Shootouts stink

[Adam]

If you don't like watching Steve Nash play, you don't like sports.

545613[/snapback]

Too bad he isn't on every team then- the NBA is just unwatchable....not even a team game

[Kelly the Dog]

Too bad he isn't on every team then- the NBA is just unwatchable....not even a team game

545646[/snapback]

The Suns are a very fun team to watch. The Spurs are a great team to watch. If you like defense, the Pistons are a great team to watch. The Clippers, for godsake, are a very good team to watch (this year). There are very good players on almost every team. Most of the best and most fun teams are out west, so fans on the east often think the game and league sucks but it is only because they don't watch the good and best teams very much. Sure there is a lot of one on one in the league now. Sure there isn't the team game of college hoops. But there is a lot of great basketball being played, and 90% of the bashing of it is by blowhards that don't actually watch the games or league.

 

And I repeat my earlier stance that if the Braves were still around, Buffalo fans would be all over the NBA, and just whining bitterly and irrationally about the Braves players and coaches and GM instead of the league, taking time off for extended win streaks.

[Taro T]

You make a lot of good points. However, personally I think it is unfair to compare the major sports like you do.

 

First, the only reason there is a shootout is because points (goals) are scored at a far less frequency than in the other sports. Even though this is obvious, it's the only reason hockey does what it does. If goals were as frequent as scoring plays in football or baskets in hoops there would be no discussion. Soccer, the biggest and most popular sport in the world, doesn't even tell the teams or fans when the game is going to end in overtime. I also believe that soccer awards points for ties.

 

Second, hockey is the only team (in North America) that uses a point system for wins, so it's hard to say fairly that they are the only league that awards more points than they others. They are the only league that allows points at all. All others are based on percentages.

 

Third, your complaint that they are the only league to change the rules in the OT session is valid, but only to some degree. They are also the only league to change the rules in the middle of the game. One could counter-argue that no other league takes players off the field of play and changes the number of participants. No other league makes it unfair for one team to play with five and another with four or three.

545610[/snapback]

Kelly, you have some interesting thoughts. We do appear to disagree though.

 

You are correct that the low number of goals scored relative to basketball is used as a justification for going to a shootout. However, if football only played a 5 minute OT there would still be games that end in a tie. As stated, I would much prefer to see the league go to one full OT session in the regular season rather than go to an abreviated OT followed by a shootout. This would only add ~1 hour to the length of a hockey game. The average hockey game used to run ~2:40. I'm not positive but it seems like they are running closer to 2:20 with the new rules, but I may be mistaken on that. Either way that would put a full 80 minute game in the 3:20-3:40 time frame in a worst case. Football and baseball games both run over 3 hours very often. Having an occasional hockey game run over 3 hours would not be a horrendous burden on the players or fans. The entity that it would be a burden on is the TV station broadcasting the game. Currently, the TV station does not sell advertising for OT nor can it easily modify its post game schedule. If the game runs an hour over, then some other show that advertising was sold for does not get shown. If the TV stations sold contigent advertising for OT it would allieviate some of the TV problems but it would not eliminate the preemption of the next show.

 

I expect that if teams had to play up to 80 minutes during the regular season there would be far fewer ties than there currently are, especially with the tighter enforcement of obstruction type penalties. I actually would expect most teams to have 4 or fewer ties over the course of a full season which is less than 5% of all games. I personally can live with that.

 

As to your point about the NHL being the only sport using points instead of winning percentage, I do not agree with it because they are both the exact same thing. They are just expressed differently. A hockey team that has a 5-5 record has 10 points and a 0.500 winning percentage. A team with a 5-4-1 record has 11 points and a 0.550 winning percentage. If an NFL team played a full 5th quarter and still was tied, if their record were 5-4-1 their winning percentage would be the exact same as the NHL team with the 5-4-1 record (0.550) and they would be 1/2 game ahead of a team with a 5-5 record and 1/2 game behind a team with a 6-4 record.

 

Finally, I don't consider going to 5-4 a change of the rules. It is simply a way to penalize infractions of the rules. I see it as being extremely similar to basketball's free throw. It gives the infringed team an advantage to make up for the penalized action. There are special rules for a free throw but they are consistant between the regular season and the post season. The NHL uses 2 completely separate and distinct set of rules to settle a tie in regular season vs. post season. I absolutely love playoff OT. I see going to the shootout a precursor to eliminating the 2 OT game, which will stink. (Also, technically on a technical foul isn't the only person on the court during the technical free throw the player taking the shot?)

