Good News for Shootout Dislikers?

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

WRONG. The OTL was first introduced as an incentive to help eliminate ties in the first place because there were a lot of overtime games, and most of them were boring trapfests that never solved anything. The last year in the old system there were 162 games that ended in a tie in a 27-team league; 14.6% of all the games played. The following year after the OTL was introduced, there were only 146; 13% of all games played, but more importantly, the changes made a perceptible impact to the quality of the game by providing an incentive to actually win as opposed to just avoiding a loss. Last year, there were 178 games that went to the shootout; 14.5% of all games played. Again, drawing from my memory of OT games played in the 90s, these were still much more enjoyable games to watch because teams don't just play not to lose.

In the first place, I can't imagine why you would think fewer games would end up going to OT if the old system were reimplemented. What would have changed to affect this? In the second place, I think that you greatly underestimate the impact that the OTL has on what actually happens in OT. Under the old system there was always a greater incentive for a team to ensure that they didn't lose in OT, and consequently both teams always tended to play for the tie. When the system changed, it opened things up and made for a better quality product on the ice. If they returned to the old system, then teams would again just play for 5 mins of survival in OT by keeping the puck out of their own end, and hoping for a breakdown from the other team.

Like it or not, the OTL DOES serve a useful purpose in helping to make each game in itself more enjoyable. While I agree that it contributes to a false sense of parity, and the current system is flawed, the solution IS NOT to do away altogether with the OTL. At this stage, it seems to me that the most practical thing to do is to adopt a 3-point system: 3 for an RW, 2 for an OT/SOW, 1 for an OT/SOL. Also, I would prefer adopting a 4v4 and 3v3 format for OT.

You're right that there was 146 games that ended in a tie after the OTL was implemented. There was still, however, another 114 games that went to OT that were decided in overtime. The Bruins in 1999-2000 went to overtime a third of their games.

And this was during expansion when the league's parity was terrible. In 2003 over 25% of all games went to overtime and that's about where we are now.

What the OTL did was increase the games that were decided in the 5 minutes of overtime, this there is no doubt. It also increased the the times that teams saw overtime after playing to a tie for 60 minutes as they were guaranteed a point and still could claim 2.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

In the old days I used to appreciate a hard fought draw. And the concept of the extra point was to encourage teams to try and win in OT, as opposed to playing it safe. If you think of it as a point for the draw with an extra poin for OTWt, instead of a loser point, it is perhaps less offensive.

That's exactly what it is. If you allow ties prepare for a Zzzzzzz overtime

[The Fonz]

I went to an Oilers @ Flames, New Years Eve game, and it ended in a 2-2 tie. What a gross feeling leaving the Dome that night... just total indifference towards that game.

Ties are awful, and I would rather lose in a shootout. I do think I'd prefer this system they're running in the minors though, going to 3 on 3 after a few minutes.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

WRONG. The OTL was first introduced as an incentive to help eliminate ties in the first place because there were a lot of overtime games, and most of them were boring trapfests that never solved anything. The last year in the old system there were 162 games that ended in a tie in a 27-team league; 14.6% of all the games played. The following year after the OTL was introduced, there were only 146; 13% of all games played, but more importantly, the changes made a perceptible impact to the quality of the game by providing an incentive to actually win as opposed to just avoiding a loss. Last year, there were 178 games that went to the shootout; 14.5% of all games played. Again, drawing from my memory of OT games played in the 90s, these were still much more enjoyable games to watch because teams don't just play not to lose.

...

Like it or not, the OTL DOES serve a useful purpose in helping to make each game in itself more enjoyable. While I agree that it contributes to a false sense of parity, and the current system is flawed, the solution IS NOT to do away altogether with the OTL. At this stage, it seems to me that the most practical thing to do is to adopt a 3-point system: 3 for an RW, 2 for an OT/SOW, 1 for an OT/SOL. Also, I would prefer adopting a 4v4 and 3v3 format for OT.

While you are absolutely right about the origins of the OTL, my recollection is (and I would have to go back and check the stats) that the number of overtime games quickly shot back up to the same level, which is why we have things like 4 on 4, now the shootout, and eventually, 3 on 3. As you say, the practical thing to do is adopt a 3 point system. But this is one rare instance where I would follow the soccer model. 3 points for a win, 0 points for a loss (regulation or OT), and one point each for a tie. Get rid of the shootout entirely.

[TheGrimm]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

4 on 4 unlimited over time, just like the playoffs.

I think we need playoffs in this city again soon to refresh your memory on what really happens... haha.

