Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sean Pickett
    replied
    Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

    Originally posted by WeAreNDHockey View Post
    I don't particularly feel the 3X3 OT is the panacea many see to avoid the shootout. Coaches hated the idea because they were afraid they'd lose control over the outcome since the chaotic nature that 3X3 hockey often turns into shuns the very nature of "coachable." But look at the Detroit Red Wings during the regular season. They played 20 games this year that went more than 60 minutes. The first 9 were decided in the 3X3 OT, but the next 11 saw 6 go to a shootout. This is a small sample, yes. But the other NHL team I follow, the New York Islanders, were even less exciting in the OT. Their first two OT games were decided in the 3X3. They played 17 more OT games and 9 went to a shootout. The coaches are figuring it out. College coaches, who exert even more control over far less skilled skaters, will also quickly figure this out and you will see almost as many games decided in a shootout. I'm curious as to the stats in the rest of the NHL. If my suspicion is wrong I'd like to see the numbers but I'm willing to bet it was similar throughout the NHL.
    NHL 2015-16 Season
    1230 games played
    275 overtime games (23.6 %)
    107 shootouts (8.7 % of all games; 38.9 % of overtime games)

    NHL 2014-15 Season
    1230 games played
    306 overtime games (24.9 %)
    170 shootouts (13.8 % of all games; 55.6 % of overtime games)

    for comparison

    NCAA 2015-16 Season
    1127 games
    244 overtime games (21.7 %)
    142 tie games (12.6 % of all games; 58.2 % of overtime games)

    NCAA 2014-15 Season
    1110 games played
    209 overtime games (18.8 %)
    112 tie games (10.1 % of all games; 53.6 % of overtime games)

    A quick look at the numbers shows that there was a significant increase in the number of overtime games decided during 3x3 this past season in the NHL. However, when comparing the 2014-15 NHL season to the 2014-15 NCAA season it is interesting to note that a higher percentage of NHL 4x4 overtime games went to a shootout than NCAA 5x5 overtime ganes ended in a tie.

    As for coaches figuring the 3x3 overtime out as the season progressed, here are the stats month by month:
    Oct 2015
    163 games
    33 overtime games (20.2 %)
    10 shootouts (6.1 % of all games; 30.3 % of overtime games)
    Nov 2015
    195 games
    49 overtime games (25.1 %)
    16 shootouts (8.2 % of all games; 32.7 % of overtime games)
    Dec 2015
    206 games
    48 overtime games (23.3 %)
    19 shootouts (9.2 % of all games; 39.6 % of overtime games)
    Jan 2016
    176 games
    41 overtime games (23.3 %)
    17 shootouts (9.7 % of all games; 41.5 % of overtime games)
    Feb 2016
    199 games
    44 overtime games (22.1 %)
    23 shootouts (11.6 % of all games; 53.2 % of overtime games)
    Mar 2016
    220 games
    46 overtime games (20.9 %)
    18 shootouts (8.2 % of all games; 39.1 % of overtime games)
    Apr 2016
    71 games
    14 overtime games (19.7 %)
    4 shootouts (5.6 % of all games; 28.6 % of overtime games)

    So for October to February the percentage of games going to the shootout did increase every month, but then they drastically dropped in March and April. I suspect that the need for points to make the playoffs changed how teams played overtime, but I'm not going to bother researching any further.

    Sean
    Last edited by Sean Pickett; 06-15-2016, 11:55 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • UncleRay
    replied
    Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

    Originally posted by gfmorris View Post
    What for the fresh hell? How does changing the number of players on the ice end up giving you a game theory incentive to score? 4v4 is about giving players ice and allowing more skilled skates the chance to score a goal. I don't think that's changing incentives, though —*the risk/reward is still the same.

    GFM
    And it makes it harder for "less skilled" (who should really be referred to as "other-skilled") players to score a goal. And remember - these two teams have been evenly matched in the whole of the team for 60 or more minutes. Why change the fundamental makeup of a team, thereby benefiting one type of team over another when they have been equal until that time? Pulling goalies is just as idiotic. Why not have goalies play without their pads and sticks? Or have goalies play forward, forwards play defense, and defensemen play goalie? How about with every shift change the goalies have to change up as well? On the fly, of course. Why not bring out over-sized goals for OT? Or hang the goal 10 feet above the ice? How about using a clear puck so only those with unbelievable vision know where it is? Maybe we could have everybody use a wrong-handed stick - have lefties shoot right and righties shoot left. That would benefit the highly-skilled ambidextrous (amphibious in baseball ) player who should clearly get an OT benefit. How about we have them take their skates off? Or have to wear figure skates. If 4-on-4 is better hockey, then change the game so that it is played that way during the game. But playing OT any differently than the first 60 is idiotic, in my (humble - ha!) opinion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Split-N
    replied
    Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

    If my sources are correct, the coaches voted against any changes to the OT rules but the NC$$ rammed them through anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sean Pickett
    replied
    Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

    Originally posted by UncleRay View Post
    Playing HS soccer a generation ago we were the eighth-place team with the all-conference goalie playing the number one team. After a certain amount of OT, the gimmick was to play without goalies, and we were seriously disadvantaged.
    Originally posted by blazer777 View Post
    I propose that if neither team can score during a 4x4 overtime, then each team is awarded a loss for the game....you have to give them something to play for other than a tie,
    unless it's father's day of course!
    How about 5x5 overtime without goalies?

