Shootouts

[Philly29]

Shootouts....I FCKING HATE THEM!!! Flyers and Bruins, then the Flyers and Blues, two great games ending with a dumb ass shootout. Some of you are probably saying I am sour about it because I am a Flyers fan but that's not it. I am talking about all the great games around the NHL that are decided by the most bush league gimmicky thing in all of sports...the freaking shootout....

 

Obviously we can't do anything about it, I do not see anything wrong with a tie but that's neither here nor there. The one thing I hate the most and would like to see the league fix is how slow a player can skate towards the net and pull off there little moves going at a speed of 1.5mhp.

 

What I would like to see happen and this may sound dumb but for the NHL to set up I guess you could say a radar gun or guns so many feet in front of the net which reads the players speed. A player must be going at a certain rate of speed when going to the net in order for the goal to count.

 

Players going so freaking slow and going side to side on each sides of the ice doing dekes to a goalie is like shooting fish in a barrel... The player has to be going a certain rate of speed IN A STRAIT LINE to the net to make it fair for both teams shooters and there goalies.

 

What do you guys think???

[ruxpin]

@Philly29

 

Yes to everything.  I just went on a two post rant on this subject in another thread.  I should probably just copy and paste here.  

 

I hate it on principle and everytime someone says "That's just because your team sucks at them" (they do) I want to donkey punch them in the throat.

 

I hate pedophilia.  It doesn't matter how good or bad someone is at it.  I hate it on principle.   Same with the shoot out.

 

Shoot outs hurt children.

[Philly29]

Rux the shootouts should be a freaking crime dude it really should be!

[brelic]

Ok, let's do it!

https://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/the-national-hockey-league-eliminate-the-shootout

 

SIGN IT!

[ruxpin]

Done

[fanaticV3.0]

Shootouts....I FCKING HATE THEM!!! Flyers and Bruins, then the Flyers and Blues, two great games ending with a dumb ass shootout. Some of you are probably saying I am sour about it because I am a Flyers fan but that's not it. I am talking about all the great games around the NHL that are decided by the most bush league gimmicky thing in all of sports...the freaking shootout....

 

Obviously we can't do anything about it, I do not see anything wrong with a tie but that's neither here nor there. The one thing I hate the most and would like to see the league fix is how slow a player can skate towards the net and pull off there little moves going at a speed of 1.5mhp.

 

What I would like to see happen and this may sound dumb but for the NHL to set up I guess you could say a radar gun or guns so many feet in front of the net which reads the players speed. A player must be going at a certain rate of speed when going to the net in order for the goal to count.

 

Players going so freaking slow and going side to side on each sides of the ice doing dekes to a goalie is like shooting fish in a barrel... The player has to be going a certain rate of speed IN A STRAIT LINE to the net to make it fair for both teams shooters and there goalies.

 

What do you guys think???

 

1. I don't particually like shootouts, but they don't anger me the way they do some folk.

2. I don't think shootouts are unfair to goalies.

3. I tihnk there's something fundamentally wrong when the players can determine the outcome of a game after 65 minutes.

4. I don't miss ties, especially in hockey. They happened far too often. They should be a rare occourance like in football imo.

5. I don't like OT hockey. I think it's boring (most of the time). I think teams play it safe and don't try to "win" and just bid etheir time for the "skills competition". If teams tried harder, the shootout wouldn't be as much of a factor as it currently is.

[Polaris922]

I like them. My sons love them. They're still a team effort as a minimum of 7 people decide who wins, sometimes entire rosters have a go at it. Plus the point system is clearly working because the conference standings have come down to the wire seemingly every year since the adoption of the shootout. How you guys can't be excited watching your Giroux skate in on a guy like Lundqvist or whomever escapes me. And once again, if a team surrenders that second point to their opponent that's what they deserve for not winning it in regulation/OT.

[ruxpin]

Seven people decide individually, one at a time.  let's cut with the absurdity it has anything to do with a team sport once the shootout begins.  It's simply not reality so let's just avoid insulting everyone's intelligence.

