CAN/FIN: Would you pull the goalie if the game is tied late?

[tarheelhockey]

This right here is why I don’t want to see the NHL move to a 3 point system. It leads to all this convoluted mess where instead of cheering to win a hockey game you’re out there with an Excel spreadsheet trying to sort out the implications of all the potential point combinations.

And no coach should ever, at any time, be thinking “tie game, I better pull my goalie”. If that’s happening, the system has done us dirty.

 

[daver]

This right here is why I don’t want to see the NHL move to a 3 point system. It leads to all this convoluted mess where instead of cheering to win a hockey game you’re out there with an Excel spreadsheet trying to sort out the implications of all the potential point combinations.

And no coach should ever, at any time, be thinking “tie game, I better pull my goalie”. If that’s happening, the system has done us dirty.

Wouldn't that already be the case where a team needs two points to make the playoffs and couldn't risk a game going to OT?

That being said, I am not sure a 3 point system would motivate teams to go for a regulation time win any more than they do now anyways. We could see goalies pulled even earlier than they are now if the analytics show that trying to win in regulation is better than only getting one point in an OT loss.

 

[matsqq]

This right here is why I don’t want to see the NHL move to a 3 point system. It leads to all this convoluted mess where instead of cheering to win a hockey game you’re out there with an Excel spreadsheet trying to sort out the implications of all the potential point combinations.

And no coach should ever, at any time, be thinking “tie game, I better pull my goalie”. If that’s happening, the system has done us dirty.

I think a 3 point system is much better and more logical.

We have hade it for years in the SHL .

Imagine two teams that both are hunting points to get to the Stanley Cup finals but they play in different divisions.

With your 2-point system coaches can just agree to share the 2 points evenly (1 each) and not attack in the end of the game - then play about the extra point like a bonus at OT - makes no sense at all.

You should have a reward for winning in regulation beacuse you have done it better than if you win in overtime or penalties, that reward is the extra point you get.

It IS logincal that it is better to win in regulation than in overtime / SO.

BTW , most often I think things are better in the NHL - but in this case NO, I would never want to change to the system you have in the NHL with sometimes 3 points awarded per game and at other times 2 . Not logical at all.

 

[vipera1960]

This right here is why I don’t want to see the NHL move to a 3 point system. It leads to all this convoluted mess where instead of cheering to win a hockey game you’re out there with an Excel spreadsheet trying to sort out the implications of all the potential point combinations.

And no coach should ever, at any time, be thinking “tie game, I better pull my goalie”. If that’s happening, the system has done us dirty.

Isn’t that exactly what happened last year with the Flyers (if you forgot, they pulled the goalie in a tie game because they needed a win, and the ENG ended up bouncing the Wings)? The NHL system is no better about this. The biggest problem I have is that they aren’t playing the games at the same time. One team gets to know what it needs and the other two do not.

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

 

[FlyguyOX]

As a USA fan I want us to lose this game for the laughs

 

[matsqq]

Wouldn't that already be the case where a team needs two points to make the playoffs and couldn't risk a game going to OT?

That being said, I am not sure a 3 point system would motivate teams to go for a regulation time win any more than they do now anyways. We could see goalies pulled even earlier than they are now if the analytics show that trying to win in regulation is better than only getting one point in an OT loss.

Yes, you can come up with a nother type of scenario were both teams would pull their goalies in the end, to keep the not very logical "2-point system" for this reason is even less logical.

If you play the games at the same time - then it is less likely that you can play on a result.

 

[TKB]

It's not math when you just make up all the numbers lol

Just because you don't like the assumptions doesn't mean it's not math.

If you don't like the assumptions, then change the inputs. That's called modeling. You should run numerous models with varying inputs The purpose isn't to give you a specific answer, it is to provide a reference point to think about various issues and identify new ones the results may illuminate.

Personally I think Canada has to believe they have a significant chance of winning in OT. I am not sure what those implied odds are based on betting lines, but I think they should be in neighborhood of 75%.

Probably enough that Canada would opt for OT and take their chances. Finland on the other hand, may see it quite different.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Wouldn't that already be the case where a team needs two points to make the playoffs and couldn't risk a game going to OT?

That being said, I am not sure a 3 point system would motivate teams to go for a regulation time win any more than they do now anyways. We could see goalies pulled even earlier than they are now if the analytics show that trying to win in regulation is better than only getting one point in an OT loss.

Your opponent will outscore you at MUCH higher rate with an empty net than they will in OT/SO. The only time it ever makes sense to pull the goalie is in a case of pure desperation — because the clock is about to run out on an L, or because something about the calculation of standings is forcing the coach’s hand.

