So what do you think about the shootout?

[roomtemp]

Gimmick? Love it? Okay with it?

[gardenstatepkwy]

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

Never liked it, never will.

[eaglejelly]

While it is obviously a Gimmick, I have to admit that when I watch a game with 2 teams I don't emotionally care too much about (e.g. 2 western conference teams), I hope for it to go to a shootout.

[Zubie#8]

I would love it if the overtime period was 10 minutes.

[jagknife]

Shootout is the worst thing to come to hockey since the trapezoid.

[peteyvegas51]

Sucks

[sokar]

its a waste of time rather see a 10min over time than the shoot out

Edited February 15, 2013 by sokar

[Jimmy Leeds]

Miss Parise on it

[devilsfan26]

It is a disgraceful way to end close games.  When I'm watching a game I don't have a vested interest in, I always root for someone to win before it devolves into a shootout.  I would much rather have ties, and overtime should be ten minutes.  They don't need a full intermission to get the ice in good condition, with two resurfacers they can do a quick ice cut between the third period and overtime in five minutes, and then play a ten-minute overtime.

 

Someone on here, I think maybe Triumph, pointed out that all you have to do is avoid losing in regulation and just get every game to a shootout and then even if you just go .500 in shootouts you would finish an 82-game season with 123 points and most likely win the Presidents' Trophy.  That is obviously an extreme example, but it just goes to show you that shootouts can have way too much of an impact on the standings, takes away from the actual game.

[Triumph]

NHLPA has argued against a 10 minute overtime - sorry folks, you won't see it, ever.

 

Shootout is a good solution to an unsolvable problem - hockey games don't often have a winner after 60 minutes.  It showcases skills that players take years to develop and hardly ever get a chance to display, both for shooters and goalies.  It adds an interesting strategic element to a game often lacking in that department (whereas football and baseball you can routinely ask a fellow watcher, what would you do here if you were manager/coach, hockey really has none of that except at the micro level).  And it gets rid of the tie, an unsatisfying end to the majority of hockey games that ended in ties.  On occasion you'd see a great game where both teams had their chances and couldn't make it happen and the tie was justified, but most of the time the game oozed to a slow dribble and stopped at an arbitrary time.

 

The NHL erred by not making the point system 3-2-1-0, but given that the Devils take full advantage of this by playing extremely low-event hockey in an attempt to get as many 3 point games as possible, I can't be all that upset about it.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Triumph

[Satans Hockey]

I simply don't care about it anymore. It's like the chase in NASCAR for me, I will never like either of them but I'm stuck with them so I've simply stopped caring.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Satans Hockey

[The 29th Pick]

Miss Parise on it

Minny lost in the shootout las night and Zach choked (he was great the first half of last year, then faded)

Big Gio was good for us back in the day too

[Jimmy Leeds]

The NHL erred by not making the point system 3-2-1-0,

This is it dead on. Make the regulation win worth more then a shootout win and 90% of the issues people have with it go away. Edited February 15, 2013 by Jimmy Leeds

[David Puddy]

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

['7']

It's extremely boring. Just a lame skills competition.

 

The hockey game ends in a tie. Then a whole new 1 on 1 sport is played for 3 minutes and a team is given an extra point for no reason.

 

A shootout result is in no way intertwined with the result of a hockey game. Absolutely nothing is decided as a result of a shootout winner

Edited February 15, 2013 by '7'

['7']

NHLPA has argued against a 10 minute overtime - sorry folks, you won't see it, ever.

 

Shootout is a good solution to an unsolvable problem - hockey games don't often have a winner after 60 minutes.  It showcases skills that players take years to develop and hardly ever get a chance to display, both for shooters and goalies.  It adds an interesting strategic element to a game often lacking in that department (whereas football and baseball you can routinely ask a fellow watcher, what would you do here if you were manager/coach, hockey really has none of that except at the micro level).  And it gets rid of the tie, an unsatisfying end to the majority of hockey games that ended in ties.  On occasion you'd see a great game where both teams had their chances and couldn't make it happen and the tie was justified, but most of the time the game oozed to a slow dribble and stopped at an arbitrary time.

 

The NHL erred by not making the point system 3-2-1-0, but given that the Devils take full advantage of this by playing extremely low-event hockey in an attempt to get as many 3 point games as possible, I can't be all that upset about it.

 

Ties still exist triumph. A shootout decides the shootout and has nothing to do with the game played beforehand. A shootout is a different sport.

 

The tie isn't unsatisfying. Both teams get a point...both teams are content. What's unsatisfying is a boring game. a 5-5 tie will usually be more exciting than a 1-0 shootout game. Nobody complained about ties in 1986...because hockey was exciting.

