Extending Overtime?

by borgy on Feb 9, 2009 12:43 PM PST Comment 16 comments

James Mirtle (who I believe has something to do with SBN) wrote this post on the argument for extending the NHL's overtime period. Basically, Mirtle defers to stat-man Gabe Desjardins who breaks down what would happen if overtime were extended from five to ten minutes. Desjardins does calculations and figures that after a five minute overtime, the probability of us having a winner is 45%. However, after a ten minute overtime, the probability grows significantly to 70%.

To put this in different terms, increasing the overtime period from five to ten minutes dramatically increases our chances of the game not being decided by shootout.

Now I know this is something that people feel very strongly about. Some fans love the shootout and the excitement it brings to the game; others feel that it is a cheap way to determine the outcome of a game. After all, look at Mirtle's example in the article: the Oilers last year went into 19 shooutouts. Yeah, that's right, 19. And they won 14 of them. That's 14 points right there that the Coilers got in 2007-2008 shootouts. Our Canucks went into 14 shootouts last year; we won 6 of them. Interestingly enough, our beloved Canucks finished just 3 points away from qualifying for the playoffs.

So, should the NHL consider extending the overtime period and reduce the number of shooutouts? Or is the current format alright?

Poll

Should the NHL extend the overtime period from five to ten minutes?

No, the current format is fine.

2 votes

Yes, absolutely!

13 votes

15 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 16 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Read More: shooutout, overtime, james mirtle

Comments

Yeah, I’m a fan of 10 minute OT’s. I’ve always considered the possibility of going 5:00 of 4 on 4 and then 5:00 of 3 on 3.
Piss on the shootout. I’d like it more if the Canucks were better at it! :)

by Sean Zandberg on Feb 9, 2009 12:49 PM PST reply actions

Adding 5 of 3 on 3 is an interesting idea.

I wonder how much THAT would improve the chances of ending the game before a shootout. I suppose you’d have to find out how many minutes of three on three hockey have been played in the past year or two and then find the number of goals scored in those minutes. I wouldn’t even know where to start on getting that data.

Also, which Canucks would you trot out there for 3 on 3 OT? Right now, I’d go with Edler, Kesler and Sundin. That way you’ve got a great shot from the point with Edler, speed and defense with Kesler and Sundin would eat up a 3 on 3 with his size.

by borgy on Feb 9, 2009 1:15 PM PST up reply actions

Make the whole ten minutes 3-on-3. It’s overkill on the players I imagine, but with so much more ice you’d probably easily pull the overall % of shootouts down.

And I think watching these guys play 3-on-3 for half a normal period is better than a shootout anyway.

by Yankee Canuck on Feb 9, 2009 1:16 PM PST up reply actions

Here’s a crazy idea: Do the 10 minute OT, if nobody scores, rather than doing a shootout, pull both goalies and do a 6 on 6 till somebody scores.

by Linix129 on Feb 9, 2009 3:38 PM PST reply actions

Haha, this would really be funny. Some poor soul is going to lose a face on that faceoff

by Yankee Canuck on Feb 9, 2009 4:53 PM PST up reply actions

Linix: Boo! No way!

I’m down with the whole 10:00 being 3 on 3. The line combos? Geez. Too many to choose from.

If the 10:00 3 on 3 solves nothing, which would nearly be impossible….leave it as a tie.

by Sean Zandberg on Feb 9, 2009 3:40 PM PST reply actions

Hey, you can’t deny that it would be entertaining, just imagine the defensemen diving all over the ice to block shots.

by Linix129 on Feb 9, 2009 3:45 PM PST reply actions

Oh yeah, it would be entertaining ! :)

by Sean Zandberg on Feb 9, 2009 3:47 PM PST reply actions

On another note...

If a team gets a penalty in 3 on 3, do the teams then skate 3 on 2? Seems like things could get a little ridiculous in that case.

by borgy on Feb 9, 2009 3:54 PM PST reply actions

I forgot about that…though maybe just make the offending player sit and the team’s stay at 3-on-3.

by Yankee Canuck on Feb 9, 2009 4:54 PM PST up reply actions

Good point…hmm.. Fuck it! Yeah! 3 on 2!

by Sean Zandberg on Feb 9, 2009 3:56 PM PST reply actions

Yeah, and then eventually, if you figure out how to get it down to 1 on 1…it’ll be a shoot out!

by Judy_Nucker on Feb 9, 2009 9:46 PM PST reply actions

OK, so 4 on 4 for 10 minutes

by Sean Zandberg on Feb 9, 2009 10:30 PM PST reply actions

How about a 10 minute overtime played while the Zamboni is cleaning the ice…I think it would add a higher element of excitement to the completion of the game.

by GZ Expat on Feb 11, 2009 7:54 PM PST reply actions