94 replies to this topic

[Finnish Wing]

Why? There was no winner. You only get points if you win the game. A tie is not a win. It's not a loss, but it's not a win. If you can't win the game, you get jack s***.

So basically first team A plays team B and the game ends 5-5. After which team C loses 15-0 to team A. Team B and C both get 0 points, although team B was easily the better team and.

3 win
2 OT win
1 OT loss
0 loss

Just do it like the rest of the world does. I mean really. I think that's the biggest issue here. Americans can't change it like that anymore because in Europe they already did it.

[RedWings Gone Wild]

To me, any idea that includes extending the length of games should be tossed out immediately. Sorry, unless you intend to shorten the schedule in another way, or shorten games, then the season is already long and tough enough (just look at the injuries this year). The extra 5-10 minutes may not seem like much, but it adds up, and as fans of one of the consistently oldest teams in hockey, you should be seriously opposed to those kinds of ideas.

What happens with back to back games? It's not at all unlikely that both could go to OT. We've already been to a total of 10 shootouts this year, meaning if we extended the game by 5 minutes, we could be talking about an additional 50 minutes of playing time, or nearly a full games worth. Considering we average what feels like (and yes I'm exaggerating) close to an injury a game, adding more playing time is just going to make things worse on teams like ours.

All of that is speculative though, because here comes a dose of REALITY:

The shootout is here to stay, whether you like it or not, because it's popular, ESPN friendly, and gives players a chance to be noticed as individuals, and not members of a team (and yes, that's a bad thing, but it's the reality of a society that centers everything around marketing). The most realistic thing to do would be to dull the stupid thing's impact by going to the point system some people have mentioned:
3 for a win in regulation, 2 for a OT win, 1 for an OT loss, and 0 for a loss.

It's not ideal, but the extra points because of the shoot out make the thing to damn important, and at least the 3-2-1-0 system makes the shootouts less essential, even if they are still around.

[Electrophile]

So basically first team A plays team B and the game ends 5-5. After which team C loses 15-0 to team A. Team B and C both get 0 points, although team B was easily the better team and.

3 win
2 OT win
1 OT loss
0 loss

Just do it like the rest of the world does. I mean really. I think that's the biggest issue here. Americans can't change it like that anymore because in Europe they already did it.

I don't think you're understanding my point. The Wings play the Penguins. After 3 periods, the score is tied 2-2. We go to OT. After OT, the score is still 2-2. In the standings, it counts as a tie but no points are awarded because neither team won. You're making this more complicated than it need be.


3 points = regulation win
2 points = OT win
0 points = loss, tie


See how only teams that win their games are rewarded? You get one less point for winning in OT, since you couldn't win in regulation. If you came up bupkiss.....oh well. Better luck next time.

Edited by Electrophile, 01 February 2010 - 04:20 PM.

[Finnish Wing]

I don't think you're understanding my point. The Wings play the Penguins. After 3 periods, the score is tied 2-2. We go to OT. After OT, the score is still 2-2. In the standings, it counts as a tie but no points are awarded because neither team won. You're making this more complicated than it need be.


3 points = regulation win
2 points = OT win
0 points = loss, tie


See how only teams that win their games are rewarded? You get one less point for winning in OT, since you couldn't win in regulation. If you came up bupkiss.....oh well. Better luck next time.

Tie (also called OT loss) should be more valuable than losing because it's just natural. I just don't understand why it's so hard to agree giving one point for the OT loss.

[Electrophile]

Tie (also called OT loss) should be more valuable than losing because it's just natural. I just don't understand why it's so hard to agree giving one point for the OT loss.

If you don't win the game, you don't get any points. It doesn't matter to me if it was a regulation loss or an OT loss. Teams should only be rewarded for winning their games. You don't see this in any other sport - can you imagine if the MLB did something like this? "Oh it's okay if you lose in extras, we'll give you a win in the standings just for hanging in there for 9 innings."


1 point for an OT loss is the hockey equivalent of a mercy f*ck. It's telling teams "Hey, don't worry about winning. Just get it to OT and we'll throw you a bone."

Edited by Electrophile, 01 February 2010 - 04:38 PM.

[Finnish Wing]

If you don't win the game, you don't get any points. It doesn't matter to me if it was a regulation loss or an OT loss. Teams should only be rewarded for winning their games. You don't see this in any other sport - can you imagine if the MLB did something like this? "Oh it's okay if you lose in extras, we'll give you a win in the standings just for hanging in there for 9 innings."


1 point for an OT loss is the hockey equivalent of a mercy f*ck. It's telling teams "Hey, don't worry about winning. Just get it to OT and we'll throw you a bone."

So teams who basically just lose 15-0 playing lazy and sucking deserve the same amount of points than teams who battle hard and get to the OT.

Baseball, as a game is entirely different, than hockey. I mean the whole scoring thing and how the game works. Soccer is much more like hockey, and in soccer you get more points for tie than loss. But they're Europeans, so they probably don't know anything though...

[Electrophile]

So teams who basically just lose 15-0 playing lazy and sucking deserve the same amount of points than teams who battle hard and get to the OT.

A loss is a loss. There's no such thing to me as "Degrees of Losing", wherein certain types of losses are seen as better than others. The whole point of any competitive game, especially sports, is to win. Baseball, soccer, hockey, basketball, football.....whatever.


If the Wings lose 10-0 in regulation or 1-0 in OT, they still lost and it still sucks. The latter isn't more palatable to me just because they didn't lose in regulation.

[Firehawk]

I know this would never happen, but I would like to see 4 on 4 until someone wins. You can do 20 min periods or whatever, or you can just take away the time clock and play until someone wins. But that is far better than shootouts. Unfortunately, I don't see it happening. I do agree with what others have said about the shootout not being that fair in terms of it being a skills competition instead of team hockey.

