• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
puckbags

Statistical view of 3 on 3 OT

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I found this to be a pretty good read on the straight up stats for 3 on 3 vs 4 on 4 OT. I'm all for it as a hater of the shootout.

http://regressing.deadspin.com/how-those-3-on-3-overtime-rules-would-cut-down-nhl-shoo-1692120143?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What data is he drawing on over the past 10 years for 3 on 3 play? I honestly can't remember seeing 3 on 3 play. I'm sure I've seen 3 on 3 before, but it would be so rare, it escapes my memory. With that in mind, the amount of data on this must be very, very small.

Not sure why you don't simply look at the AHL results and that's the data....why do hypothetical modeling based on very small data points?

I hate the shootout as well and I believe almost everyone in the game dislikes games being decided by the shootout. The problem they are in now is that it was introduced as a way to eliminate ties, but I think games are going to shootouts way more than they originally thought and they are probably stuck and not able to go back to ties.

I'm not a big fan of 3 on 3 either. 4 on 4 I don't mind as it is a regular occurrence in almost every game at some point, but 3 on 3 is almost as much of a gimmick as the shootout (it's slightly better though).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideal would be 4 on 4, then 3 on 3, then the shootout, and if you lose the game, you get nothing regardless of if it's regulation, OT, or shootout. The current system awards teams that are good in the shootout instead of just good, and the 1 point was meant to divide the games in case of a tie. The next best would be make every game 3 points. 3 for regulation win, 2 for OT win, 1 for OT loss. But that would make teams less bunched up and reduce the parity a little bit and Buttman doesn't want that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 on 3 is just like a shootout. You're creating a gimmick that we never see in a real game in order to manufacture a point for a team that doesn't deserve to win.

I'll make it simple. If two teams play a game where neither team was good enough to win in "regular" play, plus OT, the game should end in a tie. Neither team deserves the extra point. Awarding an extra point just for the sake of it is stupid.

If the casual American sports fan doesn't like that, they can go jump off in a cliff into a forest full of werewolves carrying STD's. I'm tired of changing the game to appease imbeciles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 on 3 is just like a shootout. You're creating a gimmick that we never see in a real game in order to manufacture a point for a team that doesn't deserve to win.

I'll make it simple. If two teams play a game where neither team was good enough to win in "regular" play, plus OT, the game should end in a tie. Neither team deserves the extra point. Awarding an extra point just for the sake of it is stupid.

If the casual American sports fan doesn't like that, they can go jump off in a cliff into a forest full of werewolves carrying STD's. I'm tired of changing the game to appease imbeciles.

This might sound crazy but I don't think not enjoying ties makes one an imbecile. I hate the shootout, but I also despise anything unfinished. 3 on 3 may be gimmicky, but it's at least an improvement on the shootout as it still at least requires some team work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 on 3 is not entirely gimmicky, as it can happen during the course of natural events in a game. If they wanted a similar situation for shootouts they'd have to let a defenseman chase down the shooter.

It happens so rarely that it's hard to make that argument with a straight face. It's basically a gimmick. Whether it "can" happen or not, it's so rare that it should never decide the outcome of a game.

This might sound crazy but I don't think not enjoying ties makes one an imbecile. I hate the shootout, but I also despise anything unfinished. 3 on 3 may be gimmicky, but it's at least an improvement on the shootout as it still at least requires some team work.

One doesn't have to enjoy the outcome. You enjoy the game. If neither team deserved to win, I'm fine with a tie. I won't feel better about things if someone gets a manufactured point.

Honestly, the best and most unrealistic way to decide ties (because of the physical toil it would take), is to play continuous overtimes until someone scores. Anything else comes off as a gimmick unless you just allow ties.

Edited by GMRwings1983

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DickieDunn....sure what you mean by I lost...makes no sense. But anyway, even if no other league gives credit for losing, why would that matter? If I think of the major sports in N.A., no other league decides games on gimmicks either, no other league uses a points system, etc.

Anyway, they should have stuck with ties, because they changed that and are using a shootout to decide the game you'll remove the point from a team that would have gotten it with a tie? NFL has ties.

You wan to talk about winning and losing the argument....this much is guaranteed....as long as the shootout exists, no team losing in a shootout will EVER not get awarded a point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 on 3 is not entirely gimmicky, as it can happen during the course of natural events in a game. If they wanted a similar situation for shootouts they'd have to let a defenseman chase down the shooter.

A penalty shot can happen as well (And happens far more often) Which is basically a shootout, and can very well, (and sometimes does) determine the winner of a game. Doesn't make the shootout any less gimmicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A penalty shot can happen as well (And happens far more often) Which is basically a shootout, and can very well, (and sometimes does) determine the winner of a game. Doesn't make the shootout any less gimmicky

It's true they're both situations that are a result of penalties, neither entirely gimmicky.

It happens so rarely that it's hard to make that argument with a straight face. It's basically a gimmick. Whether it "can" happen or not, it's so rare that it should never decide the outcome of a game.

One doesn't have to enjoy the outcome. You enjoy the game. If neither team deserved to win, I'm fine with a tie. I won't feel better about things if someone gets a manufactured point.

Honestly, the best and most unrealistic way to decide ties (because of the physical toil it would take), is to play continuous overtimes until someone scores. Anything else comes off as a gimmick unless you just allow ties.

Well I'm ok with ties,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DickieDunn....sure what you mean by I lost...makes no sense. But anyway, even if no other league gives credit for losing, why would that matter? If I think of the major sports in N.A., no other league decides games on gimmicks either, no other league uses a points system, etc.

Anyway, they should have stuck with ties, because they changed that and are using a shootout to decide the game you'll remove the point from a team that would have gotten it with a tie? NFL has ties.

You wan to talk about winning and losing the argument....this much is guaranteed....as long as the shootout exists, no team losing in a shootout will EVER not get awarded a point.

Not you you, you the the that doesn't win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Giving points to the loser is like everyone gets a trophy at the end of the game. How many times have you seen a team simply play to make it to OT why because they get a point.

I say a win is a win a loss is a loss. You get 2 points for a win whether it happens in reg time/OT and forget the shoot out(not just cause we suck at it). If you are still tied at the end of OT then have a tie teams split the 2 points 1 each and go on to the next game. I am sure the standings would be a lot different if that happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You lost. No other sport gives you credit for losing.

Yeah. You lost because of an activity where a guy like Brad Boyes is king.

How about having the two teams' enforcers square off after OT to determine the victor?

I'm sure Bettman would love that. And it would appease the enforcer slappies like frankgrimes, FMichael and Detroit #1 Fan, by keeping tough guys in the game.

Just as relevant as a shootout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like awarding points for losing either, but awarding a point when you lose in a shootout...I don't see that as getting a point for losing. I see it as getting a point for the game ending in a tie. The "game" ended in a tie....the shootout has nothing to do with the game, it's a separate event/gimmick and the loser of that event gets nothing.

Now, if the shootout didn't exist and teams were given a point for losing in OT, I could see more of an argument. No one likes that, but the reason it is there is because no teams would try to win in OT if they get nothing if they lose, they'd just sit back and wait for OT to end. In that scenario, why even have OT, just end that game after regulation and give each team a point.

It's a very tough issue to deal with, but I think the best solution is to go to a 3pt system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm ok with ties also and would prefer the old way but that's clearly not going to happen. If I had my choice it would be 3 on 3 from the start until someone scores.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this