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

[Sean Pickett]

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

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.

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

 

[blazer777]

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!

 

[Sean Pickett]

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

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.

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

 

[Split-N]

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.

 

[UncleRay]

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

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.

 

[Sean Pickett]

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

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

 

[Sean Pickett]

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

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.

I'm not saying they should change overtime, but please recognize that just because a game is tied don't mean the two teams have been evenly matched for 60 or more minutes. Maybe one team has had great shot blocking and/or goaltending to allow them to hang in for sixty minutes. Or perhaps the referees have "allowed the teams to play" and one team has been able to hold, interfere and anything else they want to to the other team's more skilled players (I know, that never happens ).

Sean

 

[blazer777]

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

How about 5x5 overtime without goalies?

Sean

Why do you hate goalies?

How about this:

1. 10 minute overtime starts with regular number of players and 3/4 number of fans

2. @ 7 minutes, they go down to 4 and 1/2 of the 3/4 fans are required to leave and we lose 1/2 of the officials

3. @3 minutes, they go down to 3 and the goalies lose their sticks....fans are dwindled down to a handful so there's something to post here. 1 Official (usually the blind one) remains

4. @0 minutes, we break out the coin and the winner is decided but there's nobody there to record it (see #3).

Or......we could

 

[UncleRay]

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

I'm not saying they should change overtime, but please recognize that just because a game is tied don't mean the two teams have been evenly matched for 60 or more minutes. Maybe one team has had great shot blocking and/or goaltending to allow them to hang in for sixty minutes. Or perhaps the referees have "allowed the teams to play" and one team has been able to hold, interfere and anything else they want to to the other team's more skilled players (I know, that never happens ).

Sean

So, like I said, they've been evenly matched. One has been better in some facets of the game, the other has excelled in others. Why should a team that has developed great shot-blocking be penalized in OT?

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

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

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

My guess is my suspicion of coaches figuring stuff out explains the steady increase over four months and your suspicion is very likely correct over the final couple. I really appreciate the detailed look at the numbers, though. That's above and beyond duty!

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

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!

You know, you may have proposed this in jest but the more I think about it, the more I like it. Games should be won or lost, and if you don't win you should lose. Sort of like how a baseball umpire will never say the tie goes to the runner, but instead says there are no ties. Either the ball or the foot got there first. So play 5 minutes of OT and if neither team scores, it goes down as zero points for both teams. Imagine the frenzied desire to score from both teams. This is a interesting idea and could revolutionize the game. So of course it has zero chance of being taken seriously.

 

[gfmorris]

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

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.

I generally agree with you, but I think that the main problem here is the incentives involved. Struggling teams have an incentive to grapple for a tie (see: WCHA 2015-16), but even then the incentive is there to hold on for the point. If teams are granted a point purely for getting to OT, with a chance for one or two more based on your point scoring system of choice, the calculus changes and coaches will have an incentive to go for the higher result. I think that encouraging a team to change its style of play — less trapping/obstructing/interfering, more trying to score a dang goal — is a better way to decide a game and more in line with how you'd actually coach a game with strategy (aggressive forecheck, pinching D, etc.).

But if you're still in 2-1-0 rather than 4-3-2-1-0, 4v4 as a tactic to end games decisively is acceptable if not palatable. As you can tell, I prefer to change the incentives.

GFM

 

[joecct]

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

Not the NCAA, the B1G.

 

[blazer777]

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!

You know, you may have proposed this in jest but the more I think about it, the more I like it. Games should be won or lost, and if you don't win you should lose. Sort of like how a baseball umpire will never say the tie goes to the runner, but instead says there are no ties. Either the ball or the foot got there first. So play 5 minutes of OT and if neither team scores, it goes down as zero points for both teams. Imagine the frenzied desire to score from both teams. This is a interesting idea and could revolutionize the game. So of course it has zero chance of being taken seriously.

Yes, it was in jest but your reply makes perfect sense. You get nothing unless you win the game....a tie equals a loss and you get 0 points for the night. You keep them at 5x5 or 4x4 if you must.

It's quite the incentive to win if you have no other incentive to do so.

 

[LtPowers]

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

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.

Why?


Powers &8^]

 

[blazer777]

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

Not the NCAA, the B1G.

Not those guys again!

 

[UncleRay]

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

I generally agree with you, but I think that the main problem here is the incentives involved. Struggling teams have an incentive to grapple for a tie (see: WCHA 2015-16), but even then the incentive is there to hold on for the point. If teams are granted a point purely for getting to OT, with a chance for one or two more based on your point scoring system of choice, the calculus changes and coaches will have an incentive to go for the higher result. I think that encouraging a team to change its style of play — less trapping/obstructing/interfering, more trying to score a dang goal — is a better way to decide a game and more in line with how you'd actually coach a game with strategy (aggressive forecheck, pinching D, etc.).

But if you're still in 2-1-0 rather than 4-3-2-1-0, 4v4 as a tactic to end games decisively is acceptable if not palatable. As you can tell, I prefer to change the incentives.

GFM

Then that would be how the team plays for the whole game. My objection to changing the makeup of who hits the ice for OT remains. Two teams have developed strategies that they believe will win them the game. They play the game and the two strategies have proven to be equal. Now you and I may believe that one strategy is "better" or "more noble," but the fact remains that they have come up equal. Why should one strategy get preferential treatment in trying to break the tie?

 

[MadTownSioux]

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

I'm not one to blame my phone for typos, but thanks for catching it.

Sorry. I may be a little anal about superfluous apostrophes.

 

[gfmorris]

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

Then that would be how the team plays for the whole game. My objection to changing the makeup of who hits the ice for OT remains. Two teams have developed strategies that they believe will win them the game. They play the game and the two strategies have proven to be equal. Now you and I may believe that one strategy is "better" or "more noble," but the fact remains that they have come up equal. Why should one strategy get preferential treatment in trying to break the tie?

I'm not sure that teams so much play as to win but as to not lose. I'm perhaps biased by watching a lot of WCHA games last year.

GFM

 

[joecct]

I'm not sure that teams so much play as to win but as to not lose. I'm perhaps biased by watching a lot of WCHA games last year.

GFM

First to 2 goals wins!!!