NHL likely to implement shootouts, other changes

[Spungo*]

No points for loosing at all, and point reductions for a OT win and SO win. Why should the NHL reward loosing? No other sport does that.

If you want more goals, and more excitment giving incentive for a regulation win 3 pts will cause teams to play like the Flames and LIghtning. Give em a point in SO or OT and they trap and play for a 0-0 game. If you reduce points for a OT and SO, more teams will stop being complacent and attack to score and break ties and get that extra point, instead of going to OT or SO where that much needed extra point can be a difference in 4th or 5th place. If you reward ties with a point each, then it goes back to tie the game, and sit back and trap. Once the game is tied 3-3 in the 3rd period with 2 minutes left, teams will still go hard to get that goal to get 3 pts, instead of oh theres 2 minutes guys bring out the trap we can still get 1 point by loosing in OT.

Read what you qoted from my post again... I don't give any team a point for losing in OT. You also get less points by winning a shootout, so there is no incentive to "sit back" and wait for a shootout.

 

[me2]

Howzat? The system proposed:

3 Pts Regulation Win
2 Pts Ot Win
1 Pt SO Win

Looks like it gives 3 points in some games, 2 points in others (OT wins), and 1 point in others (SO win).

That said, I kind of like the system. It accurately reflects the values of the wins. A 4 on 4 overtime win is a bit "circussy", so it's worth less. A shootout "win" is essentially flipping a coin, so it's worth only a 1/3rd of a real win.

With this system, teams that go to overtime and shootouts will find themselves left behind in the standings, as it should be.

I misread it. I'm hoping the proposed system is

3-0 regulation
2-1 OT
2-1 SO

Therefore every game is worth a total of 3 points, no matter how you divide those 3 between the teams. The problem with the OTL point system we had is some games are worth a total of 2 points (regulation games, some OT games are worth a total of 2 points, and some OT games are worth a total of 3 points).

You could go to 5 point games,
5-0 regulation
4-1 OT
3-2 SO.

That would fit the points to the the sliding scale of legitimacy as the game goes on, but 5 points might be a little too much change to tack onto the reborn NHL. I could see this being a very effective system, since the losing side gets fair compensation for losing in the mickey mouse stage.

 

[helicecopter]

The problem with the OTL point system we had is some games are worth a total of 2 points (regulation games, some OT games are worth a total of 2 points, and some OT games are worth a total of 3 points).

The problem was just that going to overtime the point total for that game was only going to increase, while with proposals that reduce the point total going to overtime teams should try harder to win in regulation.

 

[dolfanar]

We're you offended when they instituted overtime? That was a bastardization of the original game.

Sorry but the NHL had overtime (10 minutes in fact) from day one until the onset of WW2. It was brought back in the early 80's. Nice try.

 

[WC Handy*]

Sorry but the NHL had overtime (10 minutes in fact) from day one until the onset of WW2. It was brought back in the early 80's. Nice try.

So you'd be okay with no forward passing because it was in the ruleback before WW2?

 

[dolfanar]

So you'd be okay with no forward passing because it was in the ruleback before WW2?

Never said that, but OT as a "bastardization" of the game is pure bull.

My problem with SO is that it will become a tired concept EXTREMELY quickly. THe novelty will wear off and what we'll be left with is the same "fans" who were *****ing about tie games complaining because their team didn't make the playoffs because of a skills competition.

You want to reduce ties? Increase scoring. It's as simple as that. More goals = more goals in OT. I would like to see the NHL increase scoring 25-50% and then see how many games go to a tie. (using all the means they suggest, such as going back tag-up offside, calling obstruction, regulating goalie equipment. Not crazy about enlarging the nets and killing the red line, but hey I'm willing to take a look)

I wasn't, and am not crazy about 4 on 4 , but given the choice I'd take 4 on 4 over a SO anyday. Why, because it is hockey... a different style of hockey, and more open ice style of hockey, but still hockey, with body checking, defensive play, passing, rebounds and everything else. Hey, why not got 10 minutes of 4-4 OT? I could live with that too.

I enjoyed the NHL all-stars skill competition... the first year I saw it. After that it lost it's allure. I have no desire to watch an NHL skills competition every fourth or fifth NHL game.

 

[King_Brown]

Read what you qoted from my post again... I don't give any team a point for losing in OT. You also get less points by winning a shootout, so there is no incentive to "sit back" and wait for a shootout.

You proposed 1 pt for loosing a SO. There should be no reward for loosing at all. 0 Points across the board. If you want to win, then you have to keep scoring and get 3 pts in regulation. If you cant solve it there, then you get 2 pts in Overtime 1 and 2, and after all that if you don;t have a winner you get 1 point for winning a shootout. You loose to bad, you sit back trap wait for OT to bad, no points for u for just making it to OT.

 

[dolfanar]

You proposed 1 pt for loosing a SO. There should be no reward for loosing at all. 0 Points across the board. If you want to win, then you have to keep scoring and get 3 pts in regulation. If you cant solve it there, then you get 2 pts in Overtime 1 and 2, and after all that if you don;t have a winner you get 1 point for winning a shootout. You loose to bad, you sit back trap wait for OT to bad, no points for u for just making it to OT.

