How do you feel about 3 on 3 's?

[Por_sha911]

No, not that you pervert!

I'm talking about the NHL going to overtime playing 3 on 3 instead of 4 on 4 before going to a shootout.

From what I've seen in pre-season (and what I remember in years gone by when there are people in the sin bin during OT), it should reduce the number of shootouts. I liked the shootout but it really sucked for the teams that didn't have top tier goalies. The team with the hot goalie would just play defense until the shootout. That's hard to do with only 3 on the ice. Way too much room out there.

So, sharpen those blades and get the wrapping tape out because it's almost that time of year.

p.s. Canuck fans are still hosers.

[Por_sha911]

LOL. 25 views and no replies. Maybe there's a lot more pervs out there than I thought.

[1990C4S]

I think it should have been done years ago.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Does anyone actually even watch hockey?

[1990C4S]

It's a multi-billion dollar industry, with huge TV revenue, most of which is generated in Canada.

[billybek]

It will cut down on shoot outs and I am ok with that.

All that open ice will create opportunities for the smaller, faster skilled player to show his worth.

[1990C4S]

Next step is 3 points for a regular time win, 2 for an OT win, and one point for an OT loss....

[scottmandue]

I'm okay with overtime 3 x 3 but take away the sticks and make them play with chainsaws!

[Por_sha911]

Originally Posted by 1990C4S

Next step is 3 points for a regular time win, 2 for an OT win, and one point for an OT loss....

How about 1 point for Shootout win and 0 for shootout loss?

[flatbutt]

3 on 3 or raw hockey is something else entirely. Its truly amazing to watch. I am ok with going to 3x3 as I HATE the shootout. Besides the shootout is for poseurs like soccer players. ;-) Maybe first round is 4 X 4 and second round goes to 3 x 3.

[flatbutt]

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

How about 1 point for Shootout win and 0 for shootout loss?

Why not 2 pts for regulation win?

[Christien]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

Does anyone actually even watch hockey?

Heh, we say that about basketball here

[Por_sha911]

I think that a shootout win is like a race win when the race is flagged early due to weather. There will always be that thought that IF the race had gone the entire distance it may have ended differently.

I like the idea of there being a point for ending in regulation tied but a shootout (although exciting to watch) is not a true measure of the better team winning.
So maybe I'm making it more complex than it should be but how about:
3 points for an outright win
2 points for an OT win
1 point for an OT loss
1 point for a shootout win
Shootout loss gets nada

I'm trying to weight the wins based on when they come but the 1 and 1 are not sitting right with me. Are the numbers making sense? Help me figure this out.

[flatbutt]

Originally Posted by Por_sha911

So maybe I'm making it more complex than it should be but how about:
3 points for an outright win
2 points for an OT win
1 point for an OT loss
1 point for a shootout win
Shootout loss gets nada

I'm trying to weight the wins based on when they come but the 1 and 1 are not sitting right with me. Are the numbers making sense? Help me figure this out.

I think the 3pts for a regulation win, and the split for OT win/loss make sense. But if there is an OT that obviates the need for a shootout IF they play till someone wins. That may be the key...that they play to a win in sudden death just like the playoffs. THEN in the preliminary rounds of the playoffs go to a 4 on 4 for first OT and 3 on 3 for 2nd OT.

[Por_sha911]

The 4 on 4 followed by 3 on 3 was proposed but the players shot it down since it would be a lot more ice time and that could be a killer if you have back to back games. Extra OT in playoffs is fine because both teams played the same number of minutes the night before.

[JJ 911SC]

Originally Posted by flatbutt

I think the 3pts for a regulation win, and the split for OT win/loss make sense...

It does but obviously someone does not seem to like it.

Every game should have the same score weight, if on overtime generate 3 points so should a clean win. We all see it, tie with 5 minutes to go in regulation and the teams are now playing to get at least one point out.

[1990C4S]

Originally Posted by JJ 911SC

It does but obviously someone does not seem to like it.

Agreed, but I'm not sure why. The league gave up historical comparisons when they went to the shootout and a point for an OT loss.

It is illogical to have a combination of three point and two point games. All games ought to be worth the same number of points, be it two or three.

I would support any change in that direction. Until then, I will look forward to more exciting OT.

Maybe they should make the same three players play the full five minutes...

[Hawkeye's-911T]

It will cut down on shoot outs and I am ok with that. All that open ice will create opportunities for the smaller, faster skilled player to show his worth.

Sums up my sentiments. Although last night, the Sedins made it look a little too easy. It will be interesting to see how coaching strategies evolve to defence this 'new' format. At the end of the day, 3 on 3 is infinitely preferable to the 'shoot-out' - imho.

Looking forward to chatting with you gents in the following months.

Cheers
JB

[Por_sha911]

The nice thing was that with 4/4, a team with a hot goalie would load up the defense and just choke the game down until they could get the win in the shootout. With 3/3 there is too much open ice to slow down an offensive push. This definitely gives the offense minded teams the edge. The trap won't work. I'm sure the goalies are having a fit.

[billybek]

Wasn't watching the game but the first 3 on 3 overtime was played last night Philly and Tampa.

Looked pretty entertaining on the replays this morning!