocking Brodeurs vision, I got a text from half my friends telling me HE STOLE MY MOVE.

Like why the f*** not distract the goalie? why the f*** did the league immediately pounce to make it a penalty?

I remember all these small rules Gretzky used to bend, that is now called, and I wonder why?
Why not just let it play out and see if the game figures out a counter?



Stop jumping to rule changes every god damn time. Let this shit play out for a bit.

We've been watching this shit play out for years and it's getting worse. Not like 3-on-3 is a new thing. Players have found that by circling around and not attempting any shots until they get a really good chance increases their chance of winning, but also decreases the chance fans will be entertained.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

I get everyone plays by the same rules, but if you play 3 periods of hockey and if still tied, both teams sit down for a hot dog eating contest....same rules for both sides....you can't tell me one team won a hockey game and the other lost a hockey game. I'm obviously exaggerating for effect here, but the reality is, it's no longer a hockey game after the end of regulation.....it looks nothing like a game anymore. 4 on 4 was reasonable enough, but 3 on 3 just isn't hockey anymore and especially the way it's played now.....then shootouts have always been joke

I get not liking it and I understand what people mean about it not resembling the game closely enough. But the fact of the matter is they won 41 contests and didn't win 41 contests. By definition they had a .500 record.

Win percentage and points percentage are different things. That record is .500 for win percentage. But not .500 point percentage.

I'm talking about winning percentage, of course.

 

[BillDineen]

3v3 and Michkov are a match made in heaven. Give him space and he is deadly

 

[Gregor Samsa]

People probably wouldn’t like putting more power in refs’ hands but maybe make it a discretionary thing where if a team isn’t attacking or keeps circling back, the other team takes possession behind their net

Bringing back ties or a 3-2-1-0 point system would be best but the system now creates an immense amount of parity and a tight playoff race which the league likes. Not many points separating a wild card team from a team drafting 5th overall

 

[OpenIceHit]

Just go to back to 5 vs 5 OT without SO and loser point.

 

[Chukcha]

Implementing a shot clock sounds like an awful idea, so let's hope it doesn't come to that.

I'd rather see a similar NBA rule that prevents teams from bringing the puck back into their own end.

yep. it should be a delay of game penalty for bringing the puck into own end.

 

[Konnan511]

If you have control of the puck in your opponents end and circle out of the zone and bring the puck past the red line, you should get a delay of game penalty.

 

[Dingo]

This is one thing that bothers me so much about OT records. I don't get why OTL/SO losses are disregarded. Even before 3 on 3 it was like this. I remember getting clowned in 2017 when I insisted that Nashville was .500 with their record of 41-29-12. I get that there's some difference between an OTL and a regulation. But when you just look at straight W and L their record was 41-41

Yes!

I have long since stopped sayjng anything when someone says, "well, they ARE playing over .500" in response to someone saying that a team is struggling.

80% of the league is 'over .500' due to bonus points.

 

[banks]

I get not liking it and I understand what people mean about it not resembling the game closely enough. But the fact of the matter is they won 41 contests and didn't win 41 contests. By definition they had a .500 record.

I'm talking about winning percentage, of course.

Yep. And the people disagreeing with you were probably talking about or expecting points percentage.

There can't be an argument when you know there's 2 different numbers and you know which one a person means.