Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
roomtemp

So what do you think about the shootout?

68 posts in this topic

The NHL doesn't get a lot of things right but getting rid of the awful, awful, 2-line pass rule was one of the best things they ever did. I do not miss that at all and I'm sure the vast majority of players and fans feel the same.

 

I wouuld be interested in seeing how many more goals have been scored that would have been called back because of the 2-line pass.  Imagine what the Oilers teams would have done if that rule didn't exist.  I guess with the evolution of players the rule isn't necessary any more but those Oilers teams might go undefeated if it didn't exist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is an OT win 2 or 3 points in that system?

3 I imagine.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No 8 mins, has to be increments of 5. That's sport rules man. It's in the handbook all of us men are given at birth, duh.

LMAO! Yea, you're right, what was I thinking? In all fairness, my wife confiscated my man book when we got married, so I've forgotten alot of the rules. One day I'll find where she hid it....

Hockey is at bottom a defensive contest. It is always easier to prevent chances than to create them. Goalie equipment is unlikely to change significantly - the answer to more goals and more scoring chances is bigger nets, something which I don't think the NHL will consider for many years.

But goalie equipment MUST change or I am going into business selling mattresses to the NHL. Seriously, it is getting ridiculous. And again, what a simple, elegant solution for more scoring, fewer ties (if such a thing still existed), etc. I don't buy the safety factor for goaltenders. I'm not advocating sending them out there like Ned Braden at the end of Slap Shot, they'd still have all the goodies every other goaltender hand in, say, 1990. Of course, the equipment itself would all be better, especially th helmets (poor, poor Mike Liut.... How many of you remember that game against the Devils? I bet he doesn't). I dint recall there being a major injury problem for goalies back then that is any different from today's game save for the helmets and those advancements could be totally left alone. So why do the players want to stop these changes?

I wouuld be interested in seeing how many more goals have been scored that would have been called back because of the 2-line pass. Imagine what the Oilers teams would have done if that rule didn't exist. I guess with the evolution of players the rule isn't necessary any more but those Oilers teams might go undefeated if it didn't exist.

Wow, never thought of that. Awesome thought. OTOH, can you imagine how much more painful it would've been being a Devils fan in the '80s and watching our boys play against the likes of the Oilers? Perish the thought...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The shootout is a gimmick but it hasn't come as a detriment to the game.  I think the game is absolutely fine the way it is.  I don't like 4-4 in overtime because it alters the traditional 5-5 game.  5-5 is the way the game has played and the way it should always be played in my opinion.  I would hate to see them alter anything else on the ice.  I also thought taking away the center ice line was a bad idea.  The NHL has a tremendous history with great records that have been recorded within that his history.  To alter the game is to do an injustice and disservice to those who played and dominated the game in the past when the rules were stricter. Can you imagine what Gretzky and Lemieux would do with the 2-line pass? 

Okay, sincere question here: why is the shootout acceptable to you but the 4-4 overtime isn't because it alters the traditional game? I feel like I'm either missing something here (a distinct possibility) or maybe you've made more of an emotional decision instead of a logical one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, sincere question here: why is the shootout acceptable to you but the 4-4 overtime isn't because it alters the traditional game? I feel like I'm either missing something here (a distinct possibility) or maybe you've made more of an emotional decision instead of a logical one.

 

4 on 4 is played during the game at certain points at least. It's still a team game when it's 4 on 4 and not just a skill contest between a skater and a goalie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if soccer fans have this same debate. Hell, penalty kicks involve even less skill and more luck than penalty shots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hell,  I'm even against overtime.  Let the boys store energy for the playoffs. Let them go home after 2 hrs of playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 on 4 is played during the game at certain points at least. It's still a team game when it's 4 on 4 and not just a skill contest between a skater and a goalie.

So are you angry at penalty shots too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you angry at penalty shots too?

Personally I don't really care anymore cause we have no say in the matter. He was asking about 4 on 4 not being traditional hockey but 4 on 4 happens a lot more during a game then the few penalty shots each team sees during regulation throughout the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 on 4 is played during the game at certain points at least. It's still a team game when it's 4 on 4 and not just a skill contest between a skater and a goalie.

 

so is breakaways... 

Edited by SterioDesign

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, sincere question here: why is the shootout acceptable to you but the 4-4 overtime isn't because it alters the traditional game? I feel like I'm either missing something here (a distinct possibility) or maybe you've made more of an emotional decision instead of a logical one.

