Blues coaches discuss 3 on 3 OT strategy

[Jay Random]

Originally Posted by Neeper

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]

Originally Posted by JohnnySkittles

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.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Jay Random

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.

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]

Originally Posted by heep223

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]

Originally Posted by Itse

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]

Originally Posted by Neeper

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]

Originally Posted by heep223

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]

Originally Posted by heep223

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]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

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.