A Case for Full Overtime In The NHL
by dawgbone98 on Jan 5, 2012 6:30 AM MST
in Opinion
Email
PrintEvery NHL season, the discussion inevitably heads towards how the NHL handles and awards points for games tied after regulation. Currently, the NHL awards each team a single point if they are tied after regulation. The NHL also awards a bonus point to the team that is able to score in OT, or win the shootout.
There have been 2 major rule changes in the past 15 years. Prior to the 1999-2000 season, teams were awarded 2 points for a win or a single point for a game tied after 60 minutes of regulation and a 5 minute OT. Starting in 1999-2000, a single point was awarded for a regulation tie, which is when 2 teams tied after 60 minutes. An additional point was awarded to a team if they were able to score in the 5 minute OT.
The reason this rule was implemented was because of the changes to the way coaches coached the game in the infamous "Dead Puck Era". The NHL went from 21 teams in 1992 to 27 teams in 1999, which meant that instead of 76% of teams making the playoffs it was 59%. Points became even more valuable and coaches were coaching to keep guaranteed points and not push for more. What ended up happening was games became basically unwatchable in the last 10 minutes of the 3rd period in tie games. Further to that, OT often involved 2 teams playing dump and chase with no pressure in order to preserve their single point.
In an attempt to open up the game more (especially in OT), the NHL decided to award the tie after 60 minutes. That rule stayed in place until the 2005-2006 season when the NHL also adopted the shootout and got rid of tie games completely.
This most recent change has led to questions about whether the NHL should change their method of awarding points. There seems to be an issue with the fact that some games are worth 3 points and other games are worth 2.
Personally, if the NHL decides that the shootout is here to stay and won’t consider any alternatives, then I actually prefer the current system over alternatives like 3 points for a regulation win and 2 for an OT/SO win, 1 for an OT/SO loss and 0 for a regulation loss. Instead of arguing that, I’d rather focus on a different alternative: play until you win like you do in the playoffs.
The reason why this is ultimately the better system is because it takes the skill competition aspect out of awarding wins, much like the playoffs do.
One of the big arguments against this is that the Networks won’t want to deal with all sorts of double and triple OT games, or just games lasting longer in general.
Based on playoff results since the lockout, that may not actually be a problem. Since 2005-06, there have been 511 NHL playoff games. Out of those 511 games, 46 games took longer than 10 minutes of OT to decide a winner. 24 of those 511 games took more than 1 OT period to decide a winner. The average length of a playoff OT is 13:06.
Keep in mind, playoff overtime is 5 on 5 from start to finish. Regular season OT can be straight 4 on 4 from the beginning, or even play 5 on 5 for the first 10 minutes and then move to 4 on 4. This should eliminate a good portion of those games that last longer than 10 minutes. Another factor that could help reduce the length of OT is the quality of competition. In the playoffs, it is usually the best 13-16 teams in the NHL playing against each other and the competition only increases as the playoffs progress. During the regular season, the competition will be a lot more varied.
A final factor that may help is that playoff hockey is often a lot more live or die. In game 45 of the regular season in the midst of 3 games in 4 nights, a team may take more risks to try and end the game earlier on in OT or may press harder in the 3rd with a 1 goal lead.
Overall, the concern that there is going to be a plethora of long OT’s that run into the wee hours of morning that make the networks pull out their hair is much greater than what will most likely happen. In the end, the game in the regular season will more closely mirror the playoffs, which only makes sense.
82 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Good article, and those are very interesting numbers concerning how long OT playoff games go! I don’t know if I’m convinced of the desirability of indefinite regular-season overtime, but you make an interesting case.
To add a minor historical note to what you wrote, the NHL had 10-minute overtime periods for regular season games up until World War II, when fuel rationing caused regular season overtime to be abolished completely. Teams that lost in extra time received no points. For some reason, regular season overtime was not reintroduced until 83-84, when the 5-minute period was brought in.
I like this idea, I had no clue the number of multiple-OT playoff games was so low (less than 5%!)
One more thing the NHL could do to prevent games going to multiple overtimes would be implement the long line change during OT.
No soup for you!
