42 replies to this topic

[AEWHistory]

So I was reading an article bemoaning the huge rise in overtime games in each of the last few years and one argument is that this is a result of the regular season point structure that rewards playing toward a tie and going to shootout. I am not sure I accept the argument that it is so difficult to change gears for the playoffs and get out of the regular season mindset, but I guess I can see it. What I absolutely do believe is that the current system doesn't work. This is what I would propose:

Ties would be brought back.
Shootouts would be relegated to the history bins.
A win would be worth three (3) points.
Overtime would last 10 minutes.
If there was no winner at the end of ten minutes you would have a tie.
A tie would give each team only one (1) point.*

OT could also be done as a five-minute four-on-four with the same point structure.

*= this for me is the central element of this system. It makes playing toward a tie very unattractive since both teams come away short.

Games would once again be decided by actually playing hockey instead of a series of staged breakaways. Not sure if I have missed anything or if this tweak would have the desired result, but I would love to find out. It would certainly be a low risk/high reward type of experiment from what I can see and might make the game more exciting. Perhaps this has been proposed before, but I have never seen it. Let me know if you have any thoughts.

In the meantime, back to our regularly scheduled butt-whooping of the Phailures.

Edited by AEWHistory, 05 May 2012 - 01:27 AM.

[Zubie#8]

I like the way it is right now. Didn't someone recently do another point system which did not include shootout points and the standings were almost exactly the same this year?

[Neb00rs]

I like the way it is right now. Didn't someone recently do another point system which did not include shootout points and the standings were almost exactly the same this year?

Yes, it basically proves that shootouts don't effect the standings much at all.

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

I'm not a fan of shootouts at all, but they're not going anywhere, so it's pointless to even propose a system that calls for them to be eliminated (though I'd be in favor of it).

My problem with the current system is the number of three-point games...all of the games that go to OT or SO. I think if there's three points up for grabs in some games, there should be three points available in ALL games. So here's what I would propose:

Games decided in regulation:
3 points for the winner, none for the loser.

Games decided in OT or SO (no change here):
2 points for the winner, one for the loser. Continue to tally regulation + OT wins, so teams that bloat their win totals via the shootout could lose a tiebreaker vs. a team that has accumulated more regulation and OT wins.

You now have a much higher premium placed on winning in regulation, and each game in the standings is worth three points, regardless of the outcome.

[Legion15]

So I was reading an article bemoaning the huge rise in overtime games in each of the last few years and one argument is that this is a result of the regular season point structure that rewards playing toward a tie and going to shootout. I am not sure I accept the argument that it is so difficult to change gears for the playoffs and get out of the regular season mindset, but I guess I can see it. What I absolutely do believe is that the current system doesn't work. This is what I would propose:

Ties would be brought back.
Shootouts would be relegated to the history bins.
A win would be worth three (3) points.
Overtime would last 10 minutes.
If there was no winner at the end of ten minutes you would have a tie.
A tie would give each team only one (1) point.*

OT could also be done as a five-minute four-on-four with the same point structure.

*= this for me is the central element of this system. It makes playing toward a tie very unattractive since both teams come away short.

Games would once again be decided by actually playing hockey instead of a series of staged breakaways. Not sure if I have missed anything or if this tweak would have the desired result, but I would love to find out. It would certainly be a low risk/high reward type of experiment from what I can see and might make the game more exciting. Perhaps this has been proposed before, but I have never seen it. Let me know if you have any thoughts.

In the meantime, back to our regularly scheduled butt-whooping of the Phailures.

I like the idea of ties. I mean if it was a good close game, just end it that way. why does there HAVE to be a winner every game outside playoffs? a short OT was fine if you wanted to try to break the tie, but a skills competition is kind of dumb despite how "exciting it is for fans"

[NCDevsFan]

Based simply on my own personal interactions with other fans, most like the shootout.

[lucifer91]

It seems shootouts are good for the casual fans, and I agree with CR1976

[Martyisth3b3st]

Am I the only one who enjoys seeing the shootout? I love seeing our skill players be skill players. Since it doesn't make much of a difference in the end, what's so wrong with watching (and, oh by the way, dominating) the skills contest after the game? If you'd rather see the games end in a tie, turn the TV off after 5 minutes of overtime and don't watch the highlights in the morning. There's your nostalgia.

[nessus]

Am I the only one who enjoys seeing the shootout? I love seeing our skill players be skill players. Since it doesn't make much of a difference in the end, what's so wrong with watching (and, oh by the way, dominating) the skills contest after the game? If you'd rather see the games end in a tie, turn the TV off after 5 minutes of overtime and don't watch the highlights in the morning. There's your nostalgia.

I agree with this. I understand that shootouts can end up counting for too much, but the fans want to see a winner at every game. Alternatively, they could just go with an overtime system similar to the playoffs, but that would be way too much for a regular season game. I just don't like the idea of ending in a tie.

[Jerzey Devil]

I like it the way it is but I don't think you should get any points for a loss. In other words you do not get a point simply for going to overtime because it makes teams that are tied in the 3rd play just to get to OT.

Keep the 4 on 4 five minute OT followed by the shootout if necessary.

So basically I guess you just get a point for any win.

[Onddeck]

NOOOOOOO!!!

I CANT STAND TIES!!!

[DaneykoIsGod]

Am I the only one who enjoys seeing the shootout? I love seeing our skill players be skill players. Since it doesn't make much of a difference in the end, what's so wrong with watching (and, oh by the way, dominating) the skills contest after the game? If you'd rather see the games end in a tie, turn the TV off after 5 minutes of overtime and don't watch the highlights in the morning. There's your nostalgia.

