Jump to content

Photo

So what do you think about the shootout?


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#41 roomtemp

roomtemp

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 651 posts

Posted 17 February 2013 - 10:26 PM

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
  • 0

#42 thefiestygoat

thefiestygoat

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,218 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 12:45 AM

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.


  • 0

RIP Pat Burns -- RIP Alexander Vasyunov and Lokomotiv Yaroslavl
Winner of the 2008 Sergei Brylin Award for Most Underrated Poster
Co-Winner of the 2011 Scott Bertoli Award for Best Minor League Poster, Winner of the 2012 Scott Bertoli Award


#43 David Puddy

David Puddy

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,302 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 12:59 AM

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.


  • 0
Posted Image

#44 PWW

PWW

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 884 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 01:07 AM

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.


  • 0

believe-devs.jpg


#45 Colorado Rockies 1976

Colorado Rockies 1976

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,373 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 08:42 AM

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.


  • 0
THE NHL MUST LOVE THE DEVILS - from who else? A RANGER fan!
[Mark Messier]: A big, bald attention whore with a stupid Easter Island-lookin face. - from who else? DaneykoIsGod!

Even when Marty comes back maybe Larry should put Clemmensen to be on the goal during the shootouts.
Can the coach do that ? Switch the goalies 5 seconds to go in overtime?
- Most priceless quote ever posted on a message board.

Martin Brodeur: THE MOST ALL-TIME WINS!, 12 straight seasons of 30+ wins, 3 Stanley Cups, 4 Vezina Trophies, and zero respect from too many so-called Devils "fans" who are either too young or too bandwagon to remember the much darker days of Sean Burke, Craig Billington, Bob Sauve, Alain Chevrier, and the talented but overwhelmed Chico Resch, among many others.

It's easy to support a great player when he's playing at his very best. It takes a true fan to support that same player during those rare moments and stretches when he's not. Babe Ruth went 0-4 some games, and sometimes Wayne Gretzky was held pointless. There may be such a thing as greatness, but no such thing as absolute perfection every single night.

#30 FOREVER!

20 out of 1,946 njdevs.com members agree: CR1976 is the Most Knowledgable Poster of 2008! Victory is mine...oh yes, victory is mine!

#46 Triumph

Triumph

    A Legend

  • Mod
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,564 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 09:41 AM

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, 18 February 2013 - 09:49 AM.

  • 0

http://drivingplay.blogspot.com - The blog with three first lines
 


#47 roomtemp

roomtemp

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 651 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 01:10 PM

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
  • 0

#48 Colorado Rockies 1976

Colorado Rockies 1976

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,373 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 01:23 PM

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.


  • 0
THE NHL MUST LOVE THE DEVILS - from who else? A RANGER fan!
[Mark Messier]: A big, bald attention whore with a stupid Easter Island-lookin face. - from who else? DaneykoIsGod!

Even when Marty comes back maybe Larry should put Clemmensen to be on the goal during the shootouts.
Can the coach do that ? Switch the goalies 5 seconds to go in overtime?
- Most priceless quote ever posted on a message board.

Martin Brodeur: THE MOST ALL-TIME WINS!, 12 straight seasons of 30+ wins, 3 Stanley Cups, 4 Vezina Trophies, and zero respect from too many so-called Devils "fans" who are either too young or too bandwagon to remember the much darker days of Sean Burke, Craig Billington, Bob Sauve, Alain Chevrier, and the talented but overwhelmed Chico Resch, among many others.

It's easy to support a great player when he's playing at his very best. It takes a true fan to support that same player during those rare moments and stretches when he's not. Babe Ruth went 0-4 some games, and sometimes Wayne Gretzky was held pointless. There may be such a thing as greatness, but no such thing as absolute perfection every single night.

#30 FOREVER!

20 out of 1,946 njdevs.com members agree: CR1976 is the Most Knowledgable Poster of 2008! Victory is mine...oh yes, victory is mine!

#49 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,784 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 01:23 PM

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.


  • 0
"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

#50 roomtemp

roomtemp

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 651 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 01:29 PM

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.
  • 0

#51 devilsfan26

devilsfan26

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,784 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 02:54 PM

With the 3-2-1-0 format, playing more conservatively at the end of the game could guarantee you a point, but it also guarantees that you can't get 3 points.  You have more to gain than to lose by playing for the win.


  • 0
"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

#52 Devilsfan118

Devilsfan118

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,864 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 03:08 PM

I like them, because the Devils have been very, very good in them.
  • 0

believe-ll.jpg

Anyone who says, ‘You played in that New York area,’ I say, ‘No, I played in New Jersey.’ - Ken Daneyko


#53 Satans Hockey

Satans Hockey

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,978 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 07:36 PM

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.

 

I'd just change one thing, make it 3 points for an OT win as well, it gives teams more of an incentive to score a goal to end the game instead of going to a shootout.


  • 0

#54 thefiestygoat

thefiestygoat

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,218 posts

Posted 18 February 2013 - 09:26 PM

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.

I understand what you are saying but even ties that weren't as memorable as the ones I mentioned didn't bother me. I still prefer 5 on 5 OT with no loser point (I absolutely hate the loser point). I know the shootout is more for the casual fan but I still don't like the idea that someone has to win and someone has to lose.I guess I'm a bit weird but I miss the days of ties and overtime losses with no loser point.


