Hockey Shootouts

[AndrewG]

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

Agreed, although I cant' recall multiple OT's ever happening in the regular season for at least the last sixty years. I wonder if they ever occured.

There was no OT in regular season at all untill the 1980s. And its always been just 5 minutes.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by AndrewG

There was no OT in regular season at all untill the 1980s. And its always been just 5 minutes.

I wonder if they had the same cry to have that implemented as they did about shootouts.

[Le Grande Orange]

I don't particularly care for the shootout because it's an incredibly gimmicky way to decide the winner, and uses rules completely unlike how the rest of the game operates.

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

Better than OT in the NFL.

See above. At least in the NFL, during overtime the same rules of the game are in place, it's just that the game will end after the first score. NFL overtime doesn't employ rules gimmicks such as ten-on-ten teams or the OT rules used in college football.

Originally Posted by Delgadodawg

When the shootout was implemented, they should have made a win in regulation worth 3 points. OT and shootout win worth 2 and an OT or shootout loss worth 1 point.

I almost agree with this, except for giving losing clubs a point. Clubs losing a game shouldn't be given points—losing should not be rewarded.

I would have done it this way: 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an overtime win, and 1 point for a shootout win. Why? Because OT is played four-on-four, which is not how the rest of the game is played. Since the rules are different, the point value of the win shouldn't be the same as a regular rules win. Similarly, since the shootout is played under completely different rules from the rest of the game, a win there should be worth the least.

With a regulation win being worth the most, it should encourage teams to try harder to get the win in regular time. And with an OT win worth more than a shootout win, it should encourage teams to try harder to get the win in OT.

[AndrewG]

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

I wonder if they had the same cry to have that implemented as they did about shootouts.

I hated idea, I remember one guy on tv saying "5 minutes of OT is like 10 seconds of sex."

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by AndrewG

I am 39 years old and a die hard hockey fan. I normally attend at least a dozen Habs games every year going back to the Forum when I was only 16. I take my kids to games, 2 seasons ago both kids got to ride on zamboni between period in a Bruins/Habs match at Bell Center even.

In the corner of my home office is a red forum seat and an autographed pic of Gump Worsley above it, next to it an old Ralph Backstrom straight blade stick from the 60's.

Yes, I f***ing love the game.


Now I am normally what people would call a hockey traditionalist. I think the goalie gear is too big, I dont like composite sticks, when I coach my kids practice (I coach both) I refuse to wear a helmet, the usual old man stuff.

Hell, I remember when they implimented 5 minute OTs and I was agaisnt it.

But for shootouts... bah..

I dont like shootouts, its a stupid way to end a game, boiling a team down to individual play.

But the reality is, there would be record amount of ties in the last few years if there wasnt a shootout.

My own opinion isnt even to go back to no shootouts with a 5 minute ot or even 60 minutes and a tie with no ot...

I say take a cue form Baseball and play until the game ends... period.....

This means a GB1 standing for each division. The fact you reward a team to lose if they do it 1 second into OT is a joke. The record for most points by a team in a year was broken because of ot and shootouts.. its just plain crazy.

Play untill someone wins. Like the playoffs 20 minute periods.. somebody scores, you win....

Not 2 weeks ago there was a penalty shot called as I watched a game on tv live,... now I remember prior to shootouts when this was a huge thing.... now it really isnt....

Heres a pic of my daughter on the zamboni!

They'll never play until the game ends, too difficult to do in regular season. Quite oftem teams have games on back to back nights with travel involved. You get into anything past a 20 minute overtime period, you're setting yourself up for missing your next game, or playing it in a very tired state, which is basically giving a win to the other guy.


I have no idea how you figure the penalty shot is no longer exciting. It's high and away better than the shootout. A penalty shot occurs during "Team" play 9remember, the thing about hockey being a team game?) and have a direct effect on the outcome, before it goed to OT or a shootout.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

I don't see how you can compare it to blind luck though, when over the long haul it (should) boil down to the skill of your shootout lineup and goalie. I should check the stats, but I'd be surprised if the better team didn't win a majority of the shootouts.