And that 13:06 average ice time is heavily impacted by 6 or so games out of the 511 that went over 40 minutes, including one that played 69:03 and another that went 78:06.
Those 2 games alone add nearly 1:30 to that 13:06.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Tactical contributor to the Copper & Blue and just as boring on the twitters... @dawgbone98
Same here. Confirmation bias is awesome.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
I was aware that there weren’t many, but it’s still a little startling to see it as a number. Then again, I can really only think of three triple-OT games since the lockout (EDM-SJS in ‘06, VAN-DAL in ’07, SJS-DAL in ’09), though I see from Dawgbone’s note above that there have actually been six.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Robertson's Rants - Exceedingly occasional, lengthy ramblings on hockey topics, hosted at Puck Podcast. And no, my name's not Doug.
I’ve said this for so long that I forget when I started saying it. Great article.
Editor of The Copper & Blue, and leader of The Cult Of Hartikainen.
Great post, interesting numbers on now long overtime games go, it certainly feels like there are more than that.
I wonder if there may be an issue with teams that are travelling right after the game for a back to back in another city (or country). I assume all teams use charters but I think sometimes they have to leave immediately after the game to go through customs before they close for the night. That being said, drop it to 3 on 3 after 10 minutes and let them go at it.
The point about sports networks not liking long overtimes is particularly odd because they all deal with it for baseball.
The biggest fanana of the Havana Bananas.
by Scott Reynolds on Jan 4, 2012 7:41 PM MST reply actions 1 recs
Networks...
Might actually prefer longer overtimes. Live games are a bigger draw than other sports network content, meaning possible additional advertising revenues, not less.
I mean really, wouldn’t you rather watch the Flames duke it out in double overtime knowing they have another road game the next night rather than listen to Kypreos and MacLean perform their neanderthal show?
Wait...
But then you’d have to listen to Roger Millions. Never mind, neither are enticing viewing options.
by John Chambers on Jan 4, 2012 8:25 PM MST up reply actions
And Simmer.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Robertson's Rants - Exceedingly occasional, lengthy ramblings on hockey topics, hosted at Puck Podcast. And no, my name's not Doug.
A.O.N
Great article Dawgbone, the present system is inefficient and needs to be changed. Personally, I prefer All Or None…no ties so no points for losing. If the networks don’t like it then simply play one period or 10 minutes of 4 on 4 OT and then a shootout but it’s winner take all…I like unlimited overtime but our smarmy Commissioner won’t advance that cause and since he’s already pissed off ESPN once I doubt he’ll broach the subject.
Good work to get those stats..whoda thunk that most OT games rarely went over one period (<5%)?
by Otiepitotie on Jan 4, 2012 8:54 PM MST reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, the current system is the worst, because there’s an incentive to play for the tie, but no incentive to settle things in regulation to balance it out. I’d take either the three-point system or a baseball-style W-L solution; I’m really not married to either idea, other than the fact that they’re both less fucked than what exists now.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Robertson's Rants - Exceedingly occasional, lengthy ramblings on hockey topics, hosted at Puck Podcast. And no, my name's not Doug.
by Doogie2K on Jan 4, 2012 11:56 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
Good work to get those stats..whoda thunk that most OT games rarely went over one period (<5%)?
You’re reading it wrong. It’s not 5% of OT games that go over one period of OT, it’s 5% of all games. Not sure what percentage of OT games make it to a 2nd OT because dawgbone didn’t mention how many of the 511 playoff games were tied after 60 minutes.
Nice idea in theory, but it’s a non-starter for travel reasons. A team playing the first game of back-to-backs could be completely hooped if that game went on into the wee hours. Not just for competitive reasons, but actually getting to the city where they play the second night.
I say save long OTs for the playoffs where they equally affect both teams and there is nearly always an off-day between games. But fix the current regular season methodologym which is badly broken.