A good example of the latter was this infamous game on 4/5/1970, when the NHL standings dictated that Montreal didn’t need to win in order to make the playoffs — instead, they needed to score as many goals as possible in order to capture a tiebreaker. The result was a farce in which Montreal pulled their goalie with half a period left, leading Chicago to score five ENGs in a 10-2 win. That led the NHL to change its tiebreaker system going forward, rewarding goal differential rather than Goals Scored.

Another case study from the 90s AHL, where the OTL point had been added but games could still end in a tie. John Tortorella (of all people) decided to pull his goalie in OT rather than let the game end in a tie. The AHL immediately banned that tactic, and to this day there are still rules in the NHL and AHL which penalize teams for pulling their goalie in OT.

That’s all to say — we’ve had these debates before and there’s a clear cut consensus that people don’t want to see critical games end with an empty-net game-winning goal. It’s a bad look for the game and it cheats the players and fans out of a competitive decision.

I think a 3 point system is much better and more logical.

We have hade it for years in the SHL .

Imagine two teams that both are hunting points to get to the Stanley Cup finals but they play in different divisions.

With your 2-point system coaches can just agree to share the 2 points evenly (1 each) and not attack in the end of the game - then play about the extra point like a bonus at OT - makes no sense at all.

You should have a reward for winning in regulation beacuse you have done it better than if you win in overtime or penalties, that reward is the extra point you get.

It IS logincal that it is better to win in regulation than in overtime / SO.

BTW , most often I think things are better in the NHL - but in this case NO, I would never want to change to the system you have in the NHL with sometimes 3 points awarded per game and at other times 2 . Not logical at all.

It may be “logical” that a W in regulation is “better” than in OT, but that is not how anyone who watches a hockey game actually feels about the outcome. Someone who sees their team score in OT should be jumping for joy, not thinking “well, this is OK but it would have been so much better if it had ended earlier”.

I mean here we are heading into a game where underdog Sweden plays undefeated USA for a trip to the tournament final. Say the Swedes play a great game and it goes down to the wire in a classic game that we’ll remember for years. How lame, deflating, anti-climactic will it be if simply by going to OT they are eliminated? What’s the point of even playing the OT?

I can’t imagine anyone in the arena would be standing there thinking “ah, this is so wonderfully logical”. And even worse if the game ends with an EN game winner in regulation. It would be a wet fart of an ending to a great game.

Isn’t that exactly what happened last year with the Flyers (if you forgot, they pulled the goalie in a tie game because they needed a win, and the ENG ended up bouncing the Wings)? The NHL system is no better about this.

IIRC that was like the 3rd or 4th time in 26 seasons since the introduction of the OT point that something like that had happened.

We are going into the fifth game of this tournament and the scenario has already come up.

These are not equal.

 

[daver]

IIRC that was like the 3rd or 4th time in 26 seasons since the introduction of the OT point that something like that had happened.

We are going into the fifth game of this tournament and the scenario has already come up.

These are not equal.

Yes, they are. We are down to the last game for each team in this competition the same as the Flyers were. The difference is the number of games is 3 vs. 82 and the number of team is 4 vs. 16.

If the format allowed for a switch in game times then that solves the issue.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Yes, they are. We are down to the last game for each team in this competition the same as the Flyers were. The difference is the number of games is 3 vs. 82 and the number of team is 4 vs. 16.

If the format allowed for a switch in game times then that solves the issue.

It’s weird to suggest that playing the games at the same time would solve the issue. Don’t you remember how that Flyers game happened?

Those kinds of scenarios make a joke of the game and should be extremely rare, not baked-into the system.

 

[matsqq]

It may be “logical” that a W in regulation is “better” than in OT, but that is not how anyone who watches a hockey game actually feels about the outcome. Someone who sees their team score in OT should be jumping for joy, not thinking “well, this is OK but it would have been so much better if it had ended earlier”.

I mean here we are heading into a game where underdog Sweden plays undefeated USA for a trip to the tournament final. Say the Swedes play a great game and it goes down to the wire in a classic game that we’ll remember for years. How lame, deflating, anti-climactic will it be if simply by going to OT they are eliminated? What’s the point of even playing the OT?

But the same could just as easily be said about goal differential (or whatever) if that at one time is the deciding factor. How strange to win and not be happy because you are eliminated just because the other team scored on more goal on another opponent.

Not very relevant .

I can’t imagine anyone in the arena would be standing there thinking “ah, this is so wonderfully logical”. And even worse if the game ends with an EN game winner in regulation. It would be a wet fart of an ending to a great game.

Nobody has said that anyone would say “ah, this is so wonderfully logical”.

But logic is better than things that are not logical

It's strange to create a system where two teams before season can agree to draw games if its equal in the last 5 minutes, and then play about an extra point in the OT / SO - thus they would have an unfair advantage to any other teams because they did this. Why create the system like that?

In the NHL you are also not sure how many points that have been awarded when the season is over - which is strange if you compare to all other major sports we have here at least.

