Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

Holland Has A Topic For The GM Meetings

via Helene St. James of the Detroit Free Press,

“I’d like to see more games decided in overtime than shoot-out,” Holland said Tuesday. “I don’t mind the shoot-out, I just don’t want the shoot-out to decide so many games.”...

“My suggestion is, extend OT from five minutes to eight minutes or from five minutes to 10 minutes,” Holland said. “Then maybe do we go half of it four-on-four, half of it three-on-three?

“I just want to have a conversation to see if other people feel like I do.”

Holland also will suggest that following regulation, there should be a dry-scrape of the ice, and that subsequently teams would segue directly from overtime into a shoot-out, without the middle of the ice being cleaned by a Zamboni.

 

Filed in: NHL Teams, NHL Talk, | KK Hockey | Permalink
 

Comments

Nathan's avatar

I love ya’ Kenny, but this won’t help.

Only solution to the shootout joke is to go back to the old fashioned W-L-T system. But we as a public are too impatient and spoiled to deal with the concept of a tie. Sorry!

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 06/02/10 at 09:01 AM ET

Avatar

Play overtime with second period benches, it is a minor change that will loosen up the offense a little.

Posted by Cubanpuckstopper on 06/02/10 at 09:29 AM ET

MOWingsfan19's avatar

I hate the shootouts, but I also really hate the “play to not lose” mindset that becomes pervasive when a tie is a possible outcome.
The simple fact that we STINK it up in shootouts makes me hate them even more than I should hate a gimmick that decides games.

Posted by MOWingsfan19 from I really like our team on 06/02/10 at 10:06 AM ET

Nate A's avatar

“I don’t mind the shoot-out, I just don’t want the shoot-out to decide so many games.”

I second. 10 minutes of 4x4 first, please. Then you can have your shootout.

Posted by Nate A from Detroit-ish on 06/02/10 at 10:43 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Same as always, I hate ties and the concept that I may pay my money to see a game decided with no clear winner.  I may be spoiled in that regard, but I consider it a ripoff.

I also don’t want regular overtimes in the regular season because I don’t want to ever see a game go to 3OT with a team that has to play in a different arena the next night.  Injury problems are already bad enough in the NHL without adding that in.

I accept the shootout as-is because it’s a necessary evil.  That said, I like Holland’s ideas, as well as Cubanpuckstopper’s above me. 

Most importantly, I still think the league needs to go to 3-point games to incentivize teams to play for regulation wins.  3 points for regulation win, 2 points for OT/shootout win, 1 point for OT/Shootout loss.  Hell, I might even go with 1 point for an OT loss but 0 points for a shootout loss to make teams who aren’t confident in the shootout gamble play significantly harder during the OT period…

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/02/10 at 10:45 AM ET

cs6687's avatar

These are very good ideas. You can’t have a league with ties. Extending the overtime is a better option than scrapping the shootout or allowing games to tie. I’ve always felt the ice should be scraped after regulation, so that idea is a good one as well.

Posted by cs6687 on 06/02/10 at 11:25 AM ET

Greg's avatar

  “I don’t mind the shoot-out, I just don’t want the shoot-out to decide so many games.”

I second. 10 minutes of 4x4 first, please. Then you can have your shootout.

Posted by Nate A from Detroit-ish on 06/02/10 at 09:43 AM ET

Agreed…they’re not terrible, but as a fan I love seeing OT goals.  Not shoot-out goals.  Saying that, I hate ties, so anything is better than that.

I wish the NHL would go win (any way) = 2pts, and a loss (any way) = 0pts.

Posted by Greg on 06/02/10 at 11:29 AM ET

Nathan's avatar

I hate the shootouts, but I also really hate the “play to not lose” mindset that becomes pervasive when a tie is a possible outcome.
The simple fact that we STINK it up in shootouts makes me hate them even more than I should hate a gimmick that decides games.

Posted by MOWingsfan19 on 06/02/10 at 09:06 AM ET

The shootout has done nothing to disturb the “play not to lose” mindset. In fact, I’d argue it has enhanced it. Many teams that are thinner up front but have good defense and goaltending now play for OT and the shootout, knowing that when it comes to three shooters in one-on-one situations, they can match up. Think Nashville or Phoenix compared to Chicago, San Jose, or Detroit. Those teams can’t match up with the depth of firepower during open play. But in a 3-man shootout, Nashville can throw out Erat, Sullivan, Dumont, Arnott… in a one-on-one with the goalie, you’d be splitting hairs to say Chicago or Detroit can put out a better trio.

