BGDrew wrote:I've always been intrigued by the 5-4-3 model of overtime.
I've always been intrigued by this new refusal to accept games ending in a tie.
Ties are terrible. If teams are tied up with 3-4 minutes left in the 3rd they just put things on cruise control and give up on pushing any offense. It screws the fans who've paid good money out of any decision and more often than not a player who isn't pushing hard will get hurt.
The loudest that the ice arena got last year was during the shootouts and that's a fact.
Seems the NHL is looking to move away from the shoot out.
By Nicholas J. Cotsonika, Yahoo! Sports Aug 18, 10:06 pm EDT
TORONTO – Two-on-two? Not gonna happen. But three-on-three? Now that’s something we could see in NHL overtime someday.
Of all the ideas being tested this week at the league’s Research, Development and Orientation Camp, the most realistic ones with the biggest potential to impact the game involve overtime. The league is looking at two-on-two and three-on-three concepts, as well as four-on-four with teams switching ends to create long line changes.
Most everyone agrees the shootout has become too common. The debate is over what to do about it.
More From Nicholas J. Cotsonika
* Wild ideas come and go at RDO Camp Aug 19, 2010
* Shanahan's school of hard knocks Aug 17, 2010
Ryane Clowe #29 of the Sharks skates in for a shoot-out attempt on Jimmy Howard #35 of the Red Wings in 2010.
(Dave Reginek/NHLI via Getty Images)
”I’d like to look at anything that reduces the number of games that are decided by a shootout,” Toronto Maple Leafs general manager Brian Burke said. ”I mean, basically we’re deciding an astonishing percentage of games with a shootout. We never envisioned that when we approved that rule.”
When the NHL introduced the shootout in 2005-06, the thought was that teams would go all-out in the five-minute, four-on-four overtime period, trying to earn two points in the standings.
But look at what has happened over the past three seasons: In 2007-08, 156 games were decided by shootouts. In ’08-09, the number was 159. Last season, it was a record 184 – almost 15 percent of the 1,230 games played.
Teams have started playing conservatively four-on-four, when the ice is supposed to be open for skill, speed and scoring. They play checking players. They even double-shift checking players. They try to secure one point, then steal the other in the shootout, when scouting reports and tendencies come into play. While the Zamboni is clearing a path to the net, shooters and goaltenders go to the bench to study video of each other.
”I don’t like where four-on-four’s going to, because it’s going nowhere,” said former NHL coach Ken Hitchcock, who is behind one of the benches during the RDO Camp. ”You’re playing to get to the shootout, where you’ve got more strategy and more control. I don’t like where it’s going to go in the next few years. To me, it’s going to go the wrong place.”
It’s safe to say two-on-two isn’t the right place. The NHL tried it for three minutes during the morning session Wednesday, with players flying all over the ice and pucks flying into the net. One player was so gassed he couldn’t finish a breakaway.
”Going down to two-on-two, it seems a bit extreme,” Dallas Stars general manager Joe Nieuwendyk said with a laugh. ”I don’t know. I’d have to see it again.”
Hitchcock and multiple executives used the exact same word to describe it: ”gimmicky.”
”It was good that they did it,” Detroit Red Wings senior vice president Jimmy Devellano said. ”I wanted to see two-on-two. I wanted to see it because I thought, ‘What is this going to look like?’ And then I thought, ‘Oh, it doesn’t really look like hockey.’ ”
Never has two-on-two been a part of the game. Penalty shots and three-on-three situations are rare, but at least we’ve been there and done that. Compared to the two-on-two, the three-on-three-experiment looked good. Prospects were still flying all over the ice and pucks were still flying into the net, but it wasn’t so haphazard.
”The three-on-three was interesting to me,” said Brendan Shanahan(notes), the NHL’s vice president of hockey and business development, who is running the camp. ”That caught my eye.”
Shanahan
The four-on-four with the long line change looked good, too, generating five or six odd-man rushes in a five-minute period during the afternoon session Wednesday. It’s a subtle difference that could be easily implemented and have a big impact.
Players get tired. Teams make bad line changes. That creates scoring chances. It’s no coincidence that 37 per cent of goals scored over the past 10 seasons were in the second period, when teams have the long change, versus 30 per cent in the first and 33 per cent in the third.
”It really opens the game up,” said former NHL coach Dave King, who is behind the other bench this week. ”When you have a long change, if you make any mistake with the puck, it’s dire straits. So I think that’s one that the NHL will look at, because it’s got good potential to open up the overtime and score some goals.”
There are some who would turn back the clock. Calling himself a traditionalist, Ottawa Senators general manager Bryan Murray said he agrees that there are too many shootouts, so he would have a 10-minute overtime – maybe five minutes of five-on-five, five of four-on-four – and a tie game if no one scores.
But there is a growing number of executives who would like to at least entertain something new. Devellano, who helped develop the four-on-four concept, would play five minutes of four-on-four with the long change, then five more of three-on-three, no shootout. Burke likes the four-on-four with the long change and would like to look more at three-on-three, perhaps trying it in the preseason or the AHL.
”I think in the NHL, if it ever went 4-on-4, 3-on-3 in overtime, I don’t think you’d get too many shootouts,” Hitchcock said. ”It would be in somebody’s net for sure.
