Kukla's Korner Hockey
Next entry: He’s All “Art”
Previous entry: Philadelphia Ready to Land a Free Agent
The Five-Minute Slough
by George Malik on 04/08/07 at 01:04 PM ET
Comments (5)
from Larry Brooks of the New York Post:
The guaranteed-point, four-on-four overtime was introduced by the NHL in 1999-2000 to give teams an incentive to open up and go after victories in the extra five minutes of play. It was meant to provide a reward to fans who more often than not were sitting through 60 minutes of clutch-and-grab hockey sanctioned by the league so expansion and low-payroll operations could compete with high-payroll, marquee clubs.
The concept (Gary Bettman’s, by the way) was a good one within the league’s warped lowest-common-denominator environment. Overtimes did provide singular, sometimes breathtaking, entertainment. Coaches often used three forwards and an offense-minded defenseman in non-conference games. The extra five minutes (or less) often were a treat for the players and for the fans.
But the implementation of both the new officiating standards and the shootout has made the concept obsolete. Four-on-four is now generally a bore. Coaches approach overtime playing not to lose rather than to win. They’d just as soon get the game to a shootout. Defensively suspect players don’t get on the ice. For example, Petr Prucha might do wonders with the additional space created by four-on-four, but the sophomore sniper got a total of two shifts - two! - in the Rangers’ 22 overtime periods.
Brooks has a point: if teams can’t win outright in the first 1:30-2:00 of overtime, they tend to shut down their offence and play a four-man trap. What one does to rectify the situation depends on who you ask. Brooks is for a 2-1-0 system; I’m all for the three-point win. What do you think?
Filed in: NHL Talk | KK Hockey | Permalink
Comments
I ran this points system for this year standings. It makes a differences in who gets in and out and for home ice advantage. Here it is:
http://122trap.blogspot.com/2007/04/new-point-system.html
Posted by Jkrdevil on 04/08/07 at 01:58 PM ET
If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a hundred times and will say it a hundred times more: two points for the winner, no points for the loser, period. Don’t reward losing! The possibility of not getting any points in an OT or shootout loss could improve the quality of play.
Posted by Spector from Charlottetown, PEI, Canada on 04/08/07 at 02:29 PM ET
I’m with you, Spector - does baseball give “partial credit” for extra-inning losses? Do the NBA or NFL give credit for OT losses? There’s no good reason to give points out like that in the NHL. Better yet, abolish points entirely, and go with W’s and L’s like everyone else…
Posted by The Forechecker from Tennessee on 04/08/07 at 08:04 PM ET
I like it. Interesting to see the standings with the new point system. It does seem a lot more fair to reward the teams more that can finish off an opponent in regulation instead of dragging it out. San Jose should gain an advantage for this kind of dominance, instead of winding up a number 5 seed. The “loser point” always seemed like a participant ribbon for runner-up in a competition, anyway.
My idea was toss out overtime and shootouts entirely (save the overtimes for the playoffs—what fun is playoff hockey if teams can’t occasionally keep their fans up until the wee hours of the morning watching three overtime periods and dragging their tired butts into work the next morning?). Award 0 points for a loss, 1 point each for a tie, and if one team can actually win give them 3 points. Each game might still be three or two points, but the bonus point goes to the winner instead of the loser. If you are going to invent points out of thin air, you may as well give the spoils to the victor.
It wouldn’t change the standings much, but it might be worth trying to see if the play would improve when a team knows that if they can beat an opponent they are chasing instead of tying them, they will gain three points on them instead of staying put.
Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 04/08/07 at 09:16 PM ET
Add a Comment
Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.
Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.
Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Most Recent Blog Posts
Making Peace At The Winter Classic
You Have A 2 1/2 Hour Window To Do What You Do
Marc Staal Trying To Find His ‘A’ Game
Road Trip From Hell Continues For Chicago
About KK Hockey
Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.
From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.
Email Paul anytime at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
When learning from experts it’s best to learn personally from them, or from their blog. We can provide that with poker lessons blog, your home to learn poker personally.
Do you get shocked from the luck in the game of poker? Stop getting shocked and start being a Poker Shoker
Make extra cash while playing online poker. Rakeback is free and comes with rake races.
Kukla’s Korner is always a free service for readers, but it costs some money to maintain. If you’re ever in a position to donate a few dollars to help out, we’d be very appreciative.
I like overtime and dislike the idea of all games that are tied after regulation going immediately to a shootout. So I’d like to see the process stay the same in terms of determining a winner.
But otherwise I like Brooks’ idea of awarding no points to a team that loses, one point to a team that wins the skills competition, and two points to a team that - you know - actually wins a hockey game.
We have parity so there is no real need to award a team for simply making it to overtime.
Posted by Dave on 04/08/07 at 01:47 PM ET