How to Limit Shoot Outs

[idahophilly]

http://www.newsday.com/sports/columnists/steve-zipay/nhl-missing-the-mark-because-too-many-games-are-decided-in-a-shootout-1.9598878

[flyercanuck]

You want to limit shootouts....go back to ties. They were fine for the NHLs first NINETY years.

[jammer2]

@flyercanuck  I never ever thought I'd pine for the days of the tie. I miss them something awful!!

[jammer2]

  How to limit shoot-outs.....

 

 

  Put a bullet in Gary's little troll head.

[EDI-Flyer]

@jammer2@flyercanuck,

 

Yep, it seems a particularly North American notion that a game *MUST* have a winner, rather than accepting that there are times when two evenly matched teams deserve to share the spoils. If the game hasn't been determined after regulation and OT then just leave it be. I have hated the shootout since it was introduced, and not just because we suck at it. I don't like it in football either.

[B21]

I love ties.  Just not when 1 in 5 games ends in one (see NHL seasons 96-97 through 98-99).

 

Until there is a better idea, I'll take the shootout.

[jammer2]

@B21  If there *must* be a winner, I'd implement the following ....

 

 

 1) Create a brand new 10 minute OT period.

 

 2)Start out 5 on 5.

 

 3)Every 2 minutes decrease the number by one ...eg 4 on 4. 3 on 3 etc...etc

 

   The 2 on 2 would be particularly awesome. Imagine Toews and Kane against Getzlaf and Perry for all the marbles. It would create some amazing hockey. The fun part would the groups of 2's, 3's and 4's would have to practice to assure themselves of where they are supposed to be etc..

 

 

 I'd much rather have the tie, but like I said, if there has to be a winner, I'd take this system over the blah and boring shoot-out any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

[B21]

@B21  If there *must* be a winner, I'd implement the following ....

 

 

 1) Create a brand new 10 minute OT period.

 

 2)Start out 5 on 5.

 

 3)Every 2 minutes decrease the number by one ...eg 4 on 4. 3 on 3 etc...etc

 

   The 2 on 2 would be particularly awesome. Imagine Toews and Kane against Getzlaf and Perry for all the marbles. It would create some amazing hockey. The fun part would the groups of 2's, 3's and 4's would have to practice to assure themselves of where they are supposed to be etc..

 

 

 I'd much rather have the tie, but like I said, if there has to be a winner, I'd take this system over the blah and boring shoot-out any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

 

Way too complicated. You start doing that and it gets more gimmicky than a shootout. At least a shootout involves something that can happen in game from time to time.  

 

I'm not looking for a winner in every game. Go 10 minutes of 4-on-4 and call it tie if no one scores.  At least the 4-on-4 and a longer OT increases the odds of someone scoring. Teams can really shorten the bench with one less skater which (likely - unless you are Buffalo) means lots of skill vs. skill in an OT. 

[jammer2]

I'm not looking for a winner in every game

 

 

  Me either, but in a world run by Gary, it's an unfortunate reality......we might as well make it exciting. I wonder when Gary will quit the commish gig. Imagine if a pure traditionalist takes over and undoes all the crap that Uncle Gary has force fed us the past decade. First rule to overturn....the shootout....secondly....immediately mandate that every team MUST wear white at home and the dark colours on the road.....NO EXCEPTIONS.

[Vanflyer]

I never ever thought I'd pine for the days of the tie. I miss them something awful!!

 

Weren't they trying some new approaches in the AHL / ECHL. ANYTHING would be better for me than having a team game decided by an individual skills competition. There are many reasons to loathe bettman, but this has to be at the top of my list (and the NHL board of governors- of which Ed Snider is chairman of, do not get a free pass either).

[flyercanuck]

Way too complicated. You start doing that and it gets more gimmicky than a shootout. At least a shootout involves something that can happen in game from time to time.  

