HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Los Angeles Kings
Notices

Death To The Shootout Update: Support for 3-on-3 overtime increasing for NHL GMs

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-10-2013, 04:30 PM
  #1
deeshamrock
Registered User
 
deeshamrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 2,409
vCash: 500
Death To The Shootout Update: Support for 3-on-3 overtime increasing for NHL GMs

This is a article about the idea of replacing the shootout with a 5 min 3 x 3 instead. It was tested recently as a prospects tourny by Ken HOlland with the Stars vs Wild and it got positive feedback among the GM's he mentioned it to.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...3310--nhl.html

I don't like hte shootout and actually like the idea of 3 x 3. It would create a very fast dynamic. I think the game should be decided by actual hockey play, not a skills competition.

Article:
At the Traverse City prospects tournament, Detroit Red Wings GM Ken Holland decided to test 3-on-3 overtime in a game between the Dallas Stars and the Minnesota Wild.

According to Craig Custance of ESPN ($), the reviews for the format were uniformly positive.

Wild GM Chuck Fletcher declared that “every line change was an odd-man rush,” and wondered what it would look like if Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin shared the ice during it. New York Rangers assistant GM Jeff Gorton said, “The three-on-threes were pretty fun. It was good, especially when they had fresh ice. The kids were racing up and down, trading chances.”

Custance writes that the positive reviews are part of the momentum building to have the format become part of NHL overtime:

The comments from his fellow executives echo conversations Holland has had in private. There's an appetite among the decision-makers in the NHL to change the current overtime solution. The biggest reason is that parity has made things so tight around the NHL that one point can make or break a playoff berth. More GMs would prefer that the deciding playoff spots be earned by something more closely resembling hockey, rather than points gathered by winning shootouts.

It's safe to say he'll be making his proposal again this year at the GM meetings. Now there is momentum building for it.

Holland has been pushing for 3-on-3 overtime for years. In 2012, he proposed a 10-minute OT period in the regular season with the first 5 minutes in 4-on-4 hockey and the last 5 played 3-on-3 – all sudden death, all designed to avoid the shootout.

This is all tremendously good news for those of us who are fans of equity, fairness and actual team play.

That said, it’s still a gimmick. I get that. Dave Lozo and I had a Twitter debate about 3-on-3 hockey and he labeled it as the evil of two lesser: That at least the shootout features something (a penalty shot) that you might see during the game with more regularity than a freak show like 3-on-3 hockey.

But here’s how I see it: 3-on-3 is a significant improvement on the shootout, to the point where I can overlook its flaws.

Passes being attempted! Defensemen playing defense! Games – and thus, playoff qualification – being decided by something that at least resembles the 60 minutes that preceded it!

But above all else: Unpredictability.

The shootout has gotten stale, which is something even an early adopter of skills competition bashing like yours truly could have never guessed would happen. But we’ve seen almost every move, almost every scenario. We’ve seen too many games that seemed destined for the shootout because one team or the other believes it has the advantage there to earn the extra point.

I’ve found it tedious for years, but I’ve grown increasingly aware that I’m not alone.

My perfect world scenario has always been teams trading sudden death 4-on-3 or 5-on-3 power plays in OT, with the home team having first crack. At the very least, 3-on-3 satisfies my desire to see games decided with something resembling hockey and the NHL’s desire to dish up sexy offensive highlights to SportsCenter.
.

deeshamrock is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2013, 04:40 PM
  #2
Model62
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 891
vCash: 500
NOOOO!

Well, kill the shootout, yes, absolutely.

But the best solution is dueling power plays, like college football's tie-breakers in which the offenses' line up at their opponent's 25 yard line and try to score.

5-4 for the first round, 5-3 thereafter.

Model62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2013, 04:40 PM
  #3
King'sPawn
Enjoy the chaos
 
King'sPawn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 8,005
vCash: 500
I have mixed feelings. 3-on-3 is definitely more gimmicky, but it does at least focus on team play and communication.

Then again, I'm not as adverse to ties as others. I just think, regardless, all games should have the same point value.

King'sPawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2013, 04:55 PM
  #4
tsanuri
Registered User
 
tsanuri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Grants Pass OR
Country: United States
Posts: 2,028
vCash: 500
Just go back to ties would be a better idea. I wouldn't mind going to a 10 min 4-4.
But I find it funny talking about having sportscenter highlights. Like ESPN cares about hockey even in the playoffs for the most part. Even though they did try to hit Quick up with a worst of the worst for the bad play behind the net against the Blues.

tsanuri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2013, 04:58 PM
  #5
mbar
Registered User
 
mbar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 659
vCash: 500
Ties please.

mbar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2013, 05:16 PM
  #6
kingsfan
#SutterforanOscar
 
kingsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,910
vCash: 500
I've been saying this should be brought in for years, even before the shootout was discussed. not so much here, just in general.

