I Hate Shootouts

[Speedo]

do you not find a shootout somewhat exciting?

It can be. It's certainly dramatic. But ranger68 is right. It's not hockey. When baseball games end in ties, they play more baseball -- same with basketball and football (albeit, to a limit with the NFL regular season rules). I understand your point about the injury factor.

Here's what I'd do if I ruled the world: Ten minutes of 4-on-4 overtime, and if it's still tied, it finishes tied. And to keep coaches from playing for a tie, I'd give teams two points for a win, no points for a loss, and no points for a tie. Let's see how many games are still even after 70 minutes under that scenario.

 

[Ranger68]

yeah, i guess it could be read either way... my only concern is that an extended overtime (say 10 or 20 minutes) would only put more wear and tear on the big guys and thereby putting them at an even greater risk for injury- these guys are the ones who get the most overtime play and are needed the most in an 82 game season. the shootout will result in far less injuries.

So, let the game end. Hockey has ties. Use them.

do you not find a shootout somewhat exciting?

Not remotely. It's such a gimmick. The game has ended at that point. I've turned away from the two shoot-outs they've gone to. On the other hand, I've found both overtimes pretty exciting. Four-on-four usually is.

 

[21pro]

but if it means a possible extra point for your team... especially if they really could use the point... wouldn't you watch?


like i said earlier... if shootouts were taken away from the game, that's ok too. i think ties are ok, but the last few seasons had waaayyy too many! perhaps if the goals per game remain as high as the averages from the '80's, then there quite possibly be less overtimes anyway... but then again, less overtimes means less shootouts, so i don't think it's such a big deal. except that if the goals per game is high enough that there is a strong chance someone will score in o.t. then maybe get rid of the shootout... but, player mentality has been such that many teams just play a passive trap style play to try to atleast get a tie... which in my opinion is boring hockey... on the other hand, a shootout is exciting... especially when you see it happen live at the event!

 

[21pro]

no points for a tie. Let's see how many games are still even after 70 minutes under that scenario.

i do like that one!

 

[21pro]

is the consensus still out there that the shootout sucks?

tonight- watching the Canucks play Wild, I found myself praying for a shootout when it came down to the last minute of overtime.

shootout was a good one- and the Wild goes on to it's best season start in it's history!

 

[Manji]

is the consensus still out there that the shootout sucks?

tonight- watching the Canucks play Wild, I found myself praying for a shootout when it came down to the last minute of overtime.

shootout was a good one- and the Wild goes on to it's best season start in it's history!

Not me....

I love the ShootOut since it was introduced....

Caught three Shootouts so far....

Montreal versus Buffalo...Buffalo won
Toronto versus Montreal....Montreal won
Florida versus Toronto.....Toronto won

Weird that they were all kind of linked....

 

[Hard Idle]

What's wrong with ties?

That's what I'd like to know.

I see no reason to eliminate or discourage ties in the regular season. It's not like a tennis tournamnt format where you have a Semi-Final on Friday and a you need two Finalists by Sunday. When you have an 82 game season to sort out the standings, there's plenty of room for ties.

Isn't the real drama in the action itself? How certain matchups will play out, the one-on-one battles, the tactics and adjustments?

A lousy game with a fluke winner was still a lousy game. While a well played, hotly contested tie was still great viewing for 60 minutes.

If all you want is a result that may or may not be a reflection of the match, then why bother with the game at all? Just invent some other gimmick to pick a winner - coin toss, lottery, measuring all the dicks at centre ice and the "longest" team wins...

 

[Hard Idle]

As for the shootouts themselves, I could do with or without the spectacle. If they want to do it just for entertainment, thats fine. My objection is to taking a novelty item and making it count in the record book.

If they insist on tiebrakes, use some stats derived from normal play in regulation & OT - for example Shot's On Goal, or perhaps SOG + Faceoffs forced in other teams zone. Even that would be more representative than penalty shots.

Originally Posted by 21pro
.. it changes the game- which was getting kinda boring over the last few years. too many ties since '99

Two wrongs don't make a right. Wanna increase the quality of the hockey? Easy - drop down to 26 or 24 teams and stop playing games in buildings where the ice turns to syrop by the middle of the 2nd Period.

I don't understand how it's changed the game much, except that it's possible for a team which got owned most of 65 minutes and had an ill-deserved Tie thanks to a hot goalie, now gets a 50-50 chance to get an extra point in the shootout.

... it forces GM's, Coaches, and players to all re-evaluate their strategies,

Theoretically it might, but are there ANY examples of it? How many times last year did a coach switch goalies for the shootout because the other guy is better at penalty shots? Is anyone aware of a single player who surprisingly made an NHL team mostly because he's so great at brakeaways that he'd be "money in the bank" in every shootout. Has any team promoted an obscure minor-league goalie who is a poor skater, kicks big rebounds and can't handle traffic - but is almost unbeatable in penalties - to be their "shootout closer" ?

 

[shack]

That's what I'd like to know.

