Shootout Alternative

[FightingMongoose]

There have been many critics of the shootout here and around the hockey world. My question is, what would you use to replace or diminish it?

In all honesty, I don't normally mind shootouts. But I don't take too much as "sacred" and am not quick to yell "ruining the game!" at anything. I happen to like changes and experiments and for a while this has been exciting. However, games like this do illustrate situations where I'd prefer the game continue rather than go to a shootout. That in mind, what would you replace it with? If your idea isn't listed above add it here. If you'd rather keep the shootout and silence the naysayers just say why and vote to keep it.

Edited March 26, 2010 by FightingMongoose

[Phat Andy]

3 on 3 after the 4 on 4 for an extra 5 minutes then a shootout.

Although I would not be upset if they got rid of it completely and played 5 on 5 for and extra 10 or 20 minutes

[Halfwar]

3 on 3 after the 4 on 4 for an extra 5 minutes then a shootout.

+1 that would be my idea as well, hell I'm OK with it just being a tie after the 3 vs 3

[BlueSkirt]

Ya can't play a 10 minute OT on such bad ice. It would need to be flooded again before playing for so long.

[nyrsuck26]

10 minute overtime after a shortened intermission so they can zamboni the ice. Then go to the shootout if noone scores.

[skullsmasher]

Keep the same system as is now. 4-4 then shootout. Do one of the following:

3 pts for regulation win

2 pts for overtime/shootout win

1 pt for overtime/shootout loss.

or

2 pts for regulation win

1 point for overtime/shootout win

0 points for losing.

I don't see how winning 10-0 in regulation and winning 1-0 in the shootout awards the same amount of points.

If they KEEP the shootout they need to adopt one of the above point systems, but if they won't change the point system then maybe we need to go back to ties.

[overtime98]

Win or lose shootouts suck.

[eaglejelly]

Keep the shootout, its entertaining. Change the point system. A shootout win should not have the same valve as a regulation win, just like a shootout loss isn't the same as a loss in regulation.

Edited March 26, 2010 by eaglejelly

[britoon]

3 on 3 after the 4 on 4 for an extra 5 minutes then a shootout.

No after the 3 on 3 there should be a 2 on 2 for 5 mins then a 1 on 1. If that doesn't do it, it will be goalie vs goalie in a bare-knuckle boxing match.

[BlueSkirt]

A short intermission & flood is not really practical in the regular season when teams can be playing the next night with travel. So unless the NHLPA loses it's mind, they will never agree to playing more time , and doing so without compensation.

The 4-on-4 may be a bit more exciting, but in the long run it has done next to nothing in improving the percentage of tied games having a winner.

Statistics shows that more than 20% of NHL games go to OT, and most of those go to the Shootout. I think its less than 40% of games end in OT.

If anyone has the correct stat that would be great to know.

The Shootout is here to stay. And likely so is the 4-on-4 in OT.

The real issue is how to reduce the number of games tied at the end of Regulation.

To do this, you have to "significantly" incentify winning in Regulation.

I'm in favor of the 3-2-1-0 points system.

['7']

I miss ties, shootouts leave me feeling so empty. So the game ends and we have a penalty shot derby, and somebody gets a undeserved point. Ties were more satisfying.

[iamtheprodigy]

I agree that the change should be made in the points system. Shootouts are okay from time to time, but they shouldn't be worth the same as a regulation win. Personally I like the 3-2-1 system best, mainly because it would really suck to play a great tie game all the way to a shootout, lose, and then get nothing at all from it. You should get a point for making it to the shootout. However, winning in regulation should be encouraged - I would like to see teams gun for an extra point in regulation instead of just coasting it out until the shootout. This system would make the game more exciting and would also reward better teams who get the job done in regulation time with more points.

[point]

If the object of the points system is to determine playoff positions, I don't think it matters much. I back tested this after the first two years of the shoot-out and IIRC the only difference was two teams exchanging 6th and 7th places. No team made the playoffs or didn't due to points for ties or shootout wins. I don't have the time right now to do the homework required. Maybe someone else will.

[DaneykoIsGod]

No after the 3 on 3 there should be a 2 on 2 for 5 mins then a 1 on 1. If that doesn't do it, it will be goalie vs goalie in a bare-knuckle boxing match.

[BlueSkirt]

If the object of the points system is to determine playoff positions, I don't think it matters much. I back tested this after the first two years of the shoot-out and IIRC the only difference was two teams exchanging 6th and 7th places. No team made the playoffs or didn't due to points for ties or shootout wins. I don't have the time right now to do the homework required. Maybe someone else will.

For me, the primary change needed is to reduce games tied at the end of regulation. I have no opinion on how it impacts playoff positioning.

If 90-95% of games ended in Regulation, I think there would be less opposition to either games ending in a tie, ending in shootout, and/or the impact on playoff spots.

When 1 of 5 games you play needs extra time, and then that extra time routinely doesn't produce a result, that is too frequent for my tastes.

[BlueSkirt]

For the Devils:

13/73=17.8% games have ended regulation without a winner..

3/13= 23% of those games have then been decided in OT ( 1 W - 2 L)

10/13=77% of games were not decided in OT and went to Shootout. ( 6 W - 4 L)

If those OT percentages were reversed, people would have less objections to the new Shootout, or old Ties.

[BlueSkirt]

So its numbers like that which prevents the idea of playing any longer than the current 5 minutes, as OT does not produce a winner frequently enough.

And playing longer on bad ice won't help either. So the constraints are pretty clear...extra time is not an effective method.

The best method is to reduce the regulation games ending in a tie.

Increasing the benefit of winning in Regulation seems the way to go

But first you have to do the analysis that "point" did on how that points system change would impact playoff positioning over the past years.

[DaneykoIsGod]

Increasing the benefit of winning in Regulation seems the way to go

But first you have to do the analysis that "point" did on how that points system change would impact playoff positioning over the past years.

The "loser point," as stupid as it is, did have a similar effect on overtime. Overtime had gotten boring since teams were happy to take a point apiece rather than risk losing that point to go for the win.

Maybe evening out the points system and rewarding regulation wins would have a similar effect? Although I'm not sure teams are winning less in regulation simply because of motivation.

[DevilNurn]

I'd hope for this:

regulation

4on4 5 min.

3on3 5 min.

TIE

with a 3 point system.

[devilsfan26]

If a hockey game can't be decided by playing hockey, then let it end in a tie. No changing the fundamentals by making it 4 on 4 or 3 on 3, and no stupid shootout. Do a dry cut after regulation so the players can get back on the ice ASAP without having to wait for the water to freeze, then do 10 minutes 5 on 5. If nobody scores then it's a tie.

[GoArmySports]

Imagine how many wins Brodeur would have if ties were never in the NHL....

[Legion15]

if it's a good close game, i don't have a problem ending it as a tie, instead of it coming down to a skills competition to decide a big game.