Changes to hockey

[Jaded-Fan]

The rules changes may being Gretzky out of retirement.

Paused NHL waits for freewheeling style
Associated Press

2/22/2005

PITTSBURGH (AP) - The changes might be drastic enough to tempt 44-year-old Wayne Gretzky into coming out of retirement.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=115786


Funny, it has that headline, then no details in the body of the article. That said, I have mixed feelings. I remember when Jordon came out of retirement and was a fraction of the man he used to be. If Gretzky can not embarrass the memories of who he was though, what a story to get the league started out on.

 

[Chili]

The problem is - an exciting o/t solution doesn't fix the problem of 60 minutes of boring regulation play.
Give the fans 60 minutes of fast, intense and exciting regulation play, and they will be happy - win, lose or tie.

Bang on. I like to say 'fix the game, not the outcome'. If the quality of play was higher, I don't think this would be much of an issue. There is too much emphasis on defence for my liking, let's find ways to open up the game.

And bring back the intense rivalries of the past, when we had the Adams, Patrick, Norris & Smythe divisions. I started a thread in the history forum about it (link).

 

[bcrt2000]

What? Overtime games were great? In what century was this? Regular season overtime games always sucked because neither team would even bother trying to score, both were happy with 1 point. That's why the stupid 4 on 4 overtime rule came in. I say go to a shootout, winner gets 2 points, loser gets none. Enough with this 1 point for losing crap.

if they eliminate ties altogether, i'm pretty sure there will be no more points for losses, because there is no motivation to sit back during OT anymore.. unless they make it 1 point for losing in regular OT and 0 points for losing in the shootout after OT, just in case some teams sit back until the shootout

 

[Doctor Zoidberg]

The rules changes may being Gretzky out of retirement.

Paused NHL waits for freewheeling style
Associated Press

2/22/2005

PITTSBURGH (AP) - The changes might be drastic enough to tempt 44-year-old Wayne Gretzky into coming out of retirement.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story.asp?ID=115786


Funny, it has that headline, then no details in the body of the article. That said, I have mixed feelings. I remember when Jordon came out of retirement and was a fraction of the man he used to be. If Gretzky can not embarrass the memories of who he was though, what a story to get the league started out on.

I think they were just joking with the Gretzky line. He's 44 and won't be comming back.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

The games I've seen decided by shootouts were exciting, but the traditionalist in me says no to shootouts at the NHL level. (The "hoops doesn't decide games with a free throw contest" argument is a strong one, too.)
However, the real question is not whether I would like it, but whether it would bring new fans to the sport. I'm inclined to think no, especially if the game itelf isn't opened up somehow. A new fan is going to come to the game in the hopes it's a tie so they can see a shootout? Doubtful.
However, regdunlap's suggestion that shootouts might result in more highlights for ESPN is intriguing. Not only more highlights, but a more easily discernable display of the skills of both the shooters and the goalies. Maybe some people start to think, "So this is what they do at hockey games?"

 

[Morbo]

Shootout

The problem with shootouts is that they aren't a fair way to decide a game. I don't like them in soccer either.

It may be "exciting", but if you're the team that gets knocked out of a playoff spot or lose a division title or home ice seed because of one, then you see how stupid it is.

I also hate the overtime loss point.

 

[Jag68Sid87]

If you are an Oilers fan, did it hurt any less when on the last night of the season you got spanked in Vancouver and got knocked out of the playoffs in favor of Nashville? Would it have been an even worse feeling if they had played to a shootout and lost to the Canucks?

Let's face it, when it comes down to the last night of the season, and you needed a win to get into the postseason dance, however you lose the game it's going to sting: Shootout, 1-goal loss, 9-0 shellacking, etc.