[smokinandjokin]

The hockey purists need to cool out and let the game evolve. I think, across the board, you will find that most hockey fans are appreciative of the post-lockout style. The strange thing is, while there are a few new rules, the majority of the changes have come as a result of actually enforcing the rules that were already in place. What a novel concept!

 

It used to be disgusting to watch the any NHL team play in the 3rd period with a 3-1 lead. Dump the puck, play the trap, and manhandle any forward who looks at the net. The clock would tick away, and an empty-netter would make it a 4-1 final. It was clockwork. Predictable. It is true now that no lead is safe. Playing a defensive style ultimately leads to penalties and goals.

 

The OT is great, 4-on-4, wide open, end-to-end action. Both teams have already secured a point and are going for two. The shootout is fun for everyone. In an 82-game schedule, where teams sometimes play 3 games in 4 nights, an extra 20 minutes of OT is not realistic (don't feed me the line that baseball plays everyday and they go until there's a winner. The games aren't even comparable.) For the purists, don't consider the shootout a loss. Consider it a tie with a chance to earn a free point.

 

I do appreciate the argument that a team gets the same amount of points for a hard-fought, 4-3 victory in regulation as a team who wins in a shootout. Maybe the league will address the points in the offseason, a la 3 for regulation win, 2 shootout win, 1 for OT or shootout loss.

[Alaska Darin]

Maybe the league will address the points in the offseason, a la 3 for regulation win, 2 shootout win, 1 for OT or shootout loss.

545708[/snapback]

They won't and the reason is because it makes the standings too hard to read. I'm not kidding.

 

Think about it:

 

31-10-31-10 for 123 points vs 41-31-10 for 92 points

 

Never happen.

[smokinandjokin]

They won't and the reason is because it makes the standings too hard to read.  I'm not kidding.

 

Think about it:

 

31-10-31-10 for 123 points vs 41-31-10 for 92 points

 

Never happen.

545764[/snapback]

 

You're right, and they do take that into account. They were worried a few years ago when they went to the 4 vs 4 OT that the extra column for OT losses would throw people off.

 

I do like the current system; I was only saying that I think people have a legitimate argument in saying that a game won by a shootout earns you the same points as a game won in regulation. Maybe something is not right about that, but for me personally, I like the shootout. My three best and your three best against each other's goalie for a bonus point in the standings...What's not to like?

 

BTW, Marty is not even close to Miller in shootouts. He tries that lame-ass poke check everytime, and the players aren't even phased by it. Miller does have the advantage of playing under the shootout rules in Rochester last year, so it's not surprising he's more successful in that area.

[Spun]

Actually, I like most of the changes. Less wrestling holds and more skating, passing, shooting and scoring. I also like the two line pass at center. I don't mind the four on four in OT. Dump and whatever wasn't fun to watch. I am not so sure about the shootout, yet. I think as the season rolls along and wins and losses mean more, the shootouts will cement themselves as an exciting part of the game. I believe that I am also noticing more penalty shots than seasons past which I do like . I don't like the one point for tieing after regulation but eventually losing the game. I just see a loss as a loss. I think we get better hockey when the OT and the shootout means two or none.

 

The hockey purists need to cool out and let the game evolve.  I think, across the board, you will find that most hockey fans are appreciative of the post-lockout style.  The strange thing is, while there are a few new rules, the majority of the changes have come as a result of actually enforcing the rules that were already in place.  What a novel concept!

 

It used to be disgusting to watch the any NHL team play in the 3rd period with a 3-1 lead.  Dump the puck, play the trap, and manhandle any forward who looks at the net.  The clock would tick away, and an empty-netter would make it a 4-1 final.  It was clockwork.  Predictable.  It is true now that no lead is safe.  Playing a defensive style ultimately leads to penalties and goals.

 

The OT is great, 4-on-4, wide open, end-to-end action.  Both teams have already secured a point and are going for two.  The shootout is fun for everyone.  In an 82-game schedule, where teams sometimes play 3 games in 4 nights, an extra 20 minutes of OT is not realistic (don't feed me the line that baseball plays everyday and they go until there's a winner.  The games aren't even comparable.)  For the purists, don't consider the shootout a loss.  Consider it a tie with a chance to earn a free point.

 

I do appreciate the argument that a team gets the same amount of points for a hard-fought, 4-3 victory in regulation as a team who wins in a shootout.  Maybe the league will address the points in the offseason, a la 3 for regulation win, 2 shootout win, 1 for OT or shootout loss.

