Shoot outs are good for the NHL

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bruwinz37

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
27,429
1
GoBuckeyes9 said:
I think "new fans" might start watching the NHL, because they start to like the players and are impressed by what they do, because maybe they see it on sportscenter and might be impressed and interested in the sport. maybe even some day they can become a "real hockey fan" like yourself.

Please dont get misunderstand me. I do not think you leave everything else alone and just add a shoot out. I keep saying I think it can be part of a very exciting hockey that comes back in the fall. I have said many times, its the leagues job to encourage a better product. Teams should be trying to win games at all times. The league should reward those who actually try to win in the first 60 mins of the game. Less in OT and shoot out. But reward the fans with an exciting product at all times. Give them something to go home and talk about.

I also spoke of baseball...I made my points pretty clear earlier in the thread on that topic. Basball is not hockey. Hockey is not baseball. Dont confuse them.


I still think you are being shortsighted on this. I have seen shootouts and I dont think they are really all the exciting at all.

I am not saying that you said other changes dont need to be made, but unless those changes are made a shootout does nothing. Furthermore if the changes are made, then shootouts arent needed.

I guess you did not understand the baseball/hockey analogy. I am quite aware they are too different sports, but the point is that you dont award wins and losses by having an event that has little to do with the game itself. If you want to dismiss this, then fine, but to me it is very relevant.
 

Patman

Registered User
Feb 23, 2004
330
0
www.stat.uconn.edu
txpd said:
Patman askes, "So, you're telling me that a tie game is a penalty? I can play the twist rule too, though I'd rather not do that. The penalty shot is so rare that it really only happens once every (guessing) 100 games or so and its only implemented on penalties on breakaways and other imminent scoring situations. Yet, we should take this freak event in hockey and make it center place in the game?!?! I don't understand why people don't realize this. Penalty shots by and large are very rare in hockey and are only given in circumstances that are very clear cut in terms of warrant of that shot."

play the twist rule too?? nice. is it a penalty for a tie game? no. is it a consequence of a tie game yes! my point without twisting anything is to point out that the conditions for the penalty shot are right there in the rule book. they are awarded. there are rules governing them from what conditions creates one to what both the shooter and the goalie may do while participating in one. there is no such rule or rules governing a "home run derby" for baseball games in the major leagues or otherwise.

The shootout is a part of most soccer games and as i recall one of the top 10 moments in sports over the last ten years was Brandi Chastain's winning penalty kick in the shootout in the world cup final.

I am certain that I would not want shootouts in playoff hockey. I am equally certain that the home run derby comparison to the penalty shot shootout is completely off base.

by the way, the penalty shot is called by most, "the most exciting play in hockey" and as you point out it is rare enough to a steady hockey fan could go years without actually seeing one at the arena or on tv. in some cases the team awarded the penalty shot would be better off with a power play opportunity instead, but the penalty shot is still awarded. are you saying that the penalty shot is a bad rule? that its not part of a team game? are you suggesting that the penalty shot should be abolished?

The shootout's awe is through scarcity... also... a 5-4 shootout isn't eactly dramatic when players are putting balls where a woman goaltender cannot hope to get them.

----

Of course with this one must also ignore the absolute RARE occasion that the shootout is utilized in soccer... I would guess for every shooutout in soccer from the national FIFA levels through the various national leagues for every match with a shootout there are probably 400-600 matches without one... I'll rest this here as this should provide a good enough reason as to show the absolute freak nature of this tool.

---

A coach can refuse a penalty shot and take the minor penalty (or is that just college?)
 

GoBuckeyes9

Registered User
Jul 5, 2004
42
0
Bruwinz37 said:
I still think you are being shortsighted on this. I have seen shootouts and I dont think they are really all the exciting at all.

I am not saying that you said other changes dont need to be made, but unless those changes are made a shootout does nothing. Furthermore if the changes are made, then shootouts arent needed.

I guess you did not understand the baseball/hockey analogy. I am quite aware they are too different sports, but the point is that you dont award wins and losses by having an event that has little to do with the game itself. If you want to dismiss this, then fine, but to me it is very relevant.

Ok, so since you dont like shoot outs...thats the end of the topic?? I have at least provided what I think the possible positive outcomes could be. If you would like to discuss those, thats fine but since you dont like shoot outs I guess we dont have to even think about it.

So... all of the other important changes are made, and the game does improve. Teams really do play hard to win in regulation. Whats your problems with the rare shootout to decide a game. I want shoout outs to be "rare", encourage teams to win in regulation and if not then in OT. Shoot outs are exciting and will expose the games top players to casual sports fan.

