Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    In response to red75's comment:

    In response to stevegm's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    The whole problem with most of these other great suggestions, is they fail to consider the leagues biggest issue, when they originally tried to come up with the concept of a  reg season winner.

    Flights.

    The monotony and compression of the regular season has teams on a tight schedule.  When the whole 4 on 4, shootout system came in...it was only decided upon, because it could be fitted in, in about 1/2 hour usually.  On average, teams only have "minutes" per night....not "hours" in which to get the games in.

    To me, nothing worse than  overtime, and still no winner.  I also agree with the league, that at the end of the night...someone should be the winner.  It's pretty much impossible to figure out how much time is involved in any kind of overtime result, so we're left with some kind of gimmickry, if a winner is to be crowned.  3 on 3, is a gimmick too, and one I don't think is too well suited to the current Bruins.

    Although the single point thing is a reasonable pet peeve, I'm ok with that too.  Any of these gimmicks create a competitive challenge, and there's a cause/effect scenario to be considered.  2 pts for an overall win, and zero to the other team, will have serious consequences to the standings, therefore the overall game.  A shootout specialist or 2(see TS) would become much more integral to icing a successful team.  Same with 3 on 3.  If it's 2 pts vs none, it would seem to me, the overall benefit of being built on defense first....would be somewhat compromised.  I'm too lazy to figure this out, but I'm projecting around 15 games out of 82, end up tied after 60 minutes.  Imagine the difference in points, therefore the shakeup in playoff teams, if the league went 3 on 3, and the winner gets all the points.  

    Just my opinion, but no thanks.  When looking at all the options, I'm not that unhappy with the way it is.

     




    Actually the shake up would have been minimal - seeds 1-8 in the West would have stayed exactly the same. In the East 1-7 would not have changed, but the NYI would have been knocked out of 8th and the Jets would have made it instead. Everything else would have stayed the same. No extra points really wouldn't have made a huge difference.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Like many things Red...the math doesn't work in reverse, because the whole dynamic is changed.  We can't look back and make any kind of reasonable assesment regarding which games would have been won or lost, we can only flip a coin.

    We can though, look back and see the potential for a much different look to the East conference standings last year(even though a short schedule means fewer tied games after 60 min)

    It's all acedemic, but, another o/t win by the B's, and one less by the habs would have changed the seedings big time.  Who knows how that would have played out.  A little better o/t winning percentage would have definately got NJ in the playoffs, and a better winning percentage o/t could have put the Islanders much further up the standings.  A poorer o/t winning percentage could have knocked the Rangers out.

    Using the "15 games" theory I floated above, that leaves a potential 30 point shift in points, where we currently have 15.  Generally speaking, an o/t win, all of a sudden would become about twice as important.  A team that wins 8 out of 15, currently gets 23 points.  If there's no points for a tie, that same team only gets 16 points for the same o/t record.  It's easy to suggest any team could be impacted  4 points, which leaves a swing of 8 points, and that could have a huge impact.  Now...there's basically a safety net(difference of 1 pt).  Take that away, and it has to juggle things somewhat, and change the way teams look at things.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from adkbeesfan. Show adkbeesfan's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues


    a different idea... how about trading power plays? home team pp 5v4... visiting team pp 5v4... for one or two rounds. then if no scoring... 4v3 pp's traded in equal chances.  haven't thought too far into it... just kicking around an idea. thoughts?

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    My point wasn't necessarily about the 3-3, more about what would have been the case if you got rid of the loser point. That math does work, and it's imperical - you simply get rid of all the OTL points (assuming that the shootout was still included) Eliminating the extra point woould have minimal uimpact on the overall standings.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from NeelyOrrBourque. Show NeelyOrrBourque's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

     

    /QUOTE]
    lack of REAL hockey gameplay, its seems gimmicky, all the things that are bad and boring about shootouts...

     

    I like watching 5 on 5 hockey.  In OT 4 on 4 is fair and good, 3 on 3 just seems silly to me.

    [/QUOTE]

    In order to break up ties & to always have a winner there's going to have to be some sort of gimmick involved unless they play sudden death play-off style hockey. You can't do that in the regular season for numerous, obvious reasons. I think having a 3 on 3 is the lesser of two evils when it comes to gimmicky. The shoot-out should be the 3rd resort, not the 2nd. I truly think that we'd be able to see the true speed of a team like the Oilers, or the Av's. I think for 5 min that would be great to see, rather than this one guy vs the goalie. 

