Kukla's Korner

Kukla's Korner Hockey

Are You Tired Of The Shootout?

from Scott Morrison of Sportsnet,

As exciting as the shootout has been, it has, in the eyes of many, also run its course. Managers, coaches and players alike are tired of seeing too many games decided by a gimmick, however entertaining it may be, especially with playoff races so tight and the stakes so high.

They are right. The solution for the NHL is to extend its overtime period, which is often wildly entertaining itself. If it doesn’t settle the game, then go to the shootout. But give them a chance to end the game playing, not in a penalty shot competition as often as possible. But know this: The shootout is not disappearing any time soon under Gary Bettman’s watch, but we may see fewer of them.

more

Filed in: NHL Talk, | KK Hockey | Permalink
 

Comments

Hootinani's avatar

I’m tired of gimmicks and making new rules to cover situations that already have rules in place, but the refs dont call it consistently.

4v4 and 3v3 is just that, a gimmick.

Posted by Hootinani on 11/13/13 at 09:49 AM ET

sjketcheson's avatar

I don’t even watch the shootouts anymore, I just turn it off and check the score later…

Posted by sjketcheson from the floor of the Hasek on 11/13/13 at 10:56 AM ET

Paul's avatar

Same here sjk.

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 11/13/13 at 10:59 AM ET

SK77's avatar

What would y’all rather see then?

Posted by SK77 on 11/13/13 at 11:12 AM ET

SnLO's avatar

I still watch the shoot-out, as it is still part of the game, but win or lose, I find no joy in it: really anti-climatic. I also observe, the shoot-out has also diminished the spectacle of a penalty shot.

What would y’all rather see then?

I would rather see the game end at the conclusion of regulation time irrespective of score.

Posted by SnLO from beyond the M-1 on 11/13/13 at 11:24 AM ET

Avatar

What would y’all rather see then?

Posted by some kid on 11/13/13 at 11:12 AM ET

Extend the 4 on 4 OT to 10 minutes. That would reduce the number of shootouts greatly in my opinion. A 3 on 3 format is more ridiculous than the shootout.

Or…

The best solution would be to change the current point system, which is f***ing laughable. You really want to reduce the number of shootouts? 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an OT win and 1 point for a shootout win. Zero points for losing.

Posted by godblender on 11/13/13 at 11:27 AM ET

sjketcheson's avatar

Posted by some kid on 11/13/13 at 11:12 AM ET

Personally I would like ties, with 3 points for a win 1 for tie and 0 for loss, but we all know that will never happen…

With all the OT and SOs in the regular season, OT in the playoffs has lost some of its magic. Ho-hum -another- game that goes to OT? Hooray… at least there’s no shootout!

Posted by sjketcheson from the floor of the Hasek on 11/13/13 at 11:29 AM ET

sjketcheson's avatar

3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an OT win and 1 point for a shootout win. Zero points for losing.

Posted by godblender on 11/13/13 at 11:27 AM ET

Or this. Anything, really.

Posted by sjketcheson from the floor of the Hasek on 11/13/13 at 11:30 AM ET

Paul's avatar

10 minute OT, 2pts for a win, 1pt for a tie, 0pt for a loss. Simple.

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 11/13/13 at 11:31 AM ET

NHLJeff's avatar

I also think the shootout isn’t a great way to decide a game’s outcome, but do you guys honestly hate it so much that you stop watching?! I can’t even imagine. I feel like there is no denying the entertainment of it, even if it’s annoying that the winner gets an extra point. As much as that bothers me, there’s no way I’d turn it off. One thing I’ve noticed though, as much as some of us that are more traditional hate it, casual fans LOVE it. It just grabs their attention. When I bring a friend who isn’t a big fan to a hockey game and it’s OT, they seem to always be rooting for a shootout.

As for the standings, it bugs the heck out of me that some games count 2 points and others 3. It should be 3 for a regulation win, 2 for OT/SO win, 1 for OT loss.

Posted by NHLJeff from Pens fan in Chicago, IL on 11/13/13 at 11:37 AM ET

Nathan's avatar

What would y’all rather see then?

Posted by some kid on 11/13/13 at 11:12 AM ET

3 points for a win
1 point for a tie
0 points for a loss

5 minute 5-on-5 overtime

The game has gotten so fast and physical, and the travel is so significant for every team in the West, that extending OT just doesn’t make sense. These guys are already getting pounded into the ground over 82 games and are doped up on cortisone shots and probably a fair amount of uppers come playoff time.

Ties are fine. Switching the points to 3 - 1 - 0 creates an incentive for teams to actually go for a win in OT. Of course it would always depend on the standings and the teams in action, but generally speaking there’s a bigger net gain to be had by getting a win in OT (+2 points) than there is losing in OT (-1 point). Today, winning in OT nets +1, and losing in OT nets no change. So today, yeah, there’s less risk come OT, but the reward is also pretty uninspiring, and the shootout is essentially a coin flip.

Posted by Nathan from the scoresheet! on 11/13/13 at 11:58 AM ET

Avatar

Posted by Paul from Motown Area on 11/13/13 at 11:31 AM ET

This please.

3 points for a win
1 point for a tie
0 points for a loss

The problem with that is the same problem we have now, in which not all games are worth the same number of points.  There are still two point games (ties) and 3 point games (wins/losses).

Posted by Garth on 11/13/13 at 12:01 PM ET

Avatar

More tired of the loser point than the shootout.

2 for a win, 0 for a loss, no ties.

Don’t care much how this is accomplished. Shootout, 4 v 4, Hell, 1 v 1 as long as the NHL stops giving out points for not winning games.

