Getty Images
At the Traverse Metropolis prospects tournament,
Detroit Crimson Wings
GM Ken Holland determined to test three-on-three additional time in a recreation between the Dallas Stars and the Minnesota Wild.
According to Craig Custance of ESPN ($), the critiques for the format had been uniformly optimistic.
Wild GM Chuck Fletcher declared that “every line change was an odd-man rush,” and puzzled what it could seem like if Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin shared the ice throughout it. New York Rangers assistant GM Jeff Gorton said, “The three-on-threes had been fairly enjoyable. It was good, particularly when they had fresh ice. The children had been racing up and down, trading chances.”
Custance writes that the optimistic critiques are part of the momentum constructing to have the format change into part of NHL time beyond regulation:
The feedback from his fellow executives echo conversations Holland has had in private. There’s an urge for food among the many decision-makers within the NHL to change the current additional time answer. The biggest reason is that parity has made issues so tight across the NHL that one level can make or break a playoff berth. Extra GMs would prefer that the deciding playoff spots be earned by something more intently resembling hockey, rather than factors gathered by successful shootouts.
It’s safe to say he’ll be making his proposal again this 12 months on the GM meetings. Now there is momentum constructing for it.
Holland has been pushing for three-on-3 overtime for years. In 2012, he proposed a 10-minute OT period within the regular season with the primary 5 minutes in four-on-four hockey and the last 5 played three-on-three – all sudden loss of life, all designed to keep away from the shootout.
This is all tremendously good news for those of us who are followers of fairness, equity and actual group play.
That mentioned, it’s still a gimmick. I get that. Dave Lozo and I had a Twitter debate about 3-on-three hockey and he labeled it because the evil of two lesser: That at least the shootout features something (a penalty shot) that you simply may see through the game with extra regularity than a freak present like 3-on-3 hockey.
But here’s how I see it: three-on-3 is a big improvement on the shootout, to the purpose the place I can overlook its flaws.
Passes being attempted! Defensemen playing defense! Games – and thus, playoff qualification – being determined by one thing that no less than resembles the 60 minutes that preceded it!
But above all else: Unpredictability.
The shootout has gotten stale, which is something even an early adopter of skills competitors bashing like yours actually might have never guessed would occur. However we’ve seen virtually each move, almost each scenario. We’ve seen too many games that appeared destined for the shootout because one crew or the opposite believes it has the advantage there to earn the extra point.
I’ve found it tedious for years, however I’ve grown increasingly aware that I’m not alone.
My good world scenario has always been teams buying and selling sudden demise 4-on-3 or 5-on-3 power plays in OT, with the house team having first crack. At the very least, 3-on-3 satisfies my need to see video games decided with one thing resembling hockey and the NHL’s need to dish up horny offensive highlights to SportsCenter.
Death To The Shootout Update: Support for 3-on-3 overtime increasing for NHL GMs
0 comments:
Post a Comment