A Proposal for Changing How NHL Games End
by Carl Putnam on Feb 8, 2011 1:55 PM MST
in Features
Email
PrintComing out of the lockout the NHL made changes to the points system and added a shootout at the end of the overtime period in order to eliminate ties. While I generally applauded the moves at the time, it has become obvious that further tweaks need to be made. I propose a number of structural changes, most of which have been mentioned in hockey circles for some time now, designed to cut down on conservative play and minimize the number of games ending in a shootout. Together the proposed changes outlined below would create a sweeping overhaul of the current system. This overhaul is designed to increase the enjoyment of regular season hockey for NHL fans while minimizing any attempt to take away the team aspect of the sport.
The first change I proffer is to have only the game winners receive points no matter when the game is decided. This would make every game a two point game. This would hopefully discourage teams from playing for the OT instead of playing for the win in the last period of regular season games. Currently teams receive at least one point for getting into OT. Thus teams are playing conservative late in regulation, especially late in the season when playoff positioning comes into focus. Hawerchuck from Behind the Net put up a post on this subject several weeks ago. By teams no longer receiving at least one point if they make it into OT, my belief is that teams would try harder late in games which would make for an entertaining product.
In addition, I propose making a number of changes to the Overtime period. I would take ideas from the NHL RDO development camp held this past August and implement them in a manner that would hopefully maximize the number of games ending prior to a shootout. Teams should be forced to switch goals to necessitate a longer line change during the Overtime period. This would theoretically increase the amount of scoring chances due to the likelihood of players getting trapped on the ice in their own zone. Former NHL head coach Ken Hitchcock, who helped run the NHL RDO camp, is a proponent of such a change.
Another improvement to the Overtime period would be to increase it from five minutes to seven minutes. In addition, the Overtime would be broken up into two parts; a 4 on 4 session lasting four minutes and a 3 on 3 session lasting three minutes. The choice for time increments is purposeful. This would allow for casual fans to match the number of players on the ice with the number of minutes for each session. Adding a 3 on 3 session would likely open up the ice further and create more odd man breaks. If after the Overtime period the game has still not been decided, a shootout would take place.
While the numbers of games ending in a shootout are down this season, as of February 7th, 11.4% of games in the 2010-11 season ended in a shootout compared to 15% of game last season according to NHLShootouts, there are still too many games ending in shootouts for my taste. I'd prefer to see the number under 5%. Along with many other hockey fans, I believe shootouts turn hockey games involving them from a team competition into an individual skills contest. The shootout I suggest would be similar to the current format but with two amendments. First, the minimum number of shooters would increase from three to five. Second, the shooters would be required to be comprised of three forwards and two defensemen. This way the normal compliment of players would be involved in the outcome of a shootout. Coaches would be free to put the players in any order they wish just like they are allowed to currently. If the game is still tied after all five skaters for both teams have gone, then the current round by round rules would apply.
21 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Iiiiiiinteresting.
My thoughts on your points:
More games in regulation I agree too many games going to S/O.
Switch to opposite ends in OT I like it myself. However there is a downside: Typically it is more expensive to sit in the ‘Home attack twice’ end of the ice. Suddenly these people get gipped if it goes to O/T. (see my next point)
4v4 for 4 mins, 3v3 for 3 mins I think your on the right track, but I think make it 4 mins 4v4 and then 4 mins 3v3. Keep the times even. And maybe combine this with the end swtiching (4v4 is opposite from 3rd, 3v3 is same as 3rd and stay that way for S/O).
Also rather than the current shootout (breakaway, one shot style), why not go to a 2 on 1 (plus goalie) system, with each pair having 30 seconds to score. If the defensman gets the puck he can ice it and the attempt is over. If the goalie can cover the puck the attempt is over. Rebounds are fair game, as is going around the net. Forwards and D’s rotate.
As Featured in Sports Illustrated: http://tinyurl.com/TimmyHate
New Zealand's Number 1 Coyotes Fan - and I have the photos to prove it!
DISCLAMER: Any and all trash talk is intended in a light hearted manner. Failure to take trash talk in this manner may result in foolish anger, looking stupid or Red Wings Fandom. Do not take TimmyHate Trashtalk if you are suffering a heart condition, have had a funectomy or support a return to Winnipeg.
Oh
And the attempt starts from behind the defending goal, the 30 seconds starts from the time the first player crosses the halfway line.
As Featured in Sports Illustrated: http://tinyurl.com/TimmyHate
New Zealand's Number 1 Coyotes Fan - and I have the photos to prove it!