Shoot out or no shoot out I agree with this 100%. The OTL point is a pure 110% sham cooked up so more teams can pretend to be playing ".500". I hate it when people talk about a team who lost more than they won being called a ".500" team because they cooked up 82 points.

 

[Hoss]

So you'd be okay with no forward passing because it was in the ruleback before WW2?

The forward pass ruined hockey! Bring back the peach baskets for basketball!

 

[Gary]

The lack of defensive minded players involved?

You might want to go up and read my post again, buddy. The point you made was a dumb one about how there are still 5 players and a goalie on the ice. The point I made was simply that there are no defenders on the ice to defend the player taking the shot. Geez...

Hey, You just gave me a interesting idea...Instead of a 1 player on the goalie shootout...For teams that pride themselves on defense and might not like the idea of pure offense deciding an OT...How about 2-on-1's instead? Each team can pick their best d-man to do all the 2-on-1's? The 2 forwards start at center ice and the d-man starts just infront of his keeper until a whistle is blown. If the d-man touches the puck, the play is dead.

 

[dolfanar]

Hey, You just gave me a interesting idea...Instead of a 1 player on the goalie shootout...For teams that pride themselves on defense and might not like the idea of pure offense deciding an OT...How about 2-on-1's instead? Each team can pick their best d-man to do all the 2-on-1's? The 2 forwards start at center ice and the d-man starts just infront of his keeper until a whistle is blown. If the d-man touches the puck, the play is dead.

Since shootouts are so exciting, why not change the NHL from the National Hockey League to the National Shootout League? I'm serious... think of the cost savings... you'd need only 6 players!

 

[Whakahere]

That's what's wrong with the nhl today, too much time spent trying to convince people who don't like hockey to watch it.

And you like the hockey that we (were) are watching now? hells bells, NHL hockey has became a slow and boring game. The rles have changed so much before you were even born, what makes you think that rules shouldn't keep developing?

I vote for large scale changes that lets the fast skilled guys play. Leave the guy that doesn't have the puck alone. Shootouts will let skill players show their skill at the end of the game.

Or should we just keep all skill out of the game and keep the bunch of hugging babies that we have now?

This game needs to change, I want to see hockey again not an over coached game. If I wanted that I would watch american football.

 

[Gary]

Since shootouts are so exciting, why not change the NHL from the National Hockey League to the National Shootout League? I'm serious... think of the cost savings... you'd need only 6 players!

Or have a 10 player aside shootout, and in the event of a tie, have a hockey game?

 

[HockeyCritter]

I'm not a big fan of the shootout - - but I'm not going to burn my bridge until I see how it impacts NHL standings.

 

[Traitor8]

this guy was on OTR (TSN-he was playing in the AHL this past year)..he is an NHL prospect... and he said that if you look at the standings..the best teams still finished on top and the worst teams still finished on the bottom with the shootouts..

 

[Patman]

this guy was on OTR (TSN-he was playing in the AHL this past year)..he is an NHL prospect... and he said that if you look at the standings..the best teams still finished on top and the worst teams still finished on the bottom with the shootouts..

you can say the same about the overtime loss... its no team is going to overcome a 10 pt. difference in the shootout. Its the 0-3 pts. at the end of the year where it makes a difference.

 

[HockeyCritter]

this guy was on OTR (TSN-he was playing in the AHL this past year)..he is an NHL prospect... and he said that if you look at the standings..the best teams still finished on top and the worst teams still finished on the bottom with the shootouts..

So it's a bunch of kavetching over nothing?

 

[Spankatola Jamnuts*]

That never happens.

 

[PecaFan]

this guy was on OTR (TSN-he was playing in the AHL this past year)..he is an NHL prospect... and he said that if you look at the standings..the best teams still finished on top and the worst teams still finished on the bottom with the shootouts..

Ah, but how do you know? He's just assuming the same teams would have been at the bottom. Maybe with a different system, they would have been at the top. You can't actually tell until you try it with both.

 

[thinkwild]

We would never consider allowing ties in the playoffs. Why do we find it acceptable to play the game so differently in the regular season? A tie? In sports? House league maybe. But of course endless overtime isnt possible on weekdays and an 82 game season already with back to back nights.

I like the idea of a win being 2 pts, regular or overtime. If the game isnt settled, then the 2 teams do a shootout to see who gets the point for a tie. A shootout win for a point. No OTL point. Real wins are still the first tiebreaker.

This idea of how horrible it would be to lose a playoff spot over shootout losses - how pathetic. But I'm sure it will be a comforting excuse for many. Oh sure we couldnt win a shootout because we dont have as many goalscorers or as good a goalie, but we were really the better team and got robbed. How lame.

A penalty shot is not only part of the game, it is often called (incorrectly in my view) the most exciting play in the game. How can this not be a part of the game then? Penalty shots are part of the game, and will now have to be practiced more.

Given you have to settle a game because ties are for wusses, what better way than with "the most exciting play in hockey"?

The only negative i can think of is that many people will stay to watch the shootout, and love it, and the parking lot will become even harder to get out of.