 

I'm not looking for a winner in every game. Go 10 minutes of 4-on-4 and call it tie if no one scores.  At least the 4-on-4 and a longer OT increases the odds of someone scoring. Teams can really shorten the bench with one less skater which (likely - unless you are Buffalo) means lots of skill vs. skill in an OT. 

 

 

 A guy standing at centre ice, lollygags his way to the right boards, cuts back into the middle and then spin=o=ramas his way toward the goalie? Can't say I've ever seen that in a game.

[B21]

  Me either, but in a world run by Gary, it's an unfortunate reality......we might as well make it exciting. I wonder when Gary will quit the commish gig. Imagine if a pure traditionalist takes over and undoes all the crap that Uncle Gary has force fed us the past decade. First rule to overturn....the shootout....secondly....immediately mandate that every team MUST wear white at home and the dark colours on the road.....NO EXCEPTIONS.

 

If history is any indication Bettman wwill be commissioner for a while.  He's 62. Tagliabue was 66 when he stepped down.  Stern was 72.  Selig was 80.

 

Agree 100% on the home whites.

[B21]

 A guy standing at centre ice, lollygags his way to the right boards, cuts back into the middle and then spin=o=ramas his way toward the goalie? Can't say I've ever seen that in a game.

 

Some guys do take their SO attemps at full speed.

 

But hey - why not let a 33-29-20 team into the playoffs.

 

10 minutes of 4 on 4. Problem solved.

[DaGreatGazoo]

Easy way to limit them..GET RID OF THEM COMPLETELY.

 

10 minute of 4 on 4 as @B21 said...AND keep the long change rule in place for the entire 10 mins.  After that--it's tied.  

[flyercanuck]

Some guys do take their SO attemps at full speed.

 

But hey - why not let a 33-29-20 team into the playoffs.

 

10 minutes of 4 on 4. Problem solved.

 

 

Some do.

 

 And some guys are terrible hockey players who are  great at a gimmick when nobody else is on the ice with them. So is it better to have them turn those 20 ties into wins? Then have them disappear when it matters?

 

The shootout has nothing to do with the GAME of hockey. The league survived for 90 years with ties, why not just have ties? Sometimes neither team deserves to lose...whats wrong with that?

[B21]

Some do.

 

 And some guys are terrible hockey players who are  great at a gimmick when nobody else is on the ice with them. So is it better to have them turn those 20 ties into wins? Then have them disappear when it matters?

 

The shootout has nothing to do with the GAME of hockey. The league survived for 90 years with ties, why not just have ties? Sometimes neither team deserves to lose...whats wrong with that?

 

Sometimes neither team deserves to lose a playoff series or Cup final either but someone has to get the trophy.

 

Ties are fine.  I have nothing against  them.  But not the numbers were were seeing in the 3-4 years before the SO was implemented.

 

If I wanted that many ties, I'd watch more soccer.

[JR Ewing]

The NHL would do a lot to limit shootouts if they didn't reward coaches so richly by guaranteeing a point for just making it to OT. As soon as the NHL introduced the OTL point, the number of games which went to OT shot up dramatically. I could live with the shootout if the loss point wasn't being awarded, and then just have the standings sorted by Win Percentage. But, the NHL wanted to increase the appearance of parity, so this is what we get.

[flyercanuck]

Sometimes neither team deserves to lose a playoff series or Cup final either but someone has to g

 

Ties are fine.  I have nothing against  them.  But not the numbers were were seeing in the 3-4 years before the SO was implemented.

 

If I wanted that many ties, I'd watch more soccer.

 

 

I watched the first Subway Series game on Monday night. It was 2-2 at the end of regulation. Canada dominated the game and outshot Russia 36-15   ELEVEN rounds of shootout were needed to produce a winner. Russia pulled the goalie who'd stopped 34 shots in the game and put in their "shootout goalie". Seriously. 

[B21]

I watched the first Subway Series game on Monday night. It was 2-2 at the end of regulation. Canada dominated the game and outshot Russia 36-15   ELEVEN rounds of shootout were needed to produce a winner. Russia pulled the goalie who'd stopped 34 shots in the game and put in their "shootout goalie". Seriously. 

