This Year Around The League

[billhoward]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If you think a shootout should decide a hockey game after a brief overtime, you should be fine with a home-run derby deciding a baseball game after the tenth inning.

Home run derby? David Ortiz' value just went up a couple million.

[css228]

No to the shootout, but I don't understand why the ECAC plays 5-on-5 in OT. Taking away one player from each team would make overtime much more exciting and probably decrease the number of ties. Not ready for 3-on-3 yet, but 4-on-4 should be a no-brainer.

With the style of player we tend to recruit, we would get our asses handed to us in 3v3  But 3v3 is amazing and I'm glad the NHL went to it.

[KeithK]

No to the shootout, but I don't understand why the ECAC plays 5-on-5 in OT. Taking away one player from each team would make overtime much more exciting and probably decrease the number of ties. Not ready for 3-on-3 yet, but 4-on-4 should be a no-brainer.

With the style of player we tend to recruit, we would get our asses handed to us in 3v3  But 3v3 is amazing and I'm glad the NHL went to it.

If 3v3 is so great why not play 3v3 the whole game?

[LGR14]

No to the shootout, but I don't understand why the ECAC plays 5-on-5 in OT. Taking away one player from each team would make overtime much more exciting and probably decrease the number of ties. Not ready for 3-on-3 yet, but 4-on-4 should be a no-brainer.

With the style of player we tend to recruit, we would get our asses handed to us in 3v3  But 3v3 is amazing and I'm glad the NHL went to it.

If 3v3 is so great why not play 3v3 the whole game?

Because it would kill the players and also mean fewer jobs.

If 20 minute periods are so great, why don't we have 20 minute overtimes? Why do we alternate sides every period? Why can the puck be iced during a penalty kill? Why is a hand pass ok in some zones but not others?

There are a million ways the game is modified in certain situations. No one is advocating for 4-on-4 or 3-on-3 for an entire game: just a five minute sliver when the game happens to go to overtime.

[KeithK]

No to the shootout, but I don't understand why the ECAC plays 5-on-5 in OT. Taking away one player from each team would make overtime much more exciting and probably decrease the number of ties. Not ready for 3-on-3 yet, but 4-on-4 should be a no-brainer.

With the style of player we tend to recruit, we would get our asses handed to us in 3v3  But 3v3 is amazing and I'm glad the NHL went to it.

If 3v3 is so great why not play 3v3 the whole game?

Because it would kill the players and also mean fewer jobs.

If 20 minute periods are so great, why don't we have 20 minute overtimes? Why do we alternate sides every period? Why can the puck be iced during a penalty kill? Why is a hand pass ok in some zones but not others?

There are a million ways the game is modified in certain situations. No one is advocating for 4-on-4 or 3-on-3 for an entire game: just a five minute sliver when the game happens to go to overtime.

Yes, there are situations where the rules are modified for special cases.  In general these changes are undesirable but sometimes necessary to avoid problems with competitive balance.  The overtime change isn't that - it's just using different rules at a critical point in the game for the hell of it. I find this very aesthetically displeasing and wish they didn't do it.  Life will go on, but I will continue to maintain that it's a bad idea and hope that college hockey doesn't go that route.

[Trotsky]

No to the shootout, but I don't understand why the ECAC plays 5-on-5 in OT. Taking away one player from each team would make overtime much more exciting and probably decrease the number of ties. Not ready for 3-on-3 yet, but 4-on-4 should be a no-brainer.

With the style of player we tend to recruit, we would get our asses handed to us in 3v3  But 3v3 is amazing and I'm glad the NHL went to it.

If 3v3 is so great why not play 3v3 the whole game?

Because it would kill the players and also mean fewer jobs.

Not necessarily.  Keep the roster size the same and change more frequently.  Cut shifts from 40 to 30 seconds.

[LGR14]

No to the shootout, but I don't understand why the ECAC plays 5-on-5 in OT. Taking away one player from each team would make overtime much more exciting and probably decrease the number of ties. Not ready for 3-on-3 yet, but 4-on-4 should be a no-brainer.

With the style of player we tend to recruit, we would get our asses handed to us in 3v3  But 3v3 is amazing and I'm glad the NHL went to it.

If 3v3 is so great why not play 3v3 the whole game?

Because it would kill the players and also mean fewer jobs.

Not necessarily.  Keep the roster size the same and change more frequently.  Cut shifts from 40 to 30 seconds.

Obviously hypothetical: but I'm not sure 30 second shifts would even be possible. We've already seen the NHL adjust to 3-on-3. Teams will hold the puck and do everything they can to keep possession. Guys get stuck out there for too long way too often, which would lead to injuries if they tried to do it over a 60 minute game.

3-on-3 has been super exciting, and I'm in favor of it for NHL OT primarily because it's the lesser of two evils when compared to the shootout.

[css228]

No to the shootout, but I don't understand why the ECAC plays 5-on-5 in OT. Taking away one player from each team would make overtime much more exciting and probably decrease the number of ties. Not ready for 3-on-3 yet, but 4-on-4 should be a no-brainer.

With the style of player we tend to recruit, we would get our asses handed to us in 3v3  But 3v3 is amazing and I'm glad the NHL went to it.

If 3v3 is so great why not play 3v3 the whole game?

Because it would kill the players and also mean fewer jobs.

Not necessarily.  Keep the roster size the same and change more frequently.  Cut shifts from 40 to 30 seconds.

Obviously hypothetical: but I'm not sure 30 second shifts would even be possible. We've already seen the NHL adjust to 3-on-3. Teams will hold the puck and do everything they can to keep possession. Guys get stuck out there for too long way too often, which would lead to injuries if they tried to do it over a 60 minute game.

3-on-3 has been super exciting, and I'm in favor of it for NHL OT primarily because it's the lesser of two evils when compared to the shootout.

3v3 is just exciting hockey. 3v3 gives great players a chance to shine while keeping useless ones like Tanner Glass or Tom Wilson on the bench. I'm pretty sure we'd all rather watch games where the Subbans, Girouxs, Kanes, Seguins, Kopitars, Karlsson's etc. of the world are on the ice all the time. It's personally a real bummer for me every time I hear the name Andrew MacDonald one my tv. But I will admit there is such a thing as too much of a good thing, which playing 3v3 or 4v4 beyond OT would be. To be totally honest my ideal scenario was to do what the AHL did when testing it, which was play 5 minutes of 4v4 and if it still wasn't decided 5 minutes of 3v3. They all but eliminated the shootout.

Also 3v3 is amazing because my team is so bad at shootouts that we're 31st all time on NHL's list of shootout records. (They count Atlanta and Winnipeg separately). So from my perspective anything that leads to fewer glorified skills competitions is great.

About the shifting, NHL and AHL teams really only do shifts when they have strong control of the puck in 3v3, and the extra space allows guys to really take control and take possession for a while. So you could do 30-40 second shifts on offense, but on D it usually is impossible because you're generally pinned until someone takes a shot.