Oilers fan through thick, thin and anorexic. Writer for The Cult of Hockey.
by Bruce McCurdy on Jan 4, 2012 11:59 PM MST up reply actions 2 recs
Definately agree with Bruce’s comments on this
by southampton viking on Jan 5, 2012 12:18 AM MST up reply actions
I have the exact number at home, but it’s roughly 21-23% of all playoff games. 113 jumps to mind for some reason.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Tactical contributor to the Copper & Blue and just as boring on the twitters... @dawgbone98
Thanks Bruce
I did read that wrong…my point is the one point for losing…makes no sense to me…I don’t believe extended overtime is fair for B2B scheduled games so that’s a non starter…but as we know, near season’s end it is easier for teams in a playoff position to play for one point to hold that position thereby making it virtually impossible for a team finishing strong to make a legitimate run for the playoff…from back in the pack…although not really a parallel, would the St.Louis Cards have been able to make it to the World Series if there was an award to teams going to extra innings and still losing? (Or the Packers?)
I don’t think the travel would be an issue. Again, all of the baseball teams do this without a problem and they play almost every day. If they can manage that without travel becoming a problem, why couldn’t hockey players? Having said that, if this becomes an incentive to reduce the number of times that teams play back-to-back games, I’d consider that a feature rather than a bug.
The biggest fanana of the Havana Bananas.
by Scott Reynolds on Jan 5, 2012 9:57 AM MST up reply actions 1 recs
My problem with winner take all shootouts is that it sets it up to happen in the playoffs, and I’ll pretty much quit watching the NHL if they did that.
I don’t mind the shootout in the regular season, but I love how the playoffs currently work.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Tactical contributor to the Copper & Blue and just as boring on the twitters... @dawgbone98
They play Real Hockey™ in the playoffs.
I have a problem with winner-take-all shootouts in the regular season, which is why I support the 3-2-1-0 system that has long since been adopted by the saner minds running the IIHF and European leagues. A win in the shootout beats a loss in the shootout, but it has less value than a clear win in regulation.
Oilers fan through thick, thin and anorexic. Writer for The Cult of Hockey.
by Bruce McCurdy on Jan 5, 2012 9:16 AM MST up reply actions 1 recs
My problem with the 3-2-1-0 system is that it’s unnecessary over an 82 game season. My next planned article is about how little impact the 3-2-1-0 would actually have over the standings since the lockout.
If there were specific teams that were continually using the SO and OT year after year, then the 3-2-1-0 might be required, but ultimately it just represents noise.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Tactical contributor to the Copper & Blue and just as boring on the twitters... @dawgbone98
I wouldn’t bother with that article unless you are going to try to account for the different incentives around 3pt regulation wins. Teams will change 3rd period behaviour. Just converting current system results to a different point system will not capture that.
by RiversQ on Jan 5, 2012 10:39 AM MST via mobile up reply actions 4 recs
Agreed. I the current system was adopted to fix the “Dead Puck Era” while ‘breaking’ other aspects. We want teams to score more and keep the pedal down late into the game.
If a win in reg is worth more than anything else, the end of games will be more focused on winning.
At the same time, with the 3-point system, if the game is still tied after regulation there is still motivation to go for the win.
If the biggest problem with the 3-2-1-0 system is the fourth column on the standings sheet then I don’t think there is a problem at all, it’s not like this would be entirely new to people as it wasn’t pulled out of Bettman’s ass as a band-aid fix, this works in Europe.
by Joe Girth on Jan 5, 2012 11:13 AM MST up reply actions 1 recs
Based on what?
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Tactical contributor to the Copper & Blue and just as boring on the twitters... @dawgbone98
Didn’t you just mention incentives in the dead puck era leading to teams playing for the tie near the end of the third?
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.
by red army line on Jan 5, 2012 2:24 PM MST via Android app up reply actions
Yes.
My question is what evidence is there that teams will play differently?
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Tactical contributor to the Copper & Blue and just as boring on the twitters... @dawgbone98
…?
How is this even a question? Would you willingly play for the tie if it meant giving up a point in a tight playoff race? This seems to me beyond obvious. Teams will play to maximize their point totals. If they need that third point – and they almost always do – they’ll play for it.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Robertson's Rants - Exceedingly occasional, lengthy ramblings on hockey topics, hosted at Puck Podcast. And no, my name's not Doug.
I think it’s a pretty legitimate question to be honest.
