Blues coaches discuss 3 on 3 OT strategy

[Canada 02]

834087

[puckedoff]

Teams may have to change lacross style, changing on the fly while one guy on their team holds the puck in their own zone or behind the net.

[Kipper is King]

Should the NHL perhaps look at undoing the long-change in OT rule? That made sense for four on four, but it might prove to be unnecessary three on three. Three on three will be exciting for the fans, but it may prove a bit of a downer if every overtime game ends after a minute.

[CroFlames]

The gimmicky rule changes make me heart sad.

Can someone make a seriously compelling argument against Win-Loss-Tie, win = 3 points? OT to decide playoff games only. No gimmicks, no shenanigans, and most importantly, the spirit and game of hockey isn't altered.

Have you ever seen a great game battled out between two evenly matched teams, and thought to yourself, wow it's great that the other team got the extra point through the skills comp?

Or even a team that has been greatly outplayed, but hung on for the tie. Then it goes to OT or SO and a winner is decided that probably shouldn't have won the game.

[Kipper is King]

Ties are gross.

[Weitz]

The gimmicky rule changes make me heart sad.

Can someone make a seriously compelling argument against Win-Loss-Tie, win = 3 points? OT to decide playoff games only. No gimmicks, no shenanigans, and most importantly, the spirit and game of hockey isn't altered.

Have you ever seen a great game battled out between two evenly matched teams, and thought to yourself, wow it's great that the other team got the extra point through the skills comp?

Or even a team that has been greatly outplayed, but hung on for the tie. Then it goes to OT or SO and a winner is decided that probably shouldn't have won the game.

Ties are boring.

[doctajones428]

bl47CMehpmY

I don't know how anyone can be against 3 on 3

[heep223]

Or even a team that has been greatly outplayed, but hung on for the tie.


"Hung on for the tie"...is completely contra to your argument.

Ties are way worse than anything they've implemented so far.

[DoubleF]

Should the NHL perhaps look at undoing the long-change in OT rule? That made sense for four on four, but it might prove to be unnecessary three on three. Three on three will be exciting for the fans, but it may prove a bit of a downer if every overtime game ends after a minute.

What about a long change period 1 and 3, short for 2 and OT? I recall reading a suggestion like this before but for different reasons.

[Benched]

"Tarasenko just needs 1 shot"

It's hard to argue with this line of thinking.

[CroFlames]

Ties are boring.

Incorrect.

Watching a great game of hockey result in a tie is not boring.

Watching a boring game of hockey end 2-1 is boring hockey.

Watching a great game of hockey end in a tie, then get decided by a gimmicky 3 on 3 match or SO is not boring, but it cheapens the product IMNSHO.

Hockey is a sport of 5 on 5 for 60 mins. In playoffs where a winner is needed, you continue playing 5 on 5 until a winner is decided. It's simple.

[Inferno]

I'm perfectly fine with them going back to ties but I'd rather have a game decided 3 on 3 than in a shootout. Atleast then the winning goal is scored because of a team effort.

[Weitz]

Incorrect.

Watching a great game of hockey result in a tie is not boring.

Watching a boring game of hockey end 2-1 is boring hockey.

Watching a great game of hockey end in a tie, then get decided by a gimmicky 3 on 3 match or SO is not boring, but it cheapens the product IMNSHO.

Hockey is a sport of 5 on 5 for 60 mins. In playoffs where a winner is needed, you continue playing 5 on 5 until a winner is decided. It's simple.

Except teams played for the tie. Much like they play for OT now.

Every game I went to or watched that ended in a tie felt like a waste of time.

But hey, to each their own.

[CroFlames]

Except teams played for the tie. Much like they play for OT now.

Every game I went to or watched that ended in a tie felt like a waste of time.

But hey, to each their own.

Well my original post specifically asked for a compelling argument. That's not exactly compelling.

I also noted that a win should be 3 pts, a tie 1, a loss 0. That will compel teams to play 100% effort until the final buzzer for the extra 2 points.

You should NEVER in ANY sport get a point for losing.