[TheGrimm]

I'd love to see the 3-2-1 system but the NHL wants parity, they want to keep every market in the "hunt" as long as possible, and I get that. With that in mind, bring on the 3v3! I think people here would be sold when they see just how many chances and odd man rushes would result, it'd literally be insane fun, WAY more exciting than shoot outs.

[CsInMyBlood]

As Text pointed out, the loser point is needed. I remember watching OT games where both teams played for the tie and the point. It was boring as hell. When the loser point was introduced you saw the difference right away. Teams finally went for the win and we got some good hockey again.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

That's exactly what it is. If you allow ties prepare for a Zzzzzzz overtime

I don't disagree. Short of unlimited OT, you eventually go to a shootout.

Football OT, starting where they do is basically a shootout.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

You're right that there was 146 games that ended in a tie after the OTL was implemented. There was still, however, another 114 games that went to OT that were decided in overtime. The Bruins in 1999-2000 went to overtime a third of their games.

And this was during expansion when the league's parity was terrible. In 2003 over 25% of all games went to overtime and that's about where we are now.

What the OTL did was increase the games that were decided in the 5 minutes of overtime, this there is no doubt. It also increased the the times that teams saw overtime after playing to a tie for 60 minutes as they were guaranteed a point and still could claim 2.

Exactly.

The problem is it brought incentive to play for OT. And the longer it was around, the more teams learned to play for OT.

The shootout made things even worse. It made the incentive stronger to play for OT as every game would now be a 3 point game. Before the shootout, only some games would be 3 point games since others would end in ties.

Ditching the OTL and keeping the shootout would have the effect of providing no incentive to go to OT and no reason whatsoever to try to play for a tie or to go to OT. In fact, I'd assume most teams would go all out to avoid leaving the game to be decided by SO.

The math would be complicated, but my gut says that if they went straight to W/L, there would be far fewer shootouts. With fewer shootouts, I'd expect them to have less of an impact than they currently do with the OTL.

[Sainters7]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

In the old days I used to appreciate a hard fought draw. And the concept of the extra point was to encourage teams to try and win in OT, as opposed to playing it safe. If you think of it as a point for the draw with an extra poin for OTWt, instead of a loser point, it is perhaps less offensive.

This is how I've always thought of it. I'm fine with draws but understand that those days are probably gone. However, shootout losses to me have never actually felt like losses. They feel the exact same to me as ties used to.

I get annoyed when people act like losing in a SO is the same as losing 4-2, or my Oiler fan friends bug me because we "lost" 3-2 to SJ in a SO. A SO loss isn't a true L. It's a tie, and "hey lets have a skills competition now to send the crowd home with some sense of closure".

EDIT: And the "loser point" needs to stay, to keep 4-on-4 OT (and hopefully soon 3-on-3, LOVE that idea) as exciting and wide open as possible. I'd much rather ditch the shootout than the "loser point".

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by dino7c

3 on 3 is closer to hockey than a shootout

Is it though? I don't like the shoot-out but when was the last time teams played 3 on 3 in regulation? I don't remember ever seeing it but I've seen a penalty shot several times. 3 on 3 is just glorified shiney. Are the players gonna toss their sticks in the middle and the ref picks the players by randomly tossing sticks?

Just extend 4 on 4 to 10 minutes. At least it's more like actual hockey. 3 on 3 seems just as gimmicky as the shootout.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

While you are absolutely right about the origins of the OTL, my recollection is (and I would have to go back and check the stats) that the number of overtime games quickly shot back up to the same level, which is why we have things like 4 on 4, now the shootout, and eventually, 3 on 3. As you say, the practical thing to do is adopt a 3 point system. But this is one rare instance where I would follow the soccer model. 3 points for a win, 0 points for a loss (regulation or OT), and one point each for a tie. Get rid of the shootout entirely.

I don't have the exact numbers and I could easily be wrong but I think the couple years before OTL was implemented you were looking at about 15-20% of games going into overtime with only maybe 20% decided in overtime.

With the OTL the number of times the teams saw overtime increased to about 25% over the next couple years. The games decided in overtime were closer to 50% though.

Before the OTL point was given, over an 82 game season it worked out that the average team went to overtime about 14 times a season and 11 of those times the result was a tie. So yes, not exactly exciting sudden death.

With the OTL, the average team went to overtime about 21 times a season and 10 of those ended in a tie. A bit more exciting 5-minute sudden death, but the argument could be made that playing for the tie made the first 60 minutes less exciting.