”The idea for me is, let’s score a goal from the competition. I just see teams spending tons of time on the shootout, both for and against. I see video on the bench. I see TVs coming to the bench. Let’s let the players decide it, more players more involved. I think it makes it for a better game.”
If the goal is to get teams to try harder to win in regulation or overtime before the shootout:
A) stop giving teams a point for losing in overtime/shootouts
B) make a regulation win worth 3 points, an overtime win worth 2 points and a shootout win worth 1 point.
Now imagine the last five minutes of a tie game, especially late in the season. Playoff hockey all season long.
I love people who can laugh at themselves. It saves me the effort.
actually I think teams should be awarded game points based solely upon goal differential. Where by if teams are tied at the end of 3, no points are awarded, if a team wins with a score of 3-2 they earn one point, if they win 5-0 they earn 5 points.
MACMAN wrote:actually I think teams should be awarded game points based solely upon goal differential. Where by if teams are tied at the end of 3, no points are awarded, if a team wins with a score of 3-2 they earn one point, if they win 5-0 they earn 5 points.
I also agree that shootouts CAN be exciting: especially to the casual or unenlightened fan.
I've got NO problem with shootouts in exhibition games, holiday tournaments, maybe even in non-conference games...but I don't believe the shootout should have ANY bearing on the awarding of points within conference standings.
Would you settle a baseball tie with home run derby?
How about a round of H-O-R-S-E instead of OT for basketball?
Either might be fun to watch, but nobody in their right mind would suggest it as an appropriate means to determine a winner in a TEAM sport.
I say; PLAY SUDDEN DEATH OT TILL SOMEBODY WINS! The five minute OT fails to force teams to roll all their lines, and too often teams play to NOT LOSE, rather that trying to WIN.
Freddie wrote:...I say; PLAY SUDDEN DEATH OT TILL SOMEBODY WINS! The five minute OT fails to force teams to roll all their lines, and too often teams play to NOT LOSE, rather that trying to WIN.
If the NHL wants to reduce shootouts (which casual fans do find more exciting)- then have a 5-5 OT for 10 mins (the 4-4 for 5 mins cuts down lines too and 3-3/2-2 is a joke!!). I think during the regular season unlimited sudden death/playoff style OT would be too long for TV, fans, and lots of fatigue on players (esp. if a team goes has lots of OT games). Most of the playoffs OT games don't go past the first OT period, and even more- don't go past the first half of the first OT. If you incorporated a 10-15 min sudden death OT with a new points system such as: 3 pts for regulation and for OT win, and 2 pts for a shootout win/1 pt for shootout loss; or 3 pts for a regulation win, 2 pts for a OT win, and 1 for a tie we'd see a lot less shootouts.
Freddie wrote:...I say; PLAY SUDDEN DEATH OT TILL SOMEBODY WINS! The five minute OT fails to force teams to roll all their lines, and too often teams play to NOT LOSE, rather that trying to WIN.
If the NHL wants to reduce shootouts (which casual fans do find more exciting)- then have a 5-5 OT for 10 mins (the 4-4 for 5 mins cuts down lines too and 3-3/2-2 is a joke!!). I think during the regular season unlimited sudden death/playoff style OT would be too long for TV, fans, and lots of fatigue on players (esp. if a team goes has lots of OT games). Most of the playoffs OT games don't go past the first OT period, and even more- don't go past the first half of the first OT. If you incorporated a 10-15 min sudden death OT with a new points system such as: 3 pts for regulation and for OT win, and 2 pts for a shootout win/1 pt for shootout loss; or 3 pts for a regulation win, 2 pts for a OT win, and 1 for a tie we'd see a lot less shootouts.
See above.
I love people who can laugh at themselves. It saves me the effort.
Freddie wrote:...I say; PLAY SUDDEN DEATH OT TILL SOMEBODY WINS! The five minute OT fails to force teams to roll all their lines, and too often teams play to NOT LOSE, rather that trying to WIN.
If the NHL wants to reduce shootouts (which casual fans do find more exciting)- then have a 5-5 OT for 10 mins (the 4-4 for 5 mins cuts down lines too and 3-3/2-2 is a joke!!). I think during the regular season unlimited sudden death/playoff style OT would be too long for TV, fans, and lots of fatigue on players (esp. if a team goes has lots of OT games). Most of the playoffs OT games don't go past the first OT period, and even more- don't go past the first half of the first OT. If you incorporated a 10-15 min sudden death OT with a new points system such as: 3 pts for regulation and for OT win, and 2 pts for a shootout win/1 pt for shootout loss; or 3 pts for a regulation win, 2 pts for a OT win, and 1 for a tie we'd see a lot less shootouts.
See above.
Nice to see that somebody else 'gets it'
The simple reason why so many games stay tied through OT is that the 5 minute OT period is just too short. Not that teams CANT score in that time...just that most wont take any risks knowing they can earn a point by skating their top lines through 6-8 short shifts.
If coaches knew that the OT period was going to last untill somebody scored, and that the winner got ALL the points... teams would approach overtime with a stronger sense of urgency.
