PDA

View Full Version : 3-on-3 OT Hits Early Marks - Do You Still Hate or Love It?



Jules
01-09-2016, 10:14 AM
Interesting bit of information from the NHL this morning. When they introduced 3-on-3 OT the goal was to finish more games on an actual goal, instead of going to the often hated on shootout. That's definitely happening.

"Ninety-two of the 143 games that have required overtime this season have been decided in the extra period (64.3%). Last season, under the 4-on-4 format, the percentage of overtime periods with goals was 44.4% (136 of 306)."

Personally, I think this is great. I actually find myself flipping channels and tuning into 3-on-3 situations elsewhere in the league, because it's so fun to watch. Yes, it's a bit of an extended skills competition at times, but it beats the shootout by a lot and allows top players to be out on the ice a little more for fans to watch.

I, for one, hope they keep it and based on this early analysis it probably will stick around for a while. Is that good news to you guys? Did your opinion change so far or does it not matter to you at all?

Phil in Absentia
01-09-2016, 10:38 AM
I think it's the best thing they've done since the first year of the shootout to help end games quickly. It still has a lot of buzz, like the shootout did then. It'll probably fade over the years, also like the shootout, especially as coaches find ways to make it a bore, but today it's wonderful.

Vodka Drunkenski
01-09-2016, 10:53 AM
I was on the fence but from the small sample size I've actually seen, I think it's great.

Pete
01-09-2016, 11:30 AM
3:3 is awesome.

JOHN
01-09-2016, 12:34 PM
I was very against it early, however I've come around. My biggest hangup now only lies with the stats. I don't think statistics from OT should count towards a player, or against them. It's especially unfair to a goalie from a statistical perspective, in my opinion.

Valriera
01-10-2016, 09:23 AM
I was very against it early, however I've come around. My biggest hangup now only lies with the stats. I don't think statistics from OT should count towards a player, or against them. It's especially unfair to a goalie from a statistical perspective, in my opinion.

Agree. Other than that, it's a lot of fun.

jamsim67
01-10-2016, 11:38 AM
I don't like it, way to much open ice. Just play the 4 on 4, and if need be, the shootout. The reasoning for going to 3 on 3 is plain bullshit. If they want to finish the games with an actual goal, why not make the goals 2 feet wider, or the goalies pads, gloves and sticks much smaller (which by the way, I'm not for). We could have scores in the 20's. This is all being done to make the game more popular. But it wasn't needed, the game was popular enough, with new fans coming on board every year. Overtime has turned into a circus event.

Dunny
01-10-2016, 11:44 AM
I hate it.

Also: Get off my lawn

Pete
01-10-2016, 11:50 AM
I don't like it, way to much open ice. Just play the 4 on 4, and if need be, the shootout. The reasoning for going to 3 on 3 is plain bullshit. If they want to finish the games with an actual goal, why not make the goals 2 feet wider, or the goalies pads, gloves and sticks much smaller (which by the way, I'm not for). We could have scores in the 20's. This is all being done to make the game more popular. But it wasn't needed, the game was popular enough, with new fans coming on board every year. Overtime has turned into a circus event.

It wasn't done to make it more popular it was done to determine a winner, and too many folks complaining about a shootout.

Ties suck, imo.

Ranger Lothbrok
01-10-2016, 03:19 PM
I wanted to hate it so very badly as somebody who feels the game should be won as a team. It's the same reason I thought the shootout was dumb. But realistically, if I step back and look at it objectively, I'm opposed to these things just for the sake of being a stubborn traditionalist. I really don't have any good rationale for it. But when I watched my first 3 on 3 OT, I wanted to hate it because it was "gimmicky," or just plain different from what I'm used to. I couldn't though. I couldn't wipe the smile off my face. It was so ridiculous it was fun.

It barely even resembles the game of hockey as I've come to know it at that point, but that doesn't make it any less exciting. You really get to see some creativity, and not just stick-handling creativity, but all-around creativity. You don't just put out your best shooters or danglers like you would in a shootout. You put out your most mobile d-men, and your best passers too. You want somebody that can break up a rush, you want someone that can maintain possession (and possession is EVERYTHING in the 3 on 3, IMO), you want somebody that can make that cross-ice pass, be it horizontal on a scoring chance or vertical on a breakout.

It's crazy, it's silly, it's utter chaos, but damn is it fun to watch.

Future
01-11-2016, 08:34 AM
I still think it's garbage. Just as gimmicky as the shootout.

McDougalfaschnitzer
01-11-2016, 04:39 PM
I still think it's garbage. Just as gimmicky as the shootout.

I find it to be pretty gimmicky too, and I still feel like at least with the shootout you know you are going to see a player's skill vs a goalie's skill. With 3 on 3 it becomes the kind of open hockey that happens when it is about to end.

jamsim67
01-11-2016, 08:36 PM
It wasn't done to make it more popular it was done to determine a winner, and too many folks complaining about a shootout.

Ties suck, imo.

I don't mind ties. 60 minutes, 5 minute overtime at 4 on 4. If they tie, each team gets a point and we move on. Having said that, I don't mind the shootout. But 3 on 3 is way to much open ice. You shoot, clang it off the post, and the other team has a breakaway.