Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
NJDevs4978

Rangers-Caps shootout

87 posts in this topic

This argument has not been refuted by anyone on this board.
Edited by '7'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right...so just to help decide who makes the playoffs, but not actually in the playoffs.

Makes sense...or not.

<JESTER>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are no tie games in the playoffs.

All of you yammering for sudden death in the regular season - wouldn't that destroy the excitement caused by sudden death in the playoffs? I think it would make it less special, for sure - sudden death in hockey is the best part about it, and I'd hate to see it cheapened by being used in Washington-Anaheim games in mid-December.

Either way, it's irrelevant - the shootout is here to stay. And as I've said throughout the whole process, I don't like the shootout that much - but it clearly beats the alternatives. It's also interesting to see what kind of moves guys have developed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might just end my involvement in shootout topics right here - any more mentions of home run derby contests and free throw shooting competitions have NO BASIS in this discussion. They are not the only way to score in their respective sports - the only way to score in hockey is to get a puck by the goaltender.

Furthermore, as Blueskirt has pointed out on numerous occasions, those sports have no issues with a deteriorating playing surface - as a result, those games can often be settled in little time with little injury risk.

Edited by Triumph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I might just end my involvement in shootout topics right here - any more mentions of home run derby contests and free throw shooting competitions have NO BASIS in this discussion.  They are not the only way to score in their respective sports - the only way to score in hockey is to get a puck by the goaltender.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you're dancing around the issue here triumph. You have to score by playing as a team on the ice, and going through a defense. A penalty shots happen for a reason. In the shootout, they happen for no reason.

The NHL now awards points for not even playing the damn game in OT. Think about how silly it is. HOCKEY STOPS, they start playing a completely different game and award points on that game.

It's like if you and I played chess. We come to a stalemate, then start playing checkers. You win the checkers game and automatically get credit for winning the chess game as well. Does that make sense? Because that's exactly what the NHL is doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you're dancing around the issue here triumph. You have to score by playing as a team on the ice, and going through a defense. A penalty shots happen for a reason. In the shootout, they happen for no reason.

The NHL now awards points for not even playing the damn game in OT. Think about how silly it is. HOCKEY STOPS, they start playing a completely different game and award points on that game.

It's like if you and I played chess. We come to a stalemate, then start playing checkers. You win the checkers game and automatically get credit for winning the chess game as well. Does that make sense? Because that's exactly what the NHL is doing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's so silly that Olympic medals have been won and lost on them.

You're winning the logical argument but failing to provide alternatives. You can shout about how silly it is, but sellout crowds standing in anticipation isn't very silly to NHL executives and owners.

Provide an alternative. It cannot be a tie. It cannot be sudden death overtime. Have fun coming up with one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To maintain the integrity of the game you need to have uniformity in the regular season and playoffs. Otherwise it loses all credibility, you can not hand out points based on an unnearned shootout derby. That disgraces the game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're argument is VERY flawed, 7.

So we should have ties in playoff games, too? Devils win the series in 12 games, 4 wins, 3 losses, 5 ties.

The NHL NEVER had uniformity in the regular season and the playoffs. Look in the record books and find all those 3 and 4 overtime regular season games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If enough people bitch about, something will get done about it.

so let's keep bitching!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well...enough people bitched for the shoot out and now we have it for at least one season.

I love it. :boogie:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's so silly that Olympic medals have been won and lost on them.

You're winning the logical argument but failing to provide alternatives.

Edited by '7'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so, I guess there haven't been any exciting 5-5 ties with end to end action for 65 minutes in the history of the NHL (sarcasm off)

I'd take a 2-2 tie anyday over some phony 3-2 "victory" that degenerated into some worthless pond hockey shootout relay that has nothing to do with the game itself. Do you actually think you saw a team win a game last night?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well lets name all these memorable ties...and again, in your world there wont be any exciting shootouts? :noclue:

What if the Devils from this point on go 7-1 in shootouts and make the playoffs and then win the Cup because of the shootout rule? Will you be whistling a different tune at that point? Hmmm...

Bottom line: The good teams will get in the playoffs. The good teams wont. Period. If for example the Sabres fall 1 point short because they lost a shootout the last week of the season, oh well. You can trace back over several other games throughout a season to point out why a team misses the playoffs etc.

By no means am I saying i LOVE the shootout rule. There are drawbacks to any system. For example, on Thanksgiving Eve, the Sabres won a shootout at the Island over the Isles. And when the shootout started, I thought to myself, "damn, the Sabres have completely outplayed the Isles for the last 10 minutes of the 3rd and the 5 minute OT, if the Isles win the shootout its almost a shame"...in situations like that, I definately see your point.

There is no perfect system. But what the NHL has generated here with the shootout is good debates, and some PR for the league. Like it or not, for the regular season, I believe it helps the NHL. Dont love it, but it helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well...enough people bitched for the shoot out and now we have it for at least one season.