Do five minutes of five on five, five minutes of 4- on 4, five minutes of 3-on-3 and if it's still tied, call it a draw. The whole reason for the shootout was to many teams were sitting back, playing for a tie.

If they can play for a tie through 15 minutes of overtime, most of it in much more wide open situations, then do it. If it's still a huge problem, eliminate ties and give teams zero points.

Whatever they decide, they should get rid of loser points. Never understood how they thought it was a good idea to give teams points just because they made it through 60 minutes tied.

kingsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2013, 05:57 PM
  #7
Model62
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsfan View Post
I've been saying this should be brought in for years, even before the shootout was discussed. not so much here, just in general.

Do five minutes of five on five, five minutes of 4- on 4, five minutes of 3-on-3 and if it's still tied, call it a draw. The whole reason for the shootout was to many teams were sitting back, playing for a tie.

If they can play for a tie through 15 minutes of overtime, most of it in much more wide open situations, then do it. If it's still a huge problem, eliminate ties and give teams zero points.
That's too much OT.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsfan View Post
Whatever they decide, they should get rid of loser points. Never understood how they thought it was a good idea to give teams points just because they made it through 60 minutes tied.
It was a kludgey compromise to get the votes necessary to make the original shift from ties to 5-on-5 OT.

Model62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2013, 06:37 PM
  #8
FanSince2014
What'd He Say?
 
FanSince2014's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Slovenia
Posts: 3,035
vCash: 500
Before they implemented the shootout, I was hoping there would be a 3-on-3 after the 4-on-4.
Still love the idea.

What about a penalty in a 3-on-3?
A 4-on-3 for 2 minutes?
Automatic penalty shot?

FanSince2014 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2013, 07:41 PM
  #9
deeshamrock
Registered User
 
deeshamrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 2,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
What about a penalty in a 3-on-3?
A 4-on-3 for 2 minutes?
Automatic penalty shot?
I like the 4 on 3 idea, maybe after the 5 min OT 4 on 4 if nobody scores. How would that work? Each team should get a shot, to make it fair. Home team gets first crack, maybe 4- 3 for 30 seconds, then the other team?

They have to do something, shootouts suck and has nothing to do with which team is better.

deeshamrock is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2013, 07:48 PM
  #10
Gentle Ben Kenobi
That's no moon......
 
Gentle Ben Kenobi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tatooine
Posts: 18,814
vCash: 863
**** ties

Gentle Ben Kenobi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2013, 07:51 PM
  #11
Vamos Rafa
¡Vamos!
 
Vamos Rafa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Clay Court
Country: Spain
Posts: 10,789
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by deeshamrock View Post
I like the 4 on 3 idea, maybe after the 5 min OT 4 on 4 if nobody scores. How would that work? Each team should get a shot, to make it fair. Home team gets first crack, maybe 4- 3 for 30 seconds, then the other team?

They have to do something, shootouts suck and has nothing to do with which team is better.

Absolutely. Sunday's prospects game proved it. A 6-1 shellacking of the Ducks but yet the Ducks won the shootout. Get rid of the shootout. It was fun while it lasted. The experiment is over. At the same time, I agree with Dingo. **** ties!

Vamos Rafa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2013, 08:37 PM
  #12
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,526
vCash: 500
3-on-3?

As long as the Kings have Doughty and Voynov, I'm all for it.

KINGS17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2013, 08:54 PM
  #13
kingsfan28
Viva Los Cucarachas!
 
kingsfan28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Earth
Country: United States
Posts: 11,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsanuri View Post
Just go back to ties would be a better idea. I wouldn't mind going to a 10 min 4-4.
But I find it funny talking about having sportscenter highlights. Like ESPN cares about hockey even in the playoffs for the most part. Even though they did try to hit Quick up with a worst of the worst for the bad play behind the net against the Blues.
Exactly! Hockey is lucky to get a few minutes of highlights [rangers,flyers,penguins and redwings of course] between Le Bron highlights and the latest NFL player to get charged for murder.

kingsfan28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2013, 08:55 PM
  #14
KingLB
Registered User
 
KingLB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Model62 View Post
NOOOO!

Well, kill the shootout, yes, absolutely.

But the best solution is dueling power plays, like college football's tie-breakers in which the offenses' line up at their opponent's 25 yard line and try to score.

5-4 for the first round, 5-3 thereafter.
Bleh that might be the worst idea I've heard. And still comes down to a different kind of skills competition.

And what happens if you get teams like STL and the Kings who couldn't score in 20 PP chances in a row...it would be brutal.

Brutal.

