« Don't Hurry Back | Main | Please Help »

NO!!!

I love long overtimes...and I hate any game that has to be decided by a shootout.

Obviously, non-hockey fans aren't going to warm up to the sport even if they have naked cheerleaders during the intermissions

Teams plays 82 games to get into the playoffs. They deserve more than to have their efforts put to a joke like a shootout. It's a team sport.

Oh my, for the love of everything that's right in this world, please no. Have you ever played a game that was settled by shootout? If you win it's not the same "hoorah" and if you lose you feel cheated.

I'll also restate what needs to be said: 4 on 4 isn't more exciting. It appears to be in the current system because there's nothing to lose in overtime. 5 on 5 would be exciting that way too and the NHL blew it by not doing that first.

I don't care if most hockey fans are in the minority of the general public - they're the fans who are already there and I know of very few who don't love playoff overtime hockey. You're on your seat the whole time, it's the best sudden death in any sport.

What I love is hearing criticism of hockey for being boring and OT playoff games taking too long... from people who watch televised golf.

I've been one that doesn't care too much about the lockout, because for reasons of time and money I prefer to stick with the local ECHL franchise. Not as good hockey, but light years cheaper and fun.

I'm used to 4 on 4 OT and then a shootout, which if it gets that far is pretty darned nerve-wracking. I'd be in favor of it (unless they just want to make things simpler and make obstruction penalties more meaningful).

Speaking as a casual hockey fan, I don't think using a shootout is a very good idea--any OT format that changes the basic nature of the game should be viewed skeptically, as college football's overtime rules should teach us. And personally, I like the multiple OT playoff games--but I'm a sucker for punishment.

And while I agree with David that the "excitement" of 4-on-4 is probably illusory, it may be worth considering for playoff OT for the simple reason that using fewer players will help teams conserve their strength during protracted OT games.

But if you're still looking for a way to get rid of multiple OTs without resorting to a shootout, how about allowing ties in the playoffs? For each playoff game, award two points for a win, and one point for a tie after regulation and a five-minute OT. First team to eight points wins the series.

This approach has obvious drawbacks, of course. If the series score is 7-5 going into a game seven, the leading team only needs a tie to win--hardly a recipe for exciting play. And if a series ends 7-7, there needs to be another tiebreaker--probably a one-goal sudden death faceoff.

Remember, I only suggest this alternative if you believe multiple-OT is bad but don't want to resort to a shootout.

Why not eliminate the goaltenders and the clock completely, and just have a quick shot-accuracy contest, a la the skills competition, to decide tied playoff games? That'd be sure to get us out of the arenas and back to our oh-so-busy lives promptly.

The plethora of long overtimes we've experienced since about 2000 is a consequence of low scoring levels anyway (although OTs were largely absent from this year's playoffs, not that I'd expect a mere sportswriter to have noticed). If the league did what it ought to do--get rid of the center line, or at least make the goalies wear the gear they did in 1985--the problem for which this is a signally stupid solution would be dramatically alleviated.

casual hockey fan...nice one, skip!

unless they just want to make things simpler and make obstruction penalties more meaningful.

I concur!

Forget hockey for a sec. It is not as popular as, say, baseball. What we really need there is for baseball to adjust their extra innings policy.

They should play only one extra inning but then if the game is still tied it should go to a home run derby. That way it would be more exciting and the players would not be as tired.

I was going to post a snarky smackdown of Eric's misguided idea...but I see others have already done a much better job than I ever could have.

I'll just say this...the only times OT playoff games can get tedious is when they go 4 or 5 OT's...I'll agree, those can get silly. Now, how many of those have there been in the last 20 years? Compared to all the great, riveting, single/double/triple OT games.

Why throw out the baby with the bath water...or cut off your nose to spite your face...or whatever.

Not sure about cause and effect re: OTs. '51 - 42% of playoff games were OTs with an average duration of 9:06. '82 - 43% OTs, average duration 7:20, '02 - 20% OTs a/d 16:60, '01 - 31% OTs a/d 8:63. Where's the cause and effect? How does the centerline and smaller goalie pads explain a longer average duration per OT game in '51 than in '01?

There is nothing in the sports world more exciting than overtime playoff hockey... and it gets more exciting with every overtime. Why would anyone want to truncate such an awesome adrenaline rush?

As one who stayed to the end of the 5th longest game ever, the 1996 Capitals - Penguins 4OT game, and sat on the edge of my seat through the 3rd longest game ever, the 2000 Penguins - Flyers game, i can say that those games are among the most memorable sports moments i've experienced.