[Weitz]

Well my original post specifically asked for a compelling argument. That's not exactly compelling.

I also noted that a win should be 3 pts, a tie 1, a loss 0. That will compel teams to play 100% effort until the final buzzer for the extra 2 points.

You should NEVER in ANY sport get a point for losing.

I agree with that. But I don't agree with ties. 2 points for a win in whatever way (regulation, OT, shootout, whatever) no points for a loss. Essentially the same as Basketball and Baseball.

[GreenLantern2814]

Within a month, i don't think you'll see any vocal opposition to 3 on 3 outside of the initial 5 minutes following a loss.

[scotty2hotty]

The gimmicky rule changes make me heart sad.

Can someone make a seriously compelling argument against Win-Loss-Tie, win = 3 points? OT to decide playoff games only. No gimmicks, no shenanigans, ....

Yep, it's a game. The whole point of playing is to pick a winner. Cheer when your team wins. Feel sad for an hour when your team loses. Just have a bit of fun for 2.5 hours, then get back to real life until the next game.

[DJones]

I really enjoyed that video.

I think it's going to be amazing. Flames were excellent on special teams last year so hopefully we can pull off a 70% win record.

[dino7c]

3 on 3 is a way more "hockey like" way to decide a winner than the shootout

[CroFlames]

3 on 3 is a way more "hockey like" way to decide a winner than the shootout

I agree, but I don't like the idea of something "hockey like" deciding a hockey game.

Hockey games should decided by hockey. And if it can't be decided in 60, the teams share the points. If a winner emerges, they get 3 points.

[dustygoon]

3 on 3 >>>>>> shoot out.

[darthma]

I think 3-on-3 is far better than the shootout. I worry about goalie injuries though. The increased flopping around in the crease for the countless breakaways and 2-on-1's might really put a strain on them.

[Benched]

I think 3-on-3 is far better than the shootout. I worry about goalie injuries though. The increased flopping around in the crease for the countless breakaways and 2-on-1's might really put a strain on them.

So have 3 goalies? Flames bold strategy?

[dino7c]

I think having such good fast puck moving D-men will help the flames here big time

[Jay Random]

Except teams played for the tie. Much like they play for OT now.

No.

This is easily provable: The percentage of games decided in regulation was considerably higher when they had ties. When they introduced the loser point, the percentage went down, because teams could go for the tie and still have an opportunity to pick up a second point later. You could play it safe in regulation, and if you won in OT, it didn't cost you anything in the standings. The percentage went down again after the introduction of the shootout.

I've mentioned this several times before, but I'll bore you all again: Scotty Bowman was against the shootout and against the loser point, because he correctly predicted that it would give teams a perverse incentive not to take chances in order to break a tie late in the game.

[Jay Random]

The gimmicky rule changes make me heart sad.

Can someone make a seriously compelling argument against Win-Loss-Tie, win = 3 points?

Yes, but only to the 3 points part. Every game should be worth the same number of points. If you give out 3 points in the standings for some games and only 2 in others, you create an incentive that has nothing to do with the object of the game, and coaches will invent ways to take advantage by gaming the system.

There's also a stupid but compelling argument against W=3, T=1, L=0: The majority of teams would finish below .500. At present, it takes a really bad team to finish with a points percentage of .500 or less. This is stupid, but it helps the bad teams preserve the illusion of being competitive. PR flacks and marketroids would really hate it if the points percentages were distorted in the opposite direction.

[bax]

Would just like to comment that ties are terrible and I hope they are never part of the NHL ever again

[killer_carlson]

If they really want to make it gimmicky, let the teams pick the opposing players to start OT, no changes until first whistle.

[getbak]

This is easily provable: The percentage of games decided in regulation was considerably higher when they had ties. When they introduced the loser point, the percentage went down, because teams could go for the tie and still have an opportunity to pick up a second point later. You could play it safe in regulation, and if you won in OT, it didn't cost you anything in the standings. The percentage went down again after the introduction of the shootout.
This post made me curious to see what the actual numbers are...