Then consider the fact that three shooters is not a large enough sample size to determine which team is really deserving of the win. With only three shooters, the shootout is essentially six coin flips. Hardly a just way to determine the winner.

I think the last time we saw teams play to win in OT was when they made the switch for the OTL point. And even that only lasted a half-season, until the season came to the stretch run and divisional opponents had just as much reason to keep the extra point from the opposition as they did to get it for themselves.

Same as always, I hate ties and the concept that I may pay my money to see a game decided with no clear winner.  I may be spoiled in that regard, but I consider it a ripoff.

I consider it a ripoff to pay money to see a team game in which the winner is decided by individuals pulling for a high card against one another. If two teams play a great game, and on that day they were equal, what’s so wrong with that?

Most importantly, I still think the league needs to go to 3-point games to incentivize teams to play for regulation wins.

I’d be willing to watch a season with a 3-2-1-0 structure. But I’m skeptical. If the NHL wants to keep divisional play, and stack divisional play heavily at the end of the season for exciting stretch runs like we’ve had post-lockout, no point structure is going to incentivize regulation wins. If you’re one of the six teams fighting for four playoff spots, Winning in OT/SO over a team you’re tangled with in the standings is still going to be considered the safest gamble. If the game is close in the third period, you want to get your point, that way, even if you lose, you only fall 1 point off the pace instead of 3.

I think it is the nature of sports today—everything is worth too much money to risk. Squeaking into the playoffs just for two home games is such a financial boon for a team that the club can’t start worrying about pushing for a higher seed unless they know they’ve locked down a playoff spot. As long as the financial incentives continue to get strong, the money in the sport gets bigger, etc., each game will mean more, and thus the majority of teams will be instructed by their owners not to take any unnecessary risks. Play it safe, keep us in the race just long enough to sell more t-shirts and get some ticket renewals for next year…

Consider most major soccer leagues. They use a structure of 3 points for a win, 1 for a tie, 0 for a loss. At first glance, you’d think this would really urge teams to play to win, as the gap between a win and a tie is more significant than the gap between a tie and a loss. But soccer is widely criticized for all its low scoring games and ties. This is because with the relegation system most of those leagues use, it is far more important from a financial perspective to stay in the top tier than it is to succeed in the top tier. The money lost falling from tier 1 to tier 2 is tremendous—the money gained from moving a position or two up the standings in tier 1 is generally non-existent, unless you’re moving into a spot that qualifies you for some extra-curricular tourney in which there’s more money to be earned.

I guess what I’m saying is that I don’t think there’s a solution to this problem. Money dictates all of this, and no changed point structure or overtime setup is going to change that.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 06/02/10 at 11:38 AM ET

Nathan's avatar

You can’t have a league with ties.

Care to explain? We were all huge NHL fans for years and years… with ties. What has changed?

I wish the NHL would go win (any way) = 2pts, and a loss (any way) = 0pts.

Posted by Greg on 06/02/10 at 10:29 AM ET

I think that’s the worst possible outcome. Now you’ve required teams to specialize for and diligently practice for the shootout, especially goaltenders. And that point structure basically slaps the concept of a team game in the face by saying that a skill competition victory is just as valuable as a legitimate team victory. I can live with the shootout, I can’t live with the shootout being considered equivalent to the actual game of hockey.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 06/02/10 at 11:46 AM ET

Avatar

2 points for winning in regulation.  0 points for losing.
1 point for winning in 10 minute OT.  0 points for losing.
1 point for winning 3 round SO.  0 points for losing.

Done and done.  3 point games are stupid.  Losing should never be rewarded.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 06/02/10 at 11:59 AM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

I consider it a ripoff to pay money to see a team game in which the winner is decided by individuals pulling for a high card against one another. If two teams play a great game, and on that day they were equal, what’s so wrong with that?

I agree with this concept, but appreciate the no-tie mentality from a lesser-of-two-evils standpoint.  This past season, I watched probably 30-35 hockey games that went into OT.  Of all of those games, I remember thinking only three times during the season that I would have been ok with seeing those two teams tie.  If, by my opinion, 1 in 10 games that go into OT would be deserving of a tie, then I can’t be happy with allowing a system back in that would give teams a tie that I wouldn’t think was deserved 90% of the time.  Since there’s no good way to set up a standard set of rules under which those 10% of games would get the tie they so richly deserve (since it’s completely subjective), I say have no ties.

no point structure is going to incentivize regulation wins. If you’re one of the six teams fighting for four playoff spots, Winning in OT/SO over a team you’re tangled with in the standings is still going to be considered the safest gamble. If the game is close in the third period, you want to get your point, that way, even if you lose, you only fall 1 point off the pace instead of 3.