I can't fathom how anyone could prefer - or even be capable of - going to bed rather than continuing to watch a game in which the emotional value of a win or loss increases with every passing minute, and in which every shot could mean elation or gut-wrenching deflation, and every save is either a nerve-wracking reprieve, or a frustrating yet delicious prolonging of the suspense.

...dave

NO! NO! NO!

I am sick and tired of the NHL trying to cater to people like that (Tom Sorenson of the Charlotte Observer). What about fans like me who have been watching for 25 years? Some people just don't get it and never will. I will admit that the game he was referring to was boring but 90% of OT hockey is awesome!!!

Charles--OT duration should correlate negatively with overall scoring levels, no? Your numbers suggest this, with the shortest OTs happening in high-scoring 1982. I would expect overtimes to have been longer in 1951 because scoring was relatively low then, for reasons unrelated to the current drought. They didn't even have the Zamboni in '51--imagine what the ice was like after three periods.

The data certainly bear this out, although the samples aren't very big until you have 16 teams qualifying for the playoffs... average OTs are below 10 minutes in the early '80s when there were nearly eight goals scored per game; as scoring declines, the OTs get dramatically longer. I think it's clear enough that the causal arrow points from high scoring to quick OTs...

The anomally CC is the early 1940s, when Maurice, the Rocket, (cough, cough) Richard, scored his 50 in 50 when most of the Canada's Anglos were in Europe during WW2. Goals per game averages rivaled and in some cases surpassed the 80s. For 41-42 thru 44-45 average OT duration was a remarkable 19:29. Strangely enough, in 44-45 season g/g averaged 7.35 and OT duration averaged 14:55, however, during the playoffs the g/g average dropped to 4.9. The causal line points from high scoring to short OTs however it is not clear that equipment and rule changes will elevate scoring and thus reduce OT duration. The same pattern is found in 43-44; 8.17 during the season and 5.57 during the playoffs. During the 80s playoff g/g averages did drop but not as drastically as during the early 40s.

You're talking (to what end, it's hard to tell) about trivial samples--from 41-42 through 44-45 there are only 11 playoff overtime games. Even after 1967 you have to look at groups of seasons to see the effect.

Your one potentially good point is that it may not be "clear that equipment and rule changes will elevate scoring and thus reduce OT duration." It's hard to see how limiting the size of goaltenders' gear could do anything but increase scoring, though some say it wouldn't have much effect. It only takes a small adjustments to bring about radical reductions in the number of outliers (very long OT games).

West coast Hockey fan here. Multiple OT games are the greatest. This is not soccer. There is nothing better then watching the Ducks go through the Playoff’s winning most of their games in OT. Now that was exciting. Or the Kings in 1993 playing 3 OT Stanley Cup Finals games they didn’t win, but that was so close. Those are the best sports moments, even better then the 1979 Rams.

Why trivial CC? The quality of play was drastically affected by the war. Your reference to the 80s (apparently) was to show a linkage between shorter overtimes and higher seasonal g/g averages. If you assess the WW2 era on that basis, high seasonal g/g averages, your theory falls apart because overtime duration was the reverse of the 80s pattern, high scoring low OT duration. The war years showed high scoring high OT duration. However, if you examine the post season scoring, the g/g averages drop way down. Why? Did the goalies change their pads? So what if there were only 11 OTs during those years. Playoff games in total thru that whole period probably total the same as one post season in the eighties. Where's the evidence that small adjustments bring radical change? The war fundamentally changed the quality of players during that era and drastically affected g/g averages, especially during the regular season.

I am going to say this once: You either love hockey when you see or you don't. Hockey fans are passionate about their sport and that might be the one saving grace for the NHL (that's different, from say, baseball): We are not casual fans. A lot are educated about the state of the league and know that a lockout, as painful as it might be in the long run, may be the best thing for a sport that needs all the help it can get.

Eric's running of this article was clearly meant to stimulate discussion and it has worked like magic. I am sorry some guy from Raleigh (apparently they have a NHL franchise there) doesn't like playoff OT. I can understand tailoring a sport to try and get new fans, but let's be honest--hockey is popular because of what it is to see a game live and what city you root for. That's it. People like Tom Sorenson would find excuses not to watch if OTs were shootouts or we played 4 on 4 or whatever.

That's not to say that some changes need to be made but OT playoff sudden death is pretty much off the list.

I fell asleep during the regulation part of the 5 OT game last year. I woke up in time for 5 overtime periods of intense, if not a little slow, playoff hockey.

If my g/f did not force me to get milk at the end of the 4th OT, I would have seen the game winner live early in the 5th OT.

I should have broke up with her then.

Thanks for signing in, .

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)