THE OT DEBATE?
In the Penguins locker room, anyway, there is none
It was a time when dinosaurs roamed the earth, which just might have been flat in those days.
When the cutting-edge technological challenge was figuring out how to harness the miracle of fire, without the benefit of lighter fluid.
And when regular-season games in the NHL were allowed to end in ties.
Honest, there actually was a time when it was accepted that hockey games could finish 2-2 or 3-3 or 5-5. Or even 0-0.
Heck, one of the most celebrated games in hockey history — a 3-3 exhibition tie between Montreal and the Soviet Red Army on Dec. 31, 1975 at the Forum — did not have a winner. And it certainly did not have a loser.
But the NHL introduced a no-frills, five-minute overtime for the 1983-84 season, and the format has evolved (or mutated?) over the years to the one currently in use: Fve minutes of 3-on-3 play, followed by a shootout of at least three rounds if the tie has not been broken.
The shootout came along in 2005-06, in the wake of a lockout that wiped out the 2004-05 season, and 3-on-3 play replaced 4-on-4 in 201516.
That means the current system has been in place for a little more than 31⁄2 seasons, long enough for opinions about it to develop and calcify.
And while some traditionalists wince at the idea of forcing every game to produce a winner, Penguins players and coaches seem to have a pretty positive perspective on 3-on-3 overtime, if only because having fewer players — and thus, more open space — on the ice reduces the chances of having a team pick up a second point because it wins a penalty-shot competition.
“I like it,” winger Bryan Rust said. “It’s better than having games end in a shootout. I think it’s exciting for the players, the teams and, obviously, for the fans.
“You see a lot fewer games going to a shootout now. It’s better to have things decided before a shootout.”
Although awarding a “loser point” to the team that’s beaten in overtime or a shootout attracts criticism in some quarters, defenseman Jack Johnson suggested that doing so ratchets up the entertainment value when 3-on-3 play begins.
“If you lost at 3-on-3 and got zero points, it wouldn’t be as exciting,” he said. “[It would be] a lot more defensive.”
Because the Penguins lineup is sprinkled with elite offensive talents — guys such as Sidney Crosby, Evgeni Malkin, Kris Letang and Phil Kessel — 3-on-3 would seem to be ideal for them.
The reality, though, is that they split their first eight overtime decisions this season and finished far above .500 in overtime only once in the previous three seasons. They were 6-4 in 2015-16, 6-6 in 201617 and 12-4 in 2017-18.
While Johnson said that “there is a lot of improv” during overtime because of all the space available, coach Mike Sullivan said strategy plays a part, too.
“We’ve talked about it a lot as a staff over the years, trying to learn how we could help our guys,” he said. “And there are some strategies, both offensively and defensively, that we try to utilize to help give our players a competitive advantage.”
Sullivan acknowledged, though, that “defensively, at the end of the day, it boils down to man-on-man because there just aren’t enough players on the ice to create any sort of a zone or some sort of a defensive scheme.”
Still, neither Sullivan nor his players seem inclined to tweak the current setup.
“I like it the way it is,” Rust said.
When it comes to 3-on-3 overtime, then, the Penguins see no need to reinvent the wheel.
Which, history tells us, was in widespread use even before that game between the Canadiens and Soviets.