Hockey Shootouts

[kq76]

Thumbs up or down?

Personally, I love them. They're suspenseful and thrilling. And you're never left with that "eh" feeling. It's either "yes!" or "$^%&^%^*&!!!". Sure, it takes the team aspect out of it, but you want your stars to shine in any sport and there's no better way to do that than a 1 on 1 confrontation. Just like baseball. The only thing I'd do is maybe make it best out of 5 or 7. They're great, but too often they're over too quick. Then again, sometimes they take forever so out of 3 first isn't so bad. The less there are, the more each one means anyway.

What I'd get rid of is the stupid 4 on 4. That bores me to death. We already played a full game of team based hockey; let's get on with the result already.

[ukhotstove]

I go with thumbs down but I'll probably be in the minority, draws or tied games are in all our top sports over here. I hate penalty shoot outs in football, no skill at all just ends up a guessing game were the worst player can score against the greatest goalkeeper but probably more skill involved in the hockey shoot out but still thumbs down from me.

[canadiancreed]

Meh if shootouts are going to decide the game just do it off the bat and have teams be four players including the goalie.

Obviously, no was my vote.

[jbergey22]

Strongly dislike them.

Id buch rather have ties. Nothing more frustrating that having your team play a great game on the road only to lose it in a shootout.

[ukhotstove]

Obviously in football cup games there as to be a winner thats why they end up having penalty shoot outs, I've always thought why not in cases like this give it to the team with the most shots on goal or corner kicks as at least it gives the most attacking team the better chance of winning. Reason behind my thinking is that years ago Steaua played Barcelona and Steaua came out with the sole purpose of defending and trying to win the game in the penalty shoot out which they ended up doing.

[ukhotstove]

A what if would be, say the Stanley Cup goes down to game 7 and game 7 is tied 4-4 and been one of the greatest games ever played surely you don't want it decided on a penalty shoot out do you ?

[Erik W.]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Nothing more frustrating that having your team play a great game on the road only to lose it in a shootout.

The only team that sees a difference between a shootout and a tie is the winning team. The losing team still gets a point.

Originally Posted by ukhotstove

A what if would be, say the Stanley Cup goes down to game 7 and game 7 is tied 4-4 and been one of the greatest games ever played surely you don't want it decided on a penalty shoot out do you ?

It wouldn't happen. Shootouts only occur during the season. Postseason plays 20 minute OT periods until someone scores.

[MorseMoose]

Better than OT in the NFL.

[Afino]

Sometimes two teams play an exciting game that you feel like "hey, we worked hard, I'll be happy to take a 1-1 tie tonight". For example, Buffalo and Calgary played a game about 2 weeks ago - chances, fights, high-flying action that ended overtime tied 1-1. Oh, but there had to be the ****ing shootout because there HAS to be a winner!

And I even say that despite the Sabres winning that game in the shootout. What I hate is that Montreal has EIGHT wins in OT or the SO so far this season. Carolina has four wins - three in the shootout. Didn't Edmonton have a crapload of OT/SO wins a few years ago too? Like 18 in a single season? It was like the only thing that prevented an epically bad record. MAKE EVERY GAME WORTH THE SAME!

Get rid of it. The sooner the better. But if you're going to keep it, don't touch my Stanley Cup playoffs, and if you're going to highlight the stars, have them take their helmets off to shoot. Also, make every game worth three points, but that's an idea that's already been killed by the NHL. Why? Because it makes sense.

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

Better than OT in the NFL.

But I'd agree with that.

[Delgadodawg]

I like the shootout, but I think it is ridiculous that a team winning in a shootout gets the same amount of points as a team that won in regular time.

When the shootout was implemented, they should have made a win in regulation worth 3 points. OT and shootout win worth 2 and an OT or shootout loss worth 1 point.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by ukhotstove

Obviously in football cup games there as to be a winner thats why they end up having penalty shoot outs, I've always thought why not in cases like this give it to the team with the most shots on goal or corner kicks as at least it gives the most attacking team the better chance of winning. Reason behind my thinking is that years ago Steaua played Barcelona and Steaua came out with the sole purpose of defending and trying to win the game in the penalty shoot out which they ended up doing.

That's actually not a bad idea! I still like shootouts even after a great tie game because you know that very shortly there will be either final victory or defeat, but if they ever did decide to scrap the shootout, I'd love it to go on shots. There's nothing worse IMO than seeing a team get a lead and then just try to keep the other team from scoring so encouraging teams to really go for it is great. The objection I'd anticipate to that is people arguing over what qualifies as a shot and that it should more be about quality shots than just flinging the puck right at the goalie. I'm of the opinion that sometimes you should just throw it at the net and see what you can do from there though so quality or not doesn't matter to me. Any action at the net is better than no action between the blue lines.

Originally Posted by Afino

... But if you're going to keep it, don't touch my Stanley Cup playoffs, and if you're going to highlight the stars, have them take their helmets off to shoot. Also, make every game worth three points, but that's an idea that's already been killed by the NHL. Why? Because it makes sense.

Yup, I never want to see it in the playoffs. If you exhaust yourselves too much for the next series playing too many OT periods then tough, you should have won them faster.

Helmets off for shooters in the shootouts, I like that! It's not like they're likely to get injured in the shootout anyway so take them off.

Originally Posted by Delgadodawg

I like the shootout, but I think it is ridiculous that a team winning in a shootout gets the same amount of points as a team that won in regular time.

When the shootout was implemented, they should have made a win in regulation worth 3 points. OT and shootout win worth 2 and an OT or shootout loss worth 1 point.