Would I sacrifice 1 point for the chance at 3? In October probably not. In March in the middle of a playoff hunt, possibly.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Tactical contributor to the Copper & Blue and just as boring on the twitters... @dawgbone98
Maybe. Certainly, the rise in OT/SO games in the back half of the season would support this assertion.
Still, I’d consider that a net win. Having more crazy third periods in the latter half of the season, when more people are paying attention, would have to be considered a good thing, no?
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Robertson's Rants - Exceedingly occasional, lengthy ramblings on hockey topics, hosted at Puck Podcast. And no, my name's not Doug.
by Doogie2K on Jan 6, 2012 10:39 AM MST up reply actions 1 recs
But again, if you look at the soccer stuff posted below, the 3 point game has actually resulted in less less shots, chances and goals.
Again this rule has to be in place that works from games 1-82, not just 65-82.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Tactical contributor to the Copper & Blue and just as boring on the twitters... @dawgbone98
Again this rule has to be in place that works from games 1-82, not just 65-82.
That would be the ideal but the only way I can see that happening is in the winner-take-all system, can you actually see the NHL ever going to that? I can’t.
To me the points systems available are W-L > 3-2-1-0 >>> Bettman Point and we’ll most likely never see the W-L NHL.
The number of overtime and shootout games having increased rapidly?
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.
by red army line on Jan 6, 2012 6:21 AM MST via Android app up reply actions
You are arguing something else here.
Rivers said this:
I wouldn’t bother with that article unless you are going to try to account for the different incentives around 3pt regulation wins. Teams will change 3rd period behaviour.
I said based on what to that.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Tactical contributor to the Copper & Blue and just as boring on the twitters... @dawgbone98
Based on simple game theory. When they came out with the Bettman point I immediately and accurately predicted there would be a huge boost in regulation ties due to the stupid way in which they punish losers in regulation incommensurately with how they reward winners in regulation. The first imperative is, “don’t lose”.
Sure enough ,since Bettman Point came in, the percentage of games tied after regulation has soared, I think the ten highest such numbers in history have been the last ten years, or something extremely close to that. It’s a natural result of a fucked up system.
Bettman promised no more ties, and while there are no more tie results, there are more tie games than ever, and it’s not close.
Oilers fan through thick, thin and anorexic. Writer for The Cult of Hockey.
by Bruce McCurdy on Jan 6, 2012 7:27 PM MST up reply actions
See also
…from the Copper & Blue archives:
Another day, another Bettman Point
…and…
What is the value of a game-tying goal?
Oilers fan through thick, thin and anorexic. Writer for The Cult of Hockey.
by Bruce McCurdy on Jan 6, 2012 7:50 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
Another day, another Bettman Point
Those are both fantastic reads Bruce!
That first one adds another level to the math I’ve been looking at w r t the 3-2-1-0 system and I’m now more for it than ever.
BTW I don’t know if anyone’s still reading this thread so I really think you should update and re-post that article.
I’d be all for OT to end games if they did it 4 on 4 to start and drop it to 3 on 3 until someone finally scores. Make them 10 min periods not 20.
you can’t flood every 10 minutes though.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Tactical contributor to the Copper & Blue and just as boring on the twitters... @dawgbone98
A full OT in Regular Season would be harsh on players. I am not against the SO either. It just needs to be awarded correctly.
Here what I would do:
Regular Win – 5 points
Regular Loss – 0 points
OT Win – 4 points
OT Loss – 1 point
SO Win – 3 points
SO Loss – 2 points
I really like that playoff games are different than regular season’s.
P.S.: In order to avoid a team with a (10-6-3-9-2-4) record, I would suggest to write it (19-15), consider 3 points for each win and 0 point for each loss, and give bonus points:
2-point bonus: Regular win or SO loss
1-point bonus: OT win or OT loss
No one is going to be able to follow those records.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Tactical contributor to the Copper & Blue and just as boring on the twitters... @dawgbone98
Actually, it would not be that hard...