I love it.  :boogie:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no, I think you're buying bettmans spin, there was never any demand for the shootout ever, by fans, players, or anybody involved in the game. The league told us that we wanted it, then told us how great it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well lets name all these memorable ties...and again, in your world there wont be any exciting shootouts?  :noclue:

What if the Devils from this point on go 7-1 in shootouts and make the playoffs and then win the Cup because of the shootout rule?  Will you be whistling a different tune at that point? Hmmm...

Bottom line:  The good teams will get in the playoffs.  The good teams wont.  Period.  If for example the Sabres fall 1 point short because they lost a shootout the last week of the season, oh well.  You can trace back over several other games throughout a season to point out why a team misses the playoffs etc.

By no means am I saying i LOVE the shootout rule.  There are drawbacks to any system.  For example, on Thanksgiving Eve, the Sabres won a shootout at the Island over the Isles.  And when the shootout started, I thought to myself, "damn, the Sabres have completely outplayed the Isles for the last 10 minutes of the 3rd and the 5 minute OT, if the Isles win the shootout its almost a shame"...in situations like that, I definately see your point.

There is no perfect system.  But what the NHL has generated here with the shootout is good debates, and some PR for the league.  Like it or not, for the regular season, I believe it helps the NHL.  Dont love it, but it helps.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well you're almost right, usually things balance out.

but no ther sport alters the game so radically just for PR.

and I'll never be pro shootout, even if the Devils benefit from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What if the Devils from this point on go 7-1 in shootouts and make the playoffs and then win the Cup because of the shootout rule?
Edited by Hasan4978

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's so silly that Olympic medals have been won and lost on them.

You're winning the logical argument but failing to provide alternatives.

Edited by Hasan4978

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well people may stand during the shootout because everyone knows it'll be the end of the game, but saying sellout crowds implies people are going to the games partly to see the shootout, which isn't the case.  You can't quantify this but I don't think one person is going to buy a ticket to an NHL game because of the 5-10% possibility of seeing a shootout, they'll buy a ticket because of the product itself being good which the NHL did do a lot to ensure it was better in the regular game.

And you and Clown saying people were bored to death by tie games probably applied a lot before the 4-on-4, a lot of overtimes in recent years have been exciting and had wild finishes because of that, even if they ended up in ties.  But if we're going to do away with ties, why even bother to have a point system anymore?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Great post, Has. So great that I quoted the whole damn thing!

Someone asked for an "alternative" to the shootout. Judging by the number of OT wins we've had in the 4-on-4 -- with the increased penalty calls and wide-open style of the "new" NHL -- I would have liked to seen a sudden death 4-on-4 format instead of the shootout.

And honestly, why isn't sudden death the answer? Because of TV? Never hurt baseball. Because of the rigorous travel schedule and the physical demand on the players? Puh-lease...since when do we coddle hockey players? If anything, fatigue would mandate a winner earlier than later.

And this argument about how the fans stand up and cheer for the shootout as an indication of its popularity: by that measure, shouldn't there be a fight every five minutes?

<JESTER>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And you and Clown saying people were bored to death by tie games probably applied a lot before the 4-on-4, a lot of overtimes in recent years have been exciting and had wild finishes because of that, even if they ended up in ties.  But if we're going to do away with ties, why even bother to have a point system anymore?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I never said people were "bored to death" by ties, sure some OT sessions can be exciting, they can now as well...even with the shootout.

Like I said before, I do not want to be labeled as a fan who loves the shootout...I think its ok, I really dont love it, but I dont totally dislike it either, Im willing to give it more then 2 months to decide whether it is good or bad for the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great post, Has. So great that I quoted the whole damn thing!

Someone asked for an "alternative" to the shootout. Judging by the number of OT wins we've had in the 4-on-4 -- with the increased penalty calls and wide-open style of the "new" NHL -- I would have liked to seen a sudden death 4-on-4 format instead of the shootout.

And honestly, why isn't sudden death the answer? Because of TV? Never hurt baseball. Because of the rigorous travel schedule and the physical demand on the players? Puh-lease...since when do we coddle hockey players? If anything, fatigue would mandate a winner earlier than later.

And this argument about how the fans stand up and cheer for the shootout as an indication of its popularity: by that measure, shouldn't there be a fight every five minutes?

<JESTER>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sudden death is unfeasible because of difficult travel schedules and the necessity of re-Zamboni-ing the ice after the 3rd period, causing a 15 minute delay to the beginning of overtime. Who is going to wait 15 minutes to see that extra period? I hate the fact that there are two intermissions - now you're going to make me sit through a third one?

And then you're going to expect me to pay full price for a home ticket when my team has just played a triple overtime game in Carolina and flew home at 5 AM to play today?