[Neeper]

3-2-1 does make the most sense points wise. Each game has 3 points up for grabs. Win in regulation, you get 3. Win in OT you get 2, lose in OT you get 1. Magic points should not appear out of no where.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Neeper

3-2-1 does make the most sense points wise. Each game has 3 points up for grabs. Win in regulation, you get 3. Win in OT you get 2, lose in OT you get 1. Magic points should not appear out of no where.

Absolutely... but unlikely. The loser point compacts the standings, giving fans of teams well out of the hunt the illusion that they are closer (and better) than they are. It's better optics for the weaker teams.
Florida is 5-4-4, so 'appear' to be an above .500 hockey team when in reality they are .385.
Florida is currently only 4 points out of the wild card spot.
In a 3-2-1 system, with one of their wins in OT, they would have 18 points (currently 14) and the playoff cut line would be somewhere around 25 points.

The optics of being above 500 and only 4 points out of the playoffs is way more pleasing to the NHL

[scotty2hotty]

I've been repeating the following for years. But I'll say it again because:
1. I really do think it's an awesome idea
2. I want to receive credit when it actually happens
3. I haven't posted in a while

OT should be a Power Play format as follows:
- Coin toss decides
- Team A goes on a 2 minute, 5 on 4 power play against Team B
- If Team B scores short handed, game over. Team B wins.
- If Team A scores in, say 50 seconds, then clock gets reset to 50 seconds
- Team B now has a chance to go on a 50 second, 5 on 4 powerplay
- If Team B scores before the clock runs out, Team B wins
- If Team B fails to score before the buzzer, Team A wins
- If no team scores after each have a power play chance, they then go on alternating 5 on 3 power plays with the same format as above until a winner is decided.

In this scenario, the game is decided on an actual game scenario (the powerplay) rather than a skills scenario (shoot out). No reason not to go to a simple Wins and Losses point system with this format.

I will bump this post when this is implemented in 5 years and we all love it.

[OzSome]

The problem is most of the teams are just happy to get the point and are willing to gamble on shootouts. If they win, it's a bonus, if they lose they still get a point. It happen mostly on games against from different conference. The OT loser should not get a point at all.

I like the idea of 4 on 4 then 3 on 3 though. Lots of open ice. That is when you see a skilled player excel.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by OzSome

The problem is most of the teams are just happy to get the point and are willing to gamble on shootouts. If they win, it's a bonus, if they lose they still get a point. It happen mostly on games against from different conference. The OT loser should not get a point at all.

I like the idea of 4 on 4 then 3 on 3 though. Lots of open ice. That is when you see a skilled player excel.

Now that we have some players with wheels and puck skills, great.

[N-E-B]

Originally Posted by scotty2hotty

I've been repeating the following for years. But I'll say it again because:
1. I really do think it's an awesome idea
2. I want to receive credit when it actually happens
3. I haven't posted in a while

OT should be a Power Play format as follows:
- Coin toss decides
- Team A goes on a 2 minute, 5 on 4 power play against Team B
- If Team B scores short handed, game over. Team B wins.
- If Team A scores in, say 50 seconds, then clock gets reset to 50 seconds
- Team B now has a chance to go on a 50 second, 5 on 4 powerplay
- If Team B scores before the clock runs out, Team B wins
- If Team B fails to score before the buzzer, Team A wins
- If no team scores after each have a power play chance, they then go on alternating 5 on 3 power plays with the same format as above until a winner is decided.

In this scenario, the game is decided on an actual game scenario (the powerplay) rather than a skills scenario (shoot out). No reason not to go to a simple Wins and Losses point system with this format.

I will bump this post when this is implemented in 5 years and we all love it.

So team A scores

Then team B gets their chance to score and they score

Then team B wins?

Wouldn't it make more sense to give team A another power play since all team b did was tie the game? This method, while not a terrible idea, would be too confusing, especially to a non hockey fan. It's basically a shootout but with power plays instead of shots, and that would just get tedious and boring.

[stemit14]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Now that we have some players with wheels and puck skills, great.

Very true. Gaudreau, Brodie, giordano, Russell, poirier, should all thrive with that.

It would be very entertaining seeing what teams do and the players they have on the ice with that kind of room. Crosby and malkin, Mackinnon and duchene, seguin and benn?

[dying4acup]

If they do adopt 4-4, 3-3 OT format(eventually for for 5m each as I suspect), in addition to 3-2-1-0 points format, I suspect that the NHL will see a sharp decrease in big, slow-footed, one-dimensional players as well. Likely a reduction in fighting (not what I want, but apparently what the NHL wants).

I have always hated the fact that some games are worth 3 points, and others 2 points.