If I had my druthers I would have neither.  I don't think the shootout has negatively affected the game.  I don't think 4-4 has either.  I just don't like it. The game is played 5-5.  I think that's the only way it should be played.  I appreciate the chess match that is the game.  To me, 4-4 is not hockey. It's run and gun back and forth and totally removes the strategy that defines hockey.  It turns the game into that gimmicky thing that non-traditional fans go to and leave saying that was a great game. That's not hockey.  I suppose, it's no different than the shootout.  However, we don't hear chatter about how their going to get rid of the game and just have shootouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if soccer fans have this same debate. Hell, penalty kicks involve even less skill and more luck than penalty shots.

Penalty shots in soccer are the most sh!t excuse to settle a score in the history of mankind.  Soccer is a tough, enduring sport (even though most people dont think so) with a lot of short quick sprints and lots of minutes logged on the field and to have 120 minutes of running, hitting, battling end in a penalty shootout, where guessing is the key factor in determining the winner is just disgraceful.  At least in hockey, you need skill to score on a penalty shot.  In soccer, the coach just tells you to pick a corner and shoot.  IT IS SO STUPID. I hated going to penalty shootouts in high school cause i knew for sure we were going to lose.  Our team was always tough to beat during regulation cause we weren't the prettiest team but we worked hard and had limited chances, but then we got to penalties and our guys just lost confidence. It was sickening.  In hockey, there should be players taken off the ice to create more chances and a more open game. So lets say in hockey, a 4v4 for 5 minutes and then a stoppage.  Then a 3v3 for five minutes and then finally a shootout.  In soccer, in knockout games, simply play til someone scores golden goal style like in the playoffs for hockey.  Think about how many world cup matches were decided on penalties. Its horrible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hell,  I'm even against overtime.  Let the boys store energy for the playoffs. Let them go home after 2 hrs of playing.

Another two minutes or so of ice time every few games probably has a very minimal effect if any on their energy for the playoffs.  I would be fine with no overtime too so every game is 60 minutes, but I think if you're going to have overtime it needs to be ten minutes because five is too pointless, and I agree with the others who say ice hockey is 5 on 5 so overtime should stay 5 on 5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I love the shootout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This. What was wrong with ties?

Do you enjoy hollow feelings of no resolution when watching entertainment? Why do you think people hate blatant cliff hangers as endings for movies and games? Same thing with ties

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you enjoy hollow feelings of no resolution when watching entertainment? Why do you think people hate blatant cliff hangers as endings for movies and games? Same thing with ties

I never felt hollow or without resolution after watching a tie. If I watched a fantastic close game that ended tied I viewed it as entertaining and a well deserved result towards both sides. One of the best memories I have of watching Devils hockey is the epic 0-0 tie between Brodeur and Hasek where they each made 37 saves. Also the 0-0 tie between Brodeur and Beezer was memorable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this... No OT, but a tie results in 0 points for either team. (Basically just go by win-loss record in the standings) That would make the last 5 minutes of a tied game VERY interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this... No OT, but a tie results in 0 points for either team. (Basically just go by win-loss record in the standings) That would make the last 5 minutes of a tied game VERY interesting.

 

Would kill the appeal for a lot of non-hardcore fans. No one wants to pay to go see a game where the final outcome was that nothing happened. People don't want to see meaningless games and a 0-point tie would be just that. Most casual fans hate 1-point ties and that's why they were changed in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never felt hollow or without resolution after watching a tie. If I watched a fantastic close game that ended tied I viewed it as entertaining and a well deserved result towards both sides. One of the best memories I have of watching Devils hockey is the epic 0-0 tie between Brodeur and Hasek where they each made 37 saves. Also the 0-0 tie between Brodeur and Beezer was memorable.

This is where I am too.  To me, ties sometimes felt like wins or losses...if you were leading, say, 4-2, then wound up in a 4-4 tie, yeah, at least you got a point, but it felt like a loss.  And sometimes a tie simply felt like a tie...two teams playing an extremely tight contest where there simply wasn't a clear-cut winner.

 

Even with the Devils having been terrific in shootouts since they were first implemented from Day 1, I've never liked them deciding games.  As many have stated, there really needs to be a 3-2-1-0 system, so the games are at least weighted the same, with 3 points up for grabs in each game. 

 

We all know what the breakdown should be:

 

3 points for a regulation win

2 points for an OT or SO win

1 point for an OT or SO loss

0 points for a regulation loss

 

And the regulation + OT win total will continue to decide tiebreakers, so teams can't benefit from fattening up on SO wins. 

