NHL Shootout

lukin2006

It SUCKS!!!! Hockey is a team sport, either win the game as a team or end it in a tie.

81

Meh....

As long as they dont change playoff ot, i'm ok with it

voidofman

Yes, it's bs to give an extra point for not a real win. A game that ends in a shootout splits the teams with 1 and 2 points each. A game ending in regulation gets 2 points for the win and 0 for the loss. How is that fair that a team that still loses in overtime (or a shootout) gets a point?

The Juggler

VoidOfMan wrote:

Yes, it's bs to give an extra point for not a real win. A game that ends in a shootout splits the teams with 1 and 2 points each. A game ending in regulation gets 2 points for the win and 0 for the loss. How is that fair that a team that still loses in overtime (or a shootout) gets a point?

one of the dumbest things in all of sports. i've never been able to understand this.

lukin2006

The Juggler wrote:

VoidOfMan wrote:

Yes, it's bs to give an extra point for not a real win. A game that ends in a shootout splits the teams with 1 and 2 points each. A game ending in regulation gets 2 points for the win and 0 for the loss. How is that fair that a team that still loses in overtime (or a shootout) gets a point?

one of the dumbest things in all of sports. i've never been able to understand this.

I agree if you lose 0 points. I just don't like the shootout, it's a team sport.

eddiec

The Juggler wrote:

VoidOfMan wrote:

Yes, it's bs to give an extra point for not a real win. A game that ends in a shootout splits the teams with 1 and 2 points each. A game ending in regulation gets 2 points for the win and 0 for the loss. How is that fair that a team that still loses in overtime (or a shootout) gets a point?

one of the dumbest things in all of sports. i've never been able to understand this.

The problem with the old format was neither team wanted to throw away any points after regulation so the 5 minute OT was a BORE. The games almost always ended in a tie after the OT- it was almost a take the point and get home mentality, but don't get no points. Clearly the NHL playoff sudden death OT's are one of the greatest things in sports but this is an impossible scenario with an 82 game schedule, sometimes with games on back to back days. At least the new format creates an exciting 4 on 4. I'm not a total fan of the shootout either but it's better than the old way things were done. So it's either scrap the overtime alltogether and end the game after regulation or deal with the shootout. Problem is- the average American hates ties in sporting events hence the overtimes in all of our sports. Besides the shootout only sucks when you lose, but hey, you still get a point.

lukin2006

eddiec wrote:

The Juggler wrote:

VoidOfMan wrote:

Yes, it's bs to give an extra point for not a real win. A game that ends in a shootout splits the teams with 1 and 2 points each. A game ending in regulation gets 2 points for the win and 0 for the loss. How is that fair that a team that still loses in overtime (or a shootout) gets a point?

one of the dumbest things in all of sports. i've never been able to understand this.

The problem with the old format was neither team wanted to throw away any points after regulation so the 5 minute OT was a BORE. The games almost always ended in a tie after the OT- it was almost a take the point and get home mentality, but don't get no points. Clearly the NHL playoff sudden death OT's are one of the greatest things in sports but this is an impossible scenario with an 82 game schedule, sometimes with games on back to back days. At least the new format creates an exciting 4 on 4. I'm not a total fan of the shootout either but it's better than the old way things were done. So it's either scrap the overtime alltogether and end the game after regulation or deal with the shootout. Problem is- the average American hates ties in sporting events hence the overtimes in all of our sports. Besides the shootout only sucks when you lose, but hey, you still get a point.

Then award 3 points for a regulation win 2 points for an OT win and 0 for a loss, play 4 on 4 for 5 minutes, 3 on 3 for 5 minutes if it is still tied then 1 point each, but 0 points for losses. I think awarding 3 points for regulation win will cut down on the amount of OT's. No Shootout!!!!!

eddiec

lukin2006 wrote:

Then award 3 points for a regulation win 2 points for an OT win and 0 for a loss, play 4 on 4 for 5 minutes, 3 on 3 for 5 minutes if it is still tied then 1 point each, but 0 points for losses. I think awarding 3 points for regulation win will cut down on the amount of OT's. No Shootout!!!!!

