NHL Shootouts

Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by nicoli, Oct 9, 2005.

  1. So, I've been trying to watch a lot of this "New NHL" and the more of it I see the less I'm liking certain aspects of it. I love some of the new rule changes - no 2 line passes especially - but this shootouts thing needs to be stopped. I really hope this goes down as 'that year they had shootouts' similar to 'that year they disallowed all goals with opposing players in the crease'.

    I took in a couple pre-season games with the shootouts regardless of the score, and that was just silly. Especially the PA guy coming over and explaining that "the team with more goals wins". Brilliant. I figured I'd let it go though since it was pre-season... but I'm still hearing it.

    I've now watched a couple regular season games that ended in shootouts - OTT vs TOR on opening night and VAN - EDM tonight. This is no way to decide a game! Sometimes teams deserve to tie, and that's fine with me.

    This has also rendered the 4 on 4 OT periods, which were a highlight of the last season, pretty much useless since a win there is worth no more than a win in the shootout. I think we'll even end up with the teams that win most shootouts sitting back and playing defense for most of a 5-minute OT waiting to win it later in the shootout.

    As sad as it is, it would almost make more sense to have a judge decide the winner like in boxing than to do it the way they have it now, that way at least the more deserving team would usually win. Or maybe 3 pts for a regular time win, 2 for an OT win, 1 for a shootout win or something. I don't know, but I'm finding this current situation stupid, frustrating, and annoying.

    And to be clear, I'm an Ottawa fan and we arguably won't lose many shootouts all year with Hasek in net... so I'm not just bitter about a loss.

    Anyway, I'll stop my rant there... surely I'm not alone in hating these things?
  2. AuG


    May 22, 2005
    Fort Collins, CO
    I've always hated the shootout. It doesn't determine who's got the better team, just who has better breakaway players. I was a proponent of the league going to 4 on 4 play, forever, but let's not get me started on that one. :rolleyes:

    But yeah, the shootout needs to go. I think they've done a decent job overall, in terms of rule changes and whatnot. In the games I've seen since the season started, I've noticed a lot more teams playing an umbrella, with a lot more puck movement and less interference. I guess they're calling stick checks now as 'interference' so maybe the referee's are going to really crack down this year. Also the average goals are up from 4. something per game to somewhere around 6.something per game. It's an improvement....

    It should be interesting as we get further into the season.

  3. I'm not a big proponent of shootouts either, and it's not just because the Pens have lost two of them in a row (though it certainly is a factor!). I just never like to see an overtime format that isolates one facet of the game and uses it to determine a winner. Great defensive teams are handicapped considerably, where teams that have several good skill players but may not possess much overall chemistry have their shortcomings all but elimated by the format.

    Ties are fine in the regular season. Let 'em play 'til they drop in the playoffs, when it matters.
  4. Yep, it is nice to see some more plays being able to be set up in the offensive zone with good puck movement, but I do miss the battles for position in front of the net. Even basketball allows that. We're really seeing the speed of certain players shine through this year too, which is fun to watch.

    However I'd also like to add that higher scoring does not neccessarily equate to more exciting games IMO, despite Bettman's belief to the contrary. Some of the greatest games I've seen have been low scoring affairs, including 0-0 ties going into OT in the playoffs. Those are gut-wrenching.
  5. You still get a point for shootouts though, whats the problem? It's better than when you could get into OT and just stop trying because you are gaurenteed a point regardless of the outcome, so some teams just stopped trying to win and were content at the 1 point from either tie or OT loss. This way you still get a point like you would from the tie, just takes a couple of minutes longer.
  6. Mike Money

    Mike Money Banned

    Mar 18, 2003
    Bakersfield California
    Avatar Speakers Endorsing Hooligan
    i like shoot outs... but i dont think both teams should be awarded a point.

    in the playoffs/cup... i think it should be 10 minutes 4/4 OT, 10 minutes 3/3 OT, 10 minutes 2/2 OT, 10 minutes 1/1 OT...
  7. The team that wins the shootout gets a win in the win column, so its 2 points(just like if they win it in regular time). If they lose in overtime they get 1 point because they made it to overtime. If they just lose without extra time, its no points. I don't mind shootouts, since the OT loss column serves the same purpose as the tie column used to. I remember them talking about having shootouts to make games shorter...but if the shootout is after overtime(and they toss the zambonis out to clear lanes?!) it takes a little bit longer to end.
  8. Huh? :confused: This is exactly what shootouts will make worse (besides not making sense).

