VANCOUVER — There is nothing to be gleaned from the mere fact that the National Hockey League has adopted 3-on-3 as its format for the all-star game.

It doesn’t mean regular-season overtime has been universally applauded or that it has been an abject failure, or something in between.

All it means is that anything would be better than the ever-changing “normal” all-star configuration, so why not try it?

But in 40 years of plying the trade, no hockey rule change has been more warmly welcomed in this scribe’s living room than the advent of 3-on-3 OT. And if, as the Toronto Star argues, its “wow” factor has suffered as its debut season has worn on — if coaches are gradually figuring out how to break it down and dull it up, as the stats certainly indicate — well, good luck to them.

Even coaches can’t entirely screw this up.

How do we know this? Because there is pretty much zero correlation between the standings and teams’ overtime records.

The Maple Leafs are one of only two teams without an overtime win (Anaheim being the other), so the players quoted in the Star story are understandably sour on 3-on-3 OT, if not on life in general.

But they should cheer up, because the best thing about it, aside from the thrills, is that it plays no favourites.

No team has more OT wins than the Chicago Blackhawks’ eight, which makes perfect sense. But the 25th-place Calgary Flames also have eight.

The Washington Capitals, Dallas Stars and Florida Panthers — first, third and fifth in overall standings, have just three, three and one OT win, respectively.

The L.A. Kings and Detroit Red Wings have seven OT wins each, but so do the Carolina Hurricanes and Philadelphia Flyers. The 28th-place Edmonton Oilers have six.

It is not quite random, but it is utterly unpredictable.

Those who hated the 3-on-3 concept going in may always hate it. Most of those who couldn’t wait to see how it played out haven’t been disappointed.

Are coaches getting better at, if not winning at 3-on-3, at least not losing? Probably.

“I do think you should probably make some adjustments as the games go on where you should be looking for ways to make yourself better,” said Vancouver Canucks coach Willie Desjardins. “And that probably takes away a little bit of the excitement of the 3-on-3, but … I don’t know if you ever play not to lose, I always hope you try to play to win.”

Does it therefore follow that it will ultimately lose its excitement?

“I don’t think so,” said Canucks winger Jannik Hansen. “There’s too much ice, guys are too fast, too good to not make something happen when you have five minutes of it uninterrupted.

“You step on the ice, and there’s going to be a scoring chance, that’s pretty much a given. You don’t know if it’s going to be against, or you’re going to get it. But something’s going to happen and this is why we play. It’s fun to have the puck and the chance to end the game.”

But that’s a speedster talking. Those of the more lead-footed persuasion have less fun, which is why many teams tend to rotate only three sets of three skaters, or half the lineup, in OT.

“That’s evolved, too,” said Peter Laviolette, whose Nashville Predators play host to this weekend’s NHL All-Star festivities, where the coaches will have nothing but highly skilled players to rotate through the 20-minute games. Not so in regular season.

“We started with four sets (after) conversations we had with minor-league coaches who said it’s so taxing maybe you need four sets, but four is probably too much. So we’ve since got it down to maybe three sets and an extra.”

No doubt, what started out as river hockey is now better organized. Teams will double back into their end rather than give up the puck, and stall behind the net to get fresh legs on the ice, two zones away. There are negative elements that might need some form of over-and-back rule to remedy.

“As you start to figure it out, you start to realize how valuable possession is and maybe how to defend a little bit better,” Laviolette said.

“We weren’t very successful early on,” Hansen understated (the Canucks began 0-7 in overtime; they’re 3-2 since.) “I think it’s just a matter of trying things out and seeing what works for other teams that are winning on a regular basis or why teams lose.”

Whatever arguments the skeptics might have, this much is certain: 3-on-3 beats the heck out of any other idea that might be out there.

When two teams with skill and speed go at it, the way Pittsburgh and Chicago did earlier this season, it is an eye-opening experience: like seeing hockey for the first time.

We’ll take more of that, please. Not less.

ccole@postmedia.com

Twitter.com/rcamcole