GDT: Blue Jackets @ Red Wings - 7:00 EST

[Flowah]

If they were so bad at actually playing hockey what does it say about all the teams that couldn't beat them in regulation or OT and ended up losing in SO? You can only play by the rules. Saying a team's success was inflated because they played by the rules is ridiculous.

Come on dude...

OT is 5 minutes 3 on 3. Hockey games routinely go 60 minutes with 3 or fewer goals scored *total* between the two teams.

This is a laughable defense of getting the extra point in SOs. SOs mean nothing and saying "a point's a point!" misses the actual point. That a weak team can inflate their standing by winning a competition that is never played during playoffs so is ultimately meaningless.

 

[Pavels Dog]

Come on dude...

OT is 5 minutes 3 on 3. Hockey games routinely go 60 minutes with 3 or fewer goals scored *total* between the two teams.

This is a laughable defense of getting the extra point in SOs. SOs mean nothing and saying "a point's a point!" misses the actual point. That a weak team can inflate their standing by winning a competition that is never played during playoffs so is ultimately meaningless.

And if they removed the SO, it changes the rules and circumstances and we’d have no way of knowing if the Wings would do worse or better. Maybe they’d play harder to win in regulation more often? Point is teams play by the rules and while having a low ROW isn’t a sign of strength, that’s not what determines the standings. SOs don’t mean nothing, they’re worth a point in the standings. Don’t like the rules? Too bad for you. All teams have an equal opportunity to ”inflate their stats”, if the Wings are one of the best teams at not losing in regulation and on top of that are good at winning in SOs it’s just a team playing to their strenghts. That’s not inflation, that’s how sports works.

 

[Redder Winger]

And if they removed the SO, it changes the rules and circumstances and we’d have no way of knowing if the Wings would do worse or better. Maybe they’d play harder to win in regulation more often? Point is teams play by the rules and while having a low ROW isn’t a sign of strength, that’s not what determines the standings. SOs don’t mean nothing, they’re worth a point in the standings. Don’t like the rules? Too bad for you. All teams have an equal opportunity to ”inflate their stats”, if the Wings are one of the best teams at not losing in regulation and on top of that are good at winning in SOs it’s just a team playing to their strenghts. That’s not inflation, that’s how sports works.

I look at it in terms of wins and losses.
If you win in OT or lose in OT, that's a win or a loss.

Sure, from time to time a good team will underperform and OTL their way into the playoffs and then find their game (Nashville).

But mediocre teams that try to OT their way into the playoffs generally play boring, loser hockey.

It might win them 2 extra playoff home games, but that's about it.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

And if they removed the SO, it changes the rules and circumstances and we’d have no way of knowing if the Wings would do worse or better. Maybe they’d play harder to win in regulation more often? Point is teams play by the rules and while having a low ROW isn’t a sign of strength, that’s not what determines the standings. SOs don’t mean nothing, they’re worth a point in the standings. Don’t like the rules? Too bad for you. All teams have an equal opportunity to ”inflate their stats”, if the Wings are one of the best teams at not losing in regulation and on top of that are good at winning in SOs it’s just a team playing to their strenghts. That’s not inflation, that’s how sports works.

This is equivalent to "a win is a win."

Shootout wins do not demonstrate the strength of a team. Getting to the shootout a certain number of times can demonstrate the ability to hang in (or demonstrate the strategy of a prevent defense to keep games close), but not much other than that.

The shootout itself is a crapshoot and isn't indicative of much of anything. Especially when you have aspirations of being a playoff/Stanley Cup contender.

 

[TheOtherOne]

Maybe if infinite OT existed the Wings would have outright won all those shootout games and put themselves even further ahead in the standings.

 

[Oddbob]

It didn't matter so I am nitpicking but

I don't understand waiting 8 rounds before giving our leading scorer a shootout chance

And i don't understand Daley in the shootout at all

Can anyone explain these to me using Blashill logic?

I can explain it. It is a poor/bad coach throwing his hands in the air and admitting he is grasping at straws for things that work. Daley is the kind of guy you put in, at about round 13-15, because there is no one left that can actually take part anymore. Also Nyquist isn't playing great, and didn't have a particularly good night, so certainly he should shoot over AA or Mantha who had decent nights. To me, the shootout is about playing the goal scorers who had a good night, or Nielsen because he is like 45% in the shootout in many attempts so he should be in there.