 

Hey, if you want less ties in the 65 minutes of real hockey...how about less parity, smaller goalie gear and ending the persistent creep of clutch and grab hockey. That way you don't have teams obstructing and playing prevent D the whole game in hopes of taking their chances in the shootout.

Edited February 15, 2013 by '7'

[MadDog2020]

Don't like it. Never liked it. Never will like it.

[njd3b1ink]

To me the novelty has worn off. I enjoyed it at first, but I would rather see the game ended as a team. 3 on 3 after the 4 on 4 would be better i think. But with that said I would rather have a shootout then end in a tie. I was need satisfied after a tie.

[devilsfan26]

On occasion you'd see a great game where both teams had their chances and couldn't make it happen and the tie was justified, but most of the time the game oozed to a slow dribble and stopped at an arbitrary time.

I think this could be avoided if they made wins count as three points and ties count as one.

 

 

 

It's extremely boring. Just a lame skills competition.

 

The hockey game ends in a tie. Then a whole new 1 on 1 sport is played for 3 minutes and a team is given an extra point for no reason.

 

A shootout result is in no way intertwined with the result of a hockey game. Absolutely nothing is decided as a result of a shootout winner

 

 

This is 100% exactly the way I think of shootouts too.  The game ends in a tie, and then a shootout takes place to add another point to the standings.

[AEWHistory]

Gimmick? Love it? Okay with it?

Pure gimmick and I hate it. I miss the old (read-- traditional or real) NHL where teams might even play to a tie (G-d forbid). As for people who hate ties: while I understand everyone has an opinion, there was/is an array of options to minimize the number of ties that didn't reduce hockey games to a random series of artificial breakaways. Some of those are even mentioned earlier in the thread. For me, the easiest solution is the one already on mention here. Simply make a tie less lucrative by using a 3 PT. win system. By only giving 1 point for a tie it makes it far less attractive to play to the tie. There ya go. To help things along play 4 on 4. If the NHLPA won't do 10 minutes perhaps an midway point could be reached? It would sound silly, but who not play to say 8 minutes? What law says we have to play to divisibles of 5?

One last point is that I don't understand why more people aren't concerned that there is an entire segment of the game today that has zero bearing on the playoffs. What sport does this? Does football get rid of kickoffs for the post season? Does basketball do away with free throws? Yet my beloved hockey decides a large percentage of it's games using a system and a skillset that, come playoff time, is thrown away until the following season. Even if you hate ties you've got to admit that that is ridiculous.

Edited February 16, 2013 by AEWHistory

[ATLL765]

Pure gimmick and I hate it. I miss the old (read-- traditional or real) NHL where teams might even play to a tie (G-d forbid). As for people who hate ties: while I understand everyone has an opinion, there was/is an array of options to minimize the number of ties that didn't reduce hockey games to a random series of artificial breakaways. Some of those are even mentioned earlier in the thread. For me, the easiest solution is the one already on mention here. Simply make a tie less lucrative by using a 3 PT. win system. By only giving 1 point for a tie it makes it far less attractive to play to the tie. There ya go. To help things along play 4 on 4. If the NHLPA won't do 10 minutes perhaps an midway point could be reached? It would sound silly, but who not play to say 8 minutes? What law says we have to play to divisibles of 5?

One last point is that I don't understand why more people aren't concerned that there is an entire segment of the game today that has zero bearing on the playoffs. What sport does this? Does football get rid of kickoffs for the post season? Does basketball do away with free throws? Yet my beloved hockey decides a large percentage of it's games using a system and a skillset that, come playoff time, is thrown away until the following season. Even if you hate ties you've got to admit that that is ridiculous.

 

 

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.

Honestly, I didn't mind the shootout at first, maybe because I was 15, but as time went on, it sucked. It sucks that a real sport was played and a real struggle occurred to try to win the game, but then it's decided in a 50-50 coin flip. It drives me insane. The Devils are great at shootouts as I think we delved into during our great run on them last year, but even so, they're a 50-50 coin flip on the whole and that's no way to end game.

[Triumph]

Ties still exist triumph. A shootout decides the shootout and has nothing to do with the game played beforehand. A shootout is a different sport.

 

The tie isn't unsatisfying. Both teams get a point...both teams are content. What's unsatisfying is a boring game. a 5-5 tie will usually be more exciting than a 1-0 shootout game. Nobody complained about ties in 1986...because hockey was exciting.

 

Hey, if you want less ties in the 65 minutes of real hockey...how about less parity, smaller goalie gear and ending the persistent creep of clutch and grab hockey. That way you don't have teams obstructing and playing prevent D the whole game in hopes of taking their chances in the shootout.

 

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.

[capo]

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? 

[Satans Hockey]

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? 

 

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.