 

[nyrmessier011]

What? Overtime games were great? In what century was this? Regular season overtime games always sucked because neither team would even bother trying to score, both were happy with 1 point. That's why the stupid 4 on 4 overtime rule came in. I say go to a shootout, winner gets 2 points, loser gets none. Enough with this 1 point for losing crap.

first off, overtime losses that gave you a point was a fantastic idea...it gave teams the option of all gain, nothing to lose (unless your playing a division oppinent) secondly, for you to say to give them no points if you lose in a shootout is a fantasy...the league will never ever do that and to top it off thats a stupid idea...your team is better at breakaways so u get 2 points and the other team walks away with nothing...come on, common sense on the board please

 

[Weary]

Let's face it, when it comes down to the last night of the season, and you needed a win to get into the postseason dance, however you lose the game it's going to sting: Shootout, 1-goal loss, 9-0 shellacking, etc.

The Stanley Cup is a test to see which team plays the best hockey.

If your team misses the playoffs because they played hockey poorly, it makes sense.

If your team misses the playoffs because they played 'shootout' poorly, it makes no sense.

 

[Hoek]

Then don't play hockey poorly enough to end up in that situation!

Regulation play and overtime would be a lot better if both teams were trying to avoid the crapshoot shootout. It tends to be a very strong motivation in soccer as you see the teams go all out to prevent having to go to that situation unless one team is severely outclassed, in which case you see the better team just piling on the shots while the other one just prays it doesn't go in.

 

[Weary]

Regulation play and overtime would be a lot better if both teams were trying to avoid the crapshoot shootout.

But when will both try to avoid that? One team is always going to prefer going to the shootout. Teams will now be able to build around having one oustanding shootout goaltender. The rest of the team can be a bunch of clutching, grabbing, obstructing scrubs who are skilled at nothing other than preventing other teams from scoring.

Oh the excitement that awaits us.

 

[Doctor Zoidberg]

first off, overtime losses that gave you a point was a fantastic idea...it gave teams the option of all gain, nothing to lose (unless your playing a division oppinent) secondly, for you to say to give them no points if you lose in a shootout is a fantasy...the league will never ever do that and to top it off thats a stupid idea...your team is better at breakaways so u get 2 points and the other team walks away with nothing...come on, common sense on the board please

Guess you never heard of the Olympics or soccer I guess. Getting a point for losing is easily the dumbest, most pathetic, sissy thing in all of sports. Congratulations, you lost! For losing, you get one point! Way to lose! Give me a break. Only a sissy would want to give points away to losers. In your fantasy world, a team could go 0-82 and still make the playoffs with 82 points. Dumbest rule in all of sports.

 

[Doctor Zoidberg]

But when will both try to avoid that? One team is always going to prefer going to the shootout. Teams will now be able to build around having one oustanding shootout goaltender. The rest of the team can be a bunch of clutching, grabbing, obstructing scrubs who are skilled at nothing other than preventing other teams from scoring.

Oh the excitement that awaits us.

Oh yeah, theres hardly any clutching and grabbing nowadays. The shootout is what will bring clutching and grabbing into hockey. Where have you been for the last 6 years. There is nothing that could make teams clutch and grab more than they do now... nothing.

 

[nyrmessier011]

Guess you never heard of the Olympics or soccer I guess. Getting a point for losing is easily the dumbest, most pathetic, sissy thing in all of sports. Congratulations, you lost! For losing, you get one point! Way to lose! Give me a break. Only a sissy would want to give points away to losers. In your fantasy world, a team could go 0-82 and still make the playoffs with 82 points. Dumbest rule in all of sports.

olympics is elimination, and the only time soccer does this is during the world cup or the euro tournament or any other tournament...we're talking regular season NHL here. Soccer or olympics dont even have OT in there regular season or round robin play...so there goes that question of whether ive heard of it, obviously i have to a greater degree then you

secondly...its either a boring overtime with neither team taking a chance cause they want to keep the point...or a great overtime where you already have the point and all you can do is gain so chances are taken...which is better for the game?

 

[Weary]

Oh yeah, theres hardly any clutching and grabbing nowadays. The shootout is what will bring clutching and grabbing into hockey. Where have you been for the last 6 years. There is nothing that could make teams clutch and grab more than they do now... nothing.

Of course there could be more. If you awarded points for clutching and grabbing, you'd see nothing but clutching and grabbing. Using shootouts isn't too different from awarding points for clutching and grabbing.