You think 3 points for a regulation win will make teams play harder than the normal 2 points??? You fail to get that when the game goes into a short OT (5 mins), with 0 points going to the loser, the teams play it safe and it's a boring 5 mins. When you know you still get a point teams are more apt to take a risk. There is absolutely no chance that 3 points for a win will cut down on overtimes.

MayDay10

I hate it.

The overtimes though have been some of the best hockey.

Extend the overtime to 10 or 20 minutes. Then a shootout (if at all). I dont think that will affect fatigue/travel all that much. What are we talking an extra half-hour tops? I dont think teams can sit back on a 4 on 4 OT for that long without getting stung.

They should either go to just wins or losses... or 3 for a regulation win, 2 for an OT win, 1 for an OTL, and 0 for a Regulation loss.

I really dont mind ties either (and Im American). The Leafs/Senators game last night would have resonated as a much better game if it ended in a tie as opposed to the shootout.



as a side note, those Calgary Winter Classic jerseys are fabulous. The pants though are a little weird.

Break The Sky

Maybe I'm the only person in the world that likes the shootout. Everyone complains it's just a skill contest, but that shouldn't mean that teams are helpless. Good GMs get guys on their team that excel in every situation and right now the shootout is a situation in hockey just like any other aspect of the game is. The shootout allows players to take the game into their own hands and determine the outcome - meaning that referees can't blow calls in the shootout to alter the outcome. The game of hockey is marred with iffy calls and bad, inconsistent refereeing.

The shootout is exciting. Everyone complains about it but when a shootout happens everyone at the arena is on their feet during the whole shootout.

I also like the 1 point for OT loss. It separates hockey from any other sport. If all you want is 2 point for a win and 0 for a loss we might as well just go by win/loss total instead of a points system.

I guess it helps I'm a Sabres fan too, and we're 5 for 5 in the shootout this year.

lukin2006

eddiec wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Then award 3 points for a regulation win 2 points for an OT win and 0 for a loss, play 4 on 4 for 5 minutes, 3 on 3 for 5 minutes if it is still tied then 1 point each, but 0 points for losses. I think awarding 3 points for regulation win will cut down on the amount of OT's. No Shootout!!!!!

You think 3 points for a regulation win will make teams play harder than the normal 2 points??? You fail to get that when the game goes into a short OT (5 mins), with 0 points going to the loser, the teams play it safe and it's a boring 5 mins. When you know you still get a point teams are more apt to take a risk. There is absolutely no chance that 3 points for a win will cut down on overtimes.

Yes it will, if 2 teams are fighting for a playoff they are both going to want the regulation win to either gain 3 points on the team they are playing or to start to pull away. Under the 3 on 3 for the last 5 minutes most games will end there. To much open ice, most times some team will score.

lukin2006

Big Drop wrote:

Maybe I'm the only person in the world that likes the shootout. Everyone complains it's just a skill contest, but that shouldn't mean that teams are helpless. Good GMs get guys on their team that excel in every situation and right now the shootout is a situation in hockey just like any other aspect of the game is. The shootout allows players to take the game into their own hands and determine the outcome - meaning that referees can't blow calls in the shootout to alter the outcome. The game of hockey is marred with iffy calls and bad, inconsistent refereeing.

The shootout is exciting. Everyone complains about it but when a shootout happens everyone at the arena is on their feet during the whole shootout.

I also like the 1 point for OT loss. It separates hockey from any other sport. If all you want is 2 point for a win and 0 for a loss we might as well just go by win/loss total instead of a points system.

I guess it helps I'm a Sabres fan too, and we're 5 for 5 in the shootout this year.

No thanks, it's a team game. Let's end baseball ties with a home run contest, football with field goal kicking contest, basketball with a free throws. This was a Bettman idea brought over from Europe, now let's send him and the shootout back to Europe.

81

meh...

does it really make much of a difference at the end of the day? maybe it changes a few seedings around and maybe team 8 and 9 flip flop spots.

nothing exciting here

eddiec

lukin2006 wrote:

Yes it will, if 2 teams are fighting for a playoff they are both going to want the regulation win to either gain 3 points on the team they are playing or to start to pull away. Under the 3 on 3 for the last 5 minutes most games will end there. To much open ice, most times some team will score.