The NHL will *never* go to sudden death overtime in the regular season. It would dilute the best part of playoff hockey and make things even more difficult on the players, coaches, and everyone else to bring us the NHL as we know it. I'm willing to give you 10-1 on a $10 bet that the NHL does not institute unlimited sudden death overtime by 2015. It will never happen - no one in the media, the players, or the coaches has suggested such a thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And honestly, why isn't sudden death the answer? Because of TV? Never hurt baseball. Because of the rigorous travel schedule and the physical demand on the players? Puh-lease...since when do we coddle hockey players? If anything, fatigue would mandate a winner earlier than later.

<JESTER>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Baseball is the only major sport that does not have a clock, to me its unfair to use baseball in this converstation for that reason, just my opinion.

And the schedules right now IMO are a joke, too many 3 game in 4 night stretches...I havent done the research, just seems to me it happens with more regularity now then it used to, that cannot help the overall quality of the game if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And the schedules right now IMO are a joke, too many 3 game in 4 night stretches...I havent done the research, just seems to me it happens with more regularity now then it used to, that cannot help the overall quality of the game if you ask me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought that was because of the Olympics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And honestly, why isn't sudden death the answer? Because of TV? Never hurt baseball. Because of the rigorous travel schedule and the physical demand on the players? Puh-lease...since when do we coddle hockey players? If anything, fatigue would mandate a winner earlier than later.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can't have indefinite sudden death in the regular season though, do the fans really want to stay till one in the morning to see a January weekday game decide two points? Plus there 'are' travel issues in the regular season, you could be in a different time zone the next day. At least in the playoffs you have the next day off generally. Coddling players? Please, NHL players have it much harder physically game-to-game than any of the 'four major' sports except football, which often doesn't need to worry about ties and only has 16 games compared to 82 for the NHL.

What I would do is have ten minutes of four-on-four then the shootout. People will say the ice would be choppy, okay have a mini-intermission like five minutes or however long it takes for the Zamboni to circle the ice once, then play the ten minute four-on-four then the shootout, at least shootouts would be rare enough to actually be a novelty.

Edited by Hasan4978

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sudden death is unfeasible because of difficult travel schedules and the necessity of re-Zamboni-ing the ice after the 3rd period, causing a 15 minute delay to the beginning of overtime.
Edited by Hasan4978

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well you don't 'need' 15 minutes, they often have promos on the ice at the start of intermission before the Zambonis come out and the Zambonis are done well before the period actually starts.  Maybe 7 minutes, 10 at most you'd need for JUST the Zambonis and nothing else.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't forget that the intermission is for the players as well - that's why they still take 15 minutes in the playoffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't forget that the intermission is for the players as well - that's why they still take 15 minutes in the playoffs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well they 'only' take a minute or two before the four-on-four as is, why not instead of a minute break before a five-minute 4-on-4, a 7-10 minute break before a 10-minute 4-on-4?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can't have indefinite sudden death in the regular season though, do the fans really want to stay till one in the morning to see a January weekday game decide two points? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First of all, we have fans that leave before the third period starts. So the answer to that is obviously no.

Still, shouldn't it be up to the fans? I'm sure there are some people like myself that would pay for a $75 ticket and not really give a damn when the game ends if I felt like I got my money's worth.

To me, the shootout is like the difference between a corporately sponsored, prepacked concert and one that feel more improvized and organic.

I remember a No Doubt show I went to at GSAC. It was fun, great music. But there wasn't a moment I didn't feel was staged, and I new exactly how many encores they'd be playing.

Then there was this Black Crowes show I went to last month. Awesome music, really loose jam-band format, and an encore that seemed longer (and better) than the "regulation" concert.

My point is that sometimes, when the music's good, you don't mind dancing for a few extra minutes.

<JESTER>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all, we have fans that leave before the third period starts. So the answer to that is obviously no.

Still, shouldn't it be up to the fans? I'm sure there are some people like myself that would pay for a $75 ticket and not really give a damn when the game ends if I felt like I got my money's worth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes there are some like you but you're in the minority. 50,000 people don't stay for all 18 innings of an extra-inning game in baseball when they have work the next day or are with kids who need to go to bed, I doubt hockey fans would stay in droves either although they do tend to be more die-hard and games are twice as important in hockey (82 hockey games compared to 162 for baseball).

You could say maybe most games would 'only' be a few extra minutes if it went to indefinite four-on-four and wouldn't go that long, I dunno; at some point fatigue would set in, open ice or not open ice and it becomes harder to score. I'd just rather not go there and there are enough reasons not to go there.

I know the shootout's not going anywhere either no matter how much you or 7 or even me (though I'm not quite as anti-shootout as you two) go on about it, so I'd settle for making it rare enough so that I don't see one every night in the highlights and one every couple weeks with the Devils.

BTW one thing that hasn't been mentioned yet, if you got sudden death four-on-four in the regular season, you open up Pandora's Box for it to be possibly used in the playoffs one day, especially with a number of Cup-clinching games having been decided past midnight ('96, '99, '00)

Edited by Hasan4978

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