Again, we’re pretty close on concept here.  I just think that the 3-2-1-0 point structure eliminates some of the false parity between the haves and have-nots of the league, so that it’s much harder for teams who are only sniffing a playoff spot because of the current points system aren’t even in the race at the end of the season.  I think that late in the season, this creates a lot more scraping for the top in games that won’t cost teams playoff spots or desperate play by teams that need miracle results and 3-point swings. 

Yes, I realize that what I am saying might have cost Detroit a playoff spot this last year, because they were one of the teams which benefitted most from a broken points system and the extra OT point, I’m ok with that.  I wouldn’t have been happy with them had they failed to make the postseason based on my suggested point system, but I wouldn’t have been pissed at the system.  I always feel better being able to direct my anger at my team for failing to achieve rather than at a system which benefits mediocrity.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/02/10 at 12:03 PM ET

Greg's avatar

  I wish the NHL would go win (any way) = 2pts, and a loss (any way) = 0pts.

  Posted by Greg on 06/02/10 at 10:29 AM ET

I think that’s the worst possible outcome. Now you’ve required teams to specialize for and diligently practice for the shootout, especially goaltenders. And that point structure basically slaps the concept of a team game in the face by saying that a skill competition victory is just as valuable as a legitimate team victory. I can live with the shootout, I can’t live with the shootout being considered equivalent to the actual game of hockey.

Posted by Nathan from Jonny Ericsson’s ice cream truck on 06/02/10 at 10:46 AM ET

What I wish and what’s realistic are two different things.  I know the NHL wont go to 2 pts for a win (regardless of how you win) and 0pts for a loss.

If teams before this year didn’t practice shootouts they will now.  Philly made the playoffs because of a shootout on the last day.  How many other teams gained points or lost points over the season because of the shootout.  If it were totally up to me, I’d say play OT 4 on 4 till there is a winner regardless of the time.

Posted by Greg on 06/02/10 at 12:13 PM ET

Moq's avatar

Holland didn’t exactly dig deep in the bag of new ideas for deciding regular season games. Then again, most ideas have been mentioned a few times in the past with minor variations.

I’m a supporter of ten minute OT followed by a shootout coupled with a three-point system to reward wins during regular time. Whether that will decrease the number of shootout decisions is unclear, but I think it’s important to avoid too many complications.

Posted by Moq from Denmark on 06/02/10 at 12:13 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

Holland didn’t exactly dig deep in the bag of new ideas for deciding regular season games. Then again, most ideas have been mentioned a few times in the past with minor variations.

In fairness, the bad of new ideas for hockey isn’t exactly Pandora’s Box.  You dig too deep and you get stupid gimmicks, not hope.  Where do you think they got the trapezoid from?

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 06/02/10 at 12:17 PM ET

cs6687's avatar

You can’t have a league with ties.

Care to explain? We were all huge NHL fans for years and years… with ties. What has changed?

If I’m paying $50 to go to a game, the last thing I want to see is a tie. I want to see a result with a winner and a loser.

Posted by cs6687 on 06/02/10 at 12:27 PM ET

phillyd's avatar

My only concern in adding any time to the OT period would be does the ice need resurfacing because of the potential extra 5 minutes and if so, is it the normal time, i.e., 17 minutes of intermission break? The length of the game now increases a potential 27 minutes plus however long it takes the shootout to finish. Anyone remember how the Olympics worked the overtime or the World Juniors do it? I did like the 3-2-1-0 format the Olympics used.

Posted by phillyd from Southern New Jersey on 06/02/10 at 01:37 PM ET

Baroque's avatar

If I’m paying $50 for a game I want to see my team win. Screw home losses.

See that every team gets either a tie or a win at home games, and once the fans realize that unless they travel they will never be disappointed with a loss, the gate revenue will pour in.

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 06/02/10 at 01:59 PM ET

Avatar

I consider it a ripoff to pay money to see a team game in which the winner is decided by individuals pulling for a high card against one another. If two teams play a great game, and on that day they were equal, what’s so wrong with that?

