Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Z-Man

What if there were still ties?

25 posts in this topic

If we count all the games that went to a shootout as "ties", and only counted regulation and OT wins, with the consolation point for OT losses:

1. NYR 103 Pts

2. BOS 92 Pts

3. WSH 84 Pts

4. PHI 97 Pts

5. PIT 96 Pts

6. NJD 88 Pts

7. FLA 81 Pts

8. OTT 80 Pts

9. BUF 78 Pts

Pretty interesting that the playoff teams didn't change, but we'd be playing Washington instead of Florida. The point totals are a lot less inflated. Also, Philly would have home ice over Pitt.

In the West, now that all games are complete:

1. STL 104

2. VAN 101

3. PHO 88

4. NSH 96

5. DET 90 (39 W)

6. CHI 90 (38 W)

7. LAK 83

8. SJS 82

9. DAL 91

Not much different...actually all the matchups are the same (STL/SJ is the 1/8 instead of the 2/7 matchup; VAN/LA is the 2/7 instead of the 1/8).

Edited by Z-Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ties are the worst

I didn't mind ties...depending on how any given tie came about, quite a few of them felt like wins and losses, while others truly felt like games where both teams played each other just about even for 65 minutes.

I hate the shootout, and the fact that a victory is actually awarded for it, especially when there's not much rhyme or reason as to why one team is good at it and another isn't. But at least the Devils have been the best at it since its implementation. If the Devils were as bad in them as Florida (30-54 all-time), we'd be hearing a lot more complaints about how unfair the shootout is.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't mind ties...depending on how any given tie came about, quite a few of them felt like wins and losses, while others truly felt like games where both teams played each other just about even for 65 minutes.

I hate the shootout, and the fact that a victory is actually awarded for it, especially when there's not much rhyme or reason as to why one team is good at it and another isn't. But at least the Devils have been the best at it since its implementation. If the Devils were as bad in them as Florida (30-54 all-time), we'd be hearing a lot more complaints about how unfair the shootout is.

THIS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I love the shoot out.. Even if you hate it, you can't deny that it's very exciting when you're at the game

I remember seeing a Devils vs Rangers 2-2 tie at MSG.. It was just awkward because both sides had fans acting like they lost and had fans acting like they had won.. But overall everyone was just disappointed that we spent 3 hours watching an no one won

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't mind ties...depending on how any given tie came about, quite a few of them felt like wins and losses, while others truly felt like games where both teams played each other just about even for 65 minutes.

I hate the shootout, and the fact that a victory is actually awarded for it, especially when there's not much rhyme or reason as to why one team is good at it and another isn't. But at least the Devils have been the best at it since its implementation. If the Devils were as bad in them as Florida (30-54 all-time), we'd be hearing a lot more complaints about how unfair the shootout is.

These are my thoughts exactly. I didn't like hockey at all until I finally went to a game and saw the Devils and Blackhawks play to a 2-2 tie in the 92-93 season and that was what hooked me in. You don't need to artificially declare a winner to make new fans!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are u guys talking about?? Ties are awful to watch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are u guys talking about?? Ties are awful to watch

The whole game becomes awful just because the two teams scored the same amount of goals? Shootouts are awful because they are deciding winners of hockey games and standings of the highest hockey league with something that isn't hockey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are u guys talking about?? Ties are awful to watch

Ties were fine, and they were fine for what 80ish years? It is the mentality that the final score overrides or erases the excitment and effort shown by both teams that is aweful.

I have gotten used to the shootout, but I'd call it a problem that didn't need fixing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there's not much rhyme or reason as to why one team is good at it and another isn't.

There must be a reason Kovy has a sick percentage in the shootout and Marty is the winningest goalie in the SO (I believe), while some other players struggle to win games that way.

I've gone from liking the idea of the shootout to hating the shootout after it was introduced to accepting it as it is. Now it's a part of the game and it's not going anywhere, no matter how we feel about it. So the only thing you can do is adapt and master it. As we can see, practicing the shootout to perfection can help you a great deal by bringing you a lot of extra points. Good thing that's what the Devils did. Fans of teams which perform badly in the SO shouldn't bitch about it. Their coach should just get his players to work on it, because now it's as helpful in winning games as any other element.

That being said, beating a team in that fashion is never as satisfying as beating it clearly in a 60-65 minute game.

Oh, and, actually, the main problem I have with the shootout is that it messed up the goalie records completely. On the other hand, there are changes introduced to the league and the rules etc. (like expanding the league, changing the number of games...), so win records always become outdated after a while - it's just bound to happen. If it's not the shootout, it's something else in the future that's going to change things.