 

Perpetual 4 on 4.

[WordsOfWisdom]

I mentioned this in another thread but it seems appropriate here too:

 

If you want fewer ties, then why not stick them after the shootout? Cap the shootout at three shooters per team. Don't allow it to go on forever.

 

Exhibit A:

 

Team 1 - Shooter 1:  Save

Team 2 - Shooter 1:  Save

 

Team 1 - Shooter 2:  Goal

Team 2 - Shooter 2:  Goal

 

Team 1 - Shooter 3:  Save

Team 2 - Shooter 3:  Save

 

---------------------------

 

GAME OVER.  Score ends in a tie. Teams split the two points.

[ruxpin]

I mentioned this in another thread but it seems appropriate here too:

If you want fewer ties, then why not stick them after the shootout? Cap the shootout at three shooters per team. Don't allow it to go on forever.

Exhibit A:

Team 1 - Shooter 1: Save

Team 2 - Shooter 1: Save

Team 1 - Shooter 2: Goal

Team 2 - Shooter 2: Goal

Team 1 - Shooter 3: Save

Team 2 - Shooter 3: Save

---------------------------

GAME OVER. Score ends in a tie. Teams split the two points.

This was kidding, right?

So, not only do I have to deal with the bullshit shootout, we still have ties on top of it?!

That is singularly and by great distance the worst solution I have ever heard. I mean WORST of all world's solution.

[WordsOfWisdom]

This was kidding, right?

So, not only do I have to deal with the bullshit shootout, we still have ties on top of it?!

That is singularly and by great distance the worst solution I have ever heard. I mean WORST of all world's solution.

 

I submitted to a local sports talk radio show up here and it was actually discussed on air.  (I thought that was pretty cool.)

 

Here's what I would say (and this might change your perspective a bit):

1. Love it or hate it, I think most fans still want to keep the shootout. Since majority rules, I think the shootout is staying around for quite some time yet. That means any new points system has to include a shootout.
2. The NHL has a long tradition of having tie games. The problem was, the "dead puck era" was the catalyst here. What most people forget is that the problem of tie games only became a problem in the low scoring late 1990's because teams couldn't score their way to a win. The low scoring games meant that the number of tie games skyrocketed.
3. The NHL tried to reduce ties by introducing the points system we have in place today in 1999 by awarding the extra point in overtime to "encourage teams to play for the win". It failed.  (This is the crucial point that fans forget.) The current NHL points system was designed to reduce tie games and it didn't work, but the NHL stuck with it anyway. Tie games were finally eliminated altogether in 2005 with the introduction of the shootout, but the same points system was kept anyway.

Fast forward to today:

 

We now have shootouts that go 20 rounds before a winner is decided. The shootout is supposed to be quick and "lethal". It is meant to bring closure. Now even the shootout can't bring closure to some NHL games.

 

Why not cap it? What would be the harm?

 

If you think about it, it restores balance to the league. All games are now worth 2 points. All games end after a maximum of 65 minutes and a brief shootout. Fans that like the shootout, get to see one. Even if the game ends in a tie, they still got to see a shootout. What more do fans want?

 

Whenever I propose alternatives, they are a tougher pill to swallow than the idea proposed above. I've suggested dropping the points system altogether and having wins and losses. Play continuous OT until someone wins. Fans argue that player fatigue and injuries would be too great. Other fans want the 3-2-1-0 system, but that makes a mockery out of the standings and when fans have to look at it for one season, they will change their mind quickly. It also spoils a glorious victory by ruining OT forever. You can't celebrate a hard fought victory in OT when you aren't getting full value for it. It's half a victory, not worthy of cheering.

 

Thoughts? 

[ruxpin]

I submitted to a local sports talk radio show up here and it was actually discussed on air. (I thought that was pretty cool.)