DISCLAMER: Any and all trash talk is intended in a light hearted manner. Failure to take trash talk in this manner may result in foolish anger, looking stupid or Red Wings Fandom. Do not take TimmyHate Trashtalk if you are suffering a heart condition, have had a funectomy or support a return to Winnipeg.
I think the ideas are interesting but are getting too "cute"...
Whats wrong with a tie? I never understood why there had to be a clear winner in every regular season game in the first place. I do like that each team gets a point for taking the game past regulation, but what if the extra point was only rewarded at the end of the 4 on 4 overtime period? This would make the overtime period more interesting since two points are still on the line, then the shootout as it is now is the deciding factor on who gets the second point. This scenario would kinda screw the Coyotes who have lost like 8 or 9 games in the overtime period before a shootout, as they would be left pointless in those games with a tally in the L column. The OTL would simply change to SOL for the extra point in the standings. The problem with 4-4 and to a higher extent 3-3 is that teams with skill players like Crosby and Ovie have a huge advantage over teams that are built more to grind it out. Open ice is like a x-mas present to those types of players, when the Coyotes are better suited to scrap in the corners and cycle which would completely go away for the most part.
Whats wrong with a tie?
Well, Bear said it best…
A tie is like kissing your sister!
It's not what you've done but what you are doing that matters.
And the roses in this grand ol' stadium are once again Crimson. - Eli Gold, CTSN Broadcast of the BCS Championship Game at the Rose Bowl, 1-7-2010
Wow, reply fail to Gildo's comment...
It's not what you've done but what you are doing that matters.
And the roses in this grand ol' stadium are once again Crimson. - Eli Gold, CTSN Broadcast of the BCS Championship Game at the Rose Bowl, 1-7-2010
by AlabamaJammer on Feb 8, 2011 5:16 PM MST up reply actions
These are some great ideas!
I’ve never been a fan of the loser-point, and it is apparent that the shootout is an arbitrary way of ending a hockey game. Love the idea of reducing the number of skaters on the ice in the overtime period. Hopefully the NHL will take a look at changing the end-game options and maybe we’ll see some new versions tested out come preseason.
The proof is in the pudding.
I'm with Team CloweCo
Ok...
Carl and I do agree on a number of things, but this is clearly not one of them although I do agree with the general premise of minimizing the importance of shootouts as a component of the standings. In my opinion, however, the problem is not the “loser point” so much as the problem is that every game is not worth the same number of points.
For those that have been following the sport from the period before the loser point, I’m sure you remember the almost unwatchable 5-on-5 overtime periods where every team played like the 1995 New Jersey Devils to preserve the tie and get the point. The loser point was the concession for moving to 4-on-4 play in order to get some games to actually end in OT as opposed to just going into the lockdown style to get the single point for a tie. And it did help, and I agree with the general concept because changing to 4-on-4 is a change in the game and you should reward a team for playing an even game for 60 minutes as opposed to a team that simply gets blown out of the water.
Despite this issue, there were still games (many games) that ended in a tie and the extra point didn’t become an issue until the introduction of the shootout when the addition of many more 3 point games led to increased effects on the standings. I’ve proposed what I think is a very viable solution to this issue in the past, but here it is again – switch to a 5 point system.
How the 5 point system would work:
-Win a game in regulation – 5 points to the winner, 0 points to the loser
-Win a game in OT – 4 points to the winner, 1 point to the loser
-Win a game in SO – 3 points to the winner, 2 points to the loser.
The primary advantages are that: (1) every game is worth the same number of points; (2) you reward teams for winning in regulation or OT as opposed to playing for the extra points; (3) you reward teams for surviving regulation tied and you reward teams for surviving OT; and (4), 5 points is a very workable number as what is now a 100 point season for a team would become a 250 point season.
I’m not even really sure what the disadvantages are to be honest other than that people are notoriously wary of change and this is a fair bit of it.
As for tweaking OT to 4-on-4 and 3-on-3, I’m meh on the whole situation. I don’t particularly like that we go to 4-on-4 because it is already a different style of game than the teams played to that point. Going to 3-on-3 seems so gimmicky to me as to be unappealing, but I understand that it would open up that game more perhaps and allow fewer games to see the SO, so I’d like to see it tried at the AHL level for a year and see what happens. I definitely think (despite the seating issues raised by folks paying more for “attacking zone” seats), they should also try going to the longer change for OT for the entire period to see what sort of effect that has.
So those are my OT/SO thoughts…sorry for the lack of brevity.
Support Coyotes Hockey - Five For Howling
(Oh, and go Philly teams as well!)