It would be like this:
Team – GP – W – L – Pts – B2 – B1 – GF – GA – Diff
It’s the same number of colums as today, with B2 (two-point bonuses) and B1 (one-point bonuses) replacing OT and the uncomprehensible ROW (Regulation plus Overtime Wins).
ROW is uncomprehensible but this system isn’t?
Right now, it’s easy to see how many points you have. (Wins x 2) + (SOL x 1). If you have 5 games, you can get a maximum of 10 points if you win all 5 games. Under this system you can get between 15 and 25. Who is going to want to follow all that?
Not only that, but you aren’t encouraging games to be settled before a shootout.
If you are tied 2-2 in the last couple of minutes in the 3rd are you going to sacrifice your guaranteed single point? Of course not, teams don’t do that now. As you go through OT are you going to sacrifice your guaranteed 2 points?
The rare case is later on in the season when teams are desperate for points, but you can’t create an OT system for just certain parts of the year.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Tactical contributor to the Copper & Blue and just as boring on the twitters... @dawgbone98
Agreed, this system is far too complicated and does not help to end games sooner.
If you are tied 2-2 in the last couple of minutes in the 3rd are you going to sacrifice your guaranteed single point?
I think this is why the 3-point system would help, as you would have to give up your chance at 3 points to take the guaranteed 1 while the other team may be trying harder to get the 3 than they would have tried for 2 in reg.
At what point in the season though?
Sure, when it comes down to crunch time a team fighting for a playoff spot (especially the one chasing) will try and win in regulation.
For the majority of the time though, teams are not going to be willing to sacrifice a point. That’s why we got into this mess in the first place, teams weren’t willing to sacrifice a point to try for more.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Tactical contributor to the Copper & Blue and just as boring on the twitters... @dawgbone98
Dawg, I do not want to go deeper in the discussion
Although, I have some arguments in my sleeves… :-)
Instead, I will propose something different:
Regulation win – 3 points
OT win – 2 points
SO win – 1 point
Any loss – 0 point
In this case, there is no guaranteed point (your main concern), and there is no risk for regular season games to go forever (my main concern).
In order to be fair, tiebreakers could begin with: (a) SO losses; and (b) OT losses.
My argument was that games won’t go on forever though, especially if OT is 4 on 4.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Tactical contributor to the Copper & Blue and just as boring on the twitters... @dawgbone98
Who said we ever got out of that mess?
You will likely never get to a point where all teams always go for the win unless you play endless OT, winner-take-all games all year and I just can’t see that ever happening in this league.
This is how I’ve been looking at the numbers in regards to game values; each game is worth 2 or 3 points, the third is only available in OT(bullshit!), so we have done nothing to help the 2-2 tie in the 3rd period because teams are still faced with a situation where they would sacrifice 1 point to get 1 more, a point that is still available to them if they go to OT.
In the 3 point system you would have to weigh the 1 point against 2 more available only in regulation. Yes you could go for the 1 ‘freebie’ but then there is only 1 extra point in OT, thus there is finally incentive (not as much as winner-take-all but much more than current) to actually play the third period tied or only up one.
Before I really start to ramble here’s one more thing to consider.
Available league standings points per year:
W-L-T system = 2460 or 82 points per team
W-L-SOL system = 2748 or 91.6 points per team (this is an average of the last 4 years)
3-2-1-0 system = 3690 or 123 points per team (notice the weird coincidence?)
The reason I point to these numbers is that when games are worth ~2.23 points each, that 1 ‘safe point’ is ~45% of the available. When they’re worth exactly 3 point per game, that same 1 ‘safe point’ is only worth 33%. I think that is enough to at least change the weight that people give 1 point.
Teams are still faced with a situation where they would sacrifice 1 point to get 1 more, a point that is still available to them if they go to OT.
Looking at this the way I wrote it here, I’m inclined to believe the current system may have made the 3rd period worse instead of better. It also leads me to believe the instances of overtime may reduce even further if you were to take away the Bettman Bonus Point and go with a winner-take-all or 3 point system.
But we go back to soccer.
How has the 3 point game impacted soccer? Everyone trots it out, but what are the actual results of it?
