New SO Rule For Next Season

[Guest Howard He Do It?!]

We'll never know whether John Tortorella would have chosen to leave the fate of the Rangers' season on Olli Jokinen's stick if the head coach had been allowed to select his shootout participants one by one last Sunday in Philadelphia.

But Slap Shots has learned the NHL is preparing to institute a new rule for the shootout that will allow coaches to name their skills competition shooters one at a time rather than having to designate the first three shooters before the penalty shot show commences.

A well-placed source told us that the issue was raised at the general managers' meeting in March, when it was argued that the current system essentially prevents coaches from coaching with games on the line. It's as if baseball managers were required to designate their ninth-inning pinch-hitters and relief pitchers in the fifth inning.

The current rule was adopted, we're told, primarily to service television, and give production people extra time to build their graphics, but that doesn't seem to be a concern at this point.

It is unclear where this change in the format would require assent from the competition committee or whether the NHL unilaterally can modify the regulations, but in any event, we're told that the new rule should be in place for next season.

NY Post

I like the rule change. It allows for better situational coaching, something that the list of three hindered.

[seeinred 1,488]

I like the rule, too, but I don't think it's going to change much at all.

[Zetts 236]

I don't see how there's situational coaching here. There's only one thing you want the player to do and that's score. If you're not already putting out your best SO players from best to worst, then, as a coach, there's something wrong in your head. You can hardly put out grinders to change the momentum in a shootout.

Whatever, I don't really care either way.

[Guest Howard He Do It?!]

I don't see how there's situational coaching here. There's only one thing you want the player to do and that's score. If you're not already putting out your best SO players from best to worst, then, as a coach, there's something wrong in your head. You can hardly put out grinders to change the momentum in a shootout.

Whatever, I don't really care either way.

Why bother posting then?

There is plenty of situational coaching involved in the SO. First of all, not every coach is going to put their best SO player out first and that doesn't make them crazy. What's crazy about putting your best SO player in the third spot? When looking to score in the SO to win or tie you would want your best SO player in that spot. Would Tortorella have still sent out Jokinen knowing that their playoff lives were on the line or would he have chosen to send out Gaborik if he had the choice? That's situational coaching. The only situational coaching that the list of three method allows for is who to leave off the list in case the SO goes to extra rounds.

[crotty99 302]

I would like to see it more like the international shootouts, coaches could chose whoever they want, as many times as they wanted.

[Zetts 236]

Why bother posting then?

There is plenty of situational coaching involved in the SO. First of all, not every coach is going to put their best SO player out first and that doesn't make them crazy. What's crazy about putting your best SO player in the third spot? When looking to score in the SO to win or tie you would want your best SO player in that spot. Would Tortorella have still sent out Jokinen knowing that their playoff lives were on the line or would he have chosen to send out Gaborik if he had the choice? That's situational coaching. The only situational coaching that the list of three method allows for is who to leave off the list in case the SO goes to extra rounds.

Because you could have lost the shootout by the time you get to your best shooter if he's third? Or failed to put it away earlier and give the other team a chance to get back in the shootout. For example, say you put your second best shooter third. Then you could lose a chance to win the shootout if, say, you're up 1-0 and the second shooting team in the second round. It gives the other team a better chance to tie it up.

There is no possible reason to not go best to worst. It can only hurt you.

And why should Tort's mind have changed between the start of the shootout and that point? He knew when he named Jokinen that far into his list that it's round-by-round sudden death, and yet you think he would put out the second best option? Right.

Edited April 20, 2010 by Zetts

[Guest Howard He Do It?!]

Because you could have lost the shootout by the time you get to your best shooter if he's third? Or failed to put it away earlier and give the other team a chance to get back in the shootout. For example, say you put your second best shooter third. Then you could lose a chance to win the shootout if, say, you're up 1-0 and the second shooting team in the second round.

There is no possible reason to not go best to worst. It can only hurt you.

And why should Tort's mind have changed between the start of the shootout and that point? You know by that point it's round-by-round sudden death, and yet you think you put out the second best option? Right.

And sometimes you could lose the SO because you didn't have your best player shooting third. That's why situational coaching is important in the SO.

Tort's mind might have changed because it was score or go home. It was round 3 and the Rangers' last chance. That's why your mind would change. If the second best option isn't going to cut it in round-by-round sudden death, then why would you want him shooting in essentially the same situation in the third round? I would want Gaborik in that spot any day of the week over Jokinen.

[Zetts 236]

And sometimes you could lose the SO because you didn't have your best player shooting third. That's why situational coaching is important in the SO.

Tort's mind might have changed because it was score or go home. It was round 3 and the Rangers' last chance. That's why your mind would change.

Logic is taking a serious beating here.

If you put your best shooter FIRST, you won't even get to that point. Say Gaborik was, for the sake of argument, a 90% shooter. Put him FIRST and you increase your chances of never getting to that point where it is do or die at all.

If the second best option isn't going to cut it in round-by-round sudden death, then why would you want him shooting in essentially the same situation in the third round? I would want Gaborik in that spot any day of the week over Jokinen.

...exactly. You never put out your second best option.

If he felt Gaborik was better he would have put him there over Jokinen. See, best players first. Because screw maybe making it to the fourth round with a killer shooter. You have to make it there first (or win, if your BEST shooters are good enough to win it first). Therefore, the better shooter of the two should be put third and the worse of the two fourth.

And sometimes you could lose the SO because you didn't have your best player shooting third. That's why situational coaching is important in the SO.

To clarify, I'll go over this point further:

You're only changing the order of your goals (or the order of your best chance for a goal really). You want to get as many of those goals as fast as you can. That's how a shootout works.