    Sean

    Leave a comment:


  • blazer777
    replied
    Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

    I propose that if neither team can score during a 4x4 overtime, then each team is awarded a loss for the game....you have to give them something to play for other than a tie,
    unless it's father's day of course!

    Leave a comment:


  • Sean Pickett
    replied
    Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

    Originally posted by CLS View Post
    Six is not a magic number; if I recall correctly, hockey was once played with seven. The fact that players are larger, faster, and have lighter equipment (especially skates) means that five skaters on the ice makes the ice seem cluttered at times, especially in college tournaments and in the NHL playoffs, when players are really playing defense.
    Originally posted by giwan View Post
    If 4x4 is so great why not play it all the time?
    Yes, hockey was originally played 7 per side, but the rover position was eliminated within a few decades.

    As for playing 5 per side (goalie and 4 skaters), not only would it make for more exciting hockey, it could reduce the cost of having a team. Professional teams would need fewer players, so they would reduce salary costs. The NCAA could reduce scholarships (being optimistic I would say 1 or 2, but they could go for 3), which would make the sport more affordable to schools to support. It sounds like a win-win for everyone (except the players).

    Sean

    Leave a comment:


  • UML Puck Hawk
    replied
    Originally posted by MadTownSioux View Post
    I'm confused. Is there somebody named Rule who heads a committee to make college hockey rules?
    I'm not one to blame my phone for typos, but thanks for catching it.

    Leave a comment:


  • gfmorris
    replied
    Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

    Originally posted by Blitz View Post
    Perhaps i did not clarify. With overtime 5 on 5 play many teams will just sit back looking for a tie, whereas you go to 4 on 4 for overtime and more teams will go for the win. During a long game 5 on 5 teams try to win as there is plenty of time to decide the contest, but overtime is limited play so go for it.
    What for the fresh hell? How does changing the number of players on the ice end up giving you a game theory incentive to score? 4v4 is about giving players ice and allowing more skilled skates the chance to score a goal. I don't think that's changing incentives, though —*the risk/reward is still the same.

    GFM

    Leave a comment:


  • gfmorris
    replied
    Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

    Originally posted by giwan View Post
    Two point goal is that like scoring before crossing the blue line? Will that count on empty net goals? Or maybe it should be a short handed goal?
    Brandon Parker's 140-foot goal on Jamie Phillips has to count for 4 goals, right? It's like a Steph Curry bomb from half-court!

    I don't mind giving a team credit for making it to OT, regardless of whether they win, tie, or lose. You'd need something like a 3-2-1-0 or 4-3-2-1-0 system, though, for it to be truly fair. I've modeled both for the WCHA over the past three seasons, and while the change in the standing results hasn't been significant, it's also important to remember that teams are playing in a 2-1-0 world, so the incentives aren't as strong. If you make it to OT and you can still pick up three of four league points by going for the win while being guaranteed a point just for making it, doesn't it seem likely that game theory would push you to get the extra point or two?

    GFM

    Leave a comment:


  • gfmorris
    replied
    Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

    Originally posted by FadeToBlack&Gold View Post
    I am completely in favor of 4x4 OT, and I think this is an overdue move. It will open up the ice quite a bit, and more games that go to OT should end with a winner. Ties are OK, but playing for/trapping & obstructing your way to a tie is not.
    "Amen," says a fan of a team that sometimes grapples its way to a one-point result.

    GFM

    Leave a comment:


  • MadTownSioux
    replied
    Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

    I'm confused. Is there somebody named Rule who heads a committee to make college hockey rules?

    Leave a comment:


  • Blitz
    replied
    Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

    Perhaps i did not clarify. With overtime 5 on 5 play many teams will just sit back looking for a tie, whereas you go to 4 on 4 for overtime and more teams will go for the win. During a long game 5 on 5 teams try to win as there is plenty of time to decide the contest, but overtime is limited play so go for it.

    Leave a comment:


  • giwan
    replied
    Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

    Originally posted by Blitz View Post
    4 on 4 I really like, let the teams play for a win with plenty more open ice. With 5 on 5 overtime many teams play for the tie, 4 on 4 will force the game open enough.

    3 on 3 is just too open, too far from the team game for me.

    Shoot-out while exciting for some fans doesn't sit well with this traditionalist. Hockey is a team game should be played as such, leave the shootout for skills events. Give me a tie over a shootout anytime.
    If 4x4 is so great why not play it all the time?

    Leave a comment:


  • Blitz
    replied
    Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

    4 on 4 I really like, let the teams play for a win with plenty more open ice. With 5 on 5 overtime many teams play for the tie, 4 on 4 will force the game open enough.

    3 on 3 is just too open, too far from the team game for me.

    Shoot-out while exciting for some fans doesn't sit well with this traditionalist. Hockey is a team game should be played as such, leave the shootout for skills events. Give me a tie over a shootout anytime.

    Leave a comment:


  • JohnsonsJerseys
    replied
    Re: Rule's Committee Recommends 4 on 4 OT, RPI to adjust for OT losses

    Originally posted by Ralph Baer View Post
    Will they go by the goal scorer's team's PBP call or the goalie's team's PBP call?
    I would expect in most cases their calls would be in agreement as most announcers show no "homer-ism" in their PBP. However, in the unlikely event that a tie-breaker should required, the goal will be reviewed by the league offices and a vote of the goal point value committee will determine the point value of the goal. It may seem unnecessary to go to these lengths but in the end it is about getting the call right. And who's going to argue with Chuck Norris' call?
    Ryan J
    Last edited by JohnsonsJerseys; 06-15-2016, 08:57 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X