A tie is a horrible way to end a sporting event, and having 3 OT's in a regular season game is a waste of time. The shootout is exciting for fans and players, and it doesn't seem to have much of an impact on the final standings.

One alternative to the shootout that would be fun, would be to remove a player from each team and continue to play 5 minute OT's, without the normal between-period breaks. Or to change OT into 5-on-5 sudden death without goalies.

You really should do some stat research, the better team doesn't win a majority.

Why is a tie a horrible way to end a sporting event? I guess if you're in the "It's all about winning school" then I can see your point, but the way they do it right now with both teams getting at least one point they might as well just have the tie.

They do remove a player from each team now. OT is 5 on 5 vice 6 on 6. I don't mind the OT so much, it's exciting hockey, but I think it should be 10 minutes instead of 5. That wouldn't carry over too long or affect a teams travel plans too seriously. If at the end of a 10 minute OT it's still tied, then 1 point each. If someone scores in OT they get 2 points, the loser nothing.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by AndrewG

But the reality is, there would be record amount of ties in the last few years if there wasnt a shootout.

The reason for this is that stupid point system. At the end of regulation in a tie game a team isnt as desperate because they know they can get a point just by getting it to OT. They arent going to risk going all out for a score and giving up a goal when the point is in the bag.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by AndrewG

But the reality is, there would be record amount of ties in the last few years if there wasnt a shootout.

How do you figure there would be a "record" amount?

Maybe because teams don't have as much incentive to win in OT since they have already secured a point? Because the shootout comes down to luck more than anything else teams are more willing to get to the shootout and take their chances there.

Before the shootout, it was the same, teams had a sure point. They didn't try as hard to win.


Either eliminate the shootout (I really wish they would) and go to a 2 points for regulation win and 3 points for an OT win. Plenty of incentive that way to win in OT since points are so crucial during the regular season. Most times there are only a couple of points seperating 8th, 9th, 10th in the standings at seasons end. The difference between making the play-offs and missing them by a point or two is plenty of incentive to earn those extra points in OT.


Anyway, call me old school or whatever, I like the old way. Two points for a win, one each for a tie. No OT, no shootout. The good teams will still rise to the top and make the play-offs.

[ukhotstove]

By my reckoning only Pittsburgh who lead their division at the moment have a winning record in shoot outs, although most teams bottom of their division have losing records but I think it pretty much goes with what CC says above.

Atlantic
Penguins 4-0
Devils 3-1
Flyers 2-1
Rangers 1-0
Islanders 1-4

Northeast
Senators 1-2
Sabres 2-0
Bruins 3-3
Canadiens 3-2
Maple Leafs 1-2

Southeast
Capitals 2-2
Lightning 1-5
Thrashers 1-3
Panthers 4-2
Hurricanes 3-3

Central
Blackhawks 2-2
Predators 3-1
Blue Jackets 2-3
Red Wings 2-2
Blues 0-2

Nothwest
Avalanche 2-3
Flames 1-2
Canucks 2-0
Oilers 2-3
Wild 1-2

Pacific
Sharks 2-3
Stars 1-4
Kings 2-2
Coyotes 2-0
Ducks 2-2

[Erik W.]

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

Well other then the losing team guaranteed a losing point. I wonder if that could have an effect on bloating season point totals at all.

The losing team is getting a point they would have gotten anyway if the game ended in a tie instead of a shootout. If there's any bloat it would be due to the shootout winner, not the loser.

[Erik W.]

Originally Posted by ukhotstove

By my reckoning only Pittsburgh who lead their division at the moment have a winning record in shoot outs, although most teams bottom of their division have losing records but I think it pretty much goes with what CC says above.

Where'd you pull your numbers from? They're not accurate. Or at least the record you have for Montreal isn't, since they only have 1 OT/SO loss.

[ukhotstove]

Originally Posted by Erik W.

Where'd you pull your numbers from? They're not accurate. Or at least the record you have for Montreal isn't, since they only have 1 OT/SO loss.