Edited April 20, 2010 by Zetts

[MCleveland89 122]

Let me know when they get rid of the whole shootout.

[GROwl 5]

In the AHL, it is an initial five round SO. Coaches are known for putting their best shooter 5th...under the same theory in a relay race. Your best runner is usually the anchor. Yeah, it's possible that the race could essentially be lost before he starts if the deficit is too great, but he's usually also the clutch guy. If it is possible for him to win it for the team, he will.

[stevkrause 1,247]

I think it's better than the old system, but I still think they need to fix the OT/SO structure and value to emphasize the team game more...

10 min - 4 on 4

THEN if no win, SO

Win in Reg/OT - 3pts

Win in SO - 2pts

Loss in SO - 1pt

Loss in Reg/OT - 0pts

[dat's sick 1,002]

I think it's better than the old system, but I still think they need to fix the OT/SO structure and value to emphasize the team game more...

10 min - 4 on 4

THEN if no win, SO

Win in Reg/OT - 3pts

Win in SO - 2pts

Loss in SO - 1pt

Loss in Reg/OT - 0pts

I don't really want the changes in points (makes it too complicated) but I really, really want them to increase the OT to 10 mins.

The big problem with shootouts are that they happen too often.

[Wings_Dynasty 267]

I like the change. Babs can look at the bench and say "who wants to win it?"

[betterREDthandead 58]

And why should Tort's mind have changed between the start of the shootout and that point? He knew when he named Jokinen that far into his list that it's round-by-round sudden death, and yet you think he would put out the second best option? Right.

What if you're facing a goalie you don't have much shootout tape on, and the goalie flashes a glove hand that you know is going to beat that third-best shooter you have who loves going glove side, because you blindly ordered them 1-2-3 without thinking about it? Maybe you'd like to change your mind and put your 4th best guy there because he goes five-hole and this goalie looks like he's got a five-hole the size of Montana. I can think of lots of reasons.

[stevkrause 1,247]

I don't really want the changes in points (makes it too complicated) but I really, really want them to increase the OT to 10 mins.

The big problem with shootouts are that they happen too often.

I just don't like the idea of some games being worth more than others...

As it stands right now, any game that goes past regulation is worth a grand total of 3 points, so all games should be worth a grand total of 3 points - I also don't like the idea of rewarding a team the same point value in a SO for an individual effort as you would for a TEAM victory of a TEAM game... I think it would give teams more incentive to play for the win in OT, rather than sit back and just wait for the SO...

If anything I think this would make it less complicated, as all games are worth the same point total...

[softshoes 83]

Let me know when they get rid of the whole shootout.

Bingo.

If they insist on keeping the SO then make regular/OT wins worth 3pts. There must be a reason to try and win in regulation/OT. Watching teams batten down the hatches to get to a SO sucks.

[stevkrause 1,247]

Bingo.

If they insist on keeping the SO then make regular/OT wins worth 3pts. There must be a reason to try and win in regulation/OT. Watching teams batten down the hatches to get to a SO sucks.

I LOVE the SO for the regular season only, because ties SUCK and leave fans leaving the arena with a sour taste in their mouth and a feeling of wasted time and we also have to remember that although it is a sport, it's also an entertainment business and you can't have games going on forever in a marathon 82 game season...

With that said, I am a HUGE proponent of re-structuring the OT/SO format and point value, because OT is a joke right now and teams just sit back and wait for the SO...

I think the game would improve tenfold if they made the adjustment:

10 min - 4 on 4

THEN if no win, SO

Win in Reg/OT - 3pts

Win in SO - 2pts

Loss in SO - 1pt

Loss in Reg/OT - 0pts

With this format/structure, teams will play for the win in OT, because they're losing points by not winning in OT... but at least if the OT goes the full 10 without a score, you get a gimmicky entertaining end to the game, with the teams essentially splitting the points(basically the same way they did before when there were ties, just this time there's an actual "winner")...

Edited April 20, 2010 by stevkrause

[Sprsquirt7 45]

One thing about this whole put your best shooters first and go down the line until you get to the weakest is that there is the assumption that the goalies are going to let goals in. Even the very best players in the shootout are at 50%. Most other shooters are far below that and the good shooters are right around 30%. Assume that you throw your top 3 players for the shoot out out there. And the other team throws out 1 top guy and 2 good guys. You each score one goal, who appears to be the better coach going down the line, or who is in a better position to win. You've used your top 3 while he's only used 1 of his top 3. Granted this is a hypothetical but realistically i've seen plenty of shootouts go past that 3rd round even if they have put out their best players for the shootout.

I believe we had a shootout earlier this year in which Babcock held off using Fillpula until round 7. He used him as a reaction to their player scoring. Filp tied the shootout up and a couple rounds later miller scored the game winner. Filp would be considered one of his better shootout players but was used strategically, not mindlessly. And i know the argument already "well if he played him a round earlier they wouldn't have had to even go that far". The thing is you can't compare a no pressure shot vs a pressure shot and how that affects a players ability to score.

[softshoes 83]

I LOVE the SO for the regular season only, because ties SUCK and leave fans leaving the arena with a sour taste in their mouth and a feeling of wasted time and we also have to remember that although it is a sport, it's also an entertainment business and you can't have games going on forever in a marathon 82 game season...

I've been watching the Wings since the 60's and I've never had a sour taste over ties. It was part of the game when I learned about hockey and I didn't occur to me to be sour about them. I guess I'm one of those old dogs learning new tricks guys.

I do love the 4on4 OT's though.

[russianswede919293 95]

i would like them to increase it to 5 rounds as well. But i do like this change