 

Let's also dispense with the absurdity that there is no difference between the shootout and the overtime.  The only way we do that is if we have a catastrophic head injury and forget the fact that in the shoot out  there is no team effort, no group of guys outworking anyone else, no one to pass to and all the rules of the game (offsides, icing, penalties, etc.) go out the window.  The only thing left is the seemingly purely optional rule about not stopping one's momentum to the goal.   The claim was made in the chat room that both are four guys on four guys.  The OT is 5 on 5 including the goalies so there's not even that (don't want to count the goalies?  Fine.  Then you can't count them in the shootout either.  it's either 5v5/4v4 or it's 4v4/3v3 depending upon counting the goalies.  No difference?  No.  Not on planet earth.  On planet earth there's NO SIMILARITY.

 

See above paragraph to dispense with the "purest form of hockey" crap, too. If that's the purest form of hockey then skip whatever imposter goes on in the first three periods and have 19,000 people skip directly to the "pure hockey."   That's utter crap.  Hockey, in its purest form, is a group of guys playing against another group of guys, attempting to work together to out maneuver, out work, and out think the other group of guys (or girls or the confused).  It involves position and passing, anticipating a play, creation, etc.   Purest hockey is NOT someone taking their damn good old time skating to the net with no one to challenge, no teamates to work with, nothing, and seeing if we can out anticipate some poor schlep who has to go through it at minimum three times.   That THIS is the "purest form of hockey" is delusional insanity and makes my head hurt even having to respond to it.  If the shootout is "pure hockey" then it turns out more than 40 years later that I was wrong and I actually hate hockey.

 

People want to say they like it and prefer it to a tie, I disagree but I get the argument.  Enjoy it.  Might as well enjoy it because it's likely here to stay.  Like Obamacare.  People want to say it's exciting to watch someone skate like they're walking in mud up to their ****** and do 9 dekes before trying to score. Fine, all power to them.  Some people think crap like Duck Hunters and Kardasians are interesting.  To each their own.  But let's not pretend, while doing it, that Duck Hunters is about Olympic skate boarding and the Kardasians is about virgins.  Like it or don't like it for what it is, but let's not dress it up in some alter-universe delusions.

 

For the record, I really like seeing Giroux go in alone on a goalie--after getting a really cool stretch pass or forcing someone to cough up the puck and taking it the other way.   The contrived stuff in the shootout?   No.  Really couldn't care less.

[ruxpin]

And the point system is working if the idea is to have some contrived log jam at the end of the year due to bloated point totals due to some games being worth more than others.  It's a crap system of points due to the shootout and I'd rather ****-can it altogether.

 

Someone should go through and do the math and see how much different the standing would be if you assumed all games that went to overtime ended in a tie at the end of regulation.  You may have some teams in some slightly different orders, but I bet you'd still have a very similar number of teams still in the race.

 

To use the two recent games as examples, since they seem to be what stirred this debate again:

 

In both the BOS/PHI game and the STL/PHI game you had two very hard fought games fought to a stalemate. It's a travesty to then stop the game and start an entirely different game under both entirely different rules and with an entirely different feel and with only 8 players instead of the full 38 (not counting backup goalies) to justify declaring a winner.  There was still no winner of the actual first game, just a winner of the skills competition.    And this is NOT because my team SUCKS at the skills competition (they do and that doesn't exactly help, but it's not the point nor a contributing factor!).

 

I also realize there are ties at the end of OT resulting from a game that was a stinker; where neither team really showed up, played sloppy or uninspired and it resulted in a tie.  But that game is a stinker regardless of tie or shootout outcome.  It's just a horrible situation to have two teams fight really hard system v. system, group v. group, only then to have it decided by an exercise that has absolutely zero to do with game that was played before it. 

 

I realize these two posts are ridiculously emotional.  The emotion has nothing to do with whom I'm responding to and simply everything to do with the fact I hate the whole thing so passionately.

[JackStraw]

Shoot outs hurt children

 

Not only that, but every time there is a shootout somewhere a kitten dies. It's true. I hate the shootout.

 

[MadDevil]

Considering the Devils have lost 15 straight shootouts, I think my opinion of them is pretty obvious. Although they used to be one of the best teams in the league at them, so I won't complain too loudly. It's just frustrating to know that if they were even average at them they'd be in the playoffs this year.