 

[Patman]

We would never consider allowing ties in the playoffs. Why do we find it acceptable to play the game so differently in the regular season? A tie? In sports? House league maybe. But of course endless overtime isnt possible on weekdays and an 82 game season already with back to back nights.

Yes, a tie, in sports. Something that's allowed in the National Football League, the National Hockey League, and every respectable Soccer league in the world since the beginning of time. Its thinking like this that wrongfully eliminated the tie in college football... all because some moron sportswriters couldn't comprehend the idea that there was no winner. Its clear that the tie has its place in sports. It doesn't have a place in baseball (where tie games also happen) or basketball due to the nature of its rules where tie breaking is a lot easier and in those cases its understandable since you don't have to change the game to facilitate a result.

People like you gloss over the numbers, the better team DOES NOT do better in the shootout. Hockey is a team game and the regular season is an excercise in weeding out the weaker teams. The shootout is antithetical to this goal in that the better team on average does not win more or less often than the weaker team. All it does is force a result and clearly talent and skill have do not much to do with winning a shootout or otherwise the better teams would do better in the shootout. Why should hockey use anything that amounts to flipping a coin for the winner?

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

The shootout has and allways will suck. I just dont understand people's thinking. The game was fine when we had the ties. Hell even before we had the OT the game was fine. Fix the game itself not the way games are decided.
Its a team game. Teams should decide who wins not in a one on one compitition. I realize that there is a group of fans out there that want a winner to be decided. Here's an idea :keep it 4 on 4 in OT BUT do not award the losing team anything. Right now a team allready figures it has a point so what is the point of playing hard? So if your getting NOTHING for losing in OT your gonna bust your ass for the 2 points, nevermind the extra point. I cannot believe more people think like i do, as in no GM's or players in the league. You lose you get NOTHING. I wouldnt even mind if we had a 10 minute 4 on 4 OT with the losing team not getting a thing. "awarding" a team for losing might have been the stupidest thing the league ever created.

get rid of the OTL
no to the shootout
get rid of the instigator
call the abstruction--ALL THE TIME

 

[steepler]

Here's an idea :keep it 4 on 4 in OT BUT do not award the losing team anything. Right now a team allready figures it has a point so what is the point of playing hard? So if your getting NOTHING for losing in OT your gonna bust your ass for the 2 points, nevermind the extra point. I cannot believe more people think like i do, as in no GM's or players in the league. You lose you get NOTHING. I wouldnt even mind if we had a 10 minute 4 on 4 OT with the losing team not getting a thing. "awarding" a team for losing might have been the stupidest thing the league ever created.

The reason they gave the point for an OT loss was to create more wins because in that situation teams have an incentive to go for the win as there is not that much to lose. If yuo give nothing for an OT loss yuo really have to go back to 5-5 because 4-4 will not produce offensive hockey. If yuo have a point to protect it will infact make the game more defensive since committing people to offence is more dangerous when yuo only have 4 players on the ice. Especially in games between teams close in the standings 4-4 will be very defensive since committing for example three players to offence leaves yuo very vulnerable to an counter attack and a loss would mean 2 point differential and not only one, so teams will want to avoid that loss imo more than to get the win in most situations.

I think the old system where it was 5-5 overtime was fine, maybe go to 10 minutes and give the loser nothing but keep it 5-5.

 

[BackToTheBrierePatch]

The reason they gave the point for an OT loss was to create more wins because in that situation teams have an incentive to go for the win as there is not that much to lose. If yuo give nothing for an OT loss yuo really have to go back to 5-5 because 4-4 will not produce offensive hockey. If yuo have a point to protect it will infact make the game more defensive since committing people to offence is more dangerous when yuo only have 4 players on the ice. Especially in games between teams close in the standings 4-4 will be very defensive since committing for example three players to offence leaves yuo very vulnerable to an counter attack and a loss would mean 2 point differential and not only one, so teams will want to avoid that loss imo more than to get the win in most situations.

I think the old system where it was 5-5 overtime was fine, maybe go to 10 minutes and give the loser nothing but keep it 5-5.

good point I never thought of it like that. But yeah get nothing for losing in OT.

 

[King_Brown]

The reason they gave the point for an OT loss was to create more wins because in that situation teams have an incentive to go for the win as there is not that much to lose. If yuo give nothing for an OT loss yuo really have to go back to 5-5 because 4-4 will not produce offensive hockey. If yuo have a point to protect it will infact make the game more defensive since committing people to offence is more dangerous when yuo only have 4 players on the ice. Especially in games between teams close in the standings 4-4 will be very defensive since committing for example three players to offence leaves yuo very vulnerable to an counter attack and a loss would mean 2 point differential and not only one, so teams will want to avoid that loss imo more than to get the win in most situations.

I think the old system where it was 5-5 overtime was fine, maybe go to 10 minutes and give the loser nothing but keep it 5-5.

The whole point of what he says is to reduce games that go into OT. People want regulation wins, not OT games. Rewarding teams for losses and ties promotes defensive hockey. Rewarding wins and not losses, and wins in OT causes teams to pressure hard to win, thus trying to create offence.