I like shootouts too. In hockey (and baseball, for that matter), I'm not a fan of clinging to the past for the sake of clinging to the past. The shootout makes the game more exciting.

What really annoys me is people saying the shootout is a gimmick, and then suggest 3-on-3 OT. Because 3-on-3 isn't a gimmick? The game would go from being decided by a breakaway contest to a 2-on-1 odd-man rush contest. Neither one is "real" hockey.

I've long been a proponent of what CR76 suggested. Make all games worth 3 points.

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

I like shootouts too. In hockey (and baseball, for that matter), I'm not a fan of clinging to the past for the sake of clinging to the past. The shootout makes the game more exciting.

What really annoys me is people saying the shootout is a gimmick, and then suggest 3-on-3 OT. Because 3-on-3 isn't a gimmick? The game would go from being decided by a breakaway contest to a 2-on-1 odd-man rush contest. Neither one is "real" hockey.

I've long been a proponent of what CR76 suggested. Make all games worth 3 points.

On shootouts: I'm not a big fan. I'm not saying this is the case with you, but I suspect if the Devils weren't the very best in the NHL at the shootout since its implementation, less Devils fans would be a proponent of it. We're lucky to be one of the teams that hasn't been God-awful at it (like Florida).

But yeah, not even worth arguing its merits, as it's here to stay, so no point in debating that. The fact is some people would welcome back ties, but several others would be upset about shootouts being eliminated. It's simply not possible to please everyone, so the NHL might as well not try to.

Yeah, no thanks to 3-on-3. Keep the 5 minute 4-on-4 OT and the shootout. But something has to be done to give regulation victories more weight, and adding the extra point is the only way that makes sense to me. Can't have 2-point games and 3-point games...the current system is flawed by that standpoint.

[Devils731]

Yeah, no thanks to 3-on-3. Keep the 5 minute 4-on-4 OT and the shootout. But something has to be done to give regulation victories more weight, and adding the extra point is the only way that makes sense to me. Can't have 2-point games and 3-point games...the current system is flawed by that standpoint.

I agree that the current system is flawed. A 3-2-1-0 system would be a better way to award points than the 2-2-1-0 system we have now. I just can't seem to care as much as I used to, since we see that the standings rarely change under different point systems.

[roomtemp]

I like shootouts too. In hockey (and baseball, for that matter), I'm not a fan of clinging to the past for the sake of clinging to the past. The shootout makes the game more exciting.

What really annoys me is people saying the shootout is a gimmick, and then suggest 3-on-3 OT. Because 3-on-3 isn't a gimmick? The game would go from being decided by a breakaway contest to a 2-on-1 odd-man rush contest. Neither one is "real" hockey.

I've long been a proponent of what CR76 suggested. Make all games worth 3 points.

Hell I argue that the shootout is more a game situation since penalty shots happen a hell of a lot more then 3 on 3 even with 4 on 4 OT.

In the end I'm not passionate about the points system other then wins and losses since winning and losing in a shootout (especially a shootout) and getting nothing feels cheap. Also ties are the thing of Satan. Unsatisfying and leaving you confused and wondering what was the point.

[DaneykoIsGod]

On shootouts: I'm not a big fan. I'm not saying this is the case with you, but I suspect if the Devils weren't the very best in the NHL at the shootout since its implementation, less Devils fans would be a proponent of it. We're lucky to be one of the teams that hasn't been God-awful at it (like Florida).

That's certainly a fair point to raise. I'd like to think that if the Devils weren't so successful at shootouts, I'd dislike our ineptitude rather than dislike the entire institution. Hard to say for sure, though, since they've been so good since its inception.

[Colorado Rockies 1976]

That's certainly a fair point to raise. I'd like to think that if the Devils weren't so successful at shootouts, I'd dislike our ineptitude rather than dislike the entire institution. Hard to say for sure, though, since they've been so good since its inception.

Some would see it that way (Devils suck, not the shootout itself) if the Devils fared poorly in them, but I'm guessing the majority of Devils fans would call shootouts unfair, gimmicky, lucky, etc.

The issue with them is that as a GM, you can't build a team that's good at them, the way you can build a good offense, good defense, etc...for most teams the shootout is going to come up 10-15 times a year. As a GM, you're never going to shortchange some other part of your team's game for shootouts. Anyone who gives Lou credit for the Devils being so good at it is wrong...I doubt that even enters Lou's mind when he's building his team. We've just been incredibly blessed that a number of Devils players happen to be successful at it.

The NHL has done the right thing with using regulation and OT win totals to break ties, but it's not enough.

[Z-Man]

Here was my original post, showing that there were very small differences:

http://www.njdevs.co...4

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).


That being said, shootouts are going NOWHERE. Buttman has said so. Plus it does help the casual fan come back when they see something they perceive as exciting. Ties aren't putting casual fans back in the seats.

Edited by Z-Man, 05 May 2012 - 02:36 PM.

[Joonas #6]

Am I the only one who enjoys seeing the shootout? I love seeing our skill players be skill players. Since it doesn't make much of a difference in the end, what's so wrong with watching (and, oh by the way, dominating) the skills contest after the game? If you'd rather see the games end in a tie, turn the TV off after 5 minutes of overtime and don't watch the highlights in the morning. There's your nostalgia.

Amen!

[Capt Kirk Muller]

Shootouts should be eliminated. Please bring back ties! That little skills competition after OT has nothing to do with the game that proceeded it. It's RIDICULOUS.