I see no reason to eliminate or discourage ties in the regular season. It's not like a tennis tournamnt format where you have a Semi-Final on Friday and a you need two Finalists by Sunday. When you have an 82 game season to sort out the standings, there's plenty of room for ties.

Isn't the real drama in the action itself? How certain matchups will play out, the one-on-one battles, the tactics and adjustments?

A lousy game with a fluke winner was still a lousy game. While a well played, hotly contested tie was still great viewing for 60 minutes.

If all you want is a result that may or may not be a reflection of the match, then why bother with the game at all? Just invent some other gimmick to pick a winner - coin toss, lottery, measuring all the dicks at centre ice and the "longest" team wins...

Well said.

And where's the drama of overtime when even if you lose you still get a point? In reality then, there are no losers. And how silly is it when they have different rules for overtime (4 skaters) and a totally different format for SO?

I guess I'm a purist.

 

[21pro]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I don't understand, what are the 2 wrongs?

shack and hard idle: i agree with your purism thoughts... the game should be preserved in some ways. but, the game should also be exciting for the players as well as the fans. I also do believe that the players should have a GREATER say to how the game is made up then any of us. The players LOVE the shootout according to many sources. They also like the 1 point guarantee upon reaching overtime as it is an award for achieving the level of not being beaten during regulation time. That is an accomplishment that can be recognized... much like how assists are now awarded (at one time, too, that was not part of the game of hockey!)...

I still can't turn my head from watching a shootout so it can't be all that bad!

 

[shack]

shack and hard idle: i agree with your purism thoughts... the game should be preserved in some ways. but, the game should also be exciting for the players as well as the fans. I also do believe that the players should have a GREATER say to how the game is made up then any of us. The players LOVE the shootout according to many sources. They also like the 1 point guarantee upon reaching overtime as it is an award for achieving the level of not being beaten during regulation time. That is an accomplishment that can be recognized... much like how assists are now awarded (at one time, too, that was not part of the game of hockey!)...

My purism objection is not the actual overtime or shootout per se, but that for these aspects of the game they are changing the way the game is played. My main objection is that I don't think they add anything exciting to the game.

Overtime in the playoffs, IMO, is one of the most dramatic events to watch in all of sports because so much is riding on the next goal. You can't help but sit on the edge of your seat because even the most innocent looking play could decide the outcome of a hard fought evenly played game. One small mistake and your team gets a big zero.

Overtime in the regular season? You lose and you still come away with the same point as you would have before they had overtime. To me, it takes away all the drama playoff overtime provides because it lacks the all or nothing aspect that guy was talking about.

Another totally illogical aspect is that some hockey games are worth more in the standings than other games. Some are worth 3 points and some are worth 2. How stupid is that? Tell me, pro, do you think a game that ends in a tie is more "important" such that more points are awarded? To me that is the implication if 3 points are awarded instead of 2. Without looking at the entertainment aspect do you not think that ALL GAMES ARE EQUALLY IMPORTANT AND SHOULD ALL BE WORTH THE SAME NUMBER OF POINTS? Totally moronic.

Second point, regarding player input on the rules of the game (not associated with their personal safety and welfare). I personally don't think a 20 year old, barely adult, probably lacking in higher education jock has a better idea of what's good for the game than the executives of the teams and league who have been around the game for many years and viewed it from the perspective of players, management and even fans. (Too bad these same executives brought these rules in.) But my point is I don't give a hoot what the players think because they are not the best judges of what's best for the game. Would you agree to letting goalies wear pads as big as their hearts desire? I'm sure if you asked them they would vote for no restrictions on the size of pads. So whether or not the players are excited about shootouts should not factor into the equation. I can show up early to a game and see lots of shootouts in the warmup.

 

[21pro]

I agree with you. it's different than my view. but I agree you have valid points. It is my view that the season is VERY important as just over half of the teams MAKE post-season and many teams are NOT profitable unless they do so. In that regard, every point, every game counts... but, yes the games can still be important without the extra OT point.

Games worth 3 points? where? only 0pts, 1pt. or 2pts... is what i ever see 1 team getting out of a game...

Also, keep in mind some people have a credible phD by the age of 20. They are true 'experts' in their field. As is the majority of NHL hockey players are 'experts' in their respective fields. It is a voted majority input. (which might make the whole issue of a 20yr old a moot point as the average age for an NHL player is 29.7 and the mean age is 28.2) And also, you can bet that the 20 year old hockey player has 15 years experience in playing the game at it's highest levels for his age... I'd bet by then he'd be a credible source for asking what's best for the game. Consider a welder with 15 years experience... he's more than qualified to be certified as a Master Welder.

 

[shack]

Games worth 3 points? where? only 0pts, 1pt. or 2pts... is what i ever see 1 team getting out of a game...

When a team wins in reg. one team gets 2 points, one gets 0. Two points awarded. Overtime or shootout, one team gets 2 points, one gets 1 point. 3 points awarded. So some games are worth 2 points in the standings and some are worth 3.

