HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Los Angeles Kings
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

DFA's Monthly Stat: Overtime Losses

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-04-2004, 10:08 PM
  #1
David A. Rainer
Registered User
 
David A. Rainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Huntington Beach
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to David A. Rainer
DFA's Monthly Stat: Overtime Losses

Has the rule change that awards a point for overtime losses been consistent with it's proffered purpose?

The 1998-99 season saw a record total number of games and a record percentage of games ending in a tie. To loosen the gridlock of ties, the league instituted the rule that awards a point for an overtime loss. As I understood it, there were two primary purposes for this rule change that was proffered by the NHL:

1.) To end the preceived fan dissatisfaction with ending a game in a tie; and
2.) To open up the overtime game by guaranteeing a point irregardless of the OT outcome.

Unfortunately, the 4-on-4 rule change was made the same offseason, so it has been difficult to prove whether or not the guaranteed point has in any way affected rationale #2. However, I would like to see if it has affected rationale #1. I offer the following stats as evidence:

1998-99 Season (the season before the rule change)
Number of games ending in a tie: 180 (actual number is 162 but there were less games played because of fewer teams, so I standardized this number to make it consistent with a 30 team league)
Percentage of games ending in tie: .146

1999-00 Season
Number of games that went to OT: 284 (standardized)
Number of games ending in a tie: 162 (again, standardized)
Percentage of games that went to OT and remained tied: .570
Percentage of total games that ended in a tie: .115
Note: clearly, the number of ties went down from the previous year - from 14.6% of total games to 11.5%

2000-01 Season
Number of games that went to OT: 274
Number of games ending in a tie: 152
Percentage of games that went to OT and remained tied: .555
Percentage of total games that ended in a tie: .111
Note: again, the % of games ending in a tie went down - 11.5% to 11.1%. Also, a higher % of games were won in OT that the previous year - 43.0% to 44.5%.

2001-02 Season
Number of games that went to OT: 266
Number of games ending in a tie: 149
Percentage of games that went to OT and remained tied: .560
Percentage of total games that ended in a tie: .108
Note: the % of games ending in a tie went down even further - 11.1% to 10.8%. So far, the rule change appears to be reducing the number of ties.

2002-03 Season
Number of games that went to OT: 313
Number of games ending in a tie: 157
Percentage of games that went to OT and remained tied: .502
Percentage of total games that ended in a tie: .127
Note: at this point, the number of ties begins to increase again - 10.8% to 12.7%. More and more games are ending tied. However, the % of games being won in OT has also increased - 44% to 49.8%. So, more games than ever going to OT, more ending in ties, and more being won in OT. This suggests that teams are playing conservative in the third period in hopes of reaching the guaranteed point of OT.

2003-04 Season
Number of games that went to OT: 331 (on pace for)
Number of games ending in a tie: 197 (on pace for)
Percentage of games that went to OT and remained tied: .595
Percentage of total games that ended in a tie: .160
Note: at this point, the league is on pace for even more ties than before the rule change. The NHL is on pace for a record number of games going to overtime (331) and a record number of games ending in a tie (197). Also, the percentage of overtime wins has decreased dramatically - 49.8% to 40.5%. And the percentage of games ending in a tie is well passed the percentage prior to the rule change - 14.6% to 16%.

So I ask: has the rule change actually accomplished what it had set out to do?

Thoughts?

__________________
Saxon Sports Information and Research

Last edited by David A. Rainer: 01-06-2004 at 12:51 PM.
David A. Rainer is offline  
Old
01-05-2004, 06:05 AM
  #2
Capn Brown
Registered User
 
Capn Brown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,493
vCash: 500
I've got a method but it's a bit extreme. When regulation ends, the team with MORE SHOTS ON GOAL gets a MAN ADVANTAGE in OT. So the whole OT period is spent 5 on 4 + 2 goalies each.

Theoretically, this would encourage the teams to take a whole lot of shots in a very close game so as not to be short-handed after regulation. In other words, a very close 2-2 game would not be won with defense towards the end, but offense. If the shots are 28-27, the team with 27 shots gets to kill off 5 minute disadvantage (though it's not termed a penalty) in sudden death OT.

