OT: Nate Silver deconstructs the NHL's loser point....
- Thread starter Ten Thousan Marbles
- Start date
NHL GMs are a pain in the @ss....
It usually takes each of the 30 teams getting bitten by a stupid rule before they wake up and make a necessary change
I think most liked the idea of the shootout coming out of the lockout and giving each team a point made sense...you can't really penalize a team severely for losing a skills competition and the skills competition was a necessary evil to jumpstart the game.
The shootout has become a joke though. More often than not anymore you could walk into the kitchen and cook a steak in the amount of time it takes some of these guys to dance in and get a shot off.
If they're intent on keeping the shootout, and they're too pig headed to eliminate it altogether, then the point system needs to penalize teams that shut it down in hope of getting that guaranteed point. I'd change the OT system to adopt what AHL is doing with 4 on 4 and then 3 on 3. Shootout as last resort.
Give 3 pts for regulation or OT winner. 0 pts for OT loser, 1 pt for shootout winner and 0.5 pt for shootout loser. This way you're incentivizing the need to avoid the shootout and opening up the 3rd period that lately has turned into a staring contest in teams that need a point.
It usually takes each of the 30 teams getting bitten by a stupid rule before they wake up and make a necessary change
I think most liked the idea of the shootout coming out of the lockout and giving each team a point made sense...you can't really penalize a team severely for losing a skills competition and the skills competition was a necessary evil to jumpstart the game.
The shootout has become a joke though. More often than not anymore you could walk into the kitchen and cook a steak in the amount of time it takes some of these guys to dance in and get a shot off.
If they're intent on keeping the shootout, and they're too pig headed to eliminate it altogether, then the point system needs to penalize teams that shut it down in hope of getting that guaranteed point. I'd change the OT system to adopt what AHL is doing with 4 on 4 and then 3 on 3. Shootout as last resort.
Give 3 pts for regulation or OT winner. 0 pts for OT loser, 1 pt for shootout winner and 0.5 pt for shootout loser. This way you're incentivizing the need to avoid the shootout and opening up the 3rd period that lately has turned into a staring contest in teams that need a point.
I like the 4on4 for 5 minutes, then 3on3 for X minutes.....
Either play 3 on 3 for multiple periods until someone scores, or call it a tie after the OT period (of 20 minutes). As Silver said, a tie would be pretty rare. You could also extend 4on4 to 10 minutes and then go 3on3 for 10 minutes.
Of course, you could also just keep pulling players until it's goalie on goalie (tongue in cheek obviously, but paints a pretty funny picture).
Either play 3 on 3 for multiple periods until someone scores, or call it a tie after the OT period (of 20 minutes). As Silver said, a tie would be pretty rare. You could also extend 4on4 to 10 minutes and then go 3on3 for 10 minutes.
Of course, you could also just keep pulling players until it's goalie on goalie (tongue in cheek obviously, but paints a pretty funny picture).
3 on 3 is insanely entertaining...
But also a little phony given the actual amount of time one would realistically see it in an actual game. It beats the heck out of the shootout and the AHL has had a lot of success in ending their games before the sideshow becomes necessary.
4 on 4 is still ok but not open enough with a guaranteed point. Make it so the loser gets nothing in OT and you'd see a better product.
I'd also say if they're set on keeping the shooutout in place, make a rule that players need to stay between the dots when they're coming in.
But also a little phony given the actual amount of time one would realistically see it in an actual game. It beats the heck out of the shootout and the AHL has had a lot of success in ending their games before the sideshow becomes necessary.
4 on 4 is still ok but not open enough with a guaranteed point. Make it so the loser gets nothing in OT and you'd see a better product.
I'd also say if they're set on keeping the shooutout in place, make a rule that players need to stay between the dots when they're coming in.
I remember when a penalty shot was a big deal and was a very exciting part of the game. Using the equivalent in a shootout takes away from the rarity of seeing it happen. I like the idea of 4-on-4 in OT until someone scores. A penalty would make it 4-on-3. Automatically making it 3-on-3 at some point would remove the effects of a penalty since I can't imagine the league allowing a team on the ice with only two skaters.
Re: 3 on 3 is insanely entertaining...
Hell, I find 4on4 to be pretty wild. 3on3 does seem a little more contrived, which is why I kind of like extending 4on4 to 10 minutes. Too bad the league will never go for that.
Hell, I find 4on4 to be pretty wild. 3on3 does seem a little more contrived, which is why I kind of like extending 4on4 to 10 minutes. Too bad the league will never go for that.
Best suggestions I've heard
1. Make each game worth 5 pts. Split them 5-0 for regulation win, 4-1 for OT win, 3-2 for shootout win.
2. Replace shootout with 4-3 power play for 1 minute, alternating teams (like college football does) until one team scores and the other doesn't.
1. Make each game worth 5 pts. Split them 5-0 for regulation win, 4-1 for OT win, 3-2 for shootout win.
2. Replace shootout with 4-3 power play for 1 minute, alternating teams (like college football does) until one team scores and the other doesn't.
