Ongoing NHL thread - Part deux

[sabresfaninthesouth]

AHL has already gone on the record to state that the OT rule in place for them has cut down on the number of times the shootout has occurred. I wouldn't be surprised to see this format cut down on the number of shootouts in the NHL next year.

Right. What I mean though is that they're seeing a big decrease this year in the number of games that get past the OT, but I wouldn't be surprised if next year the percentage going to the SO is a bit higher. And if it's a bit higher still the year after that.

Once teams get more familiar with the situation, the coaches will devise and practice a system for playing 3 on 3 and the numbers may start to equalize again.

I'm not opposed to trying it (well, I am, but that's only because I want 5 v 5 and ties to come back, but knowing that's a pipe dream...), but I wonder if it will work long term.

 

[Mandoli]

shootouts dont have to dissapear entirely. I just want to make sure they make it as difficult as possible to limit them if they intend to keep them. 3 on 3 is such a great start. I imagine it goes to 4 on 3 for a PP though

I understand that they're not going to go away completely (and as much as I wish they would, some games this season have proved that a good game needs it). Everything you said is what I intended to say.

 

[Cobiemonster]

shootouts dont have to dissapear entirely. I just want to make sure they make it as difficult as possible to limit them if they intend to keep them. 3 on 3 is such a great start. I imagine it goes to 4 on 3 for a PP though

This!

Shootouts will always have a place in the game and there have been some really good shootouts, they just want the games to be decided more in OT - it will also encourage teams to play more aggressive

 

[Bloody Brian Burke]

This!

Shootouts will always have a place in the game and there have been some really good shootouts, they just want the games to be decided more in OT - it will also encourage teams to play more aggressive

With any luck, it'll be the history books.

 

[tducey]

Meh, the shootout has grown on me the past few years but if it where to go I wouldn't miss it.

 

[IndyAndy]

So is the 3 on 3 instead of the 4 on 4 or AFTER it?

 

[DragonfromTO]

So is the 3 on 3 instead of the 4 on 4 or AFTER it?

They're simultaneous, so 7 on 7

 

[dash]

They're simultaneous, so 7 on 7

rugby on ice?

 

[DragonfromTO]

rugby on ice?

Thank god there isn't much kicking in sevens

 

[KennyBanyeah]

Thank god there isn't much kicking in sevens

Matt Cooke would excel if there was.

 

[pixburgher66]

So is the 3 on 3 instead of the 4 on 4 or AFTER it?

Not sure they've decided on that yet, but I know AHL has it after 4 on 4 (right?)

 

[juliansteed]

Yep, four years in the top 5 picks (although the Crosby year was more lucky than anything, seeing as it came off of a lockout). I wouldn't say that the Pens tanked in those years though. They were simply incompetently run. Hell, after Jagr gets traded they simply had no clue what the hell they were doing. The identity of the team was pretty much gone. You can't even say they tanked for Sid, because there was no season to tank. You can talk about them tanking for Lemieux, but 2001-2004 were just dark times for the team. Times plenty of teams have had. Hell, they went from losing in the ECF in 2001 to no playoffs for three years. Again: they traded Jagr and lost any semblance of identity. So much so that Mario felt the need to come back. Then money issues continue, they trade Kovy, etc. Frankly, they were simply lucky that their years of incompetence resulted in franchise players. Plenty of teams have had similar runs but get mired with a lack of talent because they draft a bust or it's simply not a good draft, etc.

What I find interesting is that people are often quick to say that teams are only good because they were bad (tanked) for a while but the reverse is seldom true. Nobody ever seems to mention that 1 of the reasons the Pens were so bad in the early 2000s, might have been because they were 1 of the top teams in the league throughout the 90s and therefore often picked late. Of course that all gets traced back to their original "tank job" to get Lemieux.

 

[juliansteed]

I don't really care what they do as long as all games are worth the sane number of points.

 

[BGDave]

I don't really care what they do as long as all games are worth the sane number of points.

Exactly.

I prefer the following:

3 points for a regulation win
2 points for an overtime/shootout/coin flip/I dont give a crap win
1 point for an OT loss
0 points for regulation loss

 

[dare2be]

1 of the reasons the Pens were so bad in the early 2000s,

The only reason they were so bad was the fire sale coming out of bankruptcy. They couldn't afford to hold onto anyone with talent. That's why we were left with our star player, Rico Fata.

original "tank job" to get Lemieux.

As I said before, that must have been a monumental 2-year tank job.

 

[Nasty_Magician]

Cory Schneider is a beast.

 

[pixburgher66]

What I find interesting is that people are often quick to say that teams are only good because they were bad (tanked) for a while but the reverse is seldom true. Nobody ever seems to mention that 1 of the reasons the Pens were so bad in the early 2000s, might have been because they were 1 of the top teams in the league throughout the 90s and therefore often picked late. Of course that all gets traced back to their original "tank job" to get Lemieux.

Yeah, you can't look at any specific year in a vacuum, it's always the result of past years moves, good or bad. There have been very few teams that have been overwhelmingly consistent (looking at you Detroit). And the tank for Mario, again, won't pretend they didn't go the extra mile to ensure it, but the Pens before Mario were basically aimless wanderers with a few playoff appearances (sort of in that "too competent to draft high, but not talented enough to win" boat). Pretty sure the only player worth much on that team in 84 was Carlyle, who wasn't having a good year anyway and was shipped to the Peg.

Well, now I just looked up that roster. Marty McSorely was on that team (and Rich Sutter?)? Man...didn't know that. That team was a mix of a lot of young unproven guys (Errey, Troy Loney) and guys on the back side of their career (Kehoe), and complete no names...and Mike Bullard's career year. Anyway, digression there. As a Pens fan I feel no shame about the way they handled the season, particularly because I never would've seen the team play if they didn't do it. No way they stay around if Mario doesn't land here.

 

[pixburgher66]

Cory Schneider is a beast.

It's kind of depressing that the team hasn't done enough to get him exposure. He's having a Vezina year, but probably won't win because of the team record.

 

[buffhockey]

So is the 3 on 3 instead of the 4 on 4 or AFTER it?

I think the OT rule in the AHL is 4 on 4, until the first whistle after 3 minutes have been played, then 3 on 3. The max time for OT is 7 mins.

Not sure how penalties are factored in.

 

[pixburgher66]

I call this the official "who can wear tinfoil hats" list. Some other factors of course simply being based on team ability, but seeing teams like the Ducks, Caps, Pens that far down is...interesting?