NHL general managers finally had enough of those lousy, no-good shootouts.
They wanted a different result. Something that resembles actual hockey. A better representation of who has the best team on a night when more than 60 minutes of play is needed.
So in an attempt to cut down the number of games being decided by shootouts, which couldn’t be done away with completely, the league responded with a bold, innovative experiment for 2015-16: Three-on-three overtime.
Nearly a month into the season, it’s safe to say the new format is a smashing success.
It has it all. A frantic pace, end-to-end momentum swings, heartstopping saves, breakaways, odd-man rushes, cats and dogs living together, you name it.
Most importantly? It’s doing exactly what it was intended to do. It may be chaotic, messy and a bit gimmicky, but three-on-three OT is ending games. That’s what the NHL wanted and that’s what it’s getting.
And though it’s a small sample size, it’s hard to ignore the numbers. Entering Saturday, 29 games have gone past regulation this season. Only nine of those games, or roughly 31 percent, have been decided by a shootout.
NHL
To put that in perspective, 306 games went past regulation in 2014-15 and 170 of them, or 55.5 percent, were decided by a shootout.
GMs want to avoid the shootout at all costs, and three-on-three is clearly helping facilitate that.
The overwhelming sentiment across the hockey world is that it's more exciting and a better way to determine a legitimate winner in a game. It's all the rage. It's fun. It's intense. The non-stop action has everybody talking.
“It’s entertaining there’s no question,” Flyers head coach Dave Hakstol said earlier this week. “I still believe it’s a better way to decide a game than the shootout, given that the opportunity of three-on-three is the right way to go. I’ve liked most of what we’ve done in our last couple of overtimes. Again, you have a mental lapse where you drift when you don’t have full possession of the puck and it’s going to come back to hurt you.”
Hockey is a game of mistakes. What makes the sport intriguing is how players and teams are coached and conditioned to recover from errors.
In three-on-three, every miscue is magnified. Turning the puck over can be devastating. Errant passes or missed shots are guaranteed to bite you. With all the extra room on the ice, it becomes that much more difficult to get back in position after a giveaway.
“It’s chaos out there,” Steve Mason said after the Flyers’ 4-3 overtime loss to Buffalo on Tuesday. “It’s chance after chance; it’s grade A chances. That’s why so many games are ended in overtime. There’s just so many quality chances that eventually a guy is going to score.”
The NHL established long ago that ties are no longer acceptable. Knowing every game in the regular season could not be five-on-five sudden death like in the playoffs, the league first introduced four-on-four overtime as a way to shake things up.
That wasn’t enough.
Then along came the shootout, which fans have quickly grown tired of.
Shootouts are often referred to as “skills competitions.” They rely solely on a skater’s individual talent. They’re really a toss up. In some cases, the top players in the game aren’t always the best options in a shootout. Even elite goalies have had their struggles in the gimmick.
Is that any way to decide who gets an extra point? Most GMs would say no because it has the potential of having a profound effect on playoff seeding.
Is three-on-three OT more fair? On the surface, it seems more natural. Elements needed to succeed in regulation -- such as faceoff specialists, clutch goaltending, puck-moving defensemen etc. -- remain crucial.
Not everyone is a fan, however. Some have called it a joke. Others feel it is nothing more than glorified pond hockey.
Ottawa’s Erik Karlsson recently said “it’s not really hockey” and whoever “holds on to the puck longest and whoever cheats the most” will win.
Winnipeg’s Dustin Byfuglien called the new format “stupid” and would prefer to just continue playing four-on-four.
Even Brayden Schenn of the Flyers seemed lukewarm on the topic.
“It’s a game of mistakes and odd-man rushes,” he said. “It’s a different type of hockey. We need to be a little bit more smarter, and if we have to, play for the shootout.”
Coaches are certainly adapting. We’ve seen all sorts of strategies, some conservative, some aggressive, through the first three weeks of the season. Most teams go with two forwards and a defenseman. Other clubs try a three-forward approach. There’s plenty of room for creativity.
We’re also beginning to see set plays. Two weeks ago, Vancouver sent out Henrik Sedin to take the opening faceoff of the extra frame. After winning the draw, he immediately bolted for the bench and Radim Vrbata hopped over the boards, quickly received a springboard pass and went in on a breakaway attempt, splitting both Edmonton defenders. He didn’t score but it was fascinating to watch unfold.
Flyers analyst Brian Boucher, appearing on Comcast SportsNet’s Philly Sports Talk last week, raised another good point. You’re not going to see many fourth-line guys getting ice time. Three-on-three showcases the league’s most-talented players.
Boucher went on to say that creates “a nightmare" scenario for netminders but it can also show “how good goaltenders are.”
"It's not very goalie friendly," Mason said Tuesday.
Neither are shootouts, which do have some similarities to three-on-three OT. Both can be full of tension, demonstrate dazzling skill and give the fans a thrill. Sometimes, they're duds, too. There are no guarantees.
The NHL Board of Governors heard the backlash from teams, coaches and fans about the shootout, though. They knew it was time for a change.
The fact is, this solution has provided results and should continue to increase excitement while making the shootout more of a rarity. There's also greater talent on display and games are ending with actual hockey, sort of.
What more could you ask for?