Shoot outs are good for the NHL

[Cawz]

Again...people are not going to become hockey fans on the slim chance they will see a 1 minute shootout.

If you read his statement, he said "Shoot outs will bring in more fans then they will drive away" and thats totally true.

It wont make it the #1 sport in the world, but its more exciting than what is happening right now. More excitement means more fans. I call bs on anyone saying they will stop watching hockey if they bring in the shootout.

Edit: and the post above mine makes a good point as well.

 

[Sinurgy]

Ties are part of regular season hockey. The fact that a tie game is decided arbitrarily in the end by a shout out will not change the fact that the *HOCKEY GAME* ended with a tie.

The result of a side-show gimmick tacked on at the end is really irrelevant, and will become less and less attractive as the novelty of the gimmick wears off.

That is the problem, ties should NOT be a part of regular season hockey. It's Pejorative Slured and I don't understand why some people seem to be ok with it. You compete to win, NOT TO TIE!! Ties are a joke and should be removed, it really is that simple. Sure if ties were rare, then it'd be no big deal but they are not, therefore they need to be removed!

It's not about a gimmick either, it's about determining a winner. It's also not arbitrarily done. Whichever teams players can score on their penalty shots will win. It's not like it's a coin flip or something.

 

[FLYLine27*]

If you read his statement, he said "Shoot outs will bring in more fans then they will drive away" and thats totally true.

It wont make it the #1 sport in the world, but its more exciting than what is happening right now. More excitement means more fans. I call bs on anyone saying they will stop watching hockey if they bring in the shootout.

Edit: and the post above mine makes a good point as well.

The statement should read " The NHL will PISS the hell outta thousands and thousands of more fans then it will bring in"

 

[PecaFan]

The problem with sudden death is that broadcasters will not agree to show unlimited OT. They maybe willing to accept 5 miniute, and the league may be able to push them to accept 10 minutes, but in the end, the broadcaster will want to be able to move on to their planned programming.

Yet they have no problem showing baseball, which has no defined time period. This argument has never washed.

Shootouts will be "special" and "exciting" for about half a season. After that, it's just "another frickin' shootout". And of course, don't forget that half the time the audience will be going home royally pissed because they just *lost* the shootout.

Really, how many folks out there are saying "Gee, I really like hockey, it's exciting and all that, but the game ended in a tie, so I never go". You can probably count them on one hand. Poll 1000 regular folks who don't watch or go to hockey games, and you'll get most of your answers being "too much fighting", "can't see the puck", or "don't like ice".

Shootouts are a solution to a non-existent problem.

 

[Weary]

It's not about a gimmick either, it's about determining a winner. It's also not arbitrarily done. Whichever teams players can score on their penalty shots will win. It's not like it's a coin flip or something.

Yes. It is like a coin flip. It's deciding a game with one set of rules that ends in a tie will be decided by a game with another set of rules. It doesn't matter if those are shootout rules or coin flip rules -- they are a different set of rules.

 

[ResidentAlien*]

I am glad you said "ties are a part of regular season hockey"

I am a hockey fan...I love the sport..I play it, I watch any form of it and I attend games and spend the money on the sport.

I know a TON of casual hockey fans...they all love the playoffs and hate the regular season. Hockey fans will watch the regular season, casual fans will not. The NHL's job is to turn those casual fans in to hockey fans! Excite them, entertain them, show them its fun to go see a game in person. The regular season needs a TON of work. If it didn't we wouldn't be in this mess right now and we would also have a TV contract. Try shoot outs. Try and make them not an every day event. Add insentives to win in regulation. Get creative. But the product has to get better. everyone is quick to say the NHL has gone downhill but then no one wants to "fix" it or even try something.

So very true, every word of it.

 

[Winger98]

Ties are part of regular season hockey. The fact that a tie game is decided arbitrarily in the end by a shout out will not change the fact that the *HOCKEY GAME* ended with a tie.

The result of a side-show gimmick tacked on at the end is really irrelevant, and will become less and less attractive as the novelty of the gimmick wears off.

I remember a lot of similar arguments against the 4-on-4 OT change.

