In Defense of the Shootout
by PhantomPretender on Aug 24, 2010 6:55 AM PDT
Email
PrintAs you may have heard, the NHL has decided that shootout wins will no longer count toward tie-breakers in the event of a tie in the standings at the end of the season. What this means is that while winning in the shootout will get you two points on a given night, it will not help you out at the end of the season if you end up being the time that can't get it done 5-on-5 or 4-on-4.
This latest development seems to delight the hockey purists around the Web. But many of these people aren't content to stop here, as many want to get rid of the shootout altogether. Indeed, the NHL seems to be quite cognizant of these complaints as they've thrown out some bizarre ideas at R&D camp this year, including a succession of overtime pairings that would decrease by a player every 3 minutes (starting with 4-on-4, then 3-on-3, then 2-on-2).
As a new hockey fan, I'm going to come right out and say it. I like the shootout. Hell, I love it. I get the argument that it's a skills competition, and not a team game. But there were already 65 minutes of a team game that did not result in a decisive outcome. And please don't tell me that a tie is a deceive outcome. I have serious issues with there being ties at the end of games, it's just unsatisfying. I didn't drive over an hour to the Pond to see a game end in a tie. In the end, shootouts are good enough for the Olympics, so they're good enough for me.
Shootouts are also incredibly compelling. Don't tell me that you flip the channel when you're watching a shootout. Hell, shootouts are practically made for TV as the cameras can focus in one spot and we can all watch in delicious slow-mo as Teemu goes forehand, backhand, top-shelf. Not only that, but shootouts result in some pretty unpredictable and memorable moments? Who honestly thought that James Wisniewski's greatest value would be after 65 minutes of play?
What do you think? Do you like the shootout? How could the NHL fix the issue of too many games going to a shootout? I'll start with one idea I've heard: Extend 4-on-4 to 10 minutes.
This article is user-generated. It does not necessarily reflect the views of Anaheim Calling. Please do not link this article as representative of Anaheim Calling content or viewpoints . . . unless it's really really good.
22 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It’s just too random. I’d like to see a goal earned. But if they did move it to 5 shooters, that would be a little better.
The thing about 3-on-3 and 2-on-2 is: how do penalties work? It seems like they wouldn’t.
I don’t like ties to be common, but I do like the idea of the possibility of a tie. Hence I find the new NFL rule to be dumb even though I’ll only watch a few football games every year.
Rice is great when you're hungry and you want 2000 of something.
The thing about 3-on-3 and 2-on-2 is: how do penalties work? It seems like they wouldn’t.
When I would play IronMan tournaments when someone got a penalty they stopped the clock and gave them a shootout opportunity. I personally would love to see 4-4 for 10, or the 4-4, 3-3,2-2.
How the coaches would faces lines on 2-2’s would be really interesting if it got to that point. 2 top line forwards v top line forwards, or top line D? mix it up? I think it would make the game the coaches play really interesting. If there were a penalty, then the team would get a penalty shot. Realistically I can’t see this happening, but man would that be a fun overtime to watch.
As it is now with 4-on-4
penalty 1: 4-on-3 PP
penalty 2: 5-on-3 PP
penalty 3: 5-on-3 PP, 3rd penalty clock only starts when 1st penalty time expires
With 3-on-3, probably the same thing—you go to 4-on-3 first.
by red army line on Aug 29, 2010 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions
Brian Burke said this after the Lockout, so I have to pose the question, Robby
He likened the shootout to quarterbacks throwing a football through a tire in overtime to decide a football game. I’ll add to that and say it’s like deciding a baseball game with a homerun derby or a basketball game with a game of HORSE or Around The World.
Putting hockey aside, as a spectator of those other sports, would any of those methods of deciding a winner be acceptable to you?
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Aug 24, 2010 9:01 AM PDT reply actions
I would disagree
With those analogies solely because a shootout isn’t just about the shooter. Goalie skill plays a big factor too. So if it were a homerun derby where you get to select the pitcher, it could get really interesting.
Does anyone happen to know what percentage of shootout attempts result in goals? After all, it’s not like your guaranteed to score just because it’s a shootout.
by PhantomPretender on Aug 24, 2010 9:17 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Yes, but a shootout is considered a situation where the goalie is at a complete disadvantage. That’s why the penalty shot is something “awarded” to a player. It’s not EXACTLY the same as the soccer shootout, as the goalie there is basically just hoping the ball would hit him, but it’s pretty bad. And there are good positional goaltenders, like Giguere, who are not athletic in their style of play and basically sitting Ducks in a penalty shot situation.
So, you can’t really compare it to an at-bat. It’s more like an at-bat where the pitcher has to throw with his other arm. If you’re lucky enough to have an ambidextrous pitcher, awesome, but most pitchers aren’t asked to regularly perform in that capacity during in-game situations.
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Aug 24, 2010 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions
And HORSE does involve some head-to-head skill, but at the end of the day you win if you have the better “skills competition” player, even if the opposition has THE BEST in-game competition players.
