The NHL is going to use a form of 3-on-3 in overtime in an effort to cut down on the number of games decided by a shootout. While the details surrounding the 3-on-3 play haven’t been nailed down quite yet, change is coming. Fans met the news with mixed reactions and so too did the PDL staff.
What do you think about 3-on-3 OT hockey?
Laura Astorian – Associate Editor
I think that the concept’s ok – I hate the shootout. Too many good games ended in the skills competition for my taste – and I hate the concept of taking what is very clearly a team sport and boiling it down to a one-on-one thing. Any excitement that I’ve felt at a shootout has been at it being over. During the shootout? Anxiety and irritation that I have to watch it end that way. I’m probably in the minority here, but I prefer a tie. At least it’s honest.
My issue with three-on-three is that it’s more time for a team’s top players to get hurt or winded or whatever, and it still isn’t really a full team effort as far as deciding a game. But if it spells the slow, painful, excruciating demise of the shootout, I’ll learn to cope.
Trevor Kraus – Associate Editor
I despise the shootout. It’s a gimmick, and it’s determining playoff teams and home ice advantage. It reduces a game of skill, strategy, possession, and luck into…a game of luck. The bloom is off the rose—in the first year or two, shootouts were exciting. Now, they’re old, boring, and anticlimactic.
However, those who say shootouts aren’t part of the game seem to be overlooking penalty shots. As much as I hate to admit it, penalty shots are part of the game, and therefore, so are shootouts. In fact, we probably see penalty shots about as often as we see 3-on-3. So if shootouts aren’t “part of the game,” neither is 3-on-3. But at least 3-on-3 involves skills like passing and defensive positioning, so by a hair, it’d be better than shootouts, though it’s a gimmick nonetheless.
The best solution is merely to revert to ties. I still haven’t seen any evidence that people disliked ties, and I’m convinced that whole narrative was devised by the NHL as a way to ease shootouts into the game. Some games have clear winners and losers. Some games don’t. Some games simply deserve to be ties. There’s nothing worse than attending an evenly played, well played, game through 65 minutes but walking out of the arena in despair because the coin flip that is the shootout didn’t bounce your way.
Chris Rocco – Associate Editor
I think 3-on-3 seems like as much of a gimmick as a shootout. It’ll be exciting for a few years until everyone starts complaining about how it’s not actually true to the game and they’ll scrap it for another dumb idea. I guess I don’t really care whether they have a shootout or 3-on-3. I have a problem when teams get to 4 on 4 OT and don’t take chances. If players/coaches want the game decided with “real” hockey then they should start taking more chances instead of playing for a shootout. I’m not against bringing back ties either after a 4-on-4 OT. I think 65 minutes is enough time to decide a game.
David Rogers – Managing Editor
I go back and forth on this topic. Shootouts are silly and it’s infuriating that they play such a pivotal role in the standings. At the same time, 3-on-3 hockey is a gimmick as well although a better gimmick than the shootout. It’s an improvement but the real question that needs to be answered is being ignored.
Ultimately, I’d be in favor of the league adjusting its point structure. Put more emphasis on wins in regulation. I’ve never understood why a win in 60 carries the same weight as a win that required overtime or a shootout. This would mean some form a 3-2-1 point structure, but it’s extremely unlikely that the NHL will move in this direction as it’d create more space in the standings. Teams would fall out of contention earlier than ever before.
I like that the NHL is trying new things and trying to limit the role the shootout plays, but I think we’ll still all be complaining until the point structure is revised.