Posted by larry on 11/13/13 at 12:09 PM ET

phillyd's avatar

I agree with the 3 point win but as long as there is OT/SO and it is not normal 5v5 hockey, I believe 1 point should be given for a loss after regulation. If they did away with OT and/or made it 5v5 for 5 or 10 minutes, then yes, 3 for a win, 1 for a tie, 0 for a loss. I actually think, and someone would have to look this up, there have been more OT games in the playoffs since the introduction of the 4v4 OT and SO than before, even before there was OT to begin with. Teams quite frankly play for the point and then attempt to get the extra in OT or the SO. It’s akin to in soccer where the visiting team always tries to play for that 0-0 draw.

Posted by phillyd from Southern New Jersey on 11/13/13 at 12:25 PM ET

SnLO's avatar

The problem with that is the same problem we have now, in which not all games are worth the same number of points.  There are still two point games (ties) and 3 point games (wins/losses).

While this is true, the difference is in the mentality behind the awarding of points. 3 points for a regulation win is an opportunity available for every game. A tie results in both teams losing a point (penalty for not winning) to become a 2 point game (and is potentially a 2-3 point loss in standings) becomes the incentive to go for 3 instead of only 1 (award for not losing) or no points at all.

The current 3 point format is not available for all games unless the two teams act in collusion to get each game to shoot-out to make the game worth 3 points, otherwise each game starts with 2 points available for each team. The shoot-out loser point really amounts to an artifical boost in standings to losing team. The only real incentive is to “go for it” in the shoot-out, because that is where the extra point is.

So in the current system, there is really no concrete way to make up the extra point in each game. Whereas in the proposed system the way to make up the extra point is to not lose it because it is already available. Which is a significant difference. But holding to your point, yes there are still going to be games that finish with different point values, it becomes more about which will draw out better quality of play.

Posted by SnLO from beyond the M-1 on 11/13/13 at 12:31 PM ET

Avatar

But how is playing for the loser point any different than tying up the game and playing safe to get a tie (and one point) rather than risking a loss (zero points)?  Yes, getting three points is better than getting none, but getting one is also getter than getting none.

The only way to guarantee teams don’t play it safe for the tie or loser point is to just go win/loss.

I understand the loser point because (especially for the shootout) it is a way to give teams credit for not losing in the normal, alloted 60 minutes of a game.  If you can prevent a team from beating you for 60 regulation minutes AND 5-10 OT minutes then you should get something if you lose a team game in a one-on-one competition.

This, of course, highlights the intrinsic stupidity of the shootout.  The league and PA acknowledge that it’s a gimmick, but being the half-assed league that they are, they refuse to get rid of it and simply have a half-assed solution.

Get rid of the shoot out, make a win worth 2 points, a tie worth 1 and a loss worth 0.  Unbreak what you broke, which wasn’t broken in the first place.

Posted by Garth on 11/13/13 at 12:44 PM ET

SYF's avatar

On the ECHL level, it’s great.  It gets a rise out of the fans that you cannot deny that it has a real entertainment value.  And in a town as ADHD infected as Las Vegas, it’s probably the best value for the dollar.

Personally, I’m exasperated by it.  I’m not cheering for it, but at the end, it’s still a point and it can make a difference in the standings.

It should be 3 for a regulation win, 2 for OT/SO win, 1 for OT loss.

Posted by NHLJeff from Pens fan in Chicago, IL on 11/13/13 at 11:37 AM ET

This.

Posted by SYF from The Revenge of Johnny E on 11/13/13 at 01:24 PM ET

CaptainDennisPolonich's avatar

Two things I’m more tired of than the shootout:

1) Zebra suckage. Inconsistent calls within a game and within a season. If it’s a penalty in the first, it’s a penalty in a tie game late in the third. If it’s a penalty in game one, it’s a penalty in OT of game 7 of the finals. Call the fuching rulebook you twits in stripes.

2) Two and three point games. Kindergarteners at recess could figure out that having some games worth 2 points and some games worth 3 points is unfair. Either take away the charity point for a shootout loss or make a regulation win 3 points as others have noted above.

C) Mike Babcock.

Posted by CaptainDennisPolonich from The Land of Fake Boobs and Real Nuts on 11/13/13 at 01:33 PM ET

J.J. from Kansas's avatar

No ties. Ties suck. Death to ties forever. Good riddance.

Sure, extend OT out to 10 minutes. I don’t care. If you can prevent the shootout, then cool. I prefer games that end in OT to the skills comp anyway.

My only real complaint about the shootout is entirely self-manufactured and easily fixed:  Every goddamn time a game goes into the shootout, some dickhole reporter in the press box races to tweet the result of every event immediately after it happens, which shows up on my Twitter feed before it shows up on my television.

The easily solution is to just close my laptop or exit Twitter before that happens, but this is the internet where we have a Gore-given right to complain about stupid things and my chosen stupid thing is this issue.

Posted by J.J. from Kansas on 11/13/13 at 02:23 PM ET

Add a Comment

Please limit embedded image or media size to 575 pixels wide.

Add your own avatar by joining Kukla's Korner, or logging in and uploading one in your member control panel.

Captchas bug you? Join KK or log in and you won't have to bother.

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Feed

Most Recent Blog Posts

About Kukla's Korner Hockey

Paul Kukla founded Kukla’s Korner in 2005 and the site has since become the must-read site on the ‘net for all the latest happenings around the NHL.

From breaking news to in-depth stories around the league, KK Hockey is updated with fresh stories all day long and will bring you the latest news as quickly as possible.

Email Paul anytime at pk@kuklaskorner.com