QOTD: Thoughts on 3 on 3?

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

Hate it, but it's better than the shootout.

Agree. But, In another life maybe I would just wish they would just leave the game alone, It's as old as baseball and you don't see them changing that game every couple of years, actually never.

[troutman]

Goals per game - NHL history:

http://www.quanthockey.com/TS/TS_GoalsPerGame.php

In a 10 minute O/T (5 on 5) could we expect a goal roughly 50 % of the time?

[Fire of the Phoenix]

3 v 3 is insane. They could just go to continuous 3 v 3 to solve games and I bet 99% wouldn't go longer than one period. 80% probably won't even make it 5 minutes.

How much time would be added on average if they scrapped the shootout and went to continuous 3 v 3? I bet it would be less than 10 minutes.

[Igottago]

To me both the shootout and 3 on 3 are gimmicks. Will just be a matter of time before people start complaining about 3 on 3 as well. Then what, 3 on 3 with goalies without a stick?
The amount of tweaking that continues to happen with this is stupid.

Just keep it the way it is. 4 on 4 still resembles the core game enough that it isn't complete farce, and it opens up the play more for a possible winner. If that doesn't suffice, the shootout is a perfectly fine way to decide an outcome, and teams are starting to really get strategic with their shootouts as they realize the importance of them. And also it helps regular season games fit in a predictable time slot, which is good for everyone, from the fans to the tv networks.

Just leave it alone for once.

[Samuelsson]

Yeah, gotta say I'm not a fan of the 3-on-3 either, however I've not seen it enough in-play to warrant a proper opinion.

Also, I'm not a massive fan of shootouts deciding a hockey game - essentially all the skills you've used and everything you've battled for thrown out the window and the fate of the game solely dependent on how much of a wizard the guy taking the shot is.

That being said... I'd prefer the shootout over 3-on-3, lol.

[Steve Bozek]

Don't like it, but I really hate the shootout. Would prefer the AHL 4-on-4, then 3-on-3 approach. We need a 3-2-1 point system.

[Ulrith]

None of the above.

I hate it and think it's every bit as gimmicky as the shootout. That said, I think it will benefit the Flames because of their speed and mobile defense.

[genetic_phreek]

"I hate change, blah blah blah blah, leave the game alone".

It's evolution folks. Hockey is entertainment and it's competing with other sports, old and new. If they didn't try to change the game then purists might be the only ones still watching.

My opinion, I like games to end regardless of how they do it. A tie isn't final. It's more of a "to be continued".

[Enoch Root]

Every time I see 3 on 3, I like it more.

[circle]

Sure, 3 on 3 rarely ever happens in game situations, but as evidenced by last night's game, it is entertaining and exciting for fans. I know that I would much rather have 3 on 3 than a shootout or a tie game.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by circle

Sure, 3 on 3 rarely ever happens in game situations, but as evidenced by last night's game, it is entertaining and exciting for fans. I know that I would much rather have 3 on 3 than a shootout or a tie game.

If it is that much more entertaining, why not set the normal standard of play in a hockey game to 3 on 3? What's the point of confining this glorious "entertainment" to a couple of mins in overtime? Surely 60 mins of entertainment would be even better?

Also, would the fans have been any less excited by a 5 on 5 winner?

[circle]

Originally Posted by Igottago

If it is that much more entertaining, why not set the normal standard of play in a hockey game to 3 on 3? What's the point of confining this glorious "entertainment" to a couple of mins in overtime? Surely 60 mins of entertainment would be even better?

Also, would the fans have been any less excited by a 5 on 5 winner?

We have to look at the purpose of the 3 on 3. It is meant to end games quick such that we don't have to watch a series of penalty shots. It being entertaining is not the reason it is being implemented.

[Benched]

[Daradon]

E, haven't seen enough of it yet to decide.

Also F, hate the extra point anyway. I don't care if we do 5 on 5, 4 on 4, 3 on 3, shootout, or bring back the tie. JUST GET RID OF THE EXTRA POINT! Or put in a proportional point system that makes sense so games are weighted the same across the board.

[Finger Cookin]

TSN article on 3-on-3

I can almost see the smoke coming from Hitchcock's ears as he tries to figure out how to coach the fun and track meet back-and-forth out of 3-on-3

[Bingo]

First off this is one of those things that doesn't really have a clear cut "right" answer. There are flaws with any and all suggestions.

I hate shoot outs.
I hate gimmicks.

I actually didn't mind ties (at least all games were worth 2 points, with teams splitting them).

So if I can't have ties I like a format that avoids a shoot out more often than not. Is 3 on 3 hockey? Sure it is. Hockey is two teams trying to put the puck in the net before the other side. 3 on 3 can happen in a hockey game within regulation time, so why not use it to keep games from going to a skills competition.

Can't wait to see coaches play with this though. Have to think the two down deep guys have to have the guy without the puck heading south to cover for the late guy about to take the pass. We saw what happened yesterday when both deep players go to the net and look for a rebound.

Calgary certainly has the horses for this, will be interesting to see how Hartley shortens his bench.

Have to think it will be a fix of 2F and 1D and 1F and 2D. Flames have a huge advantage with 5 defenseman that can impact the game offensively but still cover back and avoid chaos the other way.

[Igottago]

The thing I don't understand is why or when the shootout become such an issue? For years they pushed it is an exciting way to end the game, and we kept hearing how much "the fans love it". And now we are used to it and its like "ok, this is happening too much now, we better change things again".

So now we are going to get a circus (3 on 3) followed by another circus (shootout) to decide a game, where at least with the current setup there is 5 mins that at least resembles the team game we've been watching the previous 60 mins.

And you just know it won't even be two seasons of it before the negative aspects of 3 on 3 turn up and people start complaining (this is just too chaotic there is no structure, the Canucks are just playing for OT so they can put the Sedins out for 3 on 3), etc.

[heep223]

I'm pumped to watch 3v3, I think it's a great way to end games and I hated ties. This isn't soccer FFS, there needs to be a winner. It's going to be fun to watch and if you don't think that it's truly "the game of hockey" or whatever the old men are yelling at the clouds these days, then you didn't grow up playing shinny on the outdoor rink until the lights shut off.

[ScorchyScorch]

I think it's great.

The way the Flames owned 4 on 4 - sometimes not even conceding possession of the puck from the opening faceoff until they ended it - it could be the team's bread and butter.

Gaudreau - Hamilton - Hudler would be amazing.

[FBI]

It certainly is exciting.. Should be a lot of fun.