545708[/snapback]

[kasper13]

Shootouts do stink. Contrived idea to draw non-fans to the game. NHL has been trying that forever and what they do not realize is that the fans they have are the fans they have always had and always will have. Once a hockey fan, always a hockey fan and it usually gets passed down in "hockey families". In Canada, it's a birthright. I don't know anyone that decided to watch and/or go to games now just because they added the shootout. Fans came back because the GAME is more exciting than it used to be.

 

Last night's Buffalo-Toronto OT was fantastic and then they ruin it with a boring shootout 5 minutes after the game ended. What they should do is add an OT. Games only last 2 1/2 hours now anyways w/o all the fights and less TV Timeouts compared to them going 3 hours plus in the old days. 1st OT- 4 on 4 for 5 minutes and if it's still tied, then 3 on 3 for 5 minutes. If it's tied after 10 minutes of OT, then it ends a tie. That to me, would be more exciting than the shootout.

[Turf Toejam]

BTW, Marty is not even close to Miller in shootouts.  He tries that lame-ass poke check everytime, and the players aren't even phased by it.  Miller does have the advantage of playing under the shootout rules in Rochester last year, so it's not surprising he's more successful in that area.

545769[/snapback]

 

I agree with you on that point. When the shootout started in Toronto, I wondered for a second if Lindy would consider pulling Marty and putting Miller in just for the shootout. From the two or three SO's I"ve seen this season, Miller has stoned a few very top notch scorers multiple times, while Marty tends to make more 'predictable' moves, and gets burned for it.

 

The shootouts are exactly the position that we miss Briere. Hope all goes well with his surgery, lucky we have the break for the Olympics this season.

[X. Benedict]

My take: I thought I would hate the shootout idea, and my initial inclination was that it would alter the game for the worse, but I have to admit, I can't fight my reason. If I see a shootout on tv, the Sabres or anyone else, I have to watch.

 

There is something hierarchical about the whole affair that is compelling. The coach must choose who he thinks are his 3 offensive studs, and that can change from night to night. Also, it is a display of individual talent. I watch Vanek in the shootout and you have to nod your head and say, boy, we may really have something here. Anyway, I have to watch.

 

Previously the strategy was always to play for a tie on the road. Now you can play for OT, get the point, and still play for the win. From a spectators point of view it is much better. Playoff hockey was always the exception because you could never play for the tie in the playoffs.

 

Either way, I am hooked. If there is a shootout, I can't look away. Whatever the purist in me says, my eyes betray me.

 

The shootout is hockey's softcore pornography and even though something in me says it's bad, I want to peek.

[mcjeff215]

The NBA is boring- all 1-on-1 garbage...college hoops is much better

545441[/snapback]

 

 

Edit...

 

The Ron Artest fiasco really killed the NBA for me.

[Adam]

The hockey purists need to cool out and let the game evolve.  I think, across the board, you will find that most hockey fans are appreciative of the post-lockout style.  The strange thing is, while there are a few new rules, the majority of the changes have come as a result of actually enforcing the rules that were already in place.  What a novel concept!

 

It used to be disgusting to watch the any NHL team play in the 3rd period with a 3-1 lead.  Dump the puck, play the trap, and manhandle any forward who looks at the net.  The clock would tick away, and an empty-netter would make it a 4-1 final.  It was clockwork.  Predictable.  It is true now that no lead is safe.  Playing a defensive style ultimately leads to penalties and goals.

 

The OT is great, 4-on-4, wide open, end-to-end action.  Both teams have already secured a point and are going for two.  The shootout is fun for everyone.  In an 82-game schedule, where teams sometimes play 3 games in 4 nights, an extra 20 minutes of OT is not realistic (don't feed me the line that baseball plays everyday and they go until there's a winner.  The games aren't even comparable.)  For the purists, don't consider the shootout a loss.  Consider it a tie with a chance to earn a free point.

 

I do appreciate the argument that a team gets the same amount of points for a hard-fought, 4-3 victory in regulation as a team who wins in a shootout.  Maybe the league will address the points in the offseason, a la 3 for regulation win, 2 shootout win, 1 for OT or shootout loss.

545708[/snapback]

I do appreciate your arguement, but the trap works because of the increase in speed in the league. Go to a larger playing surface, and that is neutralized

[tennesseeboy]

I'm the father of a goal tender from pee-wee through high school, through juniors through college....Shootouts have sure given ME gray hairs!