 

[me2]

THIS is in fact another reason why the salary cap and quality players being equally available to all nhl teams. The defense first epidemic in the NHL is a direct result of the have nots trying to compete against teams with skill levels that they themselves could never afford to buy.

That doesn't explain equal proportions of elite teams and weak teams trap or play defensive orientated system. Did Dallas trap because of lack of talent? Is NJ a talentless team? etc. Teams play defensive systems because they work. If you got rid of the worst 15 teams and the trap was still humming then the teams would still use it.

The NHL has to tweak the rules so that offensive systems are equally effective (not nescessarily more effective).

 

[larue*]

This might be crazy but how about this.

Forget the shootout lets talk about regulation play. How about setting a time limit on tie scores. If lets say a team ties it up 1-1 and there is no score for 5 min as soon as the whistle goes a player is subtracted and teams play 4 on 4 until someone scores and then you start over. If no one scores after 5min when the whistle blows you play 3 on 3 and so on. Could work no?????????

I am pretty sure this would work in the 5 min over time. Just cut the time down so if the whistle blows after the first 2 min. then both teams drop a player. 3 on 3 and then 2 on 2 and maybe goalie on goalie

 

[larue*]

hey GoBuckeyes9 I know what you are saying especially incentives.
The league wants to increase goal production because we all know everyone wants a 7-4 game instead of a 1-1 game. Well what we need are incentives to get the high scoring game. But how.

 

[Cawz]

The statement should read " The NHL will PISS the hell outta thousands and thousands of more fans then it will bring in"

Mabye, but how about:

Some long-time hockey fans will be pissed off.

Some long-time hockey fans will enjoy the change.

Judging by the posts here, I'd say its pretty close (lets say 50-50).

So if you compare the number of non-fans it will bring in, to the number of long-time fans that will never ever watch again, it seems like it would be a good way to increase the popularity of the sport.

 

[IdiotsPickedMyName*]

I think you're being just a little bit dramatic and your examples don't hold much because fact is the sports you mentioned DO NOT END IN TIES!!! Hey if the players would actually go for it, I'm all for sudden death 4x4 until someone scores but I doubt that will fly. Until someone comes up with a better idea, I say bring on the shootout. I don't care if it attracts fans, I don't care if it's a team sport, I don't care about any excuses either side puts forth...the fact is TIEING IS A JOKE!!!!!

They also dont solve the game by a stupid skill competion that only focuses upon one aspect of a very complex game.

 

[Cawz]

Yes. It is like a coin flip. It's deciding a game with one set of rules that ends in a tie will be decided by a game with another set of rules. It doesn't matter if those are shootout rules or coin flip rules -- they are a different set of rules.

Isnt sudden death a different set of rules? In real hockey you get to answer when you get scored on. Isnt 4 on 4 a different set of rules?

Conversly, isnt the basic rule of hockey to score on the goalie? They get 60 minutes to score more than their opponant. After that, they strip down the game more to the basics and play 4 on 4. If that doesnt work, they strip the game down to the absolute basics of 1 on 1.

Remember its only for like 10% of games.

 

[txpd]

But you don't change the game to a homerun hitting contest because you've ran out of innings... you just play another inning. Why should we switch to a shootout after playing hockey for 65 minutes? Why not more hockey? Why not continuous overtimes if a result is mandated?

a penalty shot and is part of the nhl rule book. there is no rule in the baseball rule book allowing for a BP pitcher to serve and agreed number of pitches to a hitter for a free shot at a home run. there is a BIG difference. BIG.

I don't see how you can't see the obvious difference.

 

[Injektilo]

There's nothing wrong with ties when it's a hard fought game between two teams who are playing evenly. There's no winner and no loser, so be it. I don't have a problem with that.


What I do have a problem with is that a shootout will just encourage teams to play even more defensively now through the OT just to get to a shootout if they feel they have a better chance winning there. So one team that has more players with fancy moves or a better goalie will simply shut down and trap their way through OT, thus providing the fans with even more boring hockey at the time when it's supposed to be most exciting. Now really, how's that for attracting fans?

