NHL Shootout

lukin2006

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

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.

I like the 3 points option. I've many a game when the game is tied half through the 3rd and both teams are being extra cautious just to get that 1 point, and I think coach's will have their teams pushing the play if their is 3 points at play and 0 for their opponent.

eddiec

We all remember "The Trap". Boring defensive ice hockey. The NHL had to make changes to get rid of it. 3 points would be a return to the trap era. Imagine a team is leading by 1 or 2 goals in the third period. If 3 points is on the line they will sink into ultra defensive mode for the whole period, probably even benching the offensive minded players for "stay at home" players. The NHL has become exciting again after a few years of stagnation. The two line pass is gone, thank god. The NHL just wants to give its fans their monies worth. Ice hockey is a complex and fast moving game and difficult for the novice viewer to understand. The shootout ultimately draws in fans who normally might not watch more games if they kept ending in ties. And the NHL needs those extra fans in a country where people prefer to watch cars go around in a circle for 3 hours over a great game of ice hockey.

Johnny Abruzzo

eddiec wrote:

3 points would be a return to the trap era.

Sorry, this doesn't make any sense. The trap era continued even after losers' points were introduced. The increase in enforcement of obstruction penalties, removal of the 2-line pass & reduction of goalie equipment size helped to increase scoring. The number of points awarded for a win or loss or whatever had nothing to do with it.

I'd like to see certain teams in a tie game desparate for the extra point going for the win in regulation - would be a cool concept.

eddiec

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

The increase in enforcement of obstruction penalties, removal of the 2-line pass & reduction of goalie equipment size helped to increase scoring. The number of points awarded for a win or loss or whatever had nothing to do with it.

I'd like to see certain teams in a tie game desparate for the extra point going for the win in regulation - would be a cool concept.

I just don't see how an increase in points will make teams play harder. At the end of the season it doesn't matter if it's 2,3, or 10 points for a win. Every team has the chance to win and get those points over the course of season so it will make no difference. That's why top ranked teams are often have difficulty against the 7th and 8th ranked teams in the opening rounds of the playoffs. Those 7th and 8th placed teams are in a playoff like mode for the last few weeks of the season just desperate to win every game to make it in. They're not playing for the amount of points but are playing to win. Winning gets you to the playoffs.

If the NHL wanted to see a big increase in offensive production they would make all NHL rinks Olympic size. But this will never happen because of lost seats and subsequent lost revenue.

aspoonfulweighsaton

In the grand scheme of things it's all relative and doesn't truly impact the playoffs. Sure, once in a while you get an Edmonton or Philly that probably shouldn't have made the playoffs and gets hot to make it to the cup finals, but everyone benefits from the system. Is a team that loses 30 games in OT better than a team that loses 30 in regulation? Probably.

As far as the shootout itself goes, it's great. I'm as much of a hockey purist as anyone but I want the sport to do well and when you're competing against other sports to get the attention of the casual fans in hopes that they become hardcore fans it works well. As someone said earlier, the arenas go apeshit during the shootout for a reason and it's not like the concept was just pulled out of thin air. Olympics anyone?

Besides, everyone knows that playoff hockey is where it's at. How we get there is trivial.

Johnny Abruzzo

aspoonfulweighsaton wrote:

In the grand scheme of things it's all relative and doesn't truly impact the playoffs. Sure, once in a while you get an Edmonton or Philly that probably shouldn't have made the playoffs and gets hot to make it to the cup finals, but everyone benefits from the system.

Care to revise this? 2009-10 Flyers had 6 OT losses, compared to 13 for Bruins, 10 for Canadiens & 11 for Rangers. Without shootouts & "points for losers" the Flyers would've clinched a playoff berth long before the last game.

lukin2006

eddiec wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

The increase in enforcement of obstruction penalties, removal of the 2-line pass & reduction of goalie equipment size helped to increase scoring. The number of points awarded for a win or loss or whatever had nothing to do with it.

I'd like to see certain teams in a tie game desparate for the extra point going for the win in regulation - would be a cool concept.

I just don't see how an increase in points will make teams play harder. At the end of the season it doesn't matter if it's 2,3, or 10 points for a win. Every team has the chance to win and get those points over the course of season so it will make no difference. That's why top ranked teams are often have difficulty against the 7th and 8th ranked teams in the opening rounds of the playoffs. Those 7th and 8th placed teams are in a playoff like mode for the last few weeks of the season just desperate to win every game to make it in. They're not playing for the amount of points but are playing to win. Winning gets you to the playoffs.