The baseball/hockey analogy is non-existent. Home-run derby does not equal a shoot out. Baseball can go extra-innings because it is not a collision sport. The game is set up to run out of players at a certain point. Sometimes faster or slower depending on how the game was managed. Tell me how baseball is anything close to hockey. If you wanna use football, maybe...but you picked the least physical of the major sports. That alone means that they are not comparable. The fact that ball players(pitchers) can only go 6+ as a starter...Is like telling me you wanna pull your stud goalie with 10 mins left in the 3rd and see if the fresh back up and handle it. The sports dont match...its stupid to compare.
 

Timmy

Registered User
Feb 2, 2005
10,691
26
Shoot-outs are a horrendous abomination.

I would, however, support a broadened infraction list that would create more penalty shots, if only to try to eliminate grabbing a stick/sweater/waist as a coached defense maneouvre.
 

LordHelmet

Registered User
May 19, 2004
956
0
Twin Cities
So far, the reasons I've heard in opposition to a shootout are:

1) Other sports don't have home run/slam dunk/field goal kicking contests
2) Hockey is a team sport, and shootouts are individual performances
3) It's not traditional
4) I don't like it

My response:
1a) Other sports don't result in ties nearly as often.
1b) Basketball games end up being foul & free throw shooting contests at the end
1c) Baseball's rules prevent it from going into excessive extra innings
1d) Other sports aren't having problems with viewership

2a) A shootout doesn't eliminate the team aspect of hockey. There still has to be 65 minutes of team play before you get to the shootout.
2b) All of the participants in a shootout are still members of the team.

3a) 4 on 4 overtime isn't traditional. Butterfly goalies aren't traditional. Composite sticks aren't traditional. Off-season conditioning isn't traditional.
3b) NASCAR made a huge leap away from their traditional points system last year. There were lots of people with the same whine that you guys have. But then - the system worked perfectly. There were four or five guys that were capable of winning the championship in the last race. Ratings were up for the last few races. It wasn't traditional, but it worked better than anyone predicted.

4) Tough. It's going to happen. Watch Sportscenter. When they're giving highlights of a typical regular season game, do they show common plays or do they show highlight reel stuff?

If you watch basketball highlights, you'll see dunks and blocks. Football highlights show long passes, turnovers, and touchdown runs. Baseball highlights show homeruns and great catches.

There are relatively few highlight-reel plays in hockey. This lessens the likelihood that major sports outlets will feature hockey games on their broadcast and lessens the visibility that hockey gets. Seeing highlights from a shootout or two each week will give more attention to hockey than seeing no highlights from ties each week.

And yes, hockey is a very complex game and there's more to it than shootouts. That complexity is still there for those of us that enjoy it. But for the potential fan, the complexity of hockey is a barrier to them becoming interested in the sport.

My priorities for the game:
1) Don't worry about how many goals are scored, concentrate on changing/calling the rules to allow more offensive flow & increase scoring chances.
2) Change the points system - 2 pts for regulation W, 1 pt for an OT win, 0 pts for losses..
3) Incorporate the shootout to do away with ties, but keep shootout goals & saves as a separate stats category...
 

Bruwinz37

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
27,429
1
GoBuckeyes9 said:
Ok, so since you dont like shoot outs...thats the end of the topic?? I have at least provided what I think the possible positive outcomes could be. If you would like to discuss those, thats fine but since you dont like shoot outs I guess we dont have to even think about it.

So... all of the other important changes are made, and the game does improve. Teams really do play hard to win in regulation. Whats your problems with the rare shootout to decide a game. I want shoout outs to be "rare", encourage teams to win in regulation and if not then in OT. Shoot outs are exciting and will expose the games top players to casual sports fan.
.

Are you telling me you dont think teams will play for the shootout if they dont think they can win in OT? I dont think shootouts will be rare at all, I think you will see more OT games and the OT's will mean nothing because teams will test their chances in the shootout....especially if they have a very good goalie. I think it is a horrible way to end a game because it does not say who played the better game. It has nothing to do with my personal feelings.

True, many more people might watch the hi-lites on Sportscenter, but shootouts, in and of themselves, will not draw more fans.

Maybe its just me, but I would like to see everything else improved first, then if all else fails lets try to gimmick our sport and make it more user friendly for people who cant understand it as it currenlty stands.

I also think that once you have shootouts for a season and people see them on a relatively frequent basis they will lose any luster the thought of them (to some) brings.

I know it is inevitable that the NHL will try it, but I think it is a bad idea that should be avoided.
 

txpd

Registered User
Jan 25, 2003
69,649
14,131
New Bern, NC
I don't think refusing a penalty shot is an option in the NHL. I started thinking about that when the Capitals were awarded a penalty shot in the last two minutes of a game where they had a one goal lead last season.

the penalty shot was awarded to Brendan Witt and the Capitals were shorthanded at the time. There was almost no chance that Witt was going to score on the penalty shot and a minor penalty would have evened the sides for most of rest of the game
 

Icey

Registered User
Jan 23, 2005
591
0
PecaFan said:
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...