I basically agree with you, but I’m not sure why you need a five point system to carry this off. Instead, there should be a simple 3 point system:
Win in regulation: winner gets 3, loser gets 0
Win in OT/SO: winner gets 2, loser gets 1.
Literally all that changes is one additional point for a regulation win.
I blame Schultz
I think the problem is equating a SO win with an OT win. I don’t see them as being the same. OT, even 4-on-4 is more akin to a regulation win (and should be what the NHL is pushing for) while the SO is the unfortunate catch-all. Give the extra motivation to a team to try and win the game in the OT period, and make the SO more akin to a tie.
Support Coyotes Hockey - Five For Howling
(Oh, and go Philly teams as well!)
I don’t mind equating them. Neither are regulation hockey. Get through regulation tied? Get a point. “Win” after that? Get another point. Simple, clean and easy to understand.
I blame Schultz
Yeah, I can see the argument that a 3 point system is simpler, I just don’t equate a SO win and an OT win – you should get rewarded as you get through the stages of the game, in my view. Get through regulation tied, you earn a point; get through OT tied and you earn another point. I’d have to do an analysis of how teams are winning games to see how the standings would change based on the system, but my guess is you’d see the better teams higher represented…
Support Coyotes Hockey - Five For Howling
(Oh, and go Philly teams as well!)
The three point system
Is also the standard for international competitions and tournements.
As Featured in Sports Illustrated: http://tinyurl.com/TimmyHate
New Zealand's Number 1 Coyotes Fan - and I have the photos to prove it!
DISCLAMER: Any and all trash talk is intended in a light hearted manner. Failure to take trash talk in this manner may result in foolish anger, looking stupid or Red Wings Fandom. Do not take TimmyHate Trashtalk if you are suffering a heart condition, have had a funectomy or support a return to Winnipeg.
Way late on this
What about a 3 point system like this:
Regulation/OT win: 3
SO win: 2
OT/SO loss: 1
Regulation loss: 0
This is basically the 5 point system, I know, but I think people would be more resistant to a 5 point system, just because it seems like a big change. As far as I see it, a win in regulation or overtime (4v4, not 3v3) is worth full points.
Damn good coffee!
by gerriseinfeld on Feb 12, 2011 5:27 PM MST up reply actions
The only problem is that for OT games, we now have a 4 point game, whereas regulation and shootout games are worth 3 points. Regardless of whether it is a 3 or 5 point system, the first thing that needs to be addressed is getting every game to be worth the same amount. I’m personally fine with the 3 point system and just think that the 5 point works to alleviate people’s anger at the shootout as a way to decide a team game.
Support Coyotes Hockey - Five For Howling
(Oh, and go Philly teams as well!)
by Jordan Ellel on Feb 13, 2011 11:40 AM MST up reply actions
Hmmm. I definitely agree that it is a problem that so many games are ending in shootout. Jordan Ellel is totally right, though. NHL added the “1 point for regulation tie” rule in order to get teams to buy into the 4-on-4 overtime. And there is no way anyone wants to go back to that horrible 5-on-5 overtime play. If they could get teams to keep the 4-on-4 OT, while sacrificing the “each team gets a point after regulation” rule, then I would be for that. The current system does make teams play more conservatively in the 3rd.
I, too, don’t see why there needs to be a clear winner for every game. Just call a tie a tie. It all gets too complicated with these other scenarios, and I just don’t like the shootout. Oh, and I also don’t like how some teams can win 3 points but other winning teams only get 2 points. Mathematically, I mean. Any fix for that problem would be welcome. I wouldn’t mind that 5-point scale listed above. If pressed, I guess I would accept the winning team getting 2 points and a team that loses in overtime gets 1. But, I mean the winning team only gets the 1 additional point. Not 2. I just hate the math that gives some teams 3 points for winning and other teams 2 points for winning. Bah, this is just kind of a mess.
I don’t think I can be for 3-on-3. Just as someone else points out, it heavily benefits teams with talented skill players. I mean, that’s a huge benefit to a team like Pittsburgh that the Coyotes just wouldn’t have. Though, extending the overtime period by a few minutes doesn’t sound too bad.
I’d also consider the idea of changing ends for the OT period. That sounds like a potentially good idea. I’m not sure I care about relative ticket prices. If the game play is improved teams can consider changing their pricing structure to compensate.
Interesting ideas, though.
I like the ideas, but why not just go to a 3-point system like the Olympics uses for the prelim round? 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an OT/SO win, 1 point for an OT/SO loss, and 0 points for a regulation loss.
LET'S GO CAPS!!!
Interesting thoughts
To me, the ultimate goal should be to provide incentive to teams to “go for it” in regulation or, barring that, “go for it” in OT, so as to maximize the competition and entertainment value of the team portion of the game and keep the games short.
