3 on 3 OT/GMs recommend

Skatingpen · Post by **Skatingpen** » Wed Mar 18, 2015 8:07 pm

So with it looking like this will be in play next year, I
Imagine we will be back to having a few 100 point scorers as those high skill players will be out on the ice and have a very good chance of scoring and ultimately raising the goal totals. Imagine how many more goals players like stamkos and OV will get with 3 on 3? It could really increase stats.

Post by **shmenguin** » Wed Mar 18, 2015 9:43 pm

It's only going to add a handful of goals per team. It's a great thing, but it won't move the needle as far as individual scoring goes.

mikey287 · Post by **mikey287** » Wed Mar 18, 2015 9:45 pm

I can't imagine it having as big of an impact on the individual stats as you think. You figure, you play in what, ~20 OT games per year, give or take. 57% of games that go to OT go to a shootout. The AHL had 35% decided in OT, now 77% are decided in OT. That number will come down slightly, I predict, as coaches begin to adjust a bit. But it can't be too terribly much.

So you figure, you're in, what, 11 or 12 shootouts per year...? Now, you'll be in 4 or 5...? So, let's even call it a difference of eight. 4 wins, 4 losses. You're talking about four extra goals for your team per year...maybe Ovechkin or Stamkos score two of them...? You're really not anywhere noteworthy if my mental math is on point or even close to it...

Post by **the wicked child** » Wed Mar 18, 2015 9:46 pm

Meh. It's only a matter of time until coaches get ahold of it and choke the life out of that too.

mikey287 · Post by **mikey287** » Wed Mar 18, 2015 9:54 pm

The key difference is in this setup is what you lose. In 4 on 4, you lose a winger...big deal...in fact, to be specific, you lose a weak-side winger...who cares really...in 3 on 3, you lose - for all intents and purposes, though not technically speaking - F1 most of the time, as I envision it...which will allow speed to generate...because I can't imagine a high F1 not getting beat for a 3 on 2 with any NHL-level breakout schematic...worst case, you're two touches and out with a 3 on 2 with heavy back pressure...

It will be tough to adjust to that without yielding large portions of the ice...

Skatingpen · Post by **Skatingpen** » Wed Mar 18, 2015 9:56 pm

Buzzkills! You are absolutely right, I was just excited about something

shoeshine boy · Post by **shoeshine boy** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 7:57 am

I'm very interested to see how this evolves over the years. locally our Over35 league used to do 3 on 3 for OT. it used to be very exciting (for old man beer league) but then teams started playing it not-to-lose instead of to win and all the excitement got sucked right out of it. for the NHL I think it would be more interesting if they got rid of the "loser point" as well.

Post by **Jim** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 8:28 am

Yep, argue to get rid of the shootout because it is not realistic to normal game play... but push for 3-on-3...

How many times a year is there a breakaway as opposed to how many times a year there is 3-on-3 play?

mikey287 · Post by **mikey287** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 8:45 am

Shootout = Penalty shot

Mr. Colby · Post by **Mr. Colby** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 2:33 pm

I hate the shootout, but i am not sure i like 3 on 3 much more. I'd prefer a 10 minute 4 on 4... i find 4 on 4 or 4 on 3 to be the nost exciting hockey. 3 on 3 is beer league.

I can't understand why the league is so anti-tie.

silentom · Post by **silentom** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 2:44 pm

So, will it go to 3 on 3 right at the end of regulation? Or will it go 4 on 4, then 3 on 3? I haven't really been following this subject...

mikey287 · Post by **mikey287** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 2:59 pm

The AHL does like three minutes of 4 on 4 then four minutes of 3 on 3. Which has been a great success and I would recommend it for duplication in the NHL...

meow · Post by **meow** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 3:11 pm

mikey287 wrote:
The AHL does like three minutes of 4 on 4 then four minutes of 3 on 3. Which has been a great success and I would recommend it for duplication in the NHL...

I like that they use the first whistle after the 3 minute mark to change. Blowing the horn would be stupid.

Skatingpen · Post by **Skatingpen** » Thu Mar 19, 2015 8:53 pm

mikey287 wrote:
The AHL does like three minutes of 4 on 4 then four minutes of 3 on 3. Which has been a great success and I would recommend it for duplication in the NHL...

Sounds interesting

Post by **Kovy27** » Fri Mar 20, 2015 8:51 pm

So, Skatingpen...how do you think Ovi will do?

Post by **Kovy27** » Fri Mar 20, 2015 8:52 pm

mikey287 wrote:
The AHL does like three minutes of 4 on 4 then four minutes of 3 on 3. Which has been a great success and I would recommend it for duplication in the NHL...

This is what should happen or

5 minutes of 4 on 4. Horn.
3 minutes of 3 on 3. Horn.