I don't agree at all with that. I go to a game for the game, but would rather leave losing a good game that leave with a tie. A tie is unfair to the fans. And yes I do think that Minneasota would rather have 12 shoot out losses than 20 ties.

Or think of this. How many times have we seen the end of the season roll around and a team is higher in the standings than another team because they have more ties. They won less games, but have more ties. How is that right. Games are about winning and losing not ties. Ties are for elementry school.
 

GoBuckeyes9

Registered User
Jul 5, 2004
42
0
EndBoards said:
So far, the reasons I've heard in opposition to a shootout are:

1) Other sports don't have home run/slam dunk/field goal kicking contests
2) Hockey is a team sport, and shootouts are individual performances
3) It's not traditional
4) I don't like it

My response:
1a) Other sports don't result in ties nearly as often.
1b) Basketball games end up being foul & free throw shooting contests at the end
1c) Baseball's rules prevent it from going into excessive extra innings
1d) Other sports aren't having problems with viewership

2a) A shootout doesn't eliminate the team aspect of hockey. There still has to be 65 minutes of team play before you get to the shootout.
2b) All of the participants in a shootout are still members of the team.

3a) 4 on 4 overtime isn't traditional. Butterfly goalies aren't traditional. Composite sticks aren't traditional. Off-season conditioning isn't traditional.
3b) NASCAR made a huge leap away from their traditional points system last year. There were lots of people with the same whine that you guys have. But then - the system worked perfectly. There were four or five guys that were capable of winning the championship in the last race. Ratings were up for the last few races. It wasn't traditional, but it worked better than anyone predicted.

4) Tough. It's going to happen. Watch Sportscenter. When they're giving highlights of a typical regular season game, do they show common plays or do they show highlight reel stuff?

If you watch basketball highlights, you'll see dunks and blocks. Football highlights show long passes, turnovers, and touchdown runs. Baseball highlights show homeruns and great catches.

There are relatively few highlight-reel plays in hockey. This lessens the likelihood that major sports outlets will feature hockey games on their broadcast and lessens the visibility that hockey gets. Seeing highlights from a shootout or two each week will give more attention to hockey than seeing no highlights from ties each week.

And yes, hockey is a very complex game and there's more to it than shootouts. That complexity is still there for those of us that enjoy it. But for the potential fan, the complexity of hockey is a barrier to them becoming interested in the sport.

My priorities for the game:
1) Don't worry about how many goals are scored, concentrate on changing/calling the rules to allow more offensive flow & increase scoring chances.
2) Change the points system - 2 pts for regulation W, 1 pt for an OT win, 0 pts for losses..
3) Incorporate the shootout to do away with ties, but keep shootout goals & saves as a separate stats category...

Nicely put. Enjoyed reading it. Seems well thought out and logical. We agree on a must of those issues.
 

GoBuckeyes9

Registered User
Jul 5, 2004
42
0
Bruwinz37 said:
Are you telling me you dont think teams will play for the shootout if they dont think they can win in OT? I dont think shootouts will be rare at all, I think you will see more OT games and the OT's will mean nothing because teams will test their chances in the shootout....especially if they have a very good goalie. I think it is a horrible way to end a game because it does not say who played the better game. It has nothing to do with my personal feelings.

True, many more people might watch the hi-lites on Sportscenter, but shootouts, in and of themselves, will not draw more fans.

Maybe its just me, but I would like to see everything else improved first, then if all else fails lets try to gimmick our sport and make it more user friendly for people who cant understand it as it currenlty stands.

I also think that once you have shootouts for a season and people see them on a relatively frequent basis they will lose any luster the thought of them (to some) brings.

I know it is inevitable that the NHL will try it, but I think it is a bad idea that should be avoided.

Please...try and understand this. I think shoout outs should be part of the game. I think the NHL would be smart to try and limit the number of shooutouts, by chaning how points are awarded and other ways to encourage teams to win during regulation. If the league cant control is own product well then we have bigger issues than shootouts. Obviously they do not have a good track record with but hopefully with the year they had off, they at least got their paper work in order.

I think the league can do a lot of good things to improve the game in the first 60/65 mins of the game. I think those minutes are more important to fix. But I do think that shoot outs will be great for the game's marketing.
 

me2

Go ahead foot
Jun 28, 2002
37,903
5,595
Make my day.
PecaFan said:
We need disincentives for going to overtime, and I believe 3 points for a regulation win (vs only 2 for an OT win) would do that.


Absolutely spot on with the 3 points in general, doubly true if they bring in a shootout. A shootout win should never be worth as much as regulation win. If they must have shootouts then the 3 point system is the best option.
 

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,813
1,464
Ottawa
What if, instead of a point for an overtime loss, every game tied after OT gives both teams a point for the tie. Then the winner gets an extra point in the OTW column as well as the point for the tie. The real W's are still the first tie-breaker.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->