KingLB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2013, 09:04 PM
  #15
onlyalad
Registered User
 
onlyalad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 4,271
vCash: 500
If they do this we will all be screaming for shot outs

onlyalad is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2013, 09:29 PM
  #16
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 30,769
vCash: 500
I'd like to see the 3-on-3 format tested in pre-season after an unsuccessful 5 min. period of 4-on-4 OT hockey.

I think 3-on-3 for 5 mins would be more exciting than a shootout. I'd rather see an extra point decided in that type of situation. I think you'd see more highlight reel plays with so much open ice and with teams icing their most talented players to gain the extra point.

Ziggy Stardust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2013, 09:44 PM
  #17
kingsfan
#SutterforanOscar
 
kingsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Model62 View Post
That's too much OT.
How? It's 15 minutes. They already do 5 minutes, plus the shootout.

Getting rid of loser points and extending the OT would encourage teams to end the game earlier (IE push for it rather than sitting back) so I think it would be fairly rare a game goes the full 15 minutes.

kingsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2013, 09:44 PM
  #18
Model62
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingLB View Post
Bleh that might be the worst idea I've heard. And still comes down to a different kind of skills competition.

And what happens if you get teams like STL and the Kings who couldn't score in 20 PP chances in a row...it would be brutal.

Brutal.
It's the best the idea of all the ideas.

You're just sore you didn't think of it first.

Model62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2013, 09:54 PM
  #19
KingCanadain1976
Registered User
 
KingCanadain1976's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Thunder Bay Ont. Can
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,030
vCash: 500
why not just play ot till someone scores like in the playoffs? that way no looser point and no shootouts and a winner ever time

KingCanadain1976 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2013, 10:04 PM
  #20
kingsfan
#SutterforanOscar
 
kingsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCanadain1976 View Post
why not just play ot till someone scores like in the playoffs? that way no looser point and no shootouts and a winner ever time
Because you could have a 3OT game, like in playoffs.

With a schedule where teams often are scheduled to fly out within two hours after a game ends to go play the following night in another city, the complications a 3OT game could cause is huge.

Not to mention I doubt the PA would support the idea.

kingsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2013, 10:08 PM
  #21
zarley zelepukin
Registered User
 
zarley zelepukin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Norristown, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,580
vCash: 500
I'd rather just see 10 minutes of 4-on-4, then a shootout. I think that would cut down on the number of shootouts pretty drastically, while still not having ties. Also, we wouldn't have to discuss how gimmicky 3-on-3 would be.

zarley zelepukin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2013, 10:28 PM
  #22
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
KINGS17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,526
vCash: 500
I doubt the NHLPA will ever go for a 10-minute OT.

Back in the day the WHA had 10-minute OTs and there were still plenty of ties, but it was 5-on-5 hockey.

KINGS17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2013, 10:34 PM
  #23
KingCanadain1976
Registered User
 
KingCanadain1976's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Thunder Bay Ont. Can
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,030
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsfan View Post
Because you could have a 3OT game, like in playoffs.

With a schedule where teams often are scheduled to fly out within two hours after a game ends to go play the following night in another city, the complications a 3OT game could cause is huge.

Not to mention I doubt the PA would support the idea.
and why is that a problem ? I think it is a ton more exciting and with the travel by air not being as big of a deal now a days. Most travel is done by private jets if not they can always travel the next day. How many overtime games really go that far very few. Im willing to bet 90% will be done in one period. Maybe if it goes more then 3 ot periods then call it a tie? Why would the pa have a issue with it ? I think your creating more issues then there is.

KingCanadain1976 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2013, 10:46 PM
  #24
kingsfan
#SutterforanOscar
 
kingsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zarley zelepukin View Post
I'd rather just see 10 minutes of 4-on-4, then a shootout. I think that would cut down on the number of shootouts pretty drastically, while still not having ties. Also, we wouldn't have to discuss how gimmicky 3-on-3 would be.
3-on-3 is every bit as gimmicky as 4-on-4. Once you get away from the normal standard of play (5-on-5) on a permanent, non-penalized basis, it's gimmicky.

At least 3-on-3 still has elements of team play, unlike a shootout.

That all said, I'd support 4-on-4, as long as there were no loser points.

kingsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2013, 10:50 PM
  #25
KBA4life
Registered User
 
KBA4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 670
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCanadain1976 View Post
and why is that a problem ? I think it is a ton more exciting and with the travel by air not being as big of a deal now a days. Most travel is done by private jets if not they can always travel the next day. How many overtime games really go that far very few. Im willing to bet 90% will be done in one period. Maybe if it goes more then 3 ot periods then call it a tie? Why would the pa have a issue with it ? I think your creating more issues then there is.
It's just not sensible, especially since the league is gunning for communism...many of the teams are very comparable talent wise. I love me some hockey...but a double OT+ game potentially a few times a month is a bit much. I like the 3-3 idea

KBA4life is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:31 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.