Thorny

It’s all here: (not paywalled) https://theathletic.com/1672268/2021/02/08/inside-3-on-3-ot-strategies-and-stats-for-the-nhls-most-chaotic-game-state/?amp=1 “The way teams approach 3-on-3 in recent seasons has been very different. There’s a lot more strategy now as teams try to establish order. Barry Trotz, whose Islanders teams have thrived in the format, put it succinctly: “In 3-on-3 it’s about possession and decisions and if you don’t have it it’s position and patience.”“ “Ask any player or coach about the keys to 3-on-3 and one of the first aspects they mention is puck possession. Teams that win 3-on-3 games generally have more individual possessions (53 percent), more time with the puck in those possessions (54 percent) and more time spent in the attacking third (57 percent) compared to teams that lost.“ “One of the fundamental differences between overtimes now and that first game between Tampa Bay and Philadelphia is that players aren’t shy about holding on to the puck. Rather than dart up and down the ice, players are weaving through with patience, looking for breakdowns while attempting to wear down the opposition.” - - - Any format the Islanders are/were especially proficient in is abjectly terrible.

The Sabres, in 20th place, are closer in points to 14th place than to 21st.

It’s indisputable. How often do you see teams cycle the puck back outside the blue line willingly in regulation play? Or pass it back to the goalie? There’s more keep away in OT because there is more ice Not sure how your stat applies to the discussion

I understand this but 3 v 3 facilitates the ability of an offensive team to successfully pull off that strategy, greater than 5 v 5 does, obviously indisputably

Butterfly effect, my dude. We can never know. And don’t forget Charlie Conway to Gordon Bombay, when Gordon was lamenting being an inch from scoring when he hit the post: “Sure, but an inch the other way, you miss completely”

I think all games should be worth 3 points. It doesn’t make logical sense to me that some games deal out a greater portion of total standings points. Some games literally mean more than others re: the portion of the standings they are contributing to. To me, that’s a flaw. granted, it’s obviously a known, intentional flaw: keep more squads in the race longer. It’s not changing

A lot of it, for my part, comes down to bias: i truly believe it’s not a very good reflection of the type of play one sees while watching the rest of the normal game, so while rooting for my team, I hate to see points come down to it. It IS* entertaining: when I’m watching other teams plays, even though I still don’t think it’s a good reflection, I don’t really care cause ya, not Buffalo. * the interesting thing though, is that “it’s really fun” has worn off for me over time, as well. As coaches have sunk their teeth into it, more often than not I feel nowadays it becomes a game of keep away, which is boring imo. Of course, my reading of how often these OTs devolve into that kinda contest might also be weighted on by my personal bias; it’s hard to say

Well, they aren’t incentivizing losing in OT: they are incentivizing *not being defeated in regulation* you deserve a point because a team couldn’t defeat you within the true portion of the game

You disregarded my good faith explanation for why I like it. The entire meat of my post. It wasn’t about being “right”, I was trying to explain to you why it had value. I’m not doing this crap anymore. Yes. It’s a shite metric. We good?

I got you I think it’s because 3 v 3 is a sham. It’s what I always say, and the league devaluing it’s role in the tie breaker at least lends a small crumble of merit to my opinion here

What a fun conversation.

Briere and Leino?

No one thinks it’s a wonderful proxy. It’s just generally accurate: as you laid out by saying we are 1/2. The reason it’s a nice metric to follow is not because it guarantees anything: it’s because winning as many, or more than you lose is fun because *winning is the purpose of the game*. It’s fun to see your team win more than you lose. It’s the most basic metric to understand the inherent, mental value of. The fact that it *often* corresponds with playoffs is what makes it not purely emotional. It’s also fun because teams that win more than they lose are fairly, imo, classified as “good”. Hope that helps because you seem to hate it more than people that like it, like it

Can you see the future?

Norris nomination could be a thing

^ Cheat sheet, for my part

We are getting a new backup. Levi playing today seals that for me. UPL gone, Comrie in AHL prob

They’ll learn from the Dahlin bridge and go LT with Power. Power’s rookie year at 20 isn’t as impressive as Dahlin’s at 18, but with our coaching Power won’t go through the temporary dev struggles Dahlin did. He’ll be locked up long term like Samuelsson.

Boy, full marks to Adams on this one. Looking like it’ll be his most impactful move (..and it’s not on an island). An excellent talent analysis and projection by him and his team. To add, I don’t want to get ahead of it and assume he’ll be so good over so many games next year that there won’t be a learning curve as he adjusts to the large workload of a full season, though (And shooters adjust to him), as it’s tough to extrapolate small sample sizes, as we’ve seen. So my preference, in a year where we really gotta see playoffs, would be to add a competent vet backup, if at all possible, to spell starter Levi when he needs rest. Not a comment on confidence in Levi - even the team with whoever has the best goalie in the league needs a capable back up in today’s game, no two ways about it if you have expectations - and I just have none in UPL and Comrie. If anything, Levi’s play has increased that feeling. A back-up addition should honestly be the easy part given how good Levi looks to be, at this time.

My sincere apologies for even mentioning it

Stop trying to make fetch happen dude

No, I mean awful goal song

Great win. Awful goal song be damned

I’m kinda hoping to see him in all 3 facets haha

He’s been really good!