Pretty soon, we'd see more and more shooting in regulation which in turn would lead to more and more goals which would theoretically lead to more people spending money on hockey. Oh yeah........FEWER TIES!

Only if the shots are EVEN at the end would the teams have both 4 skaters a side, though I'm wondering if perhaps it should be 5 on 4 but based upon the given team's total points. For example, a team with 55 points (Wings) takes on a team with 27 points (Capitals?). The game ends in a tie, 4-4. Both teams end the game with 34 shots on goal. Since the shots are even, the next deciding factor is total points. This would put the Wings up a man for the OT. However, had the Caps had just ONE MORE SHOT IN REGULATION, the Caps would have the OT man advantage. I don't know guys, I kinda like the idea!

The bottom line is, if one side is down a man in OT, there'll be fewer ties and more OT scoring.

OBVIOUSLY, this rule would NOT apply to the playoffs! LoL

Capn Brown is offline  
Old
01-05-2004, 09:07 AM
  #3
guzmania
Registered User
 
guzmania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: SCV
Country: United States
Posts: 2,492
vCash: 500
IMO the overtime mini period has worked. There is a conclusion to games that used to go unconcluded. That is much better for the fan. If anything, the tie break period should be longer in conference rival games. 7 and a Half minutes or even better 10 minutes. Or how about 5 minute after there have been at least 2 (3?) shots apiece and a stoppage. That would mitigate against teams laying back playing for the tie.

guzmania is offline  
Old
01-05-2004, 04:35 PM
  #4
David A. Rainer
Registered User
 
David A. Rainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Huntington Beach
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to David A. Rainer
Interesting ideas for changes to the OT rules.

But do you guys feel that the guaranteed point has been beneficial?

Has it accomplished what it set out to do?

Do you like the point for an OT loss?

I, for one, can't stand it. I take it Guzmaniac likes it because it at the very least creates something that isn't a tie even if more and more games are actually ending in a tie.

David A. Rainer is offline  
Old
01-05-2004, 05:53 PM
  #5
jfont
Registered User
 
jfont's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 15,356
vCash: 500
Awards:
this recent OT format was designed to take out alot of ties...if you noticed, teams are alot more aggressive offensively during the 4 on 4 OT than in the previous OT rules...i think its alot more exciting...the only thing is that the rules are different during the playoffs than the regular season...which is kind of strange.

__________________
Due to budget cuts, the light at the end of the tunnel will be turned off
jfont is offline  
Old
01-05-2004, 07:17 PM
  #6
David A. Rainer
Registered User
 
David A. Rainer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Huntington Beach
Country: Italy
Posts: 7,293
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to David A. Rainer
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfont
this recent OT format was designed to take out alot of ties
But there are a lot more ties than before the rule change.

Quote:
if you noticed, teams are alot more aggressive offensively during the 4 on 4 OT than in the previous OT rules...i think its alot more exciting.
At the expense of the last 10 minutes of the third period. I've found that teams tend to just play dump and chase with a single forward for the last 10 minutes to ensure the guaranteed point. And I think it's more exciting in OT because it's 4 on 4 with a lot of open ice and not because of the guaranteed point.

David A. Rainer is offline  
Old
01-05-2004, 07:32 PM
  #7
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,828
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathFromAbove
But there are a lot more ties than before the rule change.
The problem before the rule change was that teams didn't really try and win in OT, they just wanted the point. They didn't want to risk losing that point if they lose in OT. The NHL wanted the OT to be more exciting, so they guaranteed the point for going to OT.

Now teams just want to make it to OT so that they are guaranteed at least one point, so now instead of OT being boring, the last 5-10 minutes of the 3rd period are boring if the game is already tied.


Hell, let's just have a shootout after every period that ends tied. Then give a goal to the the team that wins the shootout.

Sydor25 is offline  
Old
01-05-2004, 07:37 PM
  #8
guzmania
Registered User
 
guzmania's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: SCV
Country: United States
Posts: 2,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathFromAbove
Interesting ideas for changes to the OT rules.