[Polaris922]

@ruxpin

 

I get that your opinion is emotional for you.  I get why.  But you can't change the fact that there are still a handful of players that decide the game.  It's not within a system.  It's not coachable beyond knowing who to put in.  It's not a line vs line game.  But its's still decided by more than just a one man show.  I have no problem with you disagreeing with it.  I do think you're emotions get in the way of your debating the topic though.  I could just as easily argue it's absurdity to think it's no longer a team sport.  This isn't shooting plates or racing around cones.  The goaltender still has a say.  One shooter cannot win it by himself unless the other team's three shooters fail miserably.  Your second and third shooters can seal the deal.  

 

My comment that some could argue it's the purest part of the sport stands on its own merit.  What is more pure to hockey than the shooter closing on the goaltender and it's one vs one.  Who will win the challenge?  You rationalize it in your mind with "a really cool stretch pass" to make it happen.  But let me ask you... how many of those stretch passes do you remember when the breakaway was stopped?  Not many.  Why?  Because it's the breakaway itself that is exciting.  You just like them to be the result of someone's mistake rather than a free pass to get there.  

 

I get your points.  I do.  Part of me agrees in that I think they should just play until there's a winner, playoffs or not.  Five overtimes?  Punishment for not winning.  Sucks to be you.  But if they're not going to do that, I will turn your own argument against you.  " It's just a horrible situation to have two teams fight really hard system v. system, group v. group, only then to have it..." END WITHOUT A REAL WINNER.  Two teams battle for 60 minutes to kiss their sister.  

 

Honestly, we see games decided by one shot, one post, one bad line change.  Is that the system?  Was it the entire team's fault that Josef Dingleberry decided to fall down and ended up in Freddy Frozennuts getting a breakaway to win the game?  That one play decided the game.  Individual skills DO decide games already.  

[ruxpin]

Just for edification. And I'm hoping this keeps its columns because this was a pain in the butt.

The first set of standings (furthest left) are the standings as currently is. The next is what it would look like if the games simply ended at the end of regulation. 2pts. win. 1 pt. tie. 0 pts. loser. The last one (furthest right) is if you had a 5 minute overtime and then ended as a tie if the winner still wasn't decided (1 pt. each for the tie). Not a lot of change here. Some flip flopping with Colorado and Chicago and Montreal/Tampa gets even closer and flips a little. In the east, NJ is in it and Washington wouldn't like no overtime. But the same number of teams legitimately "in it" at this point would remain exactly the same. What would be interesting to see (and I'm NOT doing it) is how long the same number of teams would have been in it. I.E., would they have fallen off at a slower or quicker rate prior to this point of the season. Teams like Calgary, Edmonton, and Buffalo were out from training camp, but some of the others the difference could be interesting to see. [edit: Had to save it as an image. Couldn't figure out how to transfer a table)



I took out some of the supporting numbers, but a couple of other things stood out, some of which we probably already know.
1) The shootout/overtime/points structure would not change the positions of the top teams. Pittsburgh, Boston, St. Louis, and Anaheim would still be kicking butt. But something else about them: With the exception of St. Louis, none of them actually go to the shootout all that often. They all win the shootout more than they lose them once they get there, but all of them seem to do a decent job of winning before they get there.

2) I deleted the supporting numbers from my original table for space concerns but I did it before I remembered I wanted them just to show that many many many teams would have more ties than wins, particularly in the middle column. In many cases, ties came out to roughly 25-30% of a team's schedule. Currently, those would still be overtime games (shootout and those decided during the OT). If that many games are going to overtime, that is a problem. I have no idea what to do to alter or fix that, but they have to find a way to get that down to less than 10%. If you do that, the people who like to see a shoot out will still be able to on occasion, but it wouldn't be so prevalent that those of us who actually like hockey have to be so incessantly insulted by it.

3) The last thing I noticed is that with that high a percentage of games going to overtime, and with too high a number going to the shootout, I don't think playing sudden death endlessly during the regular season is a viable option. Not unless they first find a way to get the percentage of games decided in regulation much higher.