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    Why not just play 5 on 5 - no goalies :p

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaveyN. Show DaveyN's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    In response to NeelyOrrBourque's comment:

     

    /QUOTE]
    lack of REAL hockey gameplay, its seems gimmicky, all the things that are bad and boring about shootouts...

     

    I like watching 5 on 5 hockey.  In OT 4 on 4 is fair and good, 3 on 3 just seems silly to me.



    In order to break up ties & to always have a winner there's going to have to be some sort of gimmick involved unless they play sudden death play-off style hockey. You can't do that in the regular season for numerous, obvious reasons. I think having a 3 on 3 is the lesser of two evils when it comes to gimmicky. The shoot-out should be the 3rd resort, not the 2nd. I truly think that we'd be able to see the true speed of a team like the Oilers, or the Av's. I think for 5 min that would be great to see, rather than this one guy vs the goalie. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Thats all fine, and i get it, i just dont see 3 on 3 as an upgrade, i see it as on par with the shootout.  Agree to disagree.  Its something I hope not to see in the nhl, but much like the shootout, ill shut up and watch it regardless.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from NeelyOrrBourque. Show NeelyOrrBourque's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    In response to red75's comment:

    Why not just play 5 on 5 - no goalies :p



    Calgary may as well this yr. Unless Ramo turns into Bobrovsky.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    In response to DaveyN's comment:

     

     

    Thats all fine, and i get it, i just dont see 3 on 3 as an upgrade, i see it as on par with the shootout.  Agree to disagree.  Its something I hope not to see in the nhl, but much like the shootout, ill shut up and watch it regardless.



    I don't understand this -- escpecially from such a smart poster.  I think it is totally different.  It's hockey -- skating, passing, checking, defending, positioning, line changes, end-to-end rushes, etc.  

    The shootout is a very, very, specialized skill that is totally outside of the team game.  It's a one on one contest, and an uncontested skate in for a point blank shot.  I don't think it is hockey, and it belongs in the all-star game skills contest.  3 on 3 is pretty close to normal hockey, but all of the open ice and odd man rushes should lead to many more scoring opportunities, and would have the fans-on-their-feet excitment factor that the shootout seems to achieve.

    I bet we'll like it when/if we see it.  Get on board, Davey...

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    I know it's possible, but can anyone recall a 3 on 3 in an actual game? Racking my brain but can't remember seeing it. Maybe in the Oilers years before the "Gretzky Rule"?

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaveyN. Show DaveyN's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:

    In response to DaveyN's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    Thats all fine, and i get it, i just dont see 3 on 3 as an upgrade, i see it as on par with the shootout.  Agree to disagree.  Its something I hope not to see in the nhl, but much like the shootout, ill shut up and watch it regardless.

     



    I don't understand this -- escpecially from such a smart poster.  I think it is totally different.  It's hockey -- skating, passing, checking, defending, positioning, line changes, end-to-end rushes, etc.  

     

    The shootout is a very, very, specialized skill that is totally outside of the team game.  It's a one on one contest, and an uncontested skate in for a point blank shot.  I don't think it is hockey, and it belongs in the all-star game skills contest.  3 on 3 is pretty close to normal hockey, but all of the open ice and odd man rushes should lead to many more scoring opportunities, and would have the fans-on-their-feet excitment factor that the shootout seems to achieve.

    I bet we'll like it when/if we see it.  Get on board, Davey...

    [/QUOTE]

    One of the biggest reason i love hockey is team skill will outweigh individual skill no matter what 99% of the time. 3 on 3 while i can see being an upgrade in the 'team' factor over shootouts, i think it will still rely more on individual skill rather than team skill.  Which is one of my biggest gripes with shootouts. Honestly i would much prefer to keep going with 4 on 4 untill someone scores but obviously that wouldnt happen in a million years.

    I suppose i shouldnt outright say im against it, ill have to wait and see how it is if/when it happens, i just have my doubts.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from huntbri. Show huntbri's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    My sons both played rep/travel hockey and in tournaments often the tie-breaker in play-off games because they would have time restrictions to get all the games in, was a minute of 5 on 5, if it was still tied a minute of 4 on 4, if it was still tied a minute of 3 on 3, than 2 on 2 and 1 on 1. if it was still tied it went to a shoot-out. These were some of the most exciting games with the crowds going nuts.  I am not saying the NHL go that far but down to 3 on 3 is only slightly gimmicky and most of all it is entertaining.  Shoot-outs are gimmicky and they have gotten kind of boring in my opinion.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    In response to DaveyN's comment:

     



    One of the biggest reason i love hockey is team skill will outweigh individual skill no matter what 99% of the time. 3 on 3 while i can see being an upgrade in the 'team' factor over shootouts, i think it will still rely more on individual skill rather than team skill.  Which is one of my biggest gripes with shootouts. Honestly i would much prefer to keep going with 4 on 4 untill someone scores but obviously that wouldnt happen in a million years.

