Shootouts now less important

[Sabre Dance]

Playing a game for 60 minutes and not having a decisive outcome is asinine. There has to be a winner and a loser. Call the game in overtime as the rules are written and one teams powerplay will decide the game. I do enjoy the shootout for its entertainment value though. I like the creativity and display of skill by both the shooter and the goalie.

 

But you see, a tie IS a decisive outcome. Both teams played as hard as they could for 60 minutes (presumably) and they each scored the same amount of goals. As we've seen in far too many games, the five minute overtime doesn't always determine a winner. So, the league had to put in the shootout. Now, I remember some time back when the Canadian Olympic team lost to the Czechs in a shootout in Nagano. That didn't seem to go over very well. I know a regular season NHL game doesn't carry the import of an Olympic semi-final, but if a shoot out is a lousy way to determine a winner for one why is it so great for the other?

 

I might be persuaded to change my opinion IF the loser in overtime/shootout got no points and the winner got two.

[carpandean]

I'd be fine with 10 minutes of 4-on-4 OT, which would count as a win (2 points) or loss (0 points), and then calling it a tie (1 point each). I wonder how many games would make it to the end. People will say that coaches will play it safe to guarantee getting a point, but that would also guarantee losing a point, so I'm not sure that I buy it. Right now, they play it safe in regulation because each team gets a point no matter what in OT.

[Patty16]

The change seems to be backwards to me, especially if the goal is to "reward team play."

 

My reading of the article says that the shootout win does add the extra point to the winner of a game, just like before, but if that team ends up tied with another in total points, the shootout win doesn't count.

 

Unfortunately, w/ that system, they are still rewarding the individual skills more than team play; as that extra shootout point will probably propel the good shootout teams above a poor shootout team in the standings and the tie breaker won't come into effect.

 

i.e. if one team that wins in regulation/OT regularly, but stinks in the shootout goes 40-22-20 w/ all 20 OT/shootout losses in the shootout, they'll end up w/ 100 points. But another team that is great at getting to the shootout and winning the shootout but can't win in regulation (think a roster w/ a solid D, a great goalie, and a bunch of Kotalik's) goes 50-20-12 w/ 20 of the wins coming in the shootout, they end up w/ 112 points. They were rewarded for their "individual skills."

 

Now if the league made the change to where a SO win is the same as an OT loss, or the old tie (but it is kept as a tie breaker where 2 teams w/ the same # of points get separated by who had the most SO wins) then that 1st team that lost a lot of shootouts still ends up w/ 100 points, but the other team now drops to 30-20-32 and only has 82 points. The better team now looks better in the standings and a proficiency in the SO wasn't rewarded heavily.

 

I still would prefer to see the SO and the 3 pt game scrapped (unless ALL games are worth 3 pts), but see this rule change as having very negligible effect on the value of a SO. Their tweaking it so negligibly, I don't see the point to it. Maybe my opinion will change to at least they are finally realizing that a SO win shouldn't be worth as much as a regulation win, but for now my opinion is why bother if this is the full extent of the change.

 

 

Yes and no.

 

By winning in regulation you deprive the other team of any points. And since most of your games are against teams you are competing for a playoff spot, it pays more the beat them outright and gain 2 points instead of only 1.

[shrader]

I'd be fine with 10 minutes of 4-on-4 OT, which would count as a win (2 points) or loss (0 points), and then calling it a tie (1 point each). I wonder how many games would make it to the end. People will say that coaches will play it safe to guarantee getting a point, but that would also guarantee losing a point, so I'm not sure that I buy it. Right now, they play it safe in regulation because each team gets a point no matter what in OT.

 

They played it safe back before they created the OTL. Yes, 2 is better than 1, but 1 is better than nothing. That was only 5 minutes though, so maybe it would be a lot tougher to make it through to the end of 10 minutes of 4-on-4 hockey. I don't care whether or not they get rid of the free point. I'd be happy with 10 minutes of 4-on-4 either way.

[carpandean]

They played it safe back before they created the OTL. Yes, 2 is better than 1, but 1 is better than nothing. That was only 5 minutes though, so maybe it would be a lot tougher to make it through to the end of 10 minutes of 4-on-4 hockey. I don't care whether or not they get rid of the free point. I'd be happy with 10 minutes of 4-on-4 either way.

No doubt that things will tighten up a little, as they would in sudden death. You don't want to make that silly mistake, because there's no opportunity to make up for it. However, teams should still push things, because that potential gained point (2 vs. 1) is worth just as much as that point that they are afraid of losing (0 vs. 1). Right now, in regulation, there is no incentive to push in a tie game; there is nothing to lose (a win is still worth 2 points and a loss would be worse in regulation.)