 

[daver]

It’s weird to suggest that playing the games at the same time would solve the issue. Don’t you remember how that Flyers game happened?

I suggest they switch the game times so Can/Fin goes later. But even if it was a 2 point for a win, 0 for a loss and the tiebreaker came down to goals for and against, there still could be some weird scenarios that play out.

 

[matsqq]

It’s weird to suggest that playing the games at the same time would solve the issue. Don’t you remember how that Flyers game happened?

Those kinds of scenarios make a joke of the game and should be extremely rare, not baked-into the system.

It will not solve ALL issues but it can solve SOME issues.
If they are played at the same time and only one goals is the difference in one game, then you can't rely on the fact that that situation will remain

But as thing stands at least you can watch both games

 

[vipera1960]

It’s weird to suggest that playing the games at the same time would solve the issue. Don’t you remember how that Flyers game happened?

Those kinds of scenarios make a joke of the game and should be extremely rare, not baked-into the system.

It doesn’t solve the issue, and I don’t believe anyone thinks it would. The issue is “baked-in” whenever teams are tightly packed in with one game remaining. This is inherent in a three game tournament. There is no way for the teams to separate themselves. Right now the US can decide whether or not to actually play against SWE based on the outcome of the first game.

 

[TKB]

As a USA fan I want us to lose this game for the laughs

If Canada wins in OT, only to be followed by a Sweden regulation win, given the political environment both in North America and globally, future generations may look back on the moment similar to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the moment where everything started to unravel.

Just kidding.....I think.

 

[FlyguyOX]

If Canada wins in OT, only to be followed by a Sweden regulation win, given the political environment both in North America and globally, future generations may look back on the moment similar to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the moment where everything started to unravel.

Just kidding.....I think.

Ok, now I really want us to lose.

 

[tarheelhockey]

But the same could just as easily be said about goal differential (or whatever) if that at one time is the deciding factor. How strange to win and not be happy because you are eliminated just because the other team scored on more goal on another opponent.

I may be wrong, but as far as I know, goal differential has never actually been an issue since the league added OT points. It’s the 6th tiebreaker so it would take an incredibly specific scenario for it to even come up. If it happened one time, it would be unsatisfying for the losing team, but it would stand as a unique event.

On the other hand, a 3-point system makes “style points” relevant in EVERY GAME. Any time your team goes to OT, it’s framed as a negative outcome that they somehow wasted a point by not winning in regulation. That’s no better than the current idea that they “gained a point” by losing in OT, which everyone seems to hate.

Nobody has said that anyone would say “ah, this is so wonderfully logical”.

But logic is better than things that are not logical

It's strange to create a system where two teams before season can agree to draw games if its equal in the last 5 minutes, and then play about an extra point in the OT / SO - thus they would have an unfair advantage to any other teams because they did this. Why create the system like that?

In the NHL you are also not sure how many points that have been awarded when the season is over - which is strange if you compare to all other major sports we have here at least.

These are just made-up issues. Teams don’t agree to fix their matches (even though they might both play very carefully in the waning minutes of regulation) and it’s irrelevant how many total points have been awarded leaguewide.

But to your point, I’ve been advocating for a long time to drop the points system which was only relevant in a W-L-T league. Now that we have no ties, a simple W-L standings format would be preferable and would resolve all of these issues.

It doesn’t solve the issue, and I don’t believe anyone thinks it would. The issue is “baked-in” whenever teams are tightly packed in with one game remaining. This is inherent in a three game tournament. There is no way for the teams to separate themselves.

To clarify — I do understand that it’s necessary in a two-week tournament to have some way of forcing quick outcomes. My comment was that this system shouldn’t be carried into an 82-game NHL season, precisely because it creates these strange dynamics where OT wins are a bad thing and teams lose on ENGWGs because it’s not good enough to just win the game, they have to pick up style points in the process.

 

[PainForShane]

Using the maths from earlier, you need to assume that Team Sweden has around a 66.667% chance of beating Team USA in regulation for this to have a positive expectation. The betting odds for that outcome are +253. So it's unlikely it would ever be a good idea, though you could assume that Team USA might not be giving it their all since this isn't such a meaningful match for them.


Not sure what your problem is, but no. That's simplified napkin math. It's to support the "obviously not"-argument. The numbers are crude approximations, but even that's more than enough to demonstrate the discrepancy.

Perhaps you believe you're contributing more with your post, though.

Now, if you want to go into statistics and probability theory. Sure. Which do you want to do? Quantum mechanics, hyperbolic, euclidean, bayesian, frequentist? string theory? quantum field theory? Let's hear what you have to offer.