Which leads me to an interesting although unlikely scenario. Say Philly, the Isles and the Pens are tied going into the final night of the season for the last two playoff spots. The Pens won the season series against the other two (or whatever the tiebreaker is), have the last night off and Philly is playing NY. If either team wins in reg. they get 2 pts and Pens get the last playoff spot. If however, the teams tie, the Pens get knocked out because now 3 points are awarded. It's possible those two teams could even conspire to tie so that they are both guaranteed to make the playoffs.

Also, keep in mind some people have a credible phD by the age of 20. They are true 'experts' in their field. As is the majority of NHL hockey players are 'experts' in their respective fields. It is a voted majority input. (which might make the whole issue of a 20yr old a moot point as the average age for an NHL player is 29.7 and the mean age is 28.2) And also, you can bet that the 20 year old hockey player has 15 years experience in playing the game at it's highest levels for his age... I'd bet by then he'd be a credible source for asking what's best for the game. Consider a welder with 15 years experience... he's more than qualified to be certified as a Master Welder.

I'll disagree on that. They may be world class in talent. They may be experts in how to play the game. They are not experts in management, marketing or assessing public opinion. If they are experts even in just the strategy of the game (let alone how to manage the entire industry) why are there no 20 or even 25 year old coaches or even player coaches of any age? If they were so smart at that age there should be more coaches in their 20's and 30's. Granted there has been the occasional very young coach (Scotty Bowman, Gary Green, Paul Maurice) but how often do they come along? IMO the average player does not have the knowledge of the industry (as opposed to the game) to make those kinds of decisions.

C'mon agree with me. My points are valid and my fingers are getting sore.

 

[21pro]

I told you 3 times i agree with your points!

but, I also said I enjoy shootouts and the 1 point awarded for reaching the OT... you're trying to encourage me to not like something i enjoy.

maybe not quite as strong a correlation, but say i try to convince you not to appreciate fine looking women... could i succeed? probably not. lol...

 

[johnhenrygalt]

Which leads me to an interesting although unlikely scenario. Say Philly, the Isles and the Pens are tied going into the final night of the season for the last two playoff spots. The Pens won the season series against the other two (or whatever the tiebreaker is), have the last night off and Philly is playing NY. If either team wins in reg. they get 2 pts and Pens get the last playoff spot. If however, the teams tie, the Pens get knocked out because now 3 points are awarded. It's possible those two teams could even conspire to tie so that they are both guaranteed to make the playoffs.

In the above scenario, even under the old no-shootout, no points for an overtime loss system, both teams could still conspire to tie and each take away a point each.

One could however, conceive of a situation where on the final night one team needs a win while a tie is good enough for the other club. Here the club needing the win could agree to tie the game in regulation on condition that they be permitted to win in overtime or shootout.

 

[shack]

In the above scenario, even under the old no-shootout, no points for an overtime loss system, both teams could still conspire to tie and each take away a point each.

One could however, conceive of a situation where on the final night one team needs a win while a tie is good enough for the other club. Here the club needing the win could agree to tie the game in regulation on condition that they be permitted to win in overtime or shootout.

Correct. Why didn't I think of that?

 

[21pro]

a new study suggests that when teams are tied going into end of regulation it represents an overall elevated level of play by both teams in most circumstances. they seem to see a true correlation between the last few weeks of hockey and the evidence of higher %age of games reaching OT in the Playoffs. i don't know how they come to this but they do provide these stats:

Before the All Star Break
total NHL games played 726
# that ended in regulation 584 (80.4%)
# that ended in OT 57 (7.9%)
# that ended in Shootout 85 (11.7%)

After the All Star Break up until Feb. 28, 2007
total NHL games played so far 246
# that ended in regulation 172 (69.8%)
# that ended in OT 30 (12.6%)
# that ended in Shootout 42 (17.6%)

I don't really care to interpret too much into the stats, but I can say:

The increase in ties would definitely make for a boring final 3rd of the hockey season. that would just be too many ties without a shootout. 1 of every 5 games played would end in a tie leading up to the post season. That's almost 1 tie per night!

this is probably the best argument for finishing season games in shootout if need be.

 

[danger]

i've wanted them to do shoot outs in the nhl for years..........i used to play in the minors and we went straight to shoot outs after regulation...i loved it and i think the 5mins overtime first is an even better idea.....as a player i couldnt stand travelling up to 10hrs on a bus to leave with nothing resolved..........

i was one of those players who grinded up and down his wing and played a checking / defensive role , and i never got called on to be in a shoot out and that suited me just fine.......if the game was in o.t. i probably wouldn't have touched the ice then either.....

 

[scouser1]

its 82 freaking games, gotta make them interesting somehow, and shootouts are just one way, otherwise who the hell would care about Columbus vs Chicago on a Wednesday night!!!

now if the playoffs and Stanley Cup finals were decided by this skills competition then I would see a reason as to why people would hate it.

 

[danger]

pitts just beat philly in a shoot out......only part of the game i stopped cleaning, sat down and watched............