Like Elliotte above, I think this is best done with a 3:2:1 system. 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an OT/SO win, and 1 point for an OT/SO loss.
While I understand your “no loser point” stance, I think you’re forgetting that after 60 mins, the teams have essentially tied, and under a proposed 3 point system are playing for an “extra” point. I actually think that teams should be rewarded for getting through 60 mins tied – just not rewarded as much as a team that ends up winning in regulation.
As for your changes to the OT, I like the idea of having teams change ends. Otherwise, I’m not sure I like your changes. If you think the shootout is a gimmick, then what on earth is 3 v 3 hockey? At least something like a shootout occurs during actual gameplay. I’ve been watching hockey for almost 30 years now, and I can’t recall seeing 3 v 3 hockey more than once or twice (and it was back in the day watching early 80s WHL line-brawl fests).
In addition, the 4 mins 4 v 4, then 3 mins 3 v 3. . . sounds neat in theory, but the implementation would be wonky. Think back to the Winter Classic – in the third period, the Caps were pressing on the forecheck then. . . TWEET. . . play stopped to switch ends. I can just imagine sitting at the game with a casual fan and them asking, “whoa, what just happened – why did the play stop?” One of the great things about hockey is the flow of the game; leave such arbitrary whistles where they belong – in the NFL.
Anyhow, to sum up:
3 Points for Regulation Win
2 Points for OT/SO Win
1 Point for OT/SO Loss
0 Points for Regulation Loss
10 Mins of 4 v 4 Overtime, played with the alignment of the 2nd Period (defended goals at opposite ends from benches)
Shootout
This gets rid of games that have more points than others, while providing incentives to end the game in regulation and, by increasing the duration of OT and shifting the goals, would also decrease the number of games that end in shootouts.
I blame Schultz
by D'ohboy on Feb 9, 2011 8:52 AM MST reply actions 3 recs
This
Is my favorite so far. As it was said earlier, it’s the simplest and most effective way without having to totally reconstruct the format. The only addition I’d have to this is to extend the OT period to 10:00 minutes. Stretching the period out an additional five minutes will make teams cycle through their lines more, making for an all-around better team effort rather than just sporting the top lines.
Wear your own fur.
by Marc Fournier on Feb 9, 2011 11:40 AM MST up reply actions
Crap.
D’ohboy suggested that the OT period be 10:00 minutes too. We’re on the same page already. :-)
Wear your own fur.
by Marc Fournier on Feb 9, 2011 11:41 AM MST up reply actions
Only bad thing I see with this 3-2-1 concept is I am sure the NHLPA would not go for expanding ice time in a OT period like that. It would probably have to be approved by them in a majority before it is implemented. Plus, most games now fit neatly into about 150 minutes of TV time, we’d go back to the 180 minute time blocks again that the NHL worked to “speed up the game” for Television back in the late 1990’s or so.
The only thing that went through my demented mind in this thread was – if you are going to do a ten minute overtime, you could also go to a four 15 minute period with one 20 minute intermission per game, followed by an intermission {like a five minute one or so} before the OT starts. That would help keep that 150 minute running time as you would shave off about 20 minutes from the total length of the game – but that logical idea is just too radical.
I do like the 3-2-1 point idea however. Just remember TV rules the roost when it comes to change.
It's always a great day or night for hockey - no matter the time or place!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Coyotes Schedule
Next 5 Games
Los Angeles
|
Tue 05/22 | 6:00 PM MST |
|
@
Los Angeles
|
Thu 05/24 | TBA |
|
Los Angeles
|
Sat 05/26 | TBA |
Last 5 Games
|
@
Los Angeles
|
Sun 05/20 | W 2 - 0 |
|
@
Los Angeles
|
Thu 05/17 | L 1 - 2 |
|
Los Angeles
|
Tue 05/15 | L 0 - 4 |
|
Los Angeles
|
Sun 05/13 | L 2 - 4 |
|
Nashville
|
Fri 05/11 | TBA |
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Marek Vs. Wyshynski Radio: Liam McHugh of NBC; Chesnokov on Russian gold; Game 4 preview
- From coach throwing to fan celebrations, Russia seems fairly pleased with gold at IIHF Worlds (VIDEO)
- Jacob Josefson in, Petr Sykora out; can Josefson help Devils solve Henrik Lundqvist?
- What We Learned: Embarrassing LA sports media moments while covering Kings playoff run
- Why can’t Rangers and Devils fans just say something nice about their rivals? (PUCK DADDY MINI-DOC)