 

I agree that 10 minutes of 4-on-4 (and 4-on-3 PPs) would decrease the chance of teams being able to safe it out. Heck, I'd even sign up for a single, 20 minute 4-on-4 OT period after an abbreviated intermission (say, 10 minute to clean the ice), if that's what it would take.

 

Of course, all of this is just the emotional side of me. The logical side of me knows that with 82 games any scoring system will result in the same groups making it and missing it with the exception of a few mediocre teams that are not significantly different. In other words, the exact rankings might change, but the (roughly speaking) five best teams would (almost) always make it, the five worst teams would (almost) never make it, and the five in between would make it some times. The "unfairness" of a particular system would tend to average out; a team is unlikely to get screwed or benefit every time. In fact, by this logic, the simple "Wins/Losses" scoring system is perfectly fine on a macro (season) scale and these fancy scoring systems only help on the micro (single-game experience) scale.

[Taro T]

Yes and no.

 

By winning in regulation you deprive the other team of any points. And since most of your games are against teams you are competing for a playoff spot, it pays more the beat them outright and gain 2 points instead of only 1.

Your point is correct, but I'm not sure I'm following where you're going w/ it. If the win is in regulation, the OT point doesn't come into play in either scenario (SO win getting added only to break ties or SO win getting added initially and then removed to break ties).

[SwampD]

I, for one, am agaianst a longer OT. Either leave it like it is or go back to having ties. An 82 game season is long enough without making it longer, and it's the better players that will get worn down more with more chances to get injured. I would have rather seen Vanek, Connolly and Hecht all at full strength against Boston over McCormick, Ennis and Gerbe. Anything that will make that less likely I am against.

[VansTheMans]

You're discussing "fairness".

 

I'm discussing the excitement factor.

 

And yes, I've been to many shootouts. I'm a season ticket holder.

 

They are undeniably thrilling. It's the shooter versus the goalie. No help. Each player must stand up for their team and stand on their own two feet.

 

Its a freaking rush.

[wjag]

I, for one, am agaianst a longer OT. Either leave it like it is or go back to having ties. An 82 game season is long enough without making it longer, and it's the better players that will get worn down more with more chances to get injured. I would have rather seen Vanek, Connolly and Hecht all at full strength against Boston over McCormick, Ennis and Gerbe. Anything that will make that less likely I am against.

 

Yep. How about 2 points for a win in regulation and zero points for a tie? That penalizes both teams for not going for it. No OT. Go a week of playing for zero points and teams would change their posture. Sure would make the last five minutes frantic. Imagine six on six with no goalies..

[VansTheMans]

What?

 

Why should a team play an entire game and overtime and get no points for their effort?

 

You guys are playing too much into the notion that teams "don't try" in overtime.

 

That's semi absurd.

[shrader]

Yep. How about 2 points for a win in regulation and zero points for a tie? That penalizes both teams for not going for it. No OT. Go a week of playing for zero points and teams would change their posture. Sure would make the last five minutes frantic. Imagine six on six with no goalies..

 

Fans are going to be very angry if they go to a game that means nothing once it's over. Sure, the teams will pull out all they have for the win, but ties would still happen all the time.

[wjag]

What?

 

Why should a team play an entire game and overtime and get no points for their effort?

 

You guys are playing too much into the notion that teams "don't try" in overtime.

 

That's semi absurd.

 

It's the offseason. Have a little fun with what ifs... It's not like anything is going to change...

[deluca67]

What?

 

Why should a team play an entire game and overtime and get no points for their effort?

 

You guys are playing too much into the notion that teams "don't try" in overtime.

 

That's semi absurd.

For the same reason they can play a "entire game" and not get points. Why not start rewarding each team 1 point for showing up before the game? Because they play five extra minutes they deserve a point?

 

Kill the point system. I have yet to see any argument that comes close to justifying it's existence.

[Patty16]

Your point is correct, but I'm not sure I'm following where you're going w/ it. If the win is in regulation, the OT point doesn't come into play in either scenario (SO win getting added only to break ties or SO win getting added initially and then removed to break ties).

 

 

i was only getting at that its better to win in regulation. Best way to create point gap between teams.

[shrader]

For the same reason they can play a "entire game" and not get points. Why not start rewarding each team 1 point for showing up before the game? Because they play five extra minutes they deserve a point?

 

Kill the point system. I have yet to see any argument that comes close to justifying it's existence.

 

It exists because for years, games ended in ties. The point system gave an easier way to quantify the standings instead of using a winning percentage (where a tie counts as half a win). A nice round number is much easier to understand for the typical person instead of a fractional winning percentage.