Again, what they need to fix is the current system which encourages ties and overtime games. Fix the point allocation system and make OT 10 minutes instead of 5. If there's still ties after that, then so be it, they're meant to be.

 

[txpd]

To take what you are saying and move it in a different direction ... imagine the scandal that would have occurred in baseball if after 10 innings they decided to have a "pitch off" or homerun derby to decide things. It would be laughed at like you wouldn't believe. Yet this is exactly what is being proposed by those who endorse shootouts.

In baseball, there are so many boring games throughout the year, yet if you had game #111 go into the 15th inning, then all of a sudden things get really interesting. I say, why cap OT in hockey at 5 minutes? Let's make it sudden death and not award any points for a loss. Critics might say that this is a tax on players in an overly long schedule. Well you better believe that teams will try to end things early by playing it wide open (including in regulation). We could even keep it 4-on-4 in OT still. This would save a few bodies and ensure that things still move on at a fast pace.

One of the most un-rewarding things in hockey right now is that all too often you are subject to a relatively unexciting 60 minutes followed by a really intense 5 minutes. Yet, what the league is doing is shutting things down after the 5 and saying, "How did you like that taste ... sorry we can't show you any more ... come back again won't you." It just doesn't make sense.

I think you need to rephrase your thought. what if after 11 innings MLB called it a tie and sent everyone home with no result???

the reason why hockey OT in the regular season is capped at 5 minutes is because of the ice. in most buildings ice after 20 minutes is not worth playing on. going to 10 minutes would mean needing the zamboni to do the ice over again. the league's research will tell you that most fans won't want to sit thru adding almost another hour to the game, particularly on weeknights.

 

[GoBuckeyes9]

Some people want hockey to go in to OT after OT in the regular season...thats insane. Hockey is a collision sport! Not just a contact sport like basketball but a collision sport like football. I would expect the wear and tear on a hockey player is equal to that of an average football player over the course of a season. The difference is, football rarely goes into overtime, and hockey often does. Such a thing would destroy hockey players and their careers and the NHL. What if half the star players were hurt in a season? The league cant afford to lose anymore talent and recognizable names! What if a long career is now only considered 8-10 years long. Are you talking about making the draft age different now too? Cause sending a 18 year old kid to play in a NHL season (82-games + OT after OT etc) he would die.

Baseball also has natural barriers to games lasting too long. Its called a limited pitching staff(planned rotation), games usually on the next day(or even later in the same day), and substition rules. Please do not ever compare baseball to hockey again.

 

[Icey]

Because fans come to a game to see a winner, not to sit in an arena for 2+ hours to leave with a tie. There is nothing more frustrating than watching your team tie game after game after game. Ask the fans of Minnesota who watched their team tie 20 times last season -- 25% of their games ended up as ties.

I love the shoot out. Teams have 65 minutes to show their skill and prove how hockey is a team sport. If you can't then it goes to a shoot out. Some teams have great goalies others have skilled players who can score. It all evens out. I doubt any one team will want to get to the shoot out, for fear of losing. One goal and the game is over.

I love the idea of a shoot out and think it will be new fans to the game and isn't that what the NHL needs -- new fans.

 

[Injektilo]

Some people want hockey to go in to OT after OT in the regular season...thats insane. Hockey is a collision sport! Not just a contact sport like basketball but a collision sport like football. I would expect the wear and tear on a hockey player is equal to that of an average football player over the course of a season. The difference is, football rarely goes into overtime, and hockey often does. Such a thing would destroy hockey players and their careers and the NHL. What if half the star players were hurt in a season? The league cant afford to lose anymore talent and recognizable names! What if a long career is now only considered 8-10 years long. Are you talking about making the draft age different now too? Cause sending a 18 year old kid to play in a NHL season (82-games + OT after OT etc) he would die.

Baseball also has natural barriers to games lasting too long. Its called a limited pitching staff(planned rotation), games usually on the next day(or even later in the same day), and substition rules. Please do not ever compare baseball to hockey again.