Edited by Revan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This analysis justifies the shootout... more fan excitement.. didn't change much

though it is not a perfect analysis, since many teams (Devils!) played for the shootout and would not if it didn't exist...may take more risks and go for the win

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus if there wasn't a shootout, there wouldn't be 4-on-4 OT either. You really can't take away the extra points and say this is what it would have been, especially in inter-conference games where teams are happy to play for a point at the end of regulation because the other point doesn't affect them in the standings anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This analysis justifies the shootout... more fan excitement.. didn't change much

though it is not a perfect analysis, since many teams (Devils!) played for the shootout and would not if it didn't exist...may take more risks and go for the win

Agreed. Giving a point for the OTL made going for the extra point risk-free. The Devs clearly were playing for the shootout in OT, unless we got scored on, or had a lucky break.

I didn't mind ties watching on TV, but in-person, I hated leaving with a tie. The shootout forces a "winner"; whether it's truly hockey or not (it's not).

I'm fine with that in the regular season, but never in the playoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get why people hate ties, I still consider a 2-2 game at the end of 65 minutes a tie, with an extra point tacked on afterward. If you were outplayed and lucky to get one point, you'd be really fortunate if you got the second in the skills competition. If it was an evenly played game, you'd still be unlucky to 'give up' a point in the shootout.

I get that the shootout is exciting and more asthetically pleasing, but the points system is slanted because of three and two point games. It helps parity though, which is really the biggest reason it exists.

Edited by NJDevs4978

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that the shootout is exciting and more asthetically pleasing, but the points system is slanted because of three and two point games. It helps parity though, which is really the biggest reason it exists.

Does it really though? Like Z-Man said, nothing changes if you just call any game that gets to a shootout a tie. It's impossible to say how aggressive and what the result would have been, if teams didn't play for the shootout (like NJ), but for the most part, I would think a lot of them would have remained tied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There must be a reason Kovy has a sick percentage in the shootout and Marty is the winningest goalie in the SO (I believe), while some other players struggle to win games that way.

I've gone from liking the idea of the shootout to hating the shootout after it was introduced to accepting it as it is. Now it's a part of the game and it's not going anywhere, no matter how we feel about it. So the only thing you can do is adapt and master it. As we can see, practicing the shootout to perfection can help you a great deal by bringing you a lot of extra points. Good thing that's what the Devils did. Fans of teams which perform badly in the SO shouldn't bitch about it. Their coach should just get his players to work on it, because now it's as helpful in winning games as any other element.

That being said, beating a team in that fashion is never as satisfying as beating it clearly in a 60-65 minute game.

Oh, and, actually, the main problem I have with the shootout is that it messed up the goalie records completely. On the other hand, there are changes introduced to the league and the rules etc. (like expanding the league, changing the number of games...), so win records always become outdated after a while - it's just bound to happen. If it's not the shootout, it's something else in the future that's going to change things.

Kovy wasn't great at it until this season. It remains to be seen if he'll continue to be as off-the-charts good at it as he was this season, or if he'll go back to being "meh" at it the way he was before.

You're giving the Devils credit for something they don't deserve...do you really think coaching makes that much of a difference in how teams perform in the shootout? Since the Devils have been pretty much terrific in shootouts since their inception, do you really think each and every coach behind the Devils' bench somehow dedicated himself to getting the Devils to put up the best record in the shootout? Or that teams that don't perform well in it don't simply because their head coach doesn't bother? So when Pete DeBoer was coaching the Panthers for three seasons, he wasn't concerned about the shootout, but now that he's the Devils' head coach, he is? C'mon. In a perfect world, I'm sure most coaches would rather win the game in regulation or OT...I don't think they play or gameplan for shootouts, where anything can happen.

I think a student of the game, like Marty, does what he can to help himself in shootouts by arming himself with as much knowledge as possible, as do some shooters who study opposing goalie's tendencies, but the problem with the shootout is that there really is no rhyme or reason as to what individual players are good at it...we see goal-scorers who aren't good in the shootout, and good shootout performers who don't score much during regulation or OT. The Devils are lucky in a way, because guys like Elias and Parise are good to very good in shootouts...if they weren't, it's not like Lou would ever say, "We can't keep these guys because they don't produce in shootouts." Same with Marty...great that Marty combines ability with wanting to know as much about opposing shooter's nuances as possible, but it's not like the Devils would sit him if he was merely average in the shootout. Let's face it...the Devils have been blessed, in that their good players have also been good shootout performers, and have even gotten shootout contributions from some otherwise deadwood players (like Victor Kozlov).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're giving the Devils credit for something they don't deserve...do you really think coaching makes that much of a difference in how teams perform in the shootout? Since the Devils have been pretty much terrific in shootouts since their inception, do you really think each and every coach behind the Devils' bench somehow dedicated himself to getting the Devils to put up the best record in the shootout? Or that teams that don't perform well in it don't simply because their head coach doesn't bother? So when Pete DeBoer was coaching the Panthers for three seasons, he wasn't concerned about the shootout, but now that he's the Devils' head coach, he is? C'mon.