For the five seasons before regular season OT was introduced (78/79 - 82/83) : 693/4040 games ended in a tie (17.15%)

For the first five seasons of regular season OT (83/84 - 87/88) : 721/4200 games went to OT (17.17%) and 459 ended tied (63.66%)


For the final five seasons before the OTL (94/95 - 98/99) : 957/4929 games went to OT (19.42%), 683 ended tied (71.37%)

The first five seasons with the OTL (99/00 - 03/04) : 1433/6068 games went to OT (23.62%), 774 ended tied (54.01%)

The first five seasons with the SO (05/06 - 09/10) : 1417/6150 games went to OT (23.04%), 808 went to a SO (57.02%)


The most recent five seasons (10/11 - 14/15) : 1372/5640 games went to OT (24.33%), 775 went to a SO (56.49%)

[DeluxeMoustache]

^ Thanks for that.

So introducing OT reduced the undecided games to 10.9 pct from the 17.1 pct tied after regulation
This had crept up to 13.9 pct
Introducing the OTL only reduced unsettled games to 12.8 percent (so didn't add much value) while adding 659 points to the 12136 available. So 5.4 percent more points were earned. So playing for the tie paid off more often than getting the OT winner arguably
I think the 5 year blocks of shootout era are probably statistically similar enough not to distinguish between.
But interesting that in the last block, 13.7 percent of games tied in regulation were settled by a shootout. About the same place they were in terms of games tied after the playing time is done, before introducing the OTL. With now 5.9 percent loser points given out

I think 3 on 3 OT will improve on this

[Pierre "Monster" McGuire]

As smart a hockey man as Hitch is, I found more value in what his assistants were saying.

Lots of great points were brought up. I especially liked when Kirk Mullen brought up the point where the first team to get a solid scoring chance is probably the team that's going to lose, because they're going to get caught out of position and the other team will have a breakaway or 2-on-1.

[Pierre "Monster" McGuire]

Also, the folks on here who are complaining about 3-on-3, you'll probably change your mind at some point this season. The Flames are built for 3-on-3 and I would guess they're going to win more than they lose in OT.

[GullFoss]

"Tarasenko just needs 1 shot"

It's hard to argue with this line of thinking.

Johnny Hockey only needs to make one pass

[GranteedEV]

834087

TLDW version:

"Lol, 3 on 3. Tarasenko Tarasenko Tarasenko counterattack. We gots this lockdown."

[Street Pharmacist]

Incorrect.

Watching a great game of hockey result in a tie is not boring.

Watching a boring game of hockey end 2-1 is boring hockey.

Watching a great game of hockey end in a tie, then get decided by a gimmicky 3 on 3 match or SO is not boring, but it cheapens the product IMNSHO.

Hockey is a sport of 5 on 5 for 60 mins. In playoffs where a winner is needed, you continue playing 5 on 5 until a winner is decided. It's simple.

Now hockey is a game of 5 on 5 for 60 minutes then 3 on 3 for 5 minutes until a winner is decided. If tied, a shootout. It's simple.


It cheapens nothing. This is an entertainment industry. If you watch a 3 on 3 there isn't a person sitting by the end. It's exhilarating. Why is change so scary?

[The Yen Man]

I gotta admit, when I watched 3 on 3 in Penticton, it was pretty exciting and fast paced. Just chances galore going back and forth. I think people will really enjoy it once they see it. It totally beats the shootout IMO in entertainment value. Plus, you actually have games decided in a team format as opposed to a one on one skills competition.

[pgsieve]

Very interesting that they mentioned speaking to Mark Howell (The U of C Coach) about the 3 on 3. I know the hockey world is small, but that kind of took me by surprise

[Winsor_Pilates]

I miss ties

[JohnnySkittles]

Only people who want ties to come back are stuck in 1975, get over it.

[Neeper]

Most people right now: Omg change! I hate already.

3 months later: This is awesome, I love it.

Seriously. Let's give it a chance before writing it off as something that's going suck. I bet it's going to fun to watch. And I have a good feeling as Flames fans, we're going to benefit from this.