OK, but a 3 on 3 isn't exactly "real" ice hockey. Playing 3 on 3 isn't much different than a shootout- lots of goals. Look, I get where you're coming from, the shootout isn't the purest form of ice hockey. At least we have more integrity than soccer matches at some World Cups and many Champions League matches that have been won in a shootout. At least in the playoffs we play the game until we decide a real winner.

Break The Sky

lukin2006 wrote:

Big Drop wrote:

Maybe I'm the only person in the world that likes the shootout. Everyone complains it's just a skill contest, but that shouldn't mean that teams are helpless. Good GMs get guys on their team that excel in every situation and right now the shootout is a situation in hockey just like any other aspect of the game is. The shootout allows players to take the game into their own hands and determine the outcome - meaning that referees can't blow calls in the shootout to alter the outcome. The game of hockey is marred with iffy calls and bad, inconsistent refereeing.

The shootout is exciting. Everyone complains about it but when a shootout happens everyone at the arena is on their feet during the whole shootout.

I also like the 1 point for OT loss. It separates hockey from any other sport. If all you want is 2 point for a win and 0 for a loss we might as well just go by win/loss total instead of a points system.

I guess it helps I'm a Sabres fan too, and we're 5 for 5 in the shootout this year.

No thanks, it's a team game. Let's end baseball ties with a home run contest, football with field goal kicking contest, basketball with a free throws. This was a Bettman idea brought over from Europe, now let's send him and the shooting back to Europe.

I would bow out if hockey actually was a team game. Look at the dichotomy between salaries in hockey for first liners and third liners. Look at how Pittsburgh has been tanking without Crosby and Malkin. All it takes is three studs and you can get yourself a championship. Tampa bay did it, Pittsburgh did it, Chicago did it, and Washington tried really hard to do it. The formula for winning the NHL is tank for four years, collect four top 5 picks, and watch your fanbase grow from 28th in the league to 2nd in the league.

The model for success in the NHL right now is throw 17 scrubs around 3 studs and win. Why not just keep it honest and make that the way the game ends as well?

Break The Sky

eddiec wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Yes it will, if 2 teams are fighting for a playoff they are both going to want the regulation win to either gain 3 points on the team they are playing or to start to pull away. Under the 3 on 3 for the last 5 minutes most games will end there. To much open ice, most times some team will score.

OK, but a 3 on 3 isn't exactly "real" ice hockey. Playing 3 on 3 isn't much different than a shootout- lots of goals. Look, I get where you're coming from, the shootout isn't the purest form of ice hockey. At least we have more integrity than soccer matches at some World Cups and many Champions League matches that have been won in a shootout. At least in the playoffs we play the game until we decide a real winner.

Plus there's also that.

lukin2006

eddiec wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Yes it will, if 2 teams are fighting for a playoff they are both going to want the regulation win to either gain 3 points on the team they are playing or to start to pull away. Under the 3 on 3 for the last 5 minutes most games will end there. To much open ice, most times some team will score.

OK, but a 3 on 3 isn't exactly "real" ice hockey. Playing 3 on 3 isn't much different than a shootout- lots of goals. Look, I get where you're coming from, the shootout isn't the purest form of ice hockey. At least we have more integrity than soccer matches at some World Cups and many Champions League matches that have been won in a shootout. At least in the playoffs we play the game until we decide a real winner.

Good points there. I do think awarding 3 points for regulation wins will cut down on the overtimes, to much at stake. This year alone look at how close the western conference is. Don't think for a minute Detroit wouldn't like 3 points for a win, especially now that most have returned from injury, could really make up ground on Vancouver. Still want the shoot out gone.

eddiec

Big Drop wrote:

I would bow out if hockey actually was a team game. Look at the dichotomy between salaries in hockey for first liners and third liners. Look at how Pittsburgh has been tanking without Crosby and Malkin. All it takes is three studs and you can get yourself a championship. Tampa bay did it, Pittsburgh did it, Chicago did it, and Washington tried really hard to do it. The formula for winning the NHL is tank for four years, collect four top 5 picks, and watch your fanbase grow from 28th in the league to 2nd in the league.

The model for success in the NHL right now is throw 17 scrubs around 3 studs and win. Why not just keep it honest and make that the way the game ends as well?