Totally agree. That might actually be my biggest bone with the NHL. It bugs me to no end. Not only does the numerical asymmetricity (that's probably not a word, but it should get my point across) bother me, but you're totally right. A win in OT should not equal the same as a regulation time win. You want to see more action in the late stages of games, then make it where they effectively lose a point (and maybe even 2!) as soon as it goes to OT. With the way they have it now they only have the possibility of losing a point in OT so they think, "well, I'd rather not at all risk losing 2 now and take my chances later with the possibility of only losing 1". Sure, with 3 points the thinking might not be that much different, but the stakes are higher and when it comes to late in the season every single point gets magnified that much more so even just definitely losing 1 will hurt when you really need all 3.

This Toronto radio personality "Bobcat" likes to talk about his 4 point scheme (IIRC it's 4 for a win, 3 for a OT period win, 2 for a shootout win and 1 for a OT loss), but I just think that's too silly and it doesn't stick to the all games equal the same amount of points that I'd like to see either. I like your system (the more popular one) much better.

[Bluenoser]

Thumbs Down definitely. Win as a team, lose as a team.


As for the 4 on 4, what better way to open up the "Team" game and let the "Stars" shine? It opens the ice up, it forces the coach to keep his goons on the bench and let the real skaters play, and most of all, it's what hockey's supposed to be about - speed, skill, end to end rushes, great saves, and quite often a great goal.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by ukhotstove

A what if would be, say the Stanley Cup goes down to game 7 and game 7 is tied 4-4 and been one of the greatest games ever played surely you don't want it decided on a penalty shoot out do you ?

Absolutely my biggest fear. It's only a matter of time before some of these rule making idiots bring the shootout into the play-offs.

I've watched hockey religiously since 1958-59 and I can tell you one thing for sure. The day the shootout makes it into the play-offs is the last day I'll ever watch hockey.

[phenom]

Originally Posted by Delgadodawg

I like the shootout, but I think it is ridiculous that a team winning in a shootout gets the same amount of points as a team that won in regular time.

When the shootout was implemented, they should have made a win in regulation worth 3 points. OT and shootout win worth 2 and an OT or shootout loss worth 1 point.

This.

I still can't understand how an overtime game can be worth more than a regulation game.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by BruceM

Absolutely my biggest fear. It's only a matter of time before some of these rule making idiots bring the shootout into the play-offs.

I've watched hockey religiously since 1958-59 and I can tell you one thing for sure. The day the shootout makes it into the play-offs is the last day I'll ever watch hockey.

That's ok, I'm sure they have tons of fans to replace folks that can remember the game before 0BB (before bettman)

[Jason Moyer]

I like shootouts as long as they're regular season only, but I have to say the 3-2-1-0 point idea is great.

[TribeFanInNC]

Definite thumbs down. As a viewer, they are exciting. But they are a bad way to decide a game. Basically playing HORSE for a point in the standings.

[Jason Moyer]

I don't see how you can compare it to blind luck though, when over the long haul it (should) boil down to the skill of your shootout lineup and goalie. I should check the stats, but I'd be surprised if the better team didn't win a majority of the shootouts.

A tie is a horrible way to end a sporting event, and having 3 OT's in a regular season game is a waste of time. The shootout is exciting for fans and players, and it doesn't seem to have much of an impact on the final standings.

One alternative to the shootout that would be fun, would be to remove a player from each team and continue to play 5 minute OT's, without the normal between-period breaks. Or to change OT into 5-on-5 sudden death without goalies.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

I don't see how you can compare it to blind luck though, when over the long haul it (should) boil down to the skill of your shootout lineup and goalie. I should check the stats, but I'd be surprised if the better team didn't win a majority of the shootouts.

I'd be interested to see those stats, as I'm thinking the results would be closer to them being random then weighted towards the better team.

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

A tie is a horrible way to end a sporting event...

Why?

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

...and having 3 OT's in a regular season game is a waste of time.

Agreed, although I cant' recall multiple OT's ever happening in the regular season for at least the last sixty years. I wonder if they ever occured.

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

The shootout is exciting for fans and players, and it doesn't seem to have much of an impact on the final standings.

Well other then the losing team guaranteed a losing point. I wonder if that could have an effect on bloating season point totals at all.

[AndrewG]

I am 39 years old and a die hard hockey fan. I normally attend at least a dozen Habs games every year going back to the Forum when I was only 16. I take my kids to games, 2 seasons ago both kids got to ride on zamboni between period in a Bruins/Habs match at Bell Center even.

In the corner of my home office is a red forum seat and an autographed pic of Gump Worsley above it, next to it an old Ralph Backstrom straight blade stick from the 60's.

Yes, I f***ing love the game.


Now I am normally what people would call a hockey traditionalist. I think the goalie gear is too big, I dont like composite sticks, when I coach my kids practice (I coach both) I refuse to wear a helmet, the usual old man stuff.

Hell, I remember when they implimented 5 minute OTs and I was agaisnt it.

But for shootouts... bah..

I dont like shootouts, its a stupid way to end a game, boiling a team down to individual play.

But the reality is, there would be record amount of ties in the last few years if there wasnt a shootout.

My own opinion isnt even to go back to no shootouts with a 5 minute ot or even 60 minutes and a tie with no ot...

I say take a cue form Baseball and play until the game ends... period.....

This means a GB1 standing for each division. The fact you reward a team to lose if they do it 1 second into OT is a joke. The record for most points by a team in a year was broken because of ot and shootouts.. its just plain crazy.

Play untill someone wins. Like the playoffs 20 minute periods.. somebody scores, you win....

Not 2 weeks ago there was a penalty shot called as I watched a game on tv live,... now I remember prior to shootouts when this was a huge thing.... now it really isnt....

Heres a pic of my daughter on the zamboni!