[ruxpin]

@ruxpin

 

I get that your opinion is emotional for you.  I get why.  But you can't change the fact that there are still a handful of players that decide the game.  It's not within a system.  It's not coachable beyond knowing who to put in.  It's not a line vs line game.  But its's still decided by more than just a one man show.  I have no problem with you disagreeing with it.  I do think you're emotions get in the way of your debating the topic though.  I could just as easily argue it's absurdity to think it's no longer a team sport.  This isn't shooting plates or racing around cones.  The goaltender still has a say.  One shooter cannot win it by himself unless the other team's three shooters fail miserably.  Your second and third shooters can seal the deal.   But it's still not the TEAM no matter how you frame in it.   I agree about the emotion thing, but with or without that, it still not the TEAM.  There's no way around that.  In a normal hockey game you have 5 v 5 plus goalies.  No matter if I get upset enough to hang my dog outside by the Christmas lights, one on a goalie with no one else on the ice is not 5 v 5.  If the shooter were to attempt to pass it, it would be absurd.  You cannot tell me that the shootout is the same hockey that ended at the 65 minute mark.  Emotion or no.   And I have a huge problem with the first 65 minutes being decided by something so completely different.

 

My comment that some could argue it's the purest part of the sport stands on its own merit.  What is more pure to hockey than the shooter closing on the goaltender and it's one vs one.  Who will win the challenge?  You rationalize it in your mind with "a really cool stretch pass" to make it happen.  But let me ask you... how many of those stretch passes do you remember when the breakaway was stopped?  Not many.  Why?  Because it's the breakaway itself that is exciting.  You just like them to be the result of someone's mistake rather than a free pass to get there.  It's not rationalization and it's not about the mistake.  It's the same principle some would argue they like fighting in hockey but not staged fights.  It's the same exact concept.  Crosby going in against Mason in the second period for ANY reason is different from his doing it in the shootout, despite the fact both would result in a goal.  The former is part of a hockey game.  Whatever caused it, a turnover, a pass, whatever, it was part of the natural flow of a team sport.  The latter is contrived.  It doesn't matter, nor is it relevant, whether the stretch pass itself is remembered later.   The truth by the time the news reports are done the next morning it's extremely unlikely I remember the actual goal itself.   So remembering the pass/passer really doesn't even enter the equation.  The point is that it was part of an actual hockey play.  The 'purest part," emotion aside, doesn't stand on merit because it doesn't have any.

 

I get your points.  I do.  Part of me agrees in that I think they should just play until there's a winner, playoffs or not.  Five overtimes?  Punishment for not winning.  Sucks to be you.  But if they're not going to do that, I will turn your own argument against you.  " It's just a horrible situation to have two teams fight really hard system v. system, group v. group, only then to have it..." END WITHOUT A REAL WINNER.  Two teams battle for 60 minutes to kiss their sister.  I completely disagree with the kiss the sister thing.  In a game like the one against the Bruins the loser would be the Bruins, who surrendered the 2nd point in the last few minutes.  The winner would be the team that came back at the last minute to grab that point.  In this case, the loss of the point was no big deal to the Bruins since they've clinched just about everything.  But put that game anywhere else in the season and it's a big deal.  Worked quite well for decades.   The game like the one versus the Blues is harder to say winner/loser.  But neither scored AT ALL.  Why should their be a winner.  There still is no winner of that game between the two teams.   The Blues won a skills competition.  I don't even accept the "end without a real winner" thing because it's completely a non-issue for me.   HOWEVER, it's at least a subject where I can acknowledge it IS an issue for others (you included, apparently) and can at least respect it as an argument.   I also, by the way, agree with you that the endless overtime is not really a viable option in the regular season.   Not at the rate the games are going to OT and the SO.  

 

Honestly, we see games decided by one shot, one post, one bad line change.  Is that the system?  Was it the entire team's fault that Josef Dingleberry decided to fall down and ended up in Freddy Frozennuts getting a breakaway to win the game?  That one play decided the game.  Individual skills DO decide games already.  In the context of everyone being on the ice.  Someone could have been behind him.   They weren't.  Something happened before he fell down that caused him to have the puck, caused him to be the last one out, etc.   Frozennuts gets the breakaway because he was playing up.  He was playing up because someone else was playing back, etc.  The shootout, on the otherhand, is completely contrived.  There is a huge difference. It's not at all the same thing.   Individual skills sometimes decide games, but if it's before the 65 minute mark it is always in the context of an entire team being out there.   And that fact alters the scene whether it appears on the scoresheet or even on the screen shot  when the goal is scored.  That is completely absent in a shoot out.  Of course games are decided by one shot, one post, etc.  You ask system as if that's trumping rather than entirely irrelevant. But once again all of that is in the natural course of a game and IS absolutely affected and created by what went before it.  Again, all of that is absent in a shootout.