     

    I suppose i shouldnt outright say im against it, ill have to wait and see how it is if/when it happens, i just have my doubts.

    [/QUOTE]

    I hear ya Davey, I just think that if you must reduce the game down to more individual skills than a full team competition, at least let those individuals compete in the full hockey sense (skating, checking, passing, defending, etc.).  

    In 3 on 3 hockey, you'd still have to skate hard, move the puck, have rushes, and beat defensmen just to set up scoring chances and possibly win a game.  That, instead of watching some Daugavins-type play hopscotch down the slot while 20 players from each team sit on the bench and watch.  I just don't think shootouts are hockey.  3 on 3 may be wild, wide open hockey, but it still looks like hockey to me.  And it is likely to settle tie games fairly quickly and in a way which should be exciting to fans.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    I still like my no goalies idea.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    I just don't like the kissing-my-sister, a tie is ok idea.





     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from days-of-Orr. Show days-of-Orr's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    start by eliminating the loser point and i think you'll see more games being decided during regulation....  better yet, make a regulation time victory worth three points instead....

    as for ot, i say add an extra 5 mins. of 4 on 4 and that should settle things on most nights....

    as for 3 on 3, i don't like it and doubt that especially vets like those on Holland's team would like it very much too after having logged big minutes prior to reaching that point....

      “People think common sense is common - but it's not.”


     
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    The consensus seems to be, get rid of the loser point.





     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from goodnewsbears. Show goodnewsbears's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    In response to DaveyN's comment:

     

    Thats all fine, and i get it, i just dont see 3 on 3 as an upgrade, i see it as on par with the shootout.  Agree to disagree.  Its something I hope not to see in the nhl, but much like the shootout, ill shut up and watch it regardless.




    Using the shootout to decide the winner of a hockey game is like having a homerun derby to decide the winner of a baseball game.  I've played 3 on 3 hockey and it's still hockey, a shootout isn't hockey.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from goodnewsbears. Show goodnewsbears's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    In response to red75's comment:

    Why not just play 5 on 5 - no goalies :p




    Shupe would probably be on board.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from NeelyOrrBourque. Show NeelyOrrBourque's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

     


    Shupe would probably be on board.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    GOODNEWS! He's being quite don't get him started  again please. Tongue Out

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from days-of-Orr. Show days-of-Orr's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    if the league feels 3-on-3 will settle things faster, then it should go to it right off the bat if ot's needed.... 

    “People think common sense is common - but it's not.”


     
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from asmaha. Show asmaha's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    No loser point. 10 mins of 4-on-4. Call it a tie after that.  Can't imagine too many games tied with half a period of 4-on-4, especially if Refs don't put away their whistles.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    In response to red75's comment:

    Why not just play 5 on 5 - no goalies :p




    Having Zdeno would give Boston an advantage. And whomever has Michael Ryder :)

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    4 on 4 for ten minutes, no loser points.  At the end of 10, both teams get one point, there's a shootout, and shootout winning percentage is first tiebreaker at the end of the year.  In terms of fan experience, it's the same as we have now, but we don't have to pretend someone won the hockey game because they won a skills competition.

    Daugavins doesn't try that bush move if there's a chance that, while he's looking down at the puck, Chara will run him over.

     

     

    Are you not entertained?!?!

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from DaveyN. Show DaveyN's posts

    Re: Death to the Shootout: Support for 3 on 3 continues

    In response to goodnewsbears' comment:

    In response to DaveyN's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Thats all fine, and i get it, i just dont see 3 on 3 as an upgrade, i see it as on par with the shootout.  Agree to disagree.  Its something I hope not to see in the nhl, but much like the shootout, ill shut up and watch it regardless.

     




    Using the shootout to decide the winner of a hockey game is like having a homerun derby to decide the winner of a baseball game.  I've played 3 on 3 hockey and it's still hockey, a shootout isn't hockey.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Again, to be as clear and concise as possible, ill repeat I DO NOT LIKE THE SHOOTOUT.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share