+72

I really don’t see the problem with a tie game.

The only thing I would suggest is lengthening OT.  Make it one 20-minute OT and if it isn’t settled then you’ve got a tie game.  If you win in OT you get 2 points and the loser gets 0, if the game ends in a tie, each team gets one point.

It takes out the fact that shootouts aren’t hockey, it takes out the charity point, it takes out the 3-point game.

Most importantly, it is a hockey game being decided by hockey teams rather than individuals.

Posted by Garth on 06/02/10 at 02:23 PM ET

Nathan's avatar

I just don’t get why we all lived with tie games in the NHL for so long, and now it’s just heresy.

I like all you guys, and we’re all entitled to our opinions, but I cannot understand the mindset that a win/loss resolution to a game is better than a tie, when the method to achieving the win/loss resolution is completely counter to the “team” concept that makes hockey a great game. Then factor in that the “better” team still may not win—rather, the better SHOOTOUT team will win. Then factor in that even if the “better” team were also the better shootout team, you’d have to have all skaters shoot at least once to have an appropriate sample size to see which team is truly better at the shootout.

I realize we cannot realistically have sudden death in the regular season. But it seems completely absurd that the NHL has one set of parameters that determine success in the regular season, and that those parameters are changed significantly in the postseason. At least with tie games, the method for winning a game in the regular season is identical to those in the playoffs. Instead, we had a team like Phoenix that gained 14 extra points this season via a shootout, as compared to what they would’ve had with ties.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 06/02/10 at 02:44 PM ET

moocat's avatar

5 Minutes of 4 on 4…If not decided
5 Minutes of 3 on 3…if still not decided
5 Minutes of 2 on 2…if still not decided
5 Minutes of 1 on1…if still not decided, game over. Tie for 1 point

It’s less of a gimmick than the shootout as at least you’d have equal players playing and I’m betting it would rarely go the full 20 minutes. You’d see some great pond hockey after 3 on 3.

In the case of a penalty at the 1 on 1 level it would revert to the 2 on 2 level making it a two on one. If no one the scores the teams would then revert back to the 1 on 1 level at the next stoppage.

Posted by moocat on 06/02/10 at 03:20 PM ET

detroitdan1982's avatar

Said it before, I’ll say it again:

3 points - regulation win
2 points - OT/shootout win
1 point - OT/shootout loss
0 points - regulation loss

This is how it was done at the Olympics and World Championships, this is the way it should be done in the NHL. It makes so much sense in my opinion.

Posted by detroitdan1982 from St. John's, NL on 06/02/10 at 03:22 PM ET

cs6687's avatar

5 Minutes of 4 on 4…If not decided
5 Minutes of 3 on 3…if still not decided
5 Minutes of 2 on 2…if still not decided
5 Minutes of 1 on1…if still not decided, game over. Tie for 1 point

It’s less of a gimmick than the shootout as at least you’d have equal players playing and I’m betting it would rarely go the full 20 minutes. You’d see some great pond hockey after 3 on 3.

In the case of a penalty at the 1 on 1 level it would revert to the 2 on 2 level making it a two on one. If no one the scores the teams would then revert back to the 1 on 1 level at the next stoppage.

Only one appropriate response to this idea…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

Posted by cs6687 on 06/02/10 at 04:06 PM ET

Moq's avatar

Please stop talking about ties. There are ties in the game today, which is why both teams are ensured a point after regulation. You can argue the extra point, and I’m not religious about it, but I think the OT and shootout brings entertainment to the game. Sometimes OT and shootout overshadow the previous 60 minutes. The other option is “winner takes all” regardless of how the game is decided. That seems unfair to me. The teams played a tied regular game and each deserve a point. The problem with the current model is preservation of points, which is why some people (myself included) would prefer the three-point setup.

The only thing I would suggest is lengthening OT.  Make it one 20-minute OT and if it isn’t settled then you’ve got a tie game.

A normal 82-game hockey season is one of the toughest ordeals in sports. Expanding OT to a point where it could last a full period is a really poor idea. The regular season is tough enough without imitating the playoffs. I’d rather see a shootout right after regular time to ensure that teams are reasonably healthy, and the resulting hockey decent, when the playoffs start.