17 scrubs!??? Even the worst teams cycle through most of the 20 players throughout a game. The "stars" of the team play about 20 minutes a game. That's 1/3 of the game. So you're telling me that the scrubs win the game for the other 2/3rds. Good teams in the NHL rely on a solid experienced defensive unit. The disparities in salary is only because of ice hockey's status as a 5th or 6th watched American sport. Yes, you need natural goalscorers on your team, but take away Edmonton's backbone of defense in the 80's and Gretzky wouldn't have won anything.

lukin2006

Big Drop wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Big Drop wrote:

Maybe I'm the only person in the world that likes the shootout. Everyone complains it's just a skill contest, but that shouldn't mean that teams are helpless. Good GMs get guys on their team that excel in every situation and right now the shootout is a situation in hockey just like any other aspect of the game is. The shootout allows players to take the game into their own hands and determine the outcome - meaning that referees can't blow calls in the shootout to alter the outcome. The game of hockey is marred with iffy calls and bad, inconsistent refereeing.

The shootout is exciting. Everyone complains about it but when a shootout happens everyone at the arena is on their feet during the whole shootout.

I also like the 1 point for OT loss. It separates hockey from any other sport. If all you want is 2 point for a win and 0 for a loss we might as well just go by win/loss total instead of a points system.

I guess it helps I'm a Sabres fan too, and we're 5 for 5 in the shootout this year.

No thanks, it's a team game. Let's end baseball ties with a home run contest, football with field goal kicking contest, basketball with a free throws. This was a Bettman idea brought over from Europe, now let's send him and the shooting back to Europe.

I would bow out if hockey actually was a team game. Look at the dichotomy between salaries in hockey for first liners and third liners. Look at how Pittsburgh has been tanking without Crosby and Malkin. All it takes is three studs and you can get yourself a championship. Tampa bay did it, Pittsburgh did it, Chicago did it, and Washington tried really hard to do it. The formula for winning the NHL is tank for four years, collect four top 5 picks, and watch your fanbase grow from 28th in the league to 2nd in the league.

The model for success in the NHL right now is throw 17 scrubs around 3 studs and win. Why not just keep it honest and make that the way the game ends as well?

All sports pay their stars far more than their role players, and hockey is very much a team game, examples...Chicago got rid of many 3rd and 4th liners over the off season and they are currently out of the playoffs, Pittsburgh has Malkin and Crosby out of the lineup and are sitting in 4th in the eastern conference, and are 5-4-1 over their last 10, hardly consider that a total tank.

MFCarissa

The 3 point games bother me more than the shootout itself. Though I do think 3 on 3 is more representative of hockey than a shootout is. I had friends in college that would play in 3 on 3 hockey tournaments for fun all the time. The shootout relies purely on shooting the puck and stopping the puck in a 1 on 1 situation. There is no passing, there is no defense other than the goalie. At least with 3 on 3, you'd probably want to throw a defenseman on the ice.

Ken Holland actually made a proposal in the annual GMs meeting for 8 minute overtimes with 4 minutes 4-on-4, then 4 minutes 3-on-3, and then the shootout.

It really doesn't seem to matter too much in the end, but sometimes it does. The whole Rangers and Flyers scenario last year was definitely interesting. And the Western conference is so tight right now that Minnesota jumped from 10th to 6th by gaining 1 point in the shootout.

The Juggler

some good hockey talk going here...

neilybabes86

THE 3 POINT GAMES suck ...however the league loves it because of all the teams in the playoff hunt

the standings wouldn't be so tight from 5-10 w/ out it

The Juggler

neilybabes86 wrote:

THE 3 POINT GAMES suck ...however the league loves it because of all the teams in the playoff hunt

the standings wouldn't be so tight from 5-10 w/ out it

instead of this nonsense where the losing team in ot/shootout ends up still getting a point, why not just have wins and losses? whoever wins the shootout wins the game. the loser, gets one in the loss column? every other sport operates this way...

why does hockey feel the need to reward a team solely for forcing overtime? as just a casual fan this is a legit question. i've never understood this. it's one of the reasons why i never fully bought into this game.

MFCarissa

Big Drop wrote:

I would bow out if hockey actually was a team game. Look at the dichotomy between salaries in hockey for first liners and third liners. Look at how Pittsburgh has been tanking without Crosby and Malkin. Allh h it takes is three studs and you can get yourself a championship. Tampa bay did it, Pittsburgh did it, Chicago did it, and Washington tried really hard to do it. The formula for winning the NHL is tank for four years, collect four top 5 picks, and watch your fanbase grow from 28th in the league to 2nd in the league.

