Blues coaches discuss 3 on 3 OT strategy

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Weitz

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]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

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]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

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]

Originally Posted by Benched

"Tarasenko just needs 1 shot"

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

Johnny Hockey only needs to make one pass

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

TLDW version:

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

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

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.