  • 0

RIP Pat Burns -- RIP Alexander Vasyunov and Lokomotiv Yaroslavl
Winner of the 2008 Sergei Brylin Award for Most Underrated Poster
Co-Winner of the 2011 Scott Bertoli Award for Best Minor League Poster, Winner of the 2012 Scott Bertoli Award


#55 Colorado Rockies 1976

Colorado Rockies 1976

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,373 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 07:12 AM

I'd just change one thing, make it 3 points for an OT win as well, it gives teams more of an incentive to score a goal to end the game instead of going to a shootout.

 

Sadly, probably not.  If you do that, then there's no point for an OT loss (like I've said, all of the scenarios have to have three points available...you can't have a potential 4-points-to-be-divied up scenario).  I'm guessing under a 3-point OT win rule, teams would play to get at least something out of it (1 point), so I think teams would play conservatively for most of the season.  You probably wouldn't see much chance-taking until the last 10 games of the season or so, when teams who might need 3 points or so would have to take chances.

 

From the old ruleset, there is at least more weight to an OT win than a SO win, in that the OT win gets counted towards the tiebreaker win total.  That would continue in a 3-2-1-0 format.  SO wins should be the least rewarding of the wins.


  • 0
THE NHL MUST LOVE THE DEVILS - from who else? A RANGER fan!
[Mark Messier]: A big, bald attention whore with a stupid Easter Island-lookin face. - from who else? DaneykoIsGod!

Even when Marty comes back maybe Larry should put Clemmensen to be on the goal during the shootouts.
Can the coach do that ? Switch the goalies 5 seconds to go in overtime?
- Most priceless quote ever posted on a message board.

Martin Brodeur: THE MOST ALL-TIME WINS!, 12 straight seasons of 30+ wins, 3 Stanley Cups, 4 Vezina Trophies, and zero respect from too many so-called Devils "fans" who are either too young or too bandwagon to remember the much darker days of Sean Burke, Craig Billington, Bob Sauve, Alain Chevrier, and the talented but overwhelmed Chico Resch, among many others.

It's easy to support a great player when he's playing at his very best. It takes a true fan to support that same player during those rare moments and stretches when he's not. Babe Ruth went 0-4 some games, and sometimes Wayne Gretzky was held pointless. There may be such a thing as greatness, but no such thing as absolute perfection every single night.

#30 FOREVER!

20 out of 1,946 njdevs.com members agree: CR1976 is the Most Knowledgable Poster of 2008! Victory is mine...oh yes, victory is mine!

#56 AEWHistory

AEWHistory

    Rookie Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 318 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 08:32 AM

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 wait.... But Capo made the exact opposite points? Or is it because 4 on 4 is actually played at part of the game traditionally that makes it NOT acceptable but because the shootout is just a skill contest that makes it okay to add?

Either I am confused or you've got the points backwards.
  • 0
Aaron / AEWHistory --- Rockies/Devils fan since 1981!

Trenton Makes and the World Takes..... Or.... Trenton Uses What the World Refuses

#57 AEWHistory

AEWHistory

    Rookie Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 318 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 08:36 AM


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.


Okay, I see. I think that you've misunderstood my question. I'm not asking why 4 on 4 isn't traditional. I'm asking why 4 on 4 isn't an acceptable way to end a game when a shootout is an acceptable way to end a game. So your answer is basically that the 4 on 4 isn't acceptable because it IS part of the game whereas the shootout is acceptable because it ISN'T part of the game. See what I mean?

Edited by AEWHistory, 19 February 2013 - 08:43 AM.

  • 0
Aaron / AEWHistory --- Rockies/Devils fan since 1981!

Trenton Makes and the World Takes..... Or.... Trenton Uses What the World Refuses

#58 Steadevils

Steadevils

    Rookie Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 464 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 09:49 AM

 

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.

 

I completely agree with this sentiment. I also caught a puck at that Hasek-Marty duel so it goes down as one of the best games I've attended for that reason as well. Ties>S0.
  • 0
"I realized from Day 1 the way I played I'd never be a Gretzky or a Lemieux, well, a Mario I mean. I was never going to be a player to get standing ovations in a visitors' building."

-- Claude Lemieux - May 7, 1999

#59 yankeesjetsfan

yankeesjetsfan

    Senior Devil

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 679 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 11:15 AM

You dont play to tie the game, you play to win it. I have aways hated seeing games end in a tie. Ties are pointless. I'd much rather have the shootout and see a team skate away with 2 points. Plus, the longer a shootout goes, the more exciting a game it becomes. Of course, this is my opinon only.
  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#60 Satans Hockey

Satans Hockey

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,978 posts

Posted 19 February 2013 - 12:16 PM

Okay, I see. I think that you've misunderstood my question. I'm not asking why 4 on 4 isn't traditional. I'm asking why 4 on 4 isn't an acceptable way to end a game when a shootout is an acceptable way to end a game. So your answer is basically that the 4 on 4 isn't acceptable because it IS part of the game whereas the shootout is acceptable because it ISN'T part of the game. See what I mean?


I don't even know anymore haha you had asked something about 4 and 4 and I tried to answer it but my point of view is that I don't even care lol

I like 4 on 4 and the shootout is meh. I'm in the I don't care camp cause they aren't gonna change it.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users