Shoot Out.

no name · Post by **no name** » Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:35 pm

So I got to painfully sit through and hour of crap to possibly see something exciting....

But from what I read was they are considering the AHL model of 7m 4 on 4 for 3 mins after the first whistle they got to 3 on 3.

The other option GMs discussed was going straight to 3 on 3 for the full 5 minutes. Another euro league has been doing this with a lot of success.

After the NHL decides what to do, the players association will give their opinion on which one to do.

Personally I say go 3 on 3 for 5 mins. It will only take a few games for the coaches to figure out a way to ruin 3 on 3 and make it s snooze fest.

Post by **shmenguin** » Tue Mar 24, 2015 3:16 pm

i think the 7 to 3 ratio is a little off. 5 to 5 or even 5 to 3 may be better. but i imagine that the looming 3v3 is going to cause some teams to press a little more at 4v4, since they don't want to match up against sid, geno and letang on 3v3 (for instance).

i know a lot less games in the AHL are going to shoot outs. are a lot more of them resulting in 4v4 goals?

IMFC · Post by **IMFC** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 3:46 pm

The thing is, if the problem is space, and you won't make the rinks a little bigger, I say take the logical step of getting rid of offsides entirely.

The whole point of offsides is to slow things down a bit and bring some order to the game, but you're already doing that with obstruction, so there is no NEED for offsides anymore. At all. Keep icing, but open up the game vertically.

I REALLY want to watch a no offsides game and see what it's like. I think offsides is stupid and boring anyway (soccerball is the WORST - sooooo stupid - why emulate that nonsense).

mikey287 · Post by **mikey287** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 4:42 pm

In 1929, the league liberalized forward passing. Prior to this, forward passing was restricted in various ways. And therefore, offside whistles were not necessary.

Please note the scoring differences: http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/NHL_1929.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; to http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/NHL_1930.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and then a full season of offside implementation: http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/NHL_1931.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

No surprise that Boston's Art Ross understood what this meant for the game and often had players, namely, Cooney Weiland, just hang by the other team's net. An early cherry picker...

IMFC · Post by **IMFC** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 4:52 pm

Yeah, maybe you can't cross until the red line is reached? Has to be a balance there. Offsides artificially squeezes the ice, loosen it up. It's a tool not a natural law.

mikey287 · Post by **mikey287** » Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:13 pm

Would be difficult to enforce a dual-line rule from an enforcement standpoint. More so in transition situations, as linesman will be from a standing start in some instances.

no name · Post by **no name** » Fri Mar 27, 2015 7:58 am

What if on the powerplay, once you gained the blue line the offense could then control back to the center red. Making the offensive zone bigger and allowing you not having to worry everyone getting back on sides if you lost the zone (blueline) . It would allow teams to control the offensive zone longer. I mean doing during regulation.

mikey287 · Post by **mikey287** » Fri Mar 27, 2015 8:44 am

Floating blueline makes zone entries too easy and is probably too big of a disadvantage to the PK team. Half the battle on the power play is the zone entry. With a floating blueline, all you have to do is get to the "high corner" of the zone and then bank it back to a waiting point man at the center line and you're in every time basically. Just tickle the line and then bump it back 25 feet. I have little interest in adding power play scoring, if you want to do that, you can just enforce penalties more without making fundamental changes...

no name · Post by **no name** » Fri Mar 27, 2015 11:47 am

mikey287 wrote:
Floating blueline makes zone entries too easy and is probably too big of a disadvantage to the PK team. Half the battle on the power play is the zone entry. With a floating blueline, all you have to do is get to the "high corner" of the zone and then bank it back to a waiting point man at the center line and you're in every time basically. Just tickle the line and then bump it back 25 feet. I have little interest in adding power play scoring, if you want to do that, you can just enforce penalties more without making fundamental changes...

True, how about remove the center red all together and push the blue lines closer together. Making the offensive zones bigger. Might open some space for players, spreading the defenses out.

3 on 3 OT/GMs recommend

3 on 3 OT/GMs recommend

Re: 3 on 3 OT

Re: 3 on 3 OT

Re: 3 on 3 OT

Re: 3 on 3 OT

Re: 3 on 3 OT

Re: 3 on 3 OT

Re: 3 on 3 OT

Re: 3 on 3 OT

Re: 3 on 3 OT

Re: 3 on 3 OT

Re: 3 on 3 OT

Re: 3 on 3 OT

Re: 3 on 3 OT

Re: 3 on 3 OT

Re: 3 on 3 OT

Re: 3 on 3 OT

Re: 3 on 3 OT

Re: 3 on 3 OT

Re: 3 on 3 OT

Re: 3 on 3 OT

Re: 3 on 3 OT

Re: 3 on 3 OT

Re: 3 on 3 OT

Re: 3 on 3 OT