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

[PrimumHockeyist]

They should both pull their goalies with a minute left, I want to see that. It'd be over in like 4 seconds, but it'd be hilarious.

How about NO goals?!

 

[tarheelhockey]

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

As it stands right now, we have a scenario where Sweden could pull off a dramatic, hard fought OT upset victory — and be eliminated as a result.

And so Sweden’s best interest in the event of a dramatic tied game would be to pull their goalie, introducing a high likelihood that instead of the dramatic OT win they instead receive a goofy, anticlimactic regulation L that leaves everyone feeling weird about what they just watched.

This outcome might be inevitable in a 2-week tournament where they are trying to rush a conclusion. But it would absolutely not be acceptable in Game 82 of the NHL season. And no matter how much you avoid the point, the fact stands that these scenarios are inherent in giving more points for some wins than for others.

I don’t care that European fans have lived with this for so long that they don’t question it. It’s a bad system which leads to ridiculous coaching decisions. Keep it for 2-week tournaments but there is no need for it in the NHL itself, where the goal of hockey is to win the game without further qualifications.

 

[SanDogBrewin]

I'm going to go, out on a limb, and say no to the "goalie pull" question.

 

[matsqq]

As it stands right now, we have a scenario where Sweden could pull off a dramatic, hard fought OT upset victory — and be eliminated as a result.

And so Sweden’s best interest in the event of a dramatic tied game would be to pull their goalie, introducing a high likelihood that instead of the dramatic OT win they instead receive a goofy, anticlimactic regulation L that leaves everyone feeling weird about what they just watched.

This outcome might be inevitable in a 2-week tournament where they are trying to rush a conclusion. But it would absolutely not be acceptable in Game 82 of the NHL season. And no matter how much you avoid the point, the fact stands that these scenarios are inherent in giving more points for some wins than for others.

I don’t care that European fans have lived with this for so long that they don’t question it. It’s a bad system which leads to ridiculous coaching decisions. Keep it for 2-week tournaments but there is no need for it in the NHL itself, where the goal of hockey is to win the game without further qualifications.

I think it has more to do with the fact that you are not used to that system.

We think of it as a draw with an extra point awarded since the teams can not be separated by regulation time.

This makes much more sense than thinking about it as two different types of wins.

A 6-1 win would be the same points as a 3-3 game where one team has loads of luck , pulls it to óvertime, and wins on penalties !?

I would also never want a system where two teams can increase the number of points awarded by colluding , and there is no way to know for certain that when its 3-3 in the last minutes that teams go 100% to win.

I guess thats why it's an anomaly that nobody else has or wants

But whatever - I think we debated this enough and people can draw their own conclusions

 

[tarheelhockey]

I think it has more to do with the fact that you are not used to that system.

We think of it as a draw with an extra point awarded since the teams can not be separated by regulation time.

This makes much more sense than thinking about it as two different types of wins.

Right, and this is also the exact logic underlying the NHL’s current system: the teams tie in regulation for 1 point, then play for an extra point in OT/SO.

This frustrates fans because they think of it as “giving the loser a point” but in reality the point is for a regulation tie. This all makes sense, even if some people don’t love it.

In the 3-2-1-0, there literally are “two different types of wins” in the sense that a regulation win generates 50% more reward than an OT win. The overall value of points awarded stays consistent, but the value of wins changes based on context.

A 6-1 win would be the same points as a 3-3 game where one team has loads of luck , pulls it to óvertime, and wins on penalties !?

Well… yes. We do this is the playoffs, right? What’s the problem? The point of the game is to win, not to win with style.

I would also never want a system where two teams can increase the number of points awarded by colluding , and there is no way to know for certain that when its 3-3 in the last minutes that teams go 100% to win.

Teams can collude to fix match results under either system. That kind of behavior is a straightforward corruption issue, which thankfully has never been known to exist in the NHL.