The "natural barriers" you talk about aren't really natural, they're constructs of the league. The natural barriers however are the fact that there's simply more scoring in the other sports than in hockey. If baseball regularaly had scores of 3-2 and 2-1 you'd see alot more extra inning games go on till the 15th or 16th inning, or more.

Some pro-shootout people here say that ties are not natural because they're not a part of the other sports. They are however a part of the most popular game on earth, and you don't see many soccer leagues with shootouts during the regular season. They're quite willing to live with ties.

Again, the league should worry about fixing the structure of the games so that there are fewer tie and overtime games. Fix it so teams play for the win and not for the tie, or overtime, or the shootou, cause that's what happens now and will happen with shootouts.

 

[PecaFan]

Because fans come to a game to see a winner, not to sit in an arena for 2+ hours to leave with a tie. There is nothing more frustrating than watching your team tie game after game after game. Ask the fans of Minnesota who watched their team tie 20 times last season -- 25% of their games ended up as ties.

So if Minnesota gets say, 12 shootout losses, and 6 shootout wins out of those 20 games, they'll be happier? I doubt it.

See, I don't think people are there just for the result. They can get that out of the newspaper. They're there for the *process*, the shooting, the scoring, the hitting, the beer...

 

[GoBuckeyes9]

If your hometeam doesn't feel they have either the scorers or the goalie to win in a shoot out, well they better find a way to win in regulation. That is if teams are still trying to actually win games these days. reward teams for winning in regulation, reward them less for winning in OT or shoot outs, dont reward teams for losing. But you better make sure you reward the fans for showing up and watching a sport that just cancelled its entire season!

 

[Injektilo]

This is what is happening in the AHL. The percentages of games tied after regulation and games tied after overtime have both increased.

Just wanted to quote this....


I guess it depends on what you want out of a game. Are you happy with games that tie in regulation, tie in OT and then would go to shootout? Or would you rather see games that end in regulation or end in OT with the possibility of a tie game?

 

[Injektilo]

See, I don't think people are there just for the result. They can get that out of the newspaper. They're there for the *process*, the shooting, the scoring, the hitting, the beer...

Exactly. I can see shootouts getting boring after a season too. I'd much much rather watch an interesting and exciting game with interesting and exciting OT than a game with a boring third period and boring OT and then shootout.

 

[Cawz]

Originally Posted by Weary
This is what is happening in the AHL. The percentages of games tied after regulation and games tied after overtime have both increased.

Just wanted to quote this....


I guess it depends on what you want out of a game. Are you happy with games that tie in regulation, tie in OT and then would go to shootout? Or would you rather see games that end in regulation or end in OT with the possibility of a tie game?

By how much have the OT games increased? Is it significantly over the amount of tied games over the last few years?

Without the numbers, the words dont mean a whole lot. Anyone care to back the quote up with some stats?

 

[GoBuckeyes9]

The "natural barriers" you talk about aren't really natural, they're constructs of the league. The natural barriers however are the fact that there's simply more scoring in the other sports than in hockey. If baseball regularaly had scores of 3-2 and 2-1 you'd see alot more extra inning games go on till the 15th or 16th inning, or more.

Some pro-shootout people here say that ties are not natural because they're not a part of the other sports. They are however a part of the most popular game on earth, and you don't see many soccer leagues with shootouts during the regular season. They're quite willing to live with ties.

Again, the league should worry about fixing the structure of the games so that there are fewer tie and overtime games. Fix it so teams play for the win and not for the tie, or overtime, or the shootou, cause that's what happens now and will happen with shootouts.

You are correct, those barriers are set up by the league. I miss spoke(typed) and called them natural since that is what has been natural to me, since I can remeber baseball. My fault.

My point was baseball is an entirely different sport than hockey and the two should never be compared. If you want to speak of natural barriers in the purest of forms...talk to a pitcher...ask them how you must treat their throwing arms, like gold. Also the competive balence of their league is terrible and a mistake in in their league has a higher chance of resulting in a run than a mistake in the NHL has in causing a goal.

My basic point is the NHL needs alot of work. Shoot outs should have a part in that. The league should try to limit them, cause people are right..no one wants a shoot out 25% of the time. but it should be there as an option.