Good News for Shootout Dislikers?

[TheGrimm]

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.

I'd rather watch 3 on 3 hockey than that from a fan perspective. I don't hate shootouts, I just think they should be a last resort, 3 on 3 should reduce the impact a shootout has on the game significantly.

[BowIsland]

3 on3 > shoot out

[scotty2hotty]

Originally Posted by N-E-B

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.

Yep.

Point being that Team B was able to score in less time than Team A.

You are wrong, this idea is very simple, non-tedious, and awesome.

(Or maybe I'll go back to the drawing board)

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by 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.

Except that is not what happened at all.

Prior to the loser point being added, around 25-27% of games (between 95-96 and 98-99) ended as ties - the high water mark being 29.5% in 97-98.

Looking at the numbers, the percentage of tie games hardly moved. 24.7% in 2000-01. Same in 2001-02. 25.5% in 2002-03. 27.6% in 2003-04.

What the OTL did do was cause more teams to play for the tie in regulation to guarantee the point, then largely continue to play for the tie in overtime. The percentage of overtime games decided with a winner went up only because of a huge increase in the number of overtime games overall.

The OTL only made things worse because it created a disincentive to taking risks in close games, particularly in the third period.

[EldrickOnIce]

^exactly
Very few scenarios exist under the current system to end tied games in later 3rd period. Teams hang on until the shootout.
3-2-1 would put onus on ending games in regulation time, but I really can't see it happening very soon.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Except that is not what happened at all.

Prior to the loser point being added, around 25-27% of games (between 95-96 and 98-99) ended as ties - the high water mark being 29.5% in 97-98.

What am I doing wrong? In 97-98 I'm getting 165 games ended in a tie (after OT) with 1066 NHL games played. That's just 15% depending on where I screwed up.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

What am I doing wrong? In 97-98 I'm getting 165 games ended in a tie (after OT) with 1066 NHL games played. That's just 15% depending on where I screwed up.

Exactly what I get too.
330 results as ties / 2 = 165 games tied

[CsInMyBlood]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Except that is not what happened at all.

Prior to the loser point being added, around 25-27% of games (between 95-96 and 98-99) ended as ties - the high water mark being 29.5% in 97-98.

Looking at the numbers, the percentage of tie games hardly moved. 24.7% in 2000-01. Same in 2001-02. 25.5% in 2002-03. 27.6% in 2003-04.

What the OTL did do was cause more teams to play for the tie in regulation to guarantee the point, then largely continue to play for the tie in overtime. The percentage of overtime games decided with a winner went up only because of a huge increase in the number of overtime games overall.

The OTL only made things worse because it created a disincentive to taking risks in close games, particularly in the third period.

Wow interesting, it certainly didn't seem like this was the case, where did you find these numbers?

I guess it does show that ties went down to some extent at the beginning, 29.5% of draws in 98, to 24.7% the first year it was implimented and then rose from there, I guess making the NHL decide to go with a shootout. I just remember how much better OT got as opposed to the trap stalemate. It was totally noticeable.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

What am I doing wrong? In 97-98 I'm getting 165 games ended in a tie (after OT) with 1066 NHL games played. That's just 15% depending on where I screwed up.

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Exactly what I get too.
330 results as ties / 2 = 165 games tied

ROFL. You're right, I did screw up. I halved the number of games, but forgot to halve the ties.

Fortunately, that just halves the percentages, but it doesn't change my overall point: there were as many tie games before the OTL as there was after, and teams began to play for the tie in regulation far more often.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by CsInMyBlood

Wow interesting, it certainly didn't seem like this was the case, where did you find these numbers?

I guess it does show that ties went down to some extent at the beginning, 29.5% of draws in 98, to 24.7% the first year it was implimented and then rose from there, I guess making the NHL decide to go with a shootout. I just remember how much better OT got as opposed to the trap stalemate. It was totally noticeable.

NHL standings. But per the error that was noted, cut those percentages in half. It was 14.75ish% down to 12.35ish%, but bounced back up almost as quickly. Subjectively, I partially agree and partially disagree with your recollection of how OT itself may have improved - especially in interconference play. But the OTL is why teams increased their trapping the hell out of the third period of games - because they wanted that guaranteed point. OT itself was frequently a flop because teams didn't want to give intraconference opponents the extra point.

And yes, the league went to the shootout to eliminate the "problem" of tie games. But I have always maintained that the solution was worse.

[JiriHrdina]

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.

Ugh no offence but I hate this idea.
1. Too complicated
2. I hate powerplays
3. It fundamentally changes how the game is played from who scores the most to who scores the fastest

[Wormius]

I don't get why the NHL didn't give a longer 4v4 a chance.

Even an indefinite 5 on 5 will produce a goal in at most 3 periods of play judging by the finals? A 4 on 4 situation should yield a goal in much less time, maybe 20 min, who knows? I would at least like to see a 10 or 20 min 4 on 4, followed by a shoot-out.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I don't get why the NHL didn't give a longer 4v4 a chance.

Even an indefinite 5 on 5 will produce a goal in at most 3 periods of play judging by the finals? A 4 on 4 situation should yield a goal in much less time, maybe 20 min, who knows? I would at least like to see a 10 or 20 min 4 on 4, followed by a shoot-out.

When OT first came out in regular season games, the knock against it was, it was too much hockey for the players, especially in back to back games. The same argument will be put forward if you try and increase the OT minutes too much.

[Yrebmi]

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.

Don't like it. Can't seeit happening.
Shouldn't team A also be given a chance to score the shortie?
The whole concept punishes strong 5vs5 teams compared to strong special teams.
Coin toss in hockey? Really?

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Except that is not what happened at all.

Prior to the loser point being added, around 25-27% of games (between 95-96 and 98-99) ended as ties - the high water mark being 29.5% in 97-98.

Looking at the numbers, the percentage of tie games hardly moved. 24.7% in 2000-01. Same in 2001-02. 25.5% in 2002-03. 27.6% in 2003-04.

What the OTL did do was cause more teams to play for the tie in regulation to guarantee the point, then largely continue to play for the tie in overtime. The percentage of overtime games decided with a winner went up only because of a huge increase in the number of overtime games overall.

The OTL only made things worse because it created a disincentive to taking risks in close games, particularly in the third period.

To further your point. There is absolutely no point of the OTL, now that there is shootouts. No one would be playing for a tie in OT if they know it is going to a shootout anyway. And no one would be playing for a tie in the third period if there wasn't the reward of getting a 3 point game.

Part of the reason playoff games are so much more exciting (It is not just that it is the playoffs), is that a 2-1 or a 2-2 game in the 3rd period is an absolute nail biter. If you give up a late goal, your team could be going home with nothing. Hold on, and you are ecstatic. Up 2-1 in the regular season, and even if you give up a goal, you still have ot to get it back, and if you don't, oh well, at least you get a point and lose no ground. 2-2 games with 10 to go in the regular season are an absolute bore, and is usually the time I go and do my laundry and take out my contacts. I'll check in once in a while to make sure nothing crazy happens, but it usually doesn't.

Anyone supporting this point system has to answer why they like watching teams play for regulation ties, because I have about 100 other things I'd rather do than spend my time watching that crap.