Yeah let's use quantum mechanics (incl string theory) and QFT to explain the decision behind pulling a goalie in a hockey game, because clearly subatomic particles are relevant to this discussion. SO is Euclidean / hyberbolic geometry --I always think about 3 dimensional triangles when I watch the last few mins of a hockey game, I'm glad I'm not the only one.

Your napkin math is fine, but this response was f***ing cringe.

 

[895]

Disgrace of Gijón - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Soccer figured this out in this 80s

Last match day all games start at the same time.

The NHL is really very amateurish

 

[ahmedou]

 

[matsqq]

These are just made-up issues.

No, you are the one with "made-up issues" .

You are talking about something which is not yet a problem. (it's not a problem right now in this situation)

If you look up how many times there have been the problem with two ice hockey teams pulling their goalies at the same time because of the 3 point system you would understand that it's a non-problem.

If they DID do it , it would not be a big problem - they first team would probably do it when it's less than one minute left - team A would pull theirs when the puck is in the other zone, and if the other team gets hold of the puck maybe the other team would probably pull theirs with even less time left and it's not certain that any one of them would score

PS I tried to explain why a 3 point system is preferable which is why the major sports in Europe has it and I think anyone that read my latest posts understand what I mean even if you don't

Your initial statement was :
"This right here is why I don’t want to see the NHL move to a 3 point system. It leads to all this convoluted mess where instead of cheering to win a hockey game you’re out there with an Excel spreadsheet trying to sort out the implications of all the potential point combinations."
I think it says more about your understanding of the 3-point system than the 3-point system itself
You are not used to it, but I think the implications are very clear to all teams right now

 

[tarheelhockey]

No, you are the one with "made-up issues" .

I’m referring to things that are actually happening and have potential to happen on a larger scale.

You literally made up two fictional scenarios to present as problems (collusion by opposing coaches to fix matches, and issues with the total number of points awarded leaguewide) which are not problems in reality. That’s the definition of making up issues out of thin air.

You are talking about something which is not yet a problem.

And? Was this not clear when I said “this is why I wouldn’t want to see this in the NHL”? By definition, I’m talking about something that is not currently in the NHL regular season, but is being featured in the NHL’s international tournament product.

I feel like I’m doing a lot of explaining about very obvious things right now.

If you look up how many times there have been the problem with two ice hockey teams pulling their goalies at the same time because of the 3 point system you would understand that it's a non-problem.

I don’t even know what you’re referring to here. Nobody said anything about this scenario (see comments above about making things up out of thin air).

If they DID do it , it would not be a big problem - they first team would probably do it when it's less than one minute left - team A would pull theirs when the puck is in the other zone, and if the other team gets hold of the puck maybe the other team would probably pull theirs with even less time left and it's not certain that any one of them would score

Again I don’t know why you’re talking about this, nobody else has brought this up.

But just to be clear — yes, if TWO teams ever pulled their goalies at the same time, that would be an absolute joke of a situation. The fact that you would defend this made-up scenario as “not a problem” is baffling.

PS I tried to explain why a 3 point system is preferable which is why the major sports in Europe has it and I think anyone that read my latest posts understand what I mean even if you don't

Your initial statement was :
"This right here is why I don’t want to see the NHL move to a 3 point system. It leads to all this convoluted mess where instead of cheering to win a hockey game you’re out there with an Excel spreadsheet trying to sort out the implications of all the potential point combinations."
I think it says more about your understanding of the 3-point system than the 3-point system itself
You are not used to it, but I think the implications are very clear to all teams right now

What I said is not hard to understand.

The purpose of hockey is to win the game. Fans are entertained by the drama of seeing who will win. Players give their all for the purpose of winning.

There is no benefit and no purpose to making OT wins a negative event. It does not solve any issue, it merely detracts from what ought to be the pinnacle of competition and entertainment for all involved.

If you’re bothered by the idea of teams playing conservatively to secure the OTL point, there’s a far more simple solution: drop the points system and go to W-L. If there’s a tie, use common sense tiebreakers like head-to-head record, goal differential, etc which encourage teams to take every minute of every game seriously. Hell, if you want, use regulation wins as another tiebreaker. It makes sense in that context. It does not make sense as the basis for the entire standings table.

Yes this system is common in Europe, but that doesn’t make it “right”. European sports also commonly have ties which is what makes a points system necessary. Ties in NA sports are exceedingly rare, so there’s no need for a convoluted system which pretends that some wins aren’t really wins.

 

[matsqq]

I’m referring to things that are actually happening and have potential to happen on a larger scale.

........

Then it's even more strange - what exactly do you mean is the problem with this tournament as it stands right now ?

Except that you don't understand the 3-point system without having to bring in excel.

I think the teams are very clear about how it stands

 

[missionAvs]

No way in the current scenario. That said, of the USA-Sweden game was first and Sweden won the game in regulation then yeah, either Canada/Finland would pull the goalie to try and win in regulation.