[Jay Random]

Most people right now: Omg change! I hate already.

3 months later: This is awesome, I love it.

I hated the shootout when it was first introduced, and not because it was change, but because it created a perverse incentive. I hated the loser point for the same reason.

I actually approve of 3-on-3 overtime, since it increases the probability of deciding the game by, you know, actually playing hockey. I'd like it even better if they got rid of the loser point and the shootout at the same time, but hey, baby steps.

Of course, if you would rather invent your own story about what other people's motives must be, because you can't be arsed to listen when they tell you what their motives actually are… well, that's your funeral, I suppose.

[Jay Random]

Only people who want ties to come back are stuck in 1975, get over it.

Yeah, it's totally not like the most popular spectator sport on earth has ties. Those few old fogeys who still watch soccer are obviously stuck in 1975. :rolleyes:

[CroFlames]

Most people right now: Omg change! I hate already.

3 months later: This is awesome, I love it.

Seriously. Let's give it a chance before writing it off as something that's going suck. I bet it's going to fun to watch. And I have a good feeling as Flames fans, we're going to benefit from this.

Nope.

I'm not arguing that 3 on 3 isn't entertaining, it is. But I don't think a professional hockey game should be decided by anything other than 5 on 5 hockey. With shootouts and OT's and ROW's the incentives in games shifts, and I don't like that. Getting a point for losing a contest is counter intuitive. Dumb, in fact.

I think a hockey game should be W-L-T with a win being worth 3 points. A loser is never awarded a point.

For the record, I'm not some old guy wanting to go back to the way things were. It's just my opinion that hockey should be W-L-T.

[Igottago]

People are going to call me an old man or whatever, fine. I don't really think 3 on 3 is that exciting. You are just removing obstacles to give players more room to manoeuvre to create a goal, making it way easier on them. Its like playing NHL Arcade (or whatever that video game was). Beating 3 guys to score is going to look flashy but its not as impressive as beating 5 guys to score. I will always prefer the details and depth of how plays develop and not just the flashy finish. To me these scenarios are losing sight of the cake and just focus on the icing on top.

Also agreed, the loser point is terrible. Teams need to fear the fact that they might come away from a game with nothing.

[indes]

With Brodie on the ice it'll be 4v3 for us! I've never seen a player that plays forward and defense with getting caught so little

[Neeper]

Nope.

I'm not arguing that 3 on 3 isn't entertaining, it is. But I don't think a professional hockey game should be decided by anything other than 5 on 5 hockey. With shootouts and OT's and ROW's the incentives in games shifts, and I don't like that. Getting a point for losing a contest is counter intuitive. Dumb, in fact.

I think a hockey game should be W-L-T with a win being worth 3 points. A loser is never awarded a point.

For the record, I'm not some old guy wanting to go back to the way things were. It's just my opinion that hockey should be W-L-T.


I agree that a win being worth 3 points would be better. Getting a point for losing is definitely dumb. That said, we need to see 3v3 before writing it off. Everything evolves and sports is no different.

[GreenLantern2814]

People are going to call me an old man or whatever, fine. I don't really think 3 on 3 is that exciting. You are just removing obstacles to give players more room to manoeuvre to create a goal, making it way easier on them. Its like playing NHL Arcade (or whatever that video game was). Beating 3 guys to score is going to look flashy but its not as impressive as beating 5 guys to score. I will always prefer the details and depth of how plays develop and not just the flashy finish. To me these scenarios are losing sight of the cake and just focus on the icing on top.

Also agreed, the loser point is terrible. Teams need to fear the fact that they might come away from a game with nothing.

So will everyone. But its a Tuesday in Febraury, and people want to go home. They had 60 minutes to for things to develop. The shootout is a skills competition - 3 on 3 is a track meet.

The real icing on the cake is that league wide increase in offense. Coaches can try to scheme 3-3 all they want, but there's too much space and too much skill for it to be anything other than Russian roulette. They're going to be forced to open up in regulation. Plus all the extra OT winners.