That wasn't the point in my post. I meant if you're bad at SO, you should work on it (and it's up to the coach to organise more shootout drills, as well as to the players themselves working on their technique). If the players are good at shootout already, they don't have to work that hard on it. But when you're really bad at it, then it's a reason to worry and you should do something about it, i.e. practice.

In a perfect world, I'm sure most coaches would rather win the game in regulation or OT...I don't think they play or gameplan for shootouts, where anything can happen.

I never said they do. Others in the thread mentioned that idea.

Which might not be that far from truth, actually. I mean, if you have a very good record in the shootout and you're playing a tough opponent who you can't find a way to score on... Wouldn't you feel more confident about going to SO than beating them in a normal game?

I think a student of the game, like Marty, does what he can to help himself in shootouts by arming himself with as much knowledge as possible, as do some shooters who study opposing goalie's tendencies, but the problem with the shootout is that there really is no rhyme or reason as to what individual players are good at it...

Aren't you contradicting yourself a little bit here? Do you really think there's no connection between players studying the opposing goalie/shooter carefully and their effectiveness?

we see goal-scorers who aren't good in the shootout, and good shootout performers who don't score much during regulation or OT. The Devils are lucky in a way, because guys like Elias and Parise are good to very good in shootouts...

So? It's about technique and practice, just like anything (well, when you practice hard and still don't get results, then someone else should take your spot in the SO. There are usually only three shooters there, anyway, so I'm sure you can find someone capable on an 18-men roster). You're never equally good at all aspects of the game. You can have a powerful shot, but poor accuracy or deking skills. You can be a great passer, but fail at faceoffs. Same with the shootout - no one is guaranteed success in it (though the players you mentioned do translate their offensive skills in the game to shootout success).

if they weren't, it's not like Lou would ever say, "We can't keep these guys because they don't produce in shootouts." Same with Marty...great that Marty combines ability with wanting to know as much about opposing shooter's nuances as possible, but it's not like the Devils would sit him if he was merely average in the shootout.

Of course, no GM is going to give up on acquiring an all-star scorer just because he doesn't score much in the SO. Just like you're going to ignore some other nuances about players if they are good enough (if he scores 100 pts., you can accept the minor defensive mistakes he makes from time to time). But getting a guy with a high shootout scoring percentage might be a good idea if you're struggling in that regard.

Let's face it...the Devils have been blessed, in that their good players have also been good shootout performers, and have even gotten shootout contributions from some otherwise deadwood players (like Victor Kozlov).

True dat. But it still IS up to the GM and coach to do something if the team is performing poorly in some aspect of the game. If you don't have enough depth, you should get some solid 3rd/4th liners. If you're bad at the faceoff circle, get a center who can win some faceoffs (even if he's not great at other stuff). Same with shootouts: if you're notorious for losing them and you don't do anything about it (get a player who's good technically or make some more SO drills), then you only have yourself to blame and you shouldn't bitch about the world being unjust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That wasn't the point in my post. I meant if you're bad at SO, you should work on it (and it's up to the coach to organise more shootout drills, as well as to the players themselves working on their technique). If the players are good at shootout already, they don't have to work that hard on it. But when you're really bad at it, then it's a reason to worry and you should do something about it, i.e. practice.

You implied that the Devils have been practicing this to perfection in your initial post; hence their success. (As we can see, practicing the shootout to perfection can help you a great deal by bringing you a lot of extra points. Good thing that's what the Devils did.) I don't think they practice it any more or less than any other teams. Like I said, I think a lot of elements have come together (Marty's thorough studying of opposing shooters, the Devils having good players on the roster who are also good in shootouts, etc.). I think the coaches have enough on their plates...I'm sure they'd all love for their teams to have Devils-type success in the shootout, but if a team goes to the shootout more than 15 times a year, it's a lot. It's not a situation that comes up enough to demand too much attention.

Which might not be that far from truth, actually. I mean, if you have a very good record in the shootout and you're playing a tough opponent who you can't find a way to score on... Wouldn't you feel more confident about going to SO than beating them in a normal game?