    In the 4 on 4 OT both teams were always able to skate hard and play fearless offense for 5 minutes knowing a goal would be rewarded and one allowed wouldn't be punished. If anything, I think you'll now see teams stalling in OT because they think they have a better chance at winning in the shootout than the 4 on 4 period.

    And really, was everyone that annoyed before that a game could end in a tie? Sometimes two teams deserve to finish even.
  9. It should be known as, "The year where the ice turned blood red"

  10. Yea, but with the system before it was Wins-Losses-Ties-OT losses. So when you get into OT, you are automatically guarenteed a point no matter what. I was making the point that teams stopped trying because there was no penalty for not trying to win in OT because you get rewarded just for being there with that 1 point. The only person it made a difference for was the goaltender, who got the OT loss in his loss column. Now OT losses have replaced ties, so you still get a point for making it into OT, but because of the SO you now have to try and win it because the second point is in the balance.
  11. The second point was always in the balance though!?

    Smash, that's an interesting idea taking every 4th year off... it almost makes sense based on the hype there is (in Canada anyway) coming off a cancelled season. Everyone is hockey mad right now since they've been deprived for so long.

    I'd support lopping a month off the length of the season too, but I love the playoffs as is.
  12. Bad Brains

    Bad Brains Banned

    Jan 7, 2004
    Detroit, michigan
    The NHL has really made a mess of itself in recent years. I just don't understand what some of these people are thinking. Just leave the game the way it was.

    And get rid of some of these pointless teams. Over-expansion is one of the main problems.
  13. I used to love staying up for triple OTs in the playoffs.

    That is what I am going to hate
  14. As a former goalie myself....I LOVED shootouts. The whole "Me vs. them" thing gave me a huge adrenaline rush, knowing the team hangs on my glove and stick.

    I like the new rules.
  15. another loss to shootout. I still say we have 2 ties against the sens
  16. Absolutely. I was at the game tonight and walked out after the 5 minutes of OT in protest. The attitude on the bus on the way home seemed to be that we'd tied as well... it doesn't feel like a win.
  17. amen. regardless of which ever way it goes, the shootout doesn't feel right. I was watching that game and the OT was tense, the shootout, I turned on the Steelers game
  18. JimK


    Dec 12, 1999
    Here's another brilliant move-
    Sit out a year & then come back with OLN as your network. ***? I mean, I appreciate OLN for doin' hockey...IMO, the NHL shoulda bit the bullet & stayed with ESPN.

    Gotta agree...not enough 'skilled' players help lead to a defence-1st/clutch & grab style.

    As far as the Shootouts-
    I can't believe the NHL went for it.
    Back when we had an ECHL team(AA-level hockey), the shootout was used after a 5-minute 5x5 OT...eventually, it went straight to the shootout. I am a bit of a purist...gotta admit, some of those shootouts were damn exciting. On a whole, we SUCKED at them, too...after a few years of watching how badly we SUCKED at 'em, I began to call in regularly(like every week) on the Fan Phone-In Radio Show to offer my advice. The damn host(now the voice of the WB-Scranton Penguins) would say, "Oh, you again with the shootouts". LMAO. ;)

    I haven't seen an NHL shootout yet. The technique is...and you heard it here first-
    Go Slow. This is not real-time hockey with the opposition breathing down your neck...slow, slow, slow seems to befuddle the goaltender....and it looks dumb!

  19. You're right. That's because it's hockey's equivalent of facing a change up when you've been thrown fastballs all night.
  20. Nino Valenti

    Nino Valenti Supporting Member Commercial User

    Feb 2, 2001
    Staten Island NYC
    Builder: Valenti Basses
    IMO, The shoot-out is one of the most exciting plays in hockey. I remember being at a NYI vs. TOR playoff game and there was a shoot out where the Isles scored and the Coleseium went Crazier then I've EVER seen.

    IMO a shoot out is a great way to end a game.

    So far, all the games I've watched have been really fast and exiting. Right now, I'm Watching Toronto v. Philly and the game is nuts!!!!!