Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

Sportsnet Asks NHL Players on Extending 3-on-3 OT

from Sportsnet,

“I don’t know, it’s tough, I mean 3-on-3 is exhausting. We play six forwards and three D for the most part. Guys are usually dead tired, and goalies are dead tired by the end of the five minutes, so, I think extending it would be a little bit tough.” – Vegas’ Mark Stone

“You see how much the fans love it, and I think we love it almost just as much. It’s fun. If you went past the five minutes, it wouldn’t take long until there’s a goal because there are so many chances that happen. Once you get to a shootout, it’s kind of like a 50/50. How many two-on-ones are there in five minutes? I think in another five minutes, someone will score.” – Vancouver’s Brock Boeser

many more responses...

Filed in: NHL Teams, | KK Hockey | Permalink


The Meal's avatar

Play up to 10 minutes of 3-on-3, but give each coach an OT timeout.

Posted by The Meal from Firestone, CO on 01/21/20 at 12:52 PM ET


I’ve said this before, but I’ll say it again. Put 20 minutes on the clock, play 3-on-3, and if it gets all the way to the end call it a tie.

On a per-game basis ties would be almost as rare as they are in the NFL. That’s not just me guessing—that’s based on statistically extrapolating from current 3-on-3 goal rates. We’d expect around 10 tied games total across the entire NHL in a given year, so most teams would end the season with either 0 or 1.

Ties would be rare (even to the point that they might feel actually special, rather than just a boring non-outcome), you could get rid of the shootout, and you could get rid of the loser point. And you don’t have to worry about the possibility of endless OT on a Wednesday night in February, since one way or another everyone’s going home inside of 80 minutes of ice time.

Give each coach one extra timeout in OT. If your stars are still getting gassed after 7-10 minutes use your freaking bench. I know 3-on-3 is more intense than 5-on-5 athletically speaking but c’mon, you’ve got 18 skaters you can use.

Posted by Sven22 from Grand Rapids on 01/21/20 at 01:11 PM ET

OlderThanChelios's avatar

“I don’t know, it’s tough, I mean 3-on-3 is exhausting. We play six forwards and three D for the most part.” – Vegas’ Mark Stone

As Sven suggests, simply use more than the top nine guys. Make teams play as many players as possible if they’re worried about their best players getting “gassed.”

I liked the shootout when it was first introduced, but now I look at it as just a gimmick to get the game over with. Play hockey, even if it’s 3-on-3 hockey, until the game is decided. I think the fans would love to see that.

Posted by OlderThanChelios from Grand Rapids, MI on 01/21/20 at 01:31 PM ET


Based on current 3-on-3 scoring rates, if OT was extended to 20 minutes:

- A majority of games would continue to end within the first 5 minutes (as they currently do).
- An average OT would take just 6 minutes to complete.
- About ~85 of games would be over within 10 minutes, which means the average team would only play about 3 games per year past the 10-minute mark.
- About ~97 of games would be over within 20 minutes, which means the average team would record about one tie every other season.
- The average team would only play about ~40 total extra minutes of ice time per season. I think the players (and young fans who need to get to bed on time) can handle it.

And remember, this is purely based on 3-on-3 scoring rates, so it doesn’t account for powerplays. If we see even one penalty call in OT, the odds of there being a winner go up substantially.

Watching your team tie five games per decade seems like a small price to pay for destroying the shootout and loser point for good.

Posted by Sven22 from Grand Rapids on 01/21/20 at 02:05 PM ET


First goal - get rid of the shootout
Second goal - get rid of the loser point
Third goal - minimize the number of ties

Upping 3 on 3 to 10 minutes would probably meet all my criteria. I think the chances of someone scoring in OT go up as the extra time wears on a players are more apt to make mistakes.

No extra timeouts. We don’t want players rested. The idea is weary players lead to more scoring chances.

One other tweak I’d add. Any penalty occurring in the final moments of regulation or OT must be served in its entirety or until a goal is scored. Extend the game or OT to fit the penalty.

Posted by evileye on 01/21/20 at 03:43 PM ET


Posted by evileye on 01/21/20 at 03:43 PM ET

I’m fine with 10 minutes of 3-on-3, then no shootout. As I said, based on pure math we’d expect teams to average just 3 ties per year under those conditions, and that’s without considering the effects of fatigue or powerplays. Let’s call it 2 ties per year. I’m 100% fine with that.

I like 20 minutes better, since the number of ties goes down even further and I honestly don’t think it’d be that much of an issue from a time perspective. But if teams and players are truly concerned about fatigue than I’d happily settle for 10. That’s already infinitely better than the loser point.

I also like your “penalty time” suggestion a lot.

Posted by Sven22 from Grand Rapids on 01/21/20 at 03:59 PM ET


+1 for me.

Posted by Ventr on 01/21/20 at 05:17 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.


Notify me of follow-up comments?


Most Recent Blog Posts

About Kukla's Korner 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 pk@kuklaskorner.com