The Devils were absurdly good at this in 2011-12 for sure (57.1 shooting%, which is insane...not hard to see why they went 12-4). But even with that, there's enough of a luck, anything-can-happen feel that I wouldn't want to bank on winning a game that way. But I'll admit, it was pretty hard not to feel confident when Devils games went to a shootout...especially when shooter #1 was about as guaranteed as one could get to put his shot home.

Aren't you contradicting yourself a little bit here? Do you really think there's no connection between players studying the opposing goalie/shooter carefully and their effectiveness?

Sure there's a connection, but I don't think it's that significant...I think there's only so much one can do to get better in these. And it's like I said, shootouts don't come up often enough that a whole lot of players are going to concentrate that much on it. One of the ways Marty is underappreciated is that he works harder at the mental aspects and nuances of NHL hockey than anyone (read his book and you'll see)...he's dedicated to an almost freakish level. And he's ALWAYS been like that, regardless of who his coach was.

So? It's about technique and practice, just like anything (well, when you practice hard and still don't get results, then someone else should take your spot in the SO. There are usually only three shooters there, anyway, so I'm sure you can find someone capable on an 18-men roster). You're never equally good at all aspects of the game. You can have a powerful shot, but poor accuracy or deking skills. You can be a great passer, but fail at faceoffs. Same with the shootout - no one is guaranteed success in it (though the players you mentioned do translate their offensive skills in the game to shootout success).

The shootout really isn't about technique and practice...mostly because I maintain they're not worked on that much (in relation to more important things), and a lot of luck factors in. I think the guys who have been consistently good since '05-'06 simply have a knack for it. Kovy's story in shootouts this season is a nice one for sure, but that kind of improvement is very rare. He went from being meh to damned near automatic, when the best shooters are usually around 50%.

Of course, no GM is going to give up on acquiring an all-star scorer just because he doesn't score much in the SO. Just like you're going to ignore some other nuances about players if they are good enough (if he scores 100 pts., you can accept the minor defensive mistakes he makes from time to time). But getting a guy with a high shootout scoring percentage might be a good idea if you're struggling in that regard.

I don't think you'll ever see a GM acquire a player primarily because he's a good shootout producer. I think GMs see that as a minor bonus...I need a player who does this, this, and this for this amount of cash. If he's able to produce in shootouts, great, but if he doesn't, so be it. The GM is clearly going to be more concerned about the 82 games of regulation and overtime on-ice play than a skills competition that, at the very most, will rear its ugly head in no more than 25% of his team's games.

True dat. But it still IS up to the GM and coach to do something if the team is performing poorly in some aspect of the game. If you don't have enough depth, you should get some solid 3rd/4th liners. If you're bad at the faceoff circle, get a center who can win some faceoffs (even if he's not great at other stuff). Same with shootouts: if you're notorious for losing them and you don't do anything about it (get a player who's good technically or make some more SO drills), then you only have yourself to blame and you shouldn't bitch about the world being unjust.

This goes back to what I was saying before...the other aspects you are talking about can affect you in every single game of the season. The shootout doesn't...at most, if you suck at it, it will hurt you in 25% of your games at most (a lot of teams only play 10 or so of them total), and even then it's not like you're going to lose them all...most seasons your team will find a way to win at least 30%-35% of them.

Edited by Colorado Rockies 1976

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ties just leave you unfulfilled. Shootouts are used in the Olympics. Honestly if the shootout was first around when most of the people watching hockey started then it would just be thought of as part of the game. Sure its not perfect but again I'll let the Simpsons say what most people think about ties

"Man 1: What the heck is a tie game?

Man 2: Tie game?

Woman 1: What the hell?

Woman 2: This is outrageous!

Marge: Oh, I've never been so proud of them.

Homer: [weeping] They're both losers. Losers!

Abe: Rip-off!

Hans: We paid for blood!

Wiggum: Let's tear this place apart!

Abe: Good idea!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for reference, here's the Devils year-by-year shootout totals, and where they ranked:

'05-'06 9-4, 40.0 shooting% (8th), .733 save% (5th)

'06-'07 10-8, 40.3 shooting% (6th), .652 save% (14th)

'07-'08 8-4, 35.7 shooting% (12th), .744 save% (4th)

'08-'09 6-2, 48.0 shooting% (2nd), .714 save% (9th)

'09-'10 6-5, 37.5 shooting% (8th), .647 save% (22nd)

'10-'11 3-2, 31.6 shooting% (13th), .750 save% (11th)

'11-'12 12-4, 57.1 shooting% (1st), .696 save% (8th)

TOTALS: 54-29, 42.3 shooting% (1st), .699 save% (8th)

Interesting that the Devils lead the shooting% category all-time, when they've only led that for one season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ties just leave you unfulfilled. Shootouts are used in the Olympics. Honestly if the shootout was first around when most of the people watching hockey started then it would just be thought of as part of the game. Sure its not perfect but again I'll let the Simpsons say what most people think about ties

"Man 1: What the heck is a tie game?