 

When it comes down to it, the argument is whether ties are okay or if they are not.   If they are, the topic ends because even OT isn't really needed.   Maybe you think ties are okay but let's cut them down a little, so you do a 5 minute OT and then end in a tie if you have to.   OR ties are the spawn of satan so you absolutely have to have a winner.     So you have two choices. Endless sudden death (I think you and I seem to agree this isn't viable, or at least isn't practical) or the shootout.    So basically, ties at regulation or 5 minutes (or 10 but I don't see the point personally) or shootout.   Ultimately, it's based on which you can stomach more:  a tie or a shootout.    I'm fine with the tie but really hate everything--I really do mean everything--about the shootout.   But I can respect the "I didn't pay $140 for a ticket or devote 3 hours watching TV to not see anything decided."    Really.   But the rest of the arguments I really don't buy.  Because no one can sell me that the shootout is just like before 65 minutes.  The number of people on the ice and the lack of any of the same rules belies that.  Emotion or not, it just is.

[Polaris922]

@ruxpin

 

I'd never try to argue that a shootout is the same as the game itself.  I can easily argue it is the same as certain elements of the game, but you can just as easily argue it is not.  I'm one of those guys who hates the idea of a tie.  I don't believe it resolves anything.  I'm dead against 1 point for a tie or even for losing in OT.  You didn't win, you get nothing is my thinking when it comes to pro sports.  Perhaps that is why I can accept the shootout.  Obviously never ending OT will cause a lot of issues.  But I would rather the shootout than a tie, and you're the opposite.  We both have our reasons, and that's that.  

 

 

Oh, and for the record.... "those of us that actually like hockey"?  That's not like you to be demeaning like that over something when you know damn well I love the game as much as anybody.  I accepted the emotion of your first two posts and let it ride.  Enough already.  I'm not Rick, or toughfighter...  I don't think that's really necessary.  

[ruxpin]

Oh, and for the record.... "those of us that actually like hockey"? That's not like you to be demeaning like that over something when you know damn well I love the game as much as anybody. I accepted the emotion of your first two posts and let it ride. Enough already. I'm not Rick, or toughfighter... I don't think that's really necessary.

 

You noticed that did you?  Fair enough.  It wasn't really meant to be taken seriously, but in the context of the rest of it I guess I'm not sure how else you were supposed to take it.    I'm sorry you don't  like hockey.  

 

I like a lot of people on this board.  You're one of them.  But there's no one on here I respect more than @hf101.   Ask HF about our knock-em-down battles over the shootout over the years.  It was intended as a playful jab nothing more.

[Polaris922]

You noticed that did you? Fair enough. It wasn't really meant to be taken seriously, but in the context of the rest of it I guess I'm not sure how else you were supposed to take it. I'm sorry you don't like hockey.

I like a lot of people on this board. You're one of them. But there's no one on here I respect more than @hf101. Ask HF about our knock-em-down battles over the shootout over the years. It was intended as a playful jab nothing more.

Rux that's why I absorbed the earlier shots. I know you're just passionate about the topic. I respect that. No worries bud. Not much of a debate if nobody gives a damn. Lol

[ruxpin]

Rux that's why I absorbed the earlier shots. I know you're just passionate about the topic. I respect that. No worries bud. Not much of a debate if nobody gives a damn. Lol

You're a good guy. We still need to have a beer when I'm out there. I need to go soon to scare the crap out of my daughter's punk ass boyfriend.

[yave1964]

@Philly29@ruxpin

 

  Philly I just wish that Rux would quit dancing around the subject and say how he really feels.

 

  My problem with the shootout is that it is not hockey. Mickey Redmond derisively refers to it as a skill competition whenever we go to one, and I have to agree. So what is the solution?