If the NHL wanted to see a big increase in offensive production they would make all NHL rinks Olympic size. But this will never happen because of lost seats and subsequent lost revenue.

Getting 3 points as opposed to 0 is a big difference, the bottom feeders when tied late in a game are just go into a defensive mode hoping for 1 point. you need to make regulation wins worth more and a loss worth 0.

aspoonfulweighsaton

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

aspoonfulweighsaton wrote:

In the grand scheme of things it's all relative and doesn't truly impact the playoffs. Sure, once in a while you get an Edmonton or Philly that probably shouldn't have made the playoffs and gets hot to make it to the cup finals, but everyone benefits from the system.

Care to revise this? 2009-10 Flyers had 6 OT losses, compared to 13 for Bruins, 10 for Canadiens & 11 for Rangers. Without shootouts & "points for losers" the Flyers would've clinched a playoff berth long before the last game.

I just hate the Flyers with a passion is all.

MayDay10

i dont think its much of a fairness issue as much as it is an issue with unbalance. It is very stupid that a game is weighed more in the standings by 50% if a game merely goes into overtime.

Johnny Abruzzo

aspoonfulweighsaton wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

aspoonfulweighsaton wrote:

In the grand scheme of things it's all relative and doesn't truly impact the playoffs. Sure, once in a while you get an Edmonton or Philly that probably shouldn't have made the playoffs and gets hot to make it to the cup finals, but everyone benefits from the system.

Care to revise this? 2009-10 Flyers had 6 OT losses, compared to 13 for Bruins, 10 for Canadiens & 11 for Rangers. Without shootouts & "points for losers" the Flyers would've clinched a playoff berth long before the last game.

I just hate the Flyers with a passion is all.

That's fine - I'm sure I hate your team too. (Caps?) Let's just try getting our facts straight the next time. :P As in - the 2009-10 Flyers overcame a stupid points system to make the playoffs the last day of the season, and then had a specacular run to the Finals.

aspoonfulweighsaton

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

That's fine - I'm sure I hate your team too. (Caps?) Let's just try getting our facts straight the next time. :P As in - the 2009-10 Flyers overcame a stupid points system to make the playoffs the last day of the season, and then had a specacular run to the Finals.

Oh it's even better than that... Pens baby!

eddiec

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

That's fine - I'm sure I hate your team too. (Caps?) Let's just try getting our facts straight the next time. :P As in - the 2009-10 Flyers overcame a stupid points system to make the playoffs the last day of the season, and then had a specacular run to the Finals.

Eastern Conference[23] GP W L OTL GF GA PTS
p–Washington Capitals 82 54 15 13 318 233 121
y–New Jersey Devils 82 48 27 7 222 191 103
y–Buffalo Sabres 82 45 27 10 235 207 100
Pittsburgh Penguins 82 47 28 7 257 237 101
Ottawa Senators 82 44 32 6 225 238 94
Boston Bruins 82 39 30 13 206 200 91
Philadelphia Flyers 82 41 35 6 236 225 88
Montreal Canadiens 82 39 33 10 217 223 88

I don't think the system is that flawed. Only one team above the flyers had less wins. The Flyers lost 35 games in regulation, that's the most of any team from the East in the playoffs.

Johnny Abruzzo

eddiec wrote:

Eastern Conference[23] GP W L OTL GF GA PTS
p–Washington Capitals 82 54 15 13 318 233 121
y–New Jersey Devils 82 48 27 7 222 191 103
y–Buffalo Sabres 82 45 27 10 235 207 100
Pittsburgh Penguins 82 47 28 7 257 237 101
Ottawa Senators 82 44 32 6 225 238 94
Boston Bruins 82 39 30 13 206 200 91
Philadelphia Flyers 82 41 35 6 236 225 88
Montreal Canadiens 82 39 33 10 217 223 88

I don't think the system is that flawed. Only one team above the flyers had less wins. The Flyers lost 35 games in regulation, that's the most of any team from the East in the playoffs.

Guess it depends on how you look at it. I look at it as the Flyers were 41-41, while Boston & Montreal were 39-43. So it shouldn't have even come down to the shootout vs. the Rangers. But it did, and my boys won, and then eventually lost. Although it was very exciting along the way.

eddiec

lukin2006 wrote:

I like the 3 points option. I've many a game when the game is tied half through the 3rd and both teams are being extra cautious just to get that 1 point, and I think coach's will have their teams pushing the play if their is 3 points at play and 0 for their opponent.