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Aug 24, 2010 9:24 AM PDT up reply actions
Well if you're opposed
to the shootout, how would you handle OT?
by PhantomPretender on Aug 24, 2010 9:33 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
See, this is where your opinion is important, though. I’m institutionalized to believe that ties are okay and the shootout is a skills competition. I’m not going to come up with anything groundbreaking. I’ll just end up saying that we go back to ties, which are also okay in the Olympics :)
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Aug 24, 2010 9:50 AM PDT up reply actions
Does anyone happen to know what percentage of shootout attempts result in goals? After all, it’s not like your guaranteed to score just because it’s a shootout.
Lundqvist is the best goalie and he stops around 75% of the shots. The best shooters are around 50%, but those are a rare breed and none of the usual culprits.
by red army line on Aug 29, 2010 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions
I hate ties . . .
I personally think that the system they have now is good . . . if they want to extend the 4 on 4 OT period from 5 to 10 minutes, then that is okay. What they should do, however, is not award 1 point each after 60 minutes. Once the game goes to a shootout, THEN both teams should get a point. I remember hating when I went to a game that ended in a tie. It sucks. Period.
ANGELS . . . DUCKS . . . GOLDEN BEARS
what i hate the most is 3 point games either..make the shootout winner “the winner” 2 points for them 0 for the loser or
somthing radical..(or at least i havent heard it..btu it has probally been suggested)
go college football
and have each team get a 2 min (5 on 3) if the PK team commits a penalty they get another 2mins…it could go on forever potientally..but with fatigue factoring in i dont think so
"You must be the pendejos I keep hearing about!"
-John Marston-
by SPADE-IN-VICTORHELL on Aug 24, 2010 1:44 PM PDT reply actions
or at least i havent heard it
yeah, i think that’s the problem. Old fans agree they’re unhappy, but we have no idea what a fix would be that would still make newer fans (who detest ties) happy. I do like seeing players not play for a tie. And players play in fear of the shootout. They know how random it is, and how it can just erase 60 minutes of their hard work. I’m not sure if rational overtime systems can create that kind of fear :)
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Aug 24, 2010 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions
maybe make regulation wins 3 points instead…if your gonna keep things the way they are…witht he shootout winner getting 2 points and loser getting 1
i dunno..
"You must be the pendejos I keep hearing about!"
-John Marston-
by SPADE-IN-VICTORHELL on Aug 24, 2010 2:34 PM PDT up reply actions
That's how they do it in the Olympics
Every game is worth a total of 3 points.
Regulation win = 3 points
OT win = 2 points
OT loss = 1 point
Regulation loss = 0 points
I really like this setup. Also, ties suck, and as much as I dislike the shootout, I dislike ties more.
"Make me a bicycle, clown"
by Floyd Gondoli on Aug 24, 2010 7:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Only thing is that the old points records (like Habs 136 or whatever) would be broken within a year.
by red army line on Aug 29, 2010 10:37 AM PDT up reply actions
I’m not sure how to completely eliminate shootout. I don’t think I want to extend overtime though, season is long, and wouldn’t want my team playing an extra 10 minutes many nights. The only thing I can think of is maybe eliminating offsides. I think it’ll create more scoring opportunities and create less shootouts.
4-on-4, no offsides? I think cherry picking hockey might be interesting at first, but it would eventually devolve into one guy in front of each net being pushed by the other team’s defensemen, and the puck being fired toward him from the other zone, maybe even from the other goal line. I’m not sure if that’s crazy enough to be, secretly, awesome.
by Arthur from Anaheim Calling on Aug 24, 2010 3:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Keep the shootout. It sells the sport.
And if you’re not good in the shootout or never get picked for one, work your butt off to end the game before it gets to that point.
I’d like them to switch to the format of 5 shooters instead of just 3 though.
There's nothing to see here. And nothing gazes back at me.
It's a complex issue for several reasons
1) Bitch and moan as much as they’d like about “3-point games,” you can’t tell me that the NHL LOVES the fact that the standings are so close and that many races came down to the final game this year. Any effort to change the points system could jeopardize the system and would eliminate some of the intrigue and drama down the stretch.
2) As several have rightly pointed out, it’s a lot to ask the players to play significantly extra minutes on a nightly basis. Unsophisticated or not, the SO provides a way to resolve a game without adding on significant extra minutes.
3) New fans (like me) love the format. It’s exciting and it distills the game down into a very consumable piece and it avoids the issue of a tie.
The easiest non-SO solution would seem to be a system in which they play until there’s a definitive outcome. But in some cases, this could take a while. I don’t think the NHL wants to tweak its point system (unless they got rid of it altogether, wins are wins, losses are losses) but there is significant opposition to the SO. Does anyone really know where the players stand on the issue of a SO? When the change was implemented, were they pissed?
by PhantomPretender on Aug 24, 2010 7:07 PM PDT reply actions
From Lupul:
If you suck at shoot-outs try harder to win in reg or OT. I feel a loss should be a loss.
"Make me a bicycle, clown"
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
CK Photo Galleries
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