But do you guys feel that the guaranteed point has been beneficial?

Has it accomplished what it set out to do?

Do you like the point for an OT loss?

I, for one, can't stand it. I take it Guzmaniac likes it because it at the very least creates something that isn't a tie even if more and more games are actually ending in a tie.
Does overtime cause more ties? By definition it can't, only games that are tied go to overtime. We all would be walkin out of the building in the bad old days. I don't see the advantage of playing for a tie so one can win in OT, so I don't think that is a strategy that is used. If you can win in reg you win in reg. I like the fact that you can let loose after sixty and the the accomlishment of attaining the point can't be tainted. If I was to guess about why there seems to be more games knotted after regulation I'd say that there is more parity. Remember this rule comes in as expansion teams are begining to flourish the haves posess less; there is a larger middle class; the have nots are still close enough to eak out a tie. We can tweek what we have but many of the strategic aspects of the game are covered in this format. You are right Death from, I like it, (no accounting for taste).

guzmania is offline  
Old
01-05-2004, 07:49 PM
  #9
punchy1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Kiwiville.
Posts: 2,444
vCash: 500
To me, the third period (since the rule change) has become one where, if the game is close or tied with less than 5 or so minutes left, teams just float and try not to make a mistake instead of doing everything it takes until the last minute like before so that they can get the point. Now, they wait until the OT and *then* gamble.

Before, when it were sudden death OT, to me, it seems like teams would really battle it out and try everything they could to keep the game from OT until the last bit of the third.

I say, take it away or add a shootout or apply the interesting rules suggested by "The Daleks". One way or another, especially after watching the WJC's, the league HAS to do something to bring the energy and flow back or it is going to continue to die. I can think of many many reasons for the mess we are in (over expansion lessening the talent pool, bigger stronger players, the trap and the lock etc) but the answers, whatever they are, need to be put in place as soon as possible.

My mate has been a Kings fan since the 70's and he has shown me every game on tape (on the prime ticket tele channel and bbc5 or something like that and one other but I don't remember) and those games from the early 80s through 87 (the ones he had for the years he had them) where fast and brilliant and fun to watch.

When I show those tapes to my mates to try and get into hockey they love it. (of course, the bench clearing brawls are a big part of thier love of the game as are players like Tiger and company slugging it out) We watch the games over and over and they get all excited and then I watch a regular game from today with them and they always ask where all of the speed and battling are.

Even when there are a fight, the fellows just hug eachother and then try to throw an over hand or two and then the stripers step into it where in the days of old when they let the blokes pop on until one of them dropped a tooth or something.

Lost of troubles with the game and fixing the OT promised point rule would be one of many that I would try for a season to get the ball rolling. I am a purist for the most of the game but see it this way, we can't afford to not change the game a bit now days. There are too many bloody other things to watch to let the game drop much further.

Take away the center ice red line negating the two line pass. Make the OT period be a full period and then go footbal shoot out to see who gets the prize. Heck, even if all that were done were to make ALL teams go to INTL ice then it would make more room and make it easier for the speedy skilled smaller to average sized players to work thier magic and would up scoring, or even if it don't up scoring it will, without a doubt, up the excitement level and that would be a dandy start.

Just my thoughts on the topic, lots of troubles on this one but, if the league had a leader to turn to so that the owners weren't the only ones making the calls on things that would be a good start.

If this bit makes less sense then usual its due to my being all tom and dick in my lump of lead. I can't even keep a rosey lea in this pot and pan without having a heaver. Bad bit of business this one is. My own twist and twirl is also feeling shady nik and with the both of us under pound its right messy.

Well off to uncle ned for a bit of bo peep. Ta da and sorry again for the worries and mess of a response. Since I get ben and tassled either way I speak on the boards, I am going to talk here the way I do at home and if it offends then I am off to lorry but after the dead hen pm from my mate here spreading a bad bit of vicors mews about me to the regs, I am done trying to make everyone shoe'd and chappy. Cheers mates.



Last edited by punchy1: 01-05-2004 at 08:22 PM.
punchy1 is offline  
Closed Thread

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 07:19 AM.

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.