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Tactical contributor to the Copper & Blue and just as boring on the twitters... @dawgbone98
I don’t follow soccer so there is not much a can say beyond a casual observers impression that it is a significantly lower scoring sport where you don’t regularly have substantial bursts of scoring or as many lead changes. Without breaking down the stats to see how the trends in Soccer compare to Hockey with the score tied or close late in games I just can’t see enough of a correlation between the two sports because they are different in a lot of ways.
I lived the change, and it was for the better. Although, not to make the game more attack-oriented; but it made wins more important and ties are felt like losses.
The change began in England, many years after, FIFA adopted for its competitions. The rest of the world came along. Nowadays, everybody is used to it to tell the difference, but teams really play for the win, even those with a more defensive approach.
Points are worth the same in October as they are in March.
For the majority of the time though, teams are not going to be willing to sacrifice a point. That’s why we got into this mess in the first place, teams weren’t willing to sacrifice a point to try for more.
You think teams would be willing to guarantee the loss of one point to guarantee the gain of one? That seems to me unlikely. Right now, you give up nothing to gain the guaranteed OT point; if you had to give up a RW point, I think the incentives would change.
SNN Sports - A theoretical Oilers blog (i.e. theoretically, I write stuff there). Link now 100% less broken.
Robertson's Rants - Exceedingly occasional, lengthy ramblings on hockey topics, hosted at Puck Podcast. And no, my name's not Doug.
by Doogie2K on Jan 5, 2012 6:05 PM MST up reply actions 1 recs
Points are worth the same in October and March, but teams don’t play the same.
If it’s game 82 of the regular season, do you consider pulling your goalie in OT with a PP if your team needs to win to make the playoffs? You might, especially depending on your teams record in the shootout.
You wouldn’t even consider this in October.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Tactical contributor to the Copper & Blue and just as boring on the twitters... @dawgbone98
ALL season. There would be incentive to win in regulation. To play conservatively to “guarantee” your point for reaching OT would also Guarantee that you would lose at least one point. Same economies that used to face teams playing in the old W-L-T system.
Whereas under the Bettman Have-Your-Cake-And-Eat-It-Too system you can guarantee your one point by reaching OT, then go for a win that is rewarded the same as if you won in regulation.
Thus I go back to the same drum I’ve been beating all along, the risk-reward system is unbalanced, in favour of LESS risk. A 3-2-1-0 system would serve to balance it.
Oilers fan through thick, thin and anorexic. Writer for The Cult of Hockey.
by Bruce McCurdy on Jan 6, 2012 7:59 PM MST up reply actions
Personally, I think a 82 game regular season is quite long enough without adding endless OT to the mix. Tiredness increases injury, and I would want as many of my players fit for the play-offs as possible.
by edwards_daddy on Jan 5, 2012 3:08 AM MST via mobile reply actions
The point of the article is that you aren’t going to see much, if any, increase in time played.
Not only that, but you’ve got a 23 man roster, 21 of whom are skaters. Maybe (like the playoffs do), it prevents teams from dressing a goon to play 4 minutes and instead finds actual hockey players who can contribute 10 minutes per night, preventing you from having to ride your top guys for 25 minutes during OT games.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Tactical contributor to the Copper & Blue and just as boring on the twitters... @dawgbone98
by dawgbone98 on Jan 5, 2012 7:18 AM MST up reply actions 1 recs
I don’t think play-until-you-win makes sense. The season’s long enough as it is, some teams could end up playing a tonne of extra minutes by season’s end.
They need to get rid of the Shootout / Skills competition deciding games though. I’d like to see a 10-minute OT played 4-on-4. Winner gets 2 points, loser gets 1, or both teams get 1 if there’s a tie. An extra 5 minutes of 4-on-4 hockey is a lot more exciting than a shootout, and would take about the same amount of time.
That's "Da-ooo". I killed a turkey once, with a shovel.
10 minutes of OT would solve about 95% of all games anyway, why not just finish of the remaining 5% by continuing to play?