 

Though quite often it's been shown that implementing the above in the standings doesn't always make much difference, I still think this should have been done.  Can't have some games worth 2 points and others worth 3.  They all have to be the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never felt hollow or without resolution after watching a tie. If I watched a fantastic close game that ended tied I viewed it as entertaining and a well deserved result towards both sides. One of the best memories I have of watching Devils hockey is the epic 0-0 tie between Brodeur and Hasek where they each made 37 saves. Also the 0-0 tie between Brodeur and Beezer was memorable.

 

The trouble is that most ties were not like this, especially before the implementation of 4 on 4 OT and the loser point.  5 on 5 OT was often horrendous with both teams trying to run out the clock to get a single point.  So you had the least exciting part of the game last, which is a pretty awful way to run an entertainment business.

 

The trouble is, the loser point incentivized going to OT even more.  So in 2004 you get 171 ties in the NHL, with 342 points for ties handed out, meaning an average of over 11 ties per team.

 

Obviously they should go to 3-2-1-0, it's very stupid that they haven't, but maybe when Lou and some of the old er BoG members leave they'll consider it.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble is that most ties were not like this, especially before the implementation of 4 on 4 OT and the loser point.  5 on 5 OT was often horrendous with both teams trying to run out the clock to get a single point.  So you had the least exciting part of the game last, which is a pretty awful way to run an entertainment business.

 

The trouble is, the loser point incentivized going to OT even more.  So in 2004 you get 171 ties in the NHL, with 342 points for ties handed out, meaning an average of over 11 ties per team.

 

Obviously they should go to 3-2-1-0, it's very stupid that they haven't, but maybe when Lou and some of the old er BoG members leave they'll consider it.

In hockey where the scores are usually close you'll run into that problem even in a 3-2-1-0 where a coach will still feel more comfortable killing the last 2 min of the game instead of risking losing even that point. Ties No OT point people play for a tie. You can't award no points for a shootout because even I who like the shootout thinks that unfair. There won't be a perfect system

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In hockey where the scores are usually close you'll run into that problem even in a 3-2-1-0 where a coach will still feel more comfortable killing the last 2 min of the game instead of risking losing even that point. Ties No OT point people play for a tie. You can't award no points for a shootout because even I who like the shootout thinks that unfair. There won't be a perfect system

 

3 points for a regulation win

2 points for an OT or SO win

1 point for an OT or SO loss

0 points for a regulation loss

 

This is a perfect system, because EVERY game is weighted the same, with each having the same number of points up for grabs (3).  The fact that there are currently 2-point and 3-point games shows that the system is simply flawed.  If anything, the good thing about the 3-2-1-0 system is that teams that really need 3-point wins to have any shot of getting to the playoffs will really be in "go-for-it" mode.  The regulation win needs to mean more than an OT or SO win, and the winning team needs more of a reward for earning one than they currently receive.  When it comes to OT and SO games, if you want to div-ee up 3 points with the winner getting two and the loser getting a charity point, fine.  But it's like I said, as long as regular season games aren't technically weighted the same, that's a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you enjoy hollow feelings of no resolution when watching entertainment? Why do you think people hate blatant cliff hangers as endings for movies and games? Same thing with ties

I never felt like that.  I didn't like hockey at all until the first game I went to, which was a 2-2 tie and I was instantly attached for life.  I would much rather have games end in a tie than be decided by a one on one contest that exists just for the sake of choosing a winner.  If both teams scored the same amount of goals, then oh well the game is a tie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 points for a regulation win

2 points for an OT or SO win

1 point for an OT or SO loss

0 points for a regulation loss

 

This is a perfect system, because EVERY game is weighted the same, with each having the same number of points up for grabs (3).  The fact that there are currently 2-point and 3-point games shows that the system is simply flawed.  If anything, the good thing about the 3-2-1-0 system is that teams that really need 3-point wins to have any shot of getting to the playoffs will really be in "go-for-it" mode.  The regulation win needs to mean more than an OT or SO win, and the winning team needs more of a reward for earning one than they currently receive.  When it comes to OT and SO games, if you want to div-ee up 3 points with the winner getting two and the loser getting a charity point, fine.  But it's like I said, as long as regular season games aren't technically weighted the same, that's a problem.

No I get that system and its what we should have but to say it will prevent all stall tactics at the end of the game so a coach will guarantee a point is wrong. Coaches would rather get something guaranteed than try and lose it all. Even if they both average out to taking the risk is the smarter way to play in the long run. Or if the team is bad enough.

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