Overall I don't think the shootout changes too much in the outcome of the season. If you can't finish in the top 8 of a 15 team division you don't deserve to be in the playoffs anyway. But I can't say I like it. I would much prefer a 10 minute sudden death 4 on 4. 2 points for a win, 1 for a tie, and 0 for a loss. Shootouts are exciting but it is not the way to determine a game. At least the playoffs have remained unchanged. I would stop watching hockey if a game 7 was settled by a shootout. But 80% of hockey fans like the shootout so I don't think it's going anywhere. I guess at the end of the day it is good for ice hockey. If it's good for the sport then I can live with it.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

I don't even watch hockey and think it's an awful rule. You want the best overtime rule in ANY sport? See the CFL.

Johnny Abruzzo

Paul David wrote:

I don't even watch hockey and think it's an awful rule. You want the best overtime rule in ANY sport? See the CFL.

Fill us in for those who don't feel like using the google.

I think baseball's extra innings and basketball's 5 minute OT are very good OT systems.

Phantom Pain

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Paul David wrote:

I don't even watch hockey and think it's an awful rule. You want the best overtime rule in ANY sport? See the CFL.

Fill us in for those who don't feel like using the google.

I think baseball's extra innings and basketball's 5 minute OT are very good OT systems.

I'm pretty shore it's like the College football OT

Each team has an attempt to score

Johnny Abruzzo

Phantom Pain wrote:

I'm pretty shore it's like the College football OT

Each team has an attempt to score

College football OT is a ridiculous farce. Takes the special teams and 3/4 of the field out of the game and runs scores up to absurd levels.

Football OT is easy: first to score 4 points wins (I'd say 6, but you should win with a FG & safety, etc.). Or lead at end of 15 minutes. I don't get it - it's not rocket science.

Phantom Pain

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

Phantom Pain wrote:

I'm pretty shore it's like the College football OT

Each team has an attempt to score

College football OT is a ridiculous farce. Takes the special teams and 3/4 of the field out of the game and runs scores up to absurd levels.

Football OT is easy: first to score 4 points wins (I'd say 6, but you should win with a FG & safety, etc.). Or lead at end of 15 minutes. I don't get it - it's not rocket science.

I just realized I put in SHORE...instead of SURE

Wow

Break The Sky

eddiec wrote:

But 80% of hockey fans like the shootout so I don't think it's going anywhere. I guess at the end of the day it is good for ice hockey. If it's good for the sport then I can live with it.

I don't know too many fans that actually do like it. I think I'm in the vast minority. I like it because it is exciting. I really don't have an aversion to games ending in a tie. If the NHL decided that 60 minutes of hockey was enough and there would be no overtime, I'd be fine with it. I just really like watching the shootout because it's always exciting.

Gary Carter

lukin2006 wrote:

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

i agree

i've hated it from day one and my opinion won't change

have a 10 minute OT. loser gets 1 point, winner gets 2 and if noone scores in ot then each get a point. the amount of time the zambonis take to get out on the ice and clean down the middle of the ice, you could play a 10 minute OT

Break The Sky

metsfan wrote:

the amount of time the zambonis take to get out on the ice and clean down the middle of the ice, you could play a 10 minute OT

It literally takes the Zamboni two minutes to make a swipe down the middle of the rink. If you want 10 minute OT, you're looking at an entire resurfacing of the ice before OT, which would take a lot longer.

Gary Carter

Big Drop wrote:

metsfan wrote:

the amount of time the zambonis take to get out on the ice and clean down the middle of the ice, you could play a 10 minute OT

It literally takes the Zamboni two minutes to make a swipe down the middle of the rink. If you want 10 minute OT, you're looking at an entire resurfacing of the ice before OT, which would take a lot longer.

maybe over i estimated the zamboni time a bit but still takes up time for the circus act that i hate. i guess my hatred for the circus act runs deeper then i thought .

lukin2006

Nothing will change while Bettman is in charge anyways.

Break The Sky

lukin2006 wrote:

Nothing will change while Bettman is in charge anyways.

That's something we can both agree on.

MFCarissa

lukin2006 wrote:

Nothing will change while Bettman is in charge anyways.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWX914Xro_4&feature=player_embedded