[heep223]

Yeah, it's totally not like the most popular spectator sport on earth has ties. Those few old fogeys who still watch soccer are obviously stuck in 1975. :rolleyes:


Bringing soccer into the debate does not help the argument that ties aren't boring and/or anti-climactic.

It's not the most popular spectator sport on earth because it has ties.

[Traditional_Ale]

Seven-minute 3v3 and then a tie. Three for a win, one for a tie. Done. Simple. Eff the shootout. One of the most exciting games of hockey I've ever seen was knocking out Detroit in '04. 1-0. Hockey doesn't need goals to be exciting.

[N-E-B]

I like the shootout...

[Itse]

Bringing soccer into the debate does not help the argument that ties aren't boring and/or anti-climactic.

It's not the most popular spectator sport on earth because it has ties.

Somewhat inaccurate. One reason for it's popularity is that it's a TV darling due to games always lasting the same amount of time, which makes for easy scheduling. Ties are one reason for that.

Generally speaking I feel NHL hockey games last too long.

As for 3 on 3, I don't care much. Better than shootouts I guess, which are not that interesting.

[heep223]

Somewhat inaccurate. One reason for it's popularity is that it's a TV darling due to games always lasting the same amount of time, which makes for easy scheduling. Ties are one reason for that.

Generally speaking I feel NHL hockey games last too long.

As for 3 on 3, I don't care much. Better than shootouts I guess, which are not that interesting.


Agree to disagree. I think soccer is the most watched sport because it's the most played sport, given how accessible it is for people around the world. Not because every game is the same length because it has ties.

I am uneducated on this however. Though that doesn't stop me from imposing my opinion haha!

[T@T]

I agree that a win being worth 3 points would be better. Getting a point for losing is definitely dumb. That said, we need to see 3v3 before writing it off. Everything evolves and sports is no different.
Except if that sport is baseball, crazy how it remains unchanged, same ball, same bats and ballpark size for a 100 years.

[Itse]

Agree to disagree. I think soccer is the most watched sport because it's the most played sport, given how accessible it is for people around the world. Not because every game is the same length because it has ties.

I am uneducated on this however. Though that doesn't stop me from imposing my opinion haha!

I believe it has become so popular in part due to worldwide TV coverage.

That said, this all happened mostly before dedicated sports channels. It's not such an issue anymore.

(Although I still think NHL games last too long.)

[Huntingwhale]

I dreaded the shootout for the longest time because players like Kipper and Iggy sucked at it. The Flames always lost. Then with Hartley we started winning them so I didn't mind it.

I'm looking forward to 3vs3. And honestly, if we do good at it and win more then we lose, I'll be a fan. If it gets to the point where we start losing them more, I'll hate it.

[Jay Random]

Bringing soccer into the debate does not help the argument that ties aren't boring and/or anti-climactic.

It's not the most popular spectator sport on earth because it has ties.

I never said that. I was making fun of JohnnySkittles for saying that anyone who wants ties back in the game is, and I quote, ‘stuck in 1975’. Apparently 1975 is not such a bad place, if every soccer fan in the world is stuck there.

But you know what's really boring? Watching the last ten minutes of regulation when the game is tied, knowing that both teams are going to play it absolutely safe and make sure they bag that point. They have literally nothing to lose by going to OT, because the winner will still walk away with two points.

You know what else I find really boring? You probably won't believe this: Shootouts. I find the shootout extremely boring, especially when it goes to extra rounds. It had novelty value when it was first introduced, but now, to me, it's like watching paint dry. The only reason I'm interested at all is because I have just spent three hours of my life watching the damn game and I want to know how it ends.

[combustiblefuel]

I agree, but I don't like the idea of something "hockey like" deciding a hockey game.

Hockey games should decided by hockey. And if it can't be decided in 60, the teams share the points. If a winner emerges, they get 3 points.http://www.windowscentral.com/sites/wpcentral.com/files/styles/xlarge/public/field/image/2015/07/oldman.jpg?itok=blkL-j57