The model for success in the NHL right now is throw 17 scrubs around 3 studs and win. Why not just keep it honest and make that the way the game ends as well?

I know that you know this isn't entirely true. Also, some "studs" aren't very good in the shootout. Ovechkin is garbage in the shootout. I think it's probably because his size has been a big part of his success. You can't exactly crash the net or let off a one-timer in a shootout. It's mostly mind games between the shooter and the goalie.

neilybabes86

The Juggler wrote:

neilybabes86 wrote:

THE 3 POINT GAMES suck ...however the league loves it because of all the teams in the playoff hunt

the standings wouldn't be so tight from 5-10 w/ out it

instead of this nonsense where the losing team in ot/shootout ends up still getting a point, why not just have wins and losses? whoever wins the shootout wins the game. the loser, gets one in the loss column? every other sport operates this way...

why does hockey feel the need to reward a team solely for forcing overtime? as just a casual fan this is a legit question. i've never understood this. it's one of the reasons why i never fully bought into this game.

very simple..the league wants the playoff races to have as many teams as possible..hence teams gets a free point for losing the game..wacky but true...it all started with the new rules , including penalities for anything you do nowadays....the true hockey fan hates it..but i guess i can speak for every fan...we have no choice but to accept and deal with it

MFCarissa

I've kind of wondered if adding the pity point (as I like to call it) was the only way the NHL could get the players, GMs, and owners to agree to end a hard fought team game with a skills competition.

I totally agree with MayDay10. Games like the Leafs/Sens game the other night probably should end in a tie. Neither team scored in 60 minutes of regulation or 5 minutes of the 4 on 4 OT, yet the Sens got two points out of the night, and the Leafs got one. Pretty silly.

81

Why do they allow ties in the nfl?

The Juggler

neilybabes86 wrote:

The Juggler wrote:

neilybabes86 wrote:

THE 3 POINT GAMES suck ...however the league loves it because of all the teams in the playoff hunt

the standings wouldn't be so tight from 5-10 w/ out it

instead of this nonsense where the losing team in ot/shootout ends up still getting a point, why not just have wins and losses? whoever wins the shootout wins the game. the loser, gets one in the loss column? every other sport operates this way...

why does hockey feel the need to reward a team solely for forcing overtime? as just a casual fan this is a legit question. i've never understood this. it's one of the reasons why i never fully bought into this game.

very simple..the league wants the playoff races to have as many teams as possible..hence teams gets a free point for losing the game..wacky but true...it all started with the new rules , including penalities for anything you do nowadays....the true hockey fan hates it..but i guess i can speak for every fan...we have no choice but to accept and deal with it

that's just ridiculous to me...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRxm0oGbnRI

eeriepadave

When they first started the shootout a few years back I didn't care for it, now I accept it. As long as they don't do shootouts during the playoffs I'm fine with it.

Johnny Abruzzo

Option 1: Keep it as is, or make OT longer, or whatever, but as Jeags said, just count fucking wins & losses. What is the point of points anyway???

Option 2: As others said, regulation win = 3 pts, otherwise everything is the same. They did this in the Olympics and it worked fine. Then the standings can just show a W-L record, like every other sport.

I hate how they say that a 30-26-7 team is "4 games over .500." Um, no, they're actually 3 games UNDER .500. They're 30-33.

lukin2006

The Juggler wrote:

neilybabes86 wrote:

THE 3 POINT GAMES suck ...however the league loves it because of all the teams in the playoff hunt

the standings wouldn't be so tight from 5-10 w/ out it

instead of this nonsense where the losing team in ot/shootout ends up still getting a point, why not just have wins and losses? whoever wins the shootout wins the game. the loser, gets one in the loss column? every other sport operates this way...

why does hockey feel the need to reward a team solely for forcing overtime? as just a casual fan this is a legit question. i've never understood this. it's one of the reasons why i never fully bought into this game.

I never understood awarding teams for just forcing overtime, this only started after Bettman became KING of the NHL. I'd still like the shootout scraped, go overtime, then if the game ends in a tie so be it.