67 replies to this topic

[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 by sokar, 15 February 2013 - 04:05 PM.

[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 by Triumph, 15 February 2013 - 04:41 PM.

[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 by Satans Hockey, 15 February 2013 - 06:36 PM.

[hargsy]

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 by Jimmy Leeds, 15 February 2013 - 06:32 PM.

[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 by '7', 15 February 2013 - 06:41 PM.

['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 by '7', 15 February 2013 - 06:49 PM.

[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.