Not bad then coming off a 16 hour shift and not slept for around 22 hours and maybe only one mistake

[kq76]

Here are the up-to-date records (select 2009-2010 and shootouts from the pull-downs): NHL.com - The National Hockey League

Not much of a sample so maybe look at last year's instead. Sure, there's some randomness in there, but overall I don't see much issue with it. The Lightning strike me as a team that should do better in shootouts, but if their few star players aren't coming through then it's no wonder. Likewise for Vancouver and Chicago.

I guess maybe the biggest surprise and the team shootout opponents might take the biggest issue with is Atlanta at 7-1 last year in shootouts when they were well below .500 in regulation. That doesn't bother me though. If anything, I like it because it tells me there may actually be something worth paying attention to Atlanta for.

I think what it comes down to is does the shootout in itself (not the stupid point system, but the shootout itself if they went with the 3 point system) skew things so that teams that really don't deserve to be in the playoffs end up getting in? I doubt it. Teams 7 and 8 normally don't really belong in the playoffs, especially those in whatever conference might be weak that year, so if it ends up squeaking in a few teams on shootout success is that really so bad? At least there's the prospect that those teams might be a bit more exciting to watch if they're skilled enough to be successful at them.

EDIT: Besides, this argument that it's a "team" sport, it should be based on "team" accomplishments, I don't really buy. Is there another sport where one player on the team plays so much more of a critical role than most everyone else on the team than a hockey goalie? I don't think so. Do 4th liners get even close to the same amount of ice time as 1st and 2nd liners? No, of course not. Heck, on some teams probably even 3rd liners get much less. I think it's probably not even too uncommon for your two best defenseman to play nearly half the game. So is it a team game? Sure it is. But let's be honest with ourselves. The stars (and starting goalie even if he's not a star) play much bigger roles than the rest of the team anyway which really isn't that much different than what happens in the shootout.

[Kekkonen]

Originally Posted by BruceM

Why is a tie a horrible way to end a sporting event? I guess if you're in the "It's all about winning school" then I can see your point, but the way they do it right now with both teams getting at least one point they might as well just have the tie.

Exactly. I think the current system sucks. It's unnecessarily complicated. What was wrong with the traditional idea that 2 points are available in every regular season game, and the only situation where the winner doesn't get them all if the teams are tied after 65 minutes of hockey?

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by kq76

Teams 7 and 8 normally don't really belong in the playoffs,

Please....enlighten me as to how teams 7 & 8 don't really belong in the play-offs. That's like saying the wildcard doesn't belong in the MLB play-offs but they let them in because that's the play-off format. You need to look back at some stats and see just what the 7 & 8 teams have accomplished in the play-offs. Just because a team finishes 10 or 20 points behind the 1st over-all team does not mean they don't belong in the play-offs. The regular season & play-offs are a Marathon, you don't have to finish in the top 4 or 6 to be considered a threat to win it all, or even have moderate play-off success. You just need to make the play-offs.

They don't really belong?????

Originally Posted by kq76

EDIT: Besides, this argument that it's a "team" sport, it should be based on "team" accomplishments, I don't really buy. Is there another sport where one player on the team plays so much more of a critical role than most everyone else on the team than a hockey goalie? I don't think so. Do 4th liners get even close to the same amount of ice time as 1st and 2nd liners? No, of course not. Heck, on some teams probably even 3rd liners get much less. I think it's probably not even too uncommon for your two best defenseman to play nearly half the game. So is it a team game? Sure it is. But let's be honest with ourselves. The stars (and starting goalie even if he's not a star) play much bigger roles than the rest of the team anyway which really isn't that much different than what happens in the shootout.

Come on man, seriously. Anybody that knows anything about team sports knows that you need more than superstars to win. The concept of a team is everyone has a role, and the pieces are a sum of the whole. Everyone has a role, the 3rd and 4th liners have a big impact on the overall team success. I spent 30 years in the Armed Forces (and no, I'm not comparing hockey to the AF, I'm talking about "Team" concept and how it applies throughout life) and I know quite a bit about the "Team" concept and the parts that make the whole work smoothly.