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Tactical contributor to the Copper & Blue and just as boring on the twitters... @dawgbone98
by dawgbone98 on Jan 5, 2012 10:12 AM MST up reply actions 1 recs
I think Gabe said that if 4 on 4 OT lasted 10 minutes, based on 4 on 4 scoring rates, only about 5% of OT games would go to a shootout. To me, that’s the ideal option. If you made it a one period, 20 minute 4 on 4 OT, I can’t imagine ever seeing a shootout. At that point, they’d become really exciting if they did occur. I know this is what the IIHF does currently for gold medal games only, and I don’t remember a gold medal game that goes to a shootout since the 20 minute OT period became 4 on 4.
That said, as a purist (I’m still all for ties), I have a hard time valuing 4 on 4 play the same as 5 on 5 play. To me, a regulation win should be worth more. Perhaps at that point we can use regulation wins as the first tiebreaker like the current ROW tiebreaker method which doesn’t value shootout wins as the same. So we’d have a simple W-L record but a third column of regulation wins tracked for tiebreakers only.
Puck Worlds: Chasing Pucks from here to Turku.
For Twitter Updates on Puck Worlds, follow @puckworlds. For updates plus additional witty banter from yours truly, follow @saskhab.
by Bruce Peter on Jan 5, 2012 8:14 AM MST reply actions 1 recs
Just out of curiosity – under the current regular season system, what percentage of OT games make it to a shootout?
I wish I had better numbers for you but after a quick bit of googling, I think it’s somewhere close to 2/3 of OT games go to a shootout.
I’ve read that 23% of all games go to OT, and 15% of all games are decided in a shootout.
Shootout decides the winner in 15% of all games.
OT decides the winner in 8% of all games.
Therefore, almost 2 out of every 3 OT games are decided by the shootout.
No soup for you!
I really definitely don’t like the current system. You could replace the shoot out with three pulls on a one-armed bandit and the points distribution is appalling.
I have no problem with ties but I like the idea or rewarding teams that try to win so I like soccer’s approach.
If you have to decide every game the I don’t see anything wrong with full OT periods of 4on4. I don’t agree with Bruce’s argument about travel because baseball can do it, the EC has zero problem with travel anyway and the schedule can be massaged a little anyway. Heck, if you have a game the next night you can pull your goalie.
by RiversQ on Jan 5, 2012 10:37 AM MST via mobile reply actions 2 recs
I don’t think Soccer plays to win anymore than NHL teams do to be honest.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Tactical contributor to the Copper & Blue and just as boring on the twitters... @dawgbone98
No, I think they do. There are a lot of reasons why there are a lot of draws in soccer. A major one is that the game is more low scoring.
Anyway, here is a link to a paper than compared Bundesliga results before and after the rule change to their cup competition (DFB-Pokal) in which winners must be determined each game.
http://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/25576/1/572177976.PDF
They did reduce the number of draws. The lit review at the beginning of the paper is interesting too.
by RiversQ on Jan 5, 2012 6:27 PM MST via iPhone app up reply actions
How much emphasis should we place on Cup competition when vs league play? Should results in Cup competition even matter?
From that study, they went from 29.93% of all league games ending in ties to 25.72%.
The NHL currently has roughly 24% of all games ending in a tie (or 20/team over the course of a season).
How much impact do you expect the 3 point win to have on NHL teams in terms of reducing ties? Instead of 24% we have what, 20%? 19%?
We’re looking at 3-4 less ties per team (from 20 to 16) over the course of an 82 game season. Does that matter?
What about the other things that study (and this one http://www.garicano.com/index_files/GPH11.pdf), that actually shows a decrease in both shot attempts and goals since the 3 point system was implemented?
How about the fact that FIFA is actually looking at changing the 3 points for a win format? http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/jan/05/sepp-blatter-2014-points-system
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Tactical contributor to the Copper & Blue and just as boring on the twitters... @dawgbone98
I’m sure you can question the methodology of their approach, but it is an interesting one. I do think they traded some of the problems with other studies for their own issues with cup competitions. Regardless, this study and others point to changing standings incentives resulting in changed teams’ behaviour as I argued above. Furthermore, the approach does reduce the number of ties. How much is enough? Is 1/5th or 1/6th reduction enough? Personally I don’t care about completely eliminating ties.