Here's what I would say (and this might change your perspective a bit):

• Love it or hate it, I think most fans still want to keep the shootout. Since majority rules, I think the shootout is staying around for quite some time yet. That means any new points system has to include a shootout.
• The NHL has a long tradition of having tie games. The problem was, the "dead puck era" was the catalyst here. What most people forget is that the problem of tie games only became a problem in the low scoring late 1990's because teams couldn't score their way to a win. The low scoring games meant that the number of tie games skyrocketed.
• The NHL tried to reduce ties by introducing the points system we have in place today in 1999 by awarding the extra point in overtime to "encourage teams to play for the win". It failed. (This is the crucial point that fans forget.) The current NHL points system was designed to reduce tie games and it didn't work, but the NHL stuck with it anyway. Tie games were finally eliminated altogether in 2005 with the introduction of the shootout, but the same points system was kept anyway.

Fast forward to today:

We now have shootouts that go 20 rounds before a winner is decided. The shootout is supposed to be quick and "lethal". It is meant to bring closure. Now even the shootout can't bring closure to some NHL games.

Why not cap it? What would be the harm?

If you think about it, it restores balance to the league. All games are now worth 2 points. All games end after a maximum of 65 minutes and a brief shootout. Fans that like the shootout, get to see one. Even if the game ends in a tie, they still got to see a shootout. What more do fans want?

Whenever I propose alternatives, they are a tougher pill to swallow than the idea proposed above. I've suggested dropping the points system altogether and having wins and losses. Play continuous OT until someone wins. Fans argue that player fatigue and injuries would be too great. Other fans want the 3-2-1-0 system, but that makes a mockery out of the standings and when fans have to look at it for one season, they will change their mind quickly. It also spoils a glorious victory by ruining OT forever. You can't celebrate a hard fought victory in OT when you aren't getting full value for it. It's half a victory, not worthy of cheering.

Thoughts?

Thoughts. I hate everything about it. Take the absolute worst thing from each column, mix it together, and call it a solution. The only thing missing is killing small children.

Honestly, it's THAT bad.

I mean, the only time the shootout is remotely interesting is when it goes longer than three rounds (even then only barely), so let's take that away.  The only thing that barely justifies the shootout (it doesn't, but some would argue it does) is to eliminate ties.  So let's keep both the heretic shootout AND the thing that wasn't a problem that it was created to eliminate.

Sorry, no offense, but there's absolutely not one iota of that proposal I like even a little.

[ruxpin]

I am, however, for dropping points altogether and going to winning percentage.

I also think people's concern about length of game is a bit overblown. So play until someone wins or dies. If it's the latter, pause only long enough to remove the body and resume until someone wins.

In all seriousness, I have no problem whatsoever with ties.

5v5 10 minute OT. Winner gets 2 points, loss or tie get nothing. If they would stop pretending the NHL is AYSO and quit giving away door prizes just for showing up, most teams would work like hell to get the two points if failure (i.e., anything not a win) meant going away with nothing.

[WordsOfWisdom]

Thoughts. I hate everything about it. Take the absolute worst thing from each column, mix it together, and call it a solution. The only thing missing is killing small children.

Honestly, it's THAT bad.

I mean, the only time the shootout is remotely interesting is when it goes longer than three rounds (even then only barely), so let's take that away.  The only thing that barely justifies the shootout (it doesn't, but some would argue it does) is to eliminate ties.  So let's keep both the heretic shootout AND the thing that wasn't a problem that it was created to eliminate.

Sorry, no offense, but there's absolutely not one iota of that proposal I like even a little.

 

Well at least you're honest about it. 

 

FYI: I have no problem with ties either. I thought the NHL was just peachy with the 2-1-0 system and tie games.

 

Here's a question:

 

If you only had two choices, would you rather have the current points system as is or the one I proposed above? (Knowing that you're stuck with the shootout either way, and knowing that my proposed system doesn't ever reward teams for losing.) In other words, it would alleviate the one major complaint that people have with the current system.