 

[Hoek]

Teams will now be able to build around having one oustanding shootout goaltender.

As if teams don't build from the net out already? If you want to win shootouts (as in, score more goals than the other team) you'd need to bring in guys with breakaway skills instead of clutchers and grabbers, so the games would open up for yet another reason.

 

[Weary]

As if teams don't build from the net out already? If you want to win shootouts (as in, score more goals than the other team) you'd need to bring in guys with breakaway skills instead of clutchers and grabbers, so the games would open up for yet another reason.

What reason would a team have to open up the game if they're planning on winning it in the shootout? Picking a goalie because he's good in shootout situations is a lot different than building your team around a good hockey goalie. Getting a player who is good at breakaway scoring is a lot different than finding a player who can generate breakaway opportunities without hurting his team.

It's the difference between hockey players and specialists.

If games are decided by shootouts, you're encouraging teams to carry one-dimensional specialists. In order to take advantage of those specialists the teams will have to play for a tie. And that's exactly what they will do.

 

[Brewleaguer]

People are always against change initially. If they make the change you'll get used to it and might even like it since it would be a more exciting finish.

Actually what is gives you is less action from each team. Just another way the NHL will give less to the fans after this is over.

 

[me2]

Some of the logic against draws seems to be

65 mins of hockey + shootout = exciting game

65 mins of identical hockey + no shootout (draw)= boring game

Same quality hockey goes from exciting to boring depending on whether there is a shootout. Huh?

 

[futurcorerock]

MLS went to shootouts to decide ties. Guess what? Americans didn't start flocking to soccer games.

The league once again decides to alienate its core fans in an attempt to woo future fans -- future fans who won't be wooed.

They do this time and time again. That's why I won't shed a tear if the league does fold. Perhaps it's time for a different organization to run the top league in professional hockey.

Pro soccer already wasn't popular to begin with. the NHL atleast has some semblance of a national TV contract.

You're comparing apples and oranges there.

 

[Weary]

Pro soccer already wasn't popular to begin with. the NHL atleast has some semblance of a national TV contract.

You're comparing apples and oranges there.

If NHL hockey were popular in the U.S., the league wouldn't be considering shootouts.

 

[NJD Jester]

I could talk about how much the shootout is an abomination for days, but let me make two points:

1. 4 on 4 for 12 minutes will produce a goal more than it will not. Give that a try this season, and watch the ties decrease.

2. Isn't it ironic that a league that refuses to force its officials to call more penalty shots now wants to use them to end a game?

 

[me2]

Shootouts should be used for a special "point", as a tie breaker in standings. The team with the most shootouts wins gets the higher playoff spot. 39-10-31 (2 Shootwins) and another went 38-12-28 (7 shootout wins), both teams are tied on 88 points, but the 7 shootouts guy is higher in the standings.

This way they aren't 100% useless, but they won't great affect a teams playoff chances either.

 

[Brewleaguer]

Some of the logic against draws seems to be

65 mins of hockey + shootout = exciting game

65 mins of identical hockey + no shootout (draw)= boring game

Same quality hockey goes from exciting to boring depending on whether there is a shootout. Huh?

My point on shootouts is this game is suppose to be a team sport, not a one on one game. Thats what I don't like about shootouts.

 

[Weary]

Shootouts should be used for a special "point", as a tie breaker in standings. The team with the most shootouts wins gets the higher playoff spot. 39-10-31 (2 Shootwins) and another went 38-12-28 (7 shootout wins), both teams are tied on 88 points, but the 7 shootouts guy is higher in the standings.

This way they aren't 100% useless, but they won't great affect a teams playoff chances either.

That's a beautiful idea. Go ahead and have to shootouts to placate the fans who only care about one hockey game. Let standing points for the Stanley Cup playoffs be based on the five-on-five hockey played for the Stanley Cup.

The casual game attendees who don't care about the standings anyway will never know the difference. It doesn't bother the hardliners who think that how well a team plays hockey should decide issues related to the Stanley Cup. And you have a tie-breaking criterion.

Works for me.