Man 2: Tie game?

Woman 1: What the hell?

Woman 2: This is outrageous!

Marge: Oh, I've never been so proud of them.

Homer: [weeping] They're both losers. Losers!

Abe: Rip-off!

Hans: We paid for blood!

Wiggum: Let's tear this place apart!

Abe: Good idea!"

Props for the Simpsons reference. Now here is your turtle back. Alive and well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real issue is that more than 20% of NHL games continue to end regulation tied. Heck it might be closer to 25%. None of the other 3 big sports (NFL, MLB, NBA) has such a high percentage.

The OT rule in 1983 & the Shootout rule in 2005 were both created in response to this unusual percentage of tied games.

Neither technique has addressed the actual issue of simply too many games ending regulation time in ties.

the next step may be to go to the 3-2-1 points system, once again to try and incentify winning in regulation....will it work ?

I'd like to see it, but it's unknown if this would actually address the issue. I think it is worth a try.

here's a website that shows the impact on standings

although this website's standings effect is in hindsight, and it can't measure what the real effect would be as teams in need of points may play differently later in games.

IMO, we've already seen the 4-on-4 OT lose it's designed purpose of being wide open because you've already secured a point...the goal remains the same...prevent the other team from getting a 2nd point !

The only other recent non-radial idea worth trying is that since most games that end regulation tied also result in the shootout....to shave the entire ice after regulation (instead of after OT) so the OT has a better ice surface for its 5 minutes.

Perhaps then they might even be able to extend OT to 10-minutes, but the NHLPA will likely poo-poo that idea because players could end up playing 16% (10/60) more without any compensation & more chance of injury...so this 10 minutes is probalby never going to happen...

Somehow, someone has got to figure out how to reduce the number of NHL games that end regulation tied. so far no idea has done the trick.

Suggestions ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Somehow, someone has got to figure out how to reduce the number of NHL games that end regulation tied. so far no idea has done the trick.

Suggestions ?

do it like soccer. No OT, 1 point for a tie, 3 points for a win

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real issue is that more than 20% of NHL games continue to end regulation tied. Heck it might be closer to 25%. None of the other 3 big sports (NFL, MLB, NBA) has such a high percentage.

The OT rule in 1983 & the Shootout rule in 2005 were both created in response to this unusual percentage of tied games.

Neither technique has addressed the actual issue of simply too many games ending regulation time in ties.

the next step may be to go to the 3-2-1 points system, once again to try and incentify winning in regulation....will it work ?

I'd like to see it, but it's unknown if this would actually address the issue. I think it is worth a try.

here's a website that shows the impact on standings

although this website's standings effect is in hindsight, and it can't measure what the real effect would be as teams in need of points may play differently later in games.

IMO, we've already seen the 4-on-4 OT lose it's designed purpose of being wide open because you've already secured a point...the goal remains the same...prevent the other team from getting a 2nd point !

The only other recent non-radial idea worth trying is that since most games that end regulation tied also result in the shootout....to shave the entire ice after regulation (instead of after OT) so the OT has a better ice surface for its 5 minutes.

Perhaps then they might even be able to extend OT to 10-minutes, but the NHLPA will likely poo-poo that idea because players could end up playing 16% (10/60) more without any compensation & more chance of injury...so this 10 minutes is probalby never going to happen...

Somehow, someone has got to figure out how to reduce the number of NHL games that end regulation tied. so far no idea has done the trick.

Suggestions ?

It won't happen, but I think 3 points for a regulation win would help...then 2 points for OT or shootout wins, and 1 point for OT or SO losses. If there's three points up for grabs to be divied up between the two teams in OT and shootouts, then three points should be available for a regulation win.

This is what doesn't make sense to me...in any given game:

Regulation win (2 points) + regulation loss (0) points = 2 points

OT or SO win (2 points) + OT or SO loss (1) point = 3 points

This really makes no sense if you think about it...games that go to OT or SO have more weight in a way.

Will awarding three points to a potential regulation victor affect the number of games that end up tied after 60 or 65 minutes? Maybe not, but at least there's more of an importance put on regulation wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0