 

  I say a ten minute 4 on 4 overtime, and if nobody scores call it a night. What is wrong with a tie? Ties have been part of our game forever, go home take the point and go get them the next night. It makes no sense the way we do it now, other than teams look better in the standings by having more points at the end of the year. It creates the illusion of a team being better than it is by getting a point in the loss, or it helps a team look better than they are by having shootout specialists who steal points throughout the year. the Coyotes did that a few years ago, they simply could not lose in overtime so they played for a regulation tie and then stole the extra point. Then they were exposed come post season.

 

  So I would be fine going back to the old ways, 2 for a win 1 for a tie, or at least 2 for a win and zero for a loss. This whole extra point thing drives me nuts, it is like a participation trophy for the slow kid wearing a bike helmet in gym class who gets a ribbon for showing up. If we are going to be stuck with that damn shootout, at least go 2 for a win zero for a loss.

[yave1964]

my god I just reread my rant in here, and my rant about the playoff seeding and the rant about Ovechkin. I think I just turned into my Dad. I am only 49 but have officially hit grumpy old man status. The only thing missing is the 'I remember when I was a kid' comments. But they are coming. Trust me, I see them around the corner. Now back to my oatmeal and prune juice.

[ruxpin]

I just wish that Rux would quit dancing around the subject and say how he really feels

 

I'm sorry.  Sometimes my writing is vague.   The short, concise version is that I love the shootout and think it's the best thing since assisted suicide.

[yave1964]

I'm sorry.  Sometimes my writing is vague.   The short, concise version is that I love the shootout and think it's the best thing since assisted suicide.

LMAO!!!!

[fanaticV3.0]

Seven people decide individually, one at a time.  let's cut with the absurdity it has anything to do with a team sport once the shootout begins.  It's simply not reality so let's just avoid insulting everyone's intelligence.

 

Let's also dispense with the absurdity that there is no difference between the shootout and the overtime.  The only way we do that is if we have a catastrophic head injury and forget the fact that in the shoot out  there is no team effort, no group of guys outworking anyone else, no one to pass to and all the rules of the game (offsides, icing, penalties, etc.) go out the window.  The only thing left is the seemingly purely optional rule about not stopping one's momentum to the goal.   The claim was made in the chat room that both are four guys on four guys.  The OT is 5 on 5 including the goalies so there's not even that (don't want to count the goalies?  Fine.  Then you can't count them in the shootout either.  it's either 5v5/4v4 or it's 4v4/3v3 depending upon counting the goalies.  No difference?  No.  Not on planet earth.  On planet earth there's NO SIMILARITY.

 

See above paragraph to dispense with the "purest form of hockey" crap, too. If that's the purest form of hockey then skip whatever imposter goes on in the first three periods and have 19,000 people skip directly to the "pure hockey."   That's utter crap.  Hockey, in its purest form, is a group of guys playing against another group of guys, attempting to work together to out maneuver, out work, and out think the other group of guys (or girls or the confused).  It involves position and passing, anticipating a play, creation, etc.   Purest hockey is NOT someone taking their damn good old time skating to the net with no one to challenge, no teamates to work with, nothing, and seeing if we can out anticipate some poor schlep who has to go through it at minimum three times.   That THIS is the "purest form of hockey" is delusional insanity and makes my head hurt even having to respond to it.  If the shootout is "pure hockey" then it turns out more than 40 years later that I was wrong and I actually hate hockey.

 

People want to say they like it and prefer it to a tie, I disagree but I get the argument.  Enjoy it.  Might as well enjoy it because it's likely here to stay.  Like Obamacare.  People want to say it's exciting to watch someone skate like they're walking in mud up to their ****** and do 9 dekes before trying to score. Fine, all power to them.  Some people think crap like Duck Hunters and Kardasians are interesting.  To each their own.  But let's not pretend, while doing it, that Duck Hunters is about Olympic skate boarding and the Kardasians is about virgins.  Like it or don't like it for what it is, but let's not dress it up in some alter-universe delusions.

 

For the record, I really like seeing Giroux go in alone on a goalie--after getting a really cool stretch pass or forcing someone to cough up the puck and taking it the other way.   The contrived stuff in the shootout?   No.  Really couldn't care less.

 

You're going to hate this, but how many guys on the average night actually affect the outcome of the game? I'm not saying 4th liners never score, just that most of the time the game is decided by the usual suspects for each team. I actually agree with both of you. It is a skills competition, but it's not like it's up to 1 or 2 people.