I do enjoy watching superstars take penalty shots though. That's fun to watch, but unfortunately a team's playoff hopes can be easily decided by a shootout which is pretty ridiculous.

[Finnish Wing]

A loss is a loss. There's no such thing to me as "Degrees of Losing", wherein certain types of losses are seen as better than others. The whole point of any competitive game, especially sports, is to win. Baseball, soccer, hockey, basketball, football.....whatever.


If the Wings lose 10-0 in regulation or 1-0 in OT, they still lost and it still sucks. The latter isn't more palatable to me just because they didn't lose in regulation.

As I said. Only soccer is similiar with hockey among those sports. And I mean statistically and how the game works. AND in soccer you get more points playing a tie (aka OT loss in today's NHL) than losing.

[titanium2]

I know this would never happen, but I would like to see 4 on 4 until someone wins.

What if they had it like 2 on 2 like NHL Open Ice or NBA JAM (as a more common example)?

[55fan]

The shootout has actually grown on me, but I hate the idea of one game being worth more than others.

I'd rather see each game worth 2 points, no matter how they're divided.

So what if... they played 4 on 4 OT for 10 minutes, and then went to the shootout.

Win=2. Loss=0. Shootout win=1.5. Shootout loss=.5.

What would really be fun would be a shootout where the shooter's team gets 3 forwards and the defensive team gets a goalie and 2 d-men. Same rules otherwise as for a shootout (no second chances, continuous movement, etc.) That would make it more of a team thing. That's just a flight of fancy. It would never really happen. Don't even bother flaming me. I'm just thinking out loud.

[cusimano_brothers]

Anyone hoping for a change should shift their hope elesewhere: CBC.

[achildr1]

Here's your reality pill for the morning...

The shoot-out is a good thing. I'm a hockey traditionalist and some of the ways hockey is going bothers me. I found the Dead Puck Era to be very entertaining and I thought it better represented who was good and who wasn't. That said, I like that our game is attracting more fans now and I believe the shoot-out is a marketing must have for the league. Casual fans stand up for only a few things...a goal, penalty shot/breakaway, a big hit, and a fight. We are in danger of losing the last of those and it stands to be a huge blow to the identity of the game. Also players are having to be much more careful about hitting and that may start to be a lost area of the game The shoot-out makes the chances of seeing "breakaways/penalty" shots or big savesmuch more likely in a game. It also allows the leagues best players to show the skill level and creativity that is unique to our game. Fans can than identify better with individuals which I imagine can only help the game's popularity. If anything, they actually need to extend the shoot-out to five guys aside. I think three makes it almost impossible to go down and get back in it. If they want to try and end it before the shoot-out, go 3 on 3 in OT.

[13dangledangle]

All this because we suck at shootouts ?
I heard no one complaining last year (10 SO, 6 wins).

Granted, the shootout isn't the prettiest solution to decide the game, but as long as it's not in the playoffs, it does serve its purpose.

That's what is bulls*** about it! If you don't want it deciding playoff games why should it help decide who gets to the playoffs. The NHL has to do a way better job of making things cut and dry because right now its all wishy washy, theres always a rule to contradict the last one. They should have serious meeting with GM's, the NHLPA as well as recieve serious input from fans and start with the re-allignment and go all the way through the book.

[evilzyme]

Never going to happen, sports are a business, and currently there is an 70-80% approval rating of shootouts. Get used to it boys, welcome to reality. Whatever sells is going to maintain its stance in life, until it no longer can sell.

[WizardOfOz30]

While the shoot outs are pretty exciting I don't think it's the best way to decide a game as others have stated it's a team sport and you aren't displaying team effort by one player facing the goalie. Plus the SO has totally taken away from the novelty of a penalty shot, that used to be so exciting to see someone rewarded a one on one chance at the goalie.

I'd much rather have the games end in a tie if nobody can score during OT. Look for ways to make OT more challenging, like the 3 on 3 OT. Or lengthen it, 5 minutes 4 on 4 then 5 minutes 3 on 3 and if nobody scores it ends in a tie.

[CrimsonFlame]

I like the shootout. I find it entertaining as long as you know we aren't getting into one every other game. This year we haven't had many so I don't think it's an issue.

However I would hate for them to just keep adding on overtimes until someone scores. That will make games way too long and way to brutal. If we get into a triple OT game and the team we face in two days doesn't than we are going to be at a huge disadvantage there. And don't even start to think if it happens on a back to back. Plus I think injuries would go up too just from players being worn out.

Shootouts provide a short and simple way to pick a winner rather than having both teams grind it out until one falters.

[Wingzman91]

They have a sport where the game ends in a tie; soccer.
This is a classic case of the grass is always greener.
You forget that the teams without highly skilled finishers still tied very often, like the salary cap, this is a way for teams to even the playing ground with the big spenders.
The shootout is alot more fun then going back to your car to drive home, (hours in some cases) wondering why you came out to a game that ended in a tie.
So the league is alot more competitive and the fans are happy, it is a win/win.

I'm glad that the sport allows room to grow and become more modern over the years, imagine the fans that through a hissy fit when their team couldn't sign the best players before the draft regulated how players entered the league.

Lastly, ask Wojtek Wolski if he wants the shootout gone, the man is making 4mill this year and mostly because he is a ace after the OT.

[Heroes of Hockeytown]

They have a sport where the game ends in a tie; soccer.

And, for about a hundred years, hockey.

[cusimano_brothers]

This was "Vintage Bettman"; it was his idea, forced into use following the lockout. he should be very proud.