In my mind, the point is just to prevent teams from mutual passive play. If a tie results anyway, so be it. If one team wants to pack it in and weather the storm and succeeds on getting the draw, again so be it.
As I said above, I do like your approach of 20 min of sudden death 4on4 if ties are considered unacceptable. As mentioned by someone else, even 10min of 4on4 might do the trick.
by RiversQ on Jan 6, 2012 3:26 PM MST via iPhone app up reply actions
I think the travel concerns are definitely valid. The difference for baseball is that they are usually playing in the same city the next day (or there is often a travel day between cities) and they rarely have to cross the border. I know that US customs has set hours and if you come after they leave you are not making your flight. No doubt teams could travel on game day but I don’t think the NHL wants to deal with that.
But again, if you play 4 on 4 OT there’s a very slim chance that this will ever be a factor.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Tactical contributor to the Copper & Blue and just as boring on the twitters... @dawgbone98
The final game of the majority of baseball series are afternoon games (known as “getaway day”. If that last game goes long, it crimps their style, but it’s not likely they’re gonna be flying at 3 or 4 in the morning.
Oilers fan through thick, thin and anorexic. Writer for The Cult of Hockey.
by Bruce McCurdy on Jan 6, 2012 8:10 PM MST up reply actions
In league competitions where 3 points are awarded for a win teams, especially good ones, are very aggressive at going for the win. There is no question that 3 points for a win has transformed the strategy that teams take.
by Captain Obvious II on Jan 5, 2012 1:28 PM MST reply actions
Are they aggressive at going for the win or are they just that much better than their competition, which is generally the case in most European soccer leagues?
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Tactical contributor to the Copper & Blue and just as boring on the twitters... @dawgbone98
If they wanted, they could tie games essentially at will, right?
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.
by red army line on Jan 5, 2012 2:27 PM MST via Android app up reply actions
which is why those teams generally have more ties than losses.
In theory, there is little difference between practice and theory, but in practice there is!
Tactical contributor to the Copper & Blue and just as boring on the twitters... @dawgbone98
I am 100.0% convinced that teams would be more aggressive in going for the regulation win if there was an actual reward for doing so. It’s simple game theory.
Oilers fan through thick, thin and anorexic. Writer for The Cult of Hockey.
by Bruce McCurdy on Jan 6, 2012 8:12 PM MST up reply actions
Aren't games shorter than before the lockout?
Networks won’t want to deal with … games lasting longer in general.
Don’t games now generally take less time than before the lockout anyway? Or at least since the 90s? I can’t find a study, but I seem to recall the odd 7pm ET HNIC game running late and CBC having to cut to the 10pm game in progress, which seldom (never?) happens now.
by LastMinuteOfPlay on Jan 6, 2012 8:33 PM MST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on The Copper & Blue
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Oilers Schedule
Last 5 Games
@
Vancouver
|
Sat 04/07 | L 0 - 3 |
|
Anaheim
|
Thu 04/05 | OT - L 2 - 3 |
|
@
Los Angeles
|
Mon 04/02 | L 0 - 2 |
|
@
Anaheim
|
Sun 04/01 | W 2 - 1 |
|
Los Angeles
|
Fri 03/30 | L 1 - 4 |
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Friday’s Three Stars: Devils head to Final; Brodeur, Kovalchuk the difference in Game 6
- Devils eliminate Rangers in Game 6, ending fear of the past, setting course for the future
- Adam Henrique sends New Jersey Devils to Stanley Cup Final with OT goal vs. Rangers (VIDEO)
- Watch Ilya Kovalchuk’s Game 6 goal for Devils, a.k.a. power-play porn (VIDEO)
- Devils look to eliminate Rangers in Game 6; Hal Gill’s broken tibia (Playoff Puck Previews)
Latest stories and headlines from NHL.com
- Blues CEO Mike McCarthy stepping down
- Blues CEO Mike McCarthy stepping down, not long after ownership change
- Rangers eliminated by Devils with crushing OT loss after another rally in Game 6 falls short
- Rangers season ends as another rally falls short
- Hard-skating Cataractes upset set defending champ Saint John 7-4 at Memorial Cup