 

How do you feel about 4-on-4 OT? That's no different imo. It's openly interfering with the game in order to get a result. The benches are shortened when this happens. The game is left in the hands of a limited number of guys in this situation as well. Does that bother you as much, less, or not at all?

[ruxpin]

So I would be fine going back to the old ways, 2 for a win 1 for a tie, or at least 2 for a win and zero for a loss. This whole extra point thing drives me nuts, it is like a participation trophy for the slow kid wearing a bike helmet in gym class who gets a ribbon for showing up. If we are going to be stuck with that damn shootout, at least go 2 for a win zero for a loss.

 

I'm with you on this.  I hate the loser point whether in overtime or shootout.  It does inflate the points--which I don't like at all--but really it just comes down to disliking the the trophy for showing up.

 

HOWEVER, the problem some would have with 2 points for shootout win and 0 for shootout loss (and I actually sympathize) is that it inadvertently puts even more importance on an exercise I don't like to begin with.  Because in this case the shootout becomes a two-point swing rather than just one.

 

I think I just prefer your 4x4 for 10 minutes and if it's still tied both teams go home with a point for a tie.

 

With this scenario, the game is worth TWO points total no matter what the outcome.

 

Team A wins over Team B  =   Team A  2 pts.   Team B - 0 pts.    =  2 pts. total

Team B wins over Team A  =   Team B  2 pts    Team A - 0 pts     =  2 pts. total

Tied          Team A  1 pt.    Team B   1 pt  =   2 pts. total.  

 

All games regardless of result equals 2 total rewarded points.

 

No inflation of the points in the standings.  No loser point.  No $200.  No passing Go.   Simple.  Easy to remember.   I like it.

[ruxpin]

You're going to hate this, but how many guys on the average night actually affect the outcome of the game? I'm not saying 4th liners never score, just that most of the time the game is decided by the usual suspects for each team. I actually agree with both of you. It is a skills competition, but it's not like it's up to 1 or 2 people.

 

How do you feel about 4-on-4 OT? That's no different imo. It's openly interfering with the game in order to get a result. The benches are shortened when this happens. The game is left in the hands of a limited number of guys in this situation as well. Does that bother you as much, less, or not at all?

 

Two things going on here, so one at a time.

 

The first paragraph:  "how many guys on the average night actually affect the outcome of the game?"

 

In one way or another all of them.  Some negatively, some positively.   Some a little, some a lot.   But all of them.  Even if it's a couple guys playing 3-5 minutes and doing nothing other than spelling the actual hockey players.  But sometimes it comes down to the fact that the "fill in"  players from Team A are better or more reliable than those from Team B and the overall effect is that the "skill" player from Team A are slightly better rested and a step faster.    But the point being that all contribute in some way, even if forgettably (is that a word?).  And certainly more than sitting watching 3 players take turns taking 20 minutes to skate toward a goalie (deliberate hyperbole).

 

How many guys specifically affect the outcome of the game based on the score sheet?   In a 2-1 game, not very many.  But it's not really my point vs. the shootout.

 

The second paragraph:  "That's no different imo. It's openly interfering with the game in order to get a result. The benches are shortened when this happens. The game is left in the hands of a limited number of guys in this situation as well. Does that bother you as much, less, or not at all"

 

It's different because you still have teammates playing against another group of teammates.   It's more similar to the regulation game than it is to the shootout in that you still have offsides, icing, passing, the potential for penalties, hitting, screens on shots, etc.  All that to me is hockey.   The absence of that, which would include the shootout, doesn't work as hockey for me.

 

However, your question gave me pause.  I thought it was an interesting one because to be honest it's something I hadn't considered much since shortly after it was first instituted.  I kind of quickly got used to it and haven't considered it much again until you brought it up.  It bothers me in the sense that I wouldn't want to go with it in the playoffs. But I don't think I'd throw a hissy if they did because of the criteria I mentioned above.  And in the playoffs, if they don't go to the shoot out and play 4x4 until someone wins, they would need to re-lengthen the benches if it went on for any extended period of time.

 

The short answer, I guess, is that while it bothers me on some level, I'm much more okay with it than the shootout because while it does change some of the dynamics, it at least vaguely resembles the regulation rules.

 

Really interesting question.