Posted by Moq from Denmark on 06/02/10 at 04:08 PM ET

moocat's avatar

Only one appropriate response to this idea…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

Posted by cs6687 on 06/02/10 at 03:06 PM ET

Right because the current shootout or the fact they are already playing OT at an artificially reduced manpower situation means it’s a ridiculous idea…

It takes the team concept and slowly whittles it down to a more one on one skill game while keeping the notion of equal competition involved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnJQ9U9pW9Q&feature=related

Posted by moocat on 06/02/10 at 04:18 PM ET

Avatar

AS FAR AS KENNY HOLLAND wishing that the SHOOTOUT could be used less, I’ve made this suggestion for quite some time now. 

What if the NHL was to implement a rule, reducing the # of players for both sides to 4 on 4 at the beginning of the 3rd period ???  If the game is still tied at the 60:00 minute mark, then both sides should further reduce to a 3 on 3 format, with a minimum of 2; due to any penalties which need to be served if applicable.  If the game is still tied at the 65:00 minute mark, then a SHOOTOUT would commense. 

AS FAR AS THE SHOOTOUT goes, I don;t like the current procedure which can be inclusive with delays and nusiance reviews, although reviews for regulation and OT are neccessary.  All 18 skaters for both teams should be involved for the SHOOTOUT, lining up on their respective blue line.  One official at each goal line for the “final” call; if that presents a neccessity.  Once the event begins, the 1st skater for the visitiing club can make his shot, followed by the 1st skater for the home team; ETC. ETC. ETC.  The entire SHOOTOUT could take the same amount of time that the current format is taking !!! 

AS FAR AS AWARDED POINTS GOES, I fell like most that 3 points should be given to the winner of any game in regulation, 2 points if OT is required, and 1 point if the SHOOTOUT is utized.  ZERO POINTS TO ANY LOSER; PERIOD !!! 

This new rule would be SELF INCENTIVE ENOUGH for every team to ensure their victory in regulation, as every point is EXTREMELY CRUCIAL !!!

Anyone wishing to comment; feel free at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) or 541-469-5968

NOW GO BLACKHAWKS AND LET’S FINISH OFF THESE BULLIES FROM CHEESESTEAKVILLE !!!

Posted by westcoasttom on 06/02/10 at 04:32 PM ET

SYF's avatar

I wonder if the ideas coming from the GMs meeting will have enough on paper to submit them to the Shanahan Summit (yes, I know he detests it being called that but he is the most high-profile name attached to it) for evaluation sometime later this month.

While I was never a fan of the shootout, I do have to admit that it has an entertainment value from a casual fans’ perspective.  I know.  I’m surrounded by them quite a bit at the Wranglers’ ECHL level.  For about five to eight seconds, there’s tension in whether or not that shot is going to go in.  Lots of emotions are in play and from my POV, it’s a level of fan involvement on a level that can’t be replicated in other major sports.

I think it’s a gimmick coming out of Shanahan’s first summit (which also included the trapezoid rule and the frequently argued-over obstruction rule).  I just prefer regulation victories to be worth more than a win obtained in a shootout.

Posted by SYF from impossible and oddly communally possessive sluts on 06/02/10 at 04:48 PM ET

cs6687's avatar

Right because the current shootout or the fact they are already playing OT at an artificially reduced manpower situation means it’s a ridiculous idea…

It takes the team concept and slowly whittles it down to a more one on one skill game while keeping the notion of equal competition involved.

Still an extremely dumb idea. OT doesn’t need an overhaul, just a tinkering. Over the course of an 82-game season, those 20 minute overtimes would wear teams down. Battling 20 minutes in overtime to win a playoff game is one thing. Doing it for one point is absurd. Either extend OT to 10-minutes and keep it four-on-four, or just leave it alone.

Posted by cs6687 on 06/02/10 at 05:00 PM ET

moocat's avatar

I highly doubt a majority of the games would go the full 20 minutes. Once you get down to three on three there would be too much ice and mistakes would happen so I doubt teams would get significantly wore down. The point awarded could whatever the hell they decide it needed to be for the tie. One point was the old system so that’s what I used.

Oh and I don’t give a rats ass if you think it’s a dumb idea or it’s absurd to play potentially 20 minutes for a one point tie. If a team doesn’t want to play another 20 minutes then it’s on them to end it early or regulation. 

For entertainment value as a fan you would certainly get your moneys worth, and that’s the same reason the shootout was instituted. Frankly there is nothing wrong with a tie in my opinion but obviously others don’t agree.

Posted by moocat on 06/02/10 at 08:24 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.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

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