I don't care what team you pick, they won't win with just the Stars. Pittsburhg, Detroit, San Jose, none of them would win with just Crosby/Malkin, or Zetterberg/Lidstrom, or Heatley/Thornton.

As for the goalie playing a bigger role - again, c'mon. During regulation/overtime play, the goalie has a defense and back-checking forwards helping him. In the shootout, he's on his own. Some the best as well as the worst goalies in the league have avg records in the shootout.


At the end of the day, it's a "Team Game", whether people want to admit it or not. You will NEVER have success with just superstars. And to prove that, go look at who some of the players are that score the shootout winner. You'd be surprised how many times a 3rd or 4th liner gets the deciding goal.

[AndrewG]

Originally Posted by BruceM

How do you figure there would be a "record" amount?

Take a look at any standings individual year from the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s. (HockeyDB.com) Now of coruse they played fewer games, mostly 70 games per year for most of that time. But if you look at ratio of ties to games played, then look at the standings any of the past 4 years and take all games won in SO or OT and mark it as a tie, Id bet my left nut, (My favorite one) youll have a higher tie to games played ratio that pre SO/OT.

If I can get free time from months end reports at work, Ill try to actually crunch this.

Either eliminate the shootout (I really wish they would) and go to a 2 points for regulation win and 3 points for an OT win.

Yes shootout is stupid. I tell my kids stupid is a bad word, but hey.. shootout is stupid!

If you meant 3 points regulation, 2 for OT.. then I would back that... but if you mean an extra point for winnign in OT, you could theorterically have a team in the last game of the year, winning 3-2 late in the game let a goal go in thier net becuase they need 3 points instead of 2 to get into the playoffs.

Anyway, call me old school or whatever, I like the old way. Two points for a win, one each for a tie. No OT, no shootout. The good teams will still rise to the top and make the play-offs.

I agree, screw OT as well as SO.


As far as my, "Play until thier is a winner." Id much rather see that then OT and SO.. but woudl rather have a regular season game 60 minutes and thats it.

I have no idea how you figure the penalty shot is no longer exciting.

I think Ill choose my words better, Its no longer AS exciting because with the shootout, you see this one on one all the time. A penalty shot isnt the same type novelty becuase of the shootout.

[AndrewG]

AS FAR AS TEAMS 7 AND 8 MAKIGN THE PLAYOFFS!!

(this coudl be a new thread)

I liked the old playoff system where the top 4 teams of eahc division made the playoffs.

WHY??

You have for a near decade, a crappy Norris division (1980s) With Minnesota, Detroit, Toronto, Chicago and St Louis.

In the current playoff system, most years especially the early 80s', this division sees only 1 guy making playoffs.

When the top 4 of the division make the playoffs despite the fact outside division games you get your ass kicked, a game between Toronto and the North Stars who are both 15 gmaes under .500 in March will have alot more meaning.

Youll get stronger rivalries becuase forst 2 rounds of the playoffs you play divisional foe.

I find that the current set up is just blah.. YES the better teams tend to make it in. But more teams more importantly the fans, get less interested quicker. This hurts the games popularity IMHO and hurts it finanacially as well in the terms of asses in the seats.

[canadiancreed]

Sounds liek the Norris of the 80's is the SouthEast of it's entire existance (except it doesn't have a cool name)

[AndrewG]

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

Sounds liek the Norris of the 80's is the SouthEast of it's entire existance (except it doesn't have a cool name)

Thats right actually!

I know the NHL is trying to grow rivalries in that area in particular where the overall hockey markets of the combined are the weakest of all divisions. (not insulting all those teams, just stating a fact as far as attendance and the fact theres no teams that have been around a while.) The old playoff sysytem would work well for this.

[Erik W.]

Or Bettman could admit that the Sun Belt experiment has been a terrible failure and move the teams places where hockey matters, then the South East Division won't be a problem anymore.