Shoot the shootout?

[BruceMGF]

Too Many Shootouts?

OK. I don't get it.

Most everyone agrees the shootout has become too common. The debate is over what to do about it. ”I’d like to look at anything that reduces the number of games that are decided by a shootout,” Toronto Maple Leafs general manager Brian Burke said. ”I mean, basically we’re deciding an astonishing percentage of games with a shootout. We never envisioned that when we approved that rule.” When the NHL introduced the shootout in 2005-06, the thought was that teams would go all-out in the five-minute, four-on-four overtime period, trying to earn two points in the standings.

Why? Why would they believe such a thing?

You give a team a chance to win by prolonging a game, teams will do it unless trying to win in regulation is almost risk-free. Remember in college football when teams would try to win with a two-point conversion in the closing seconds? The alternative was to settle for a tie. Since 1994 they can now win in overtime so everyone kicks the point and goes for the overtime. And the NBA has its "overtime spike": The Overtime Spike in NBA Basketball So ... why did the NHL think the result would be anything other than what happened? And why it is a problem? Does MLB obsess over the number of extra-inning games? Unless, of course ... The NHL knows, despite all they've done to promote it as exciting, that the shootout is a gimmick. Extra innings are not.

[darkhunter139]

The NHL knows the shootout is a gimmick that's why they are not happy with them becoming to common. I'd rather just see tie games honestly, as a big hockey fan I don't like when games are decided by a shootout. They might as well have a coin toss at center ice to determine winner.

[iacas]

The NHL knows the shootout is a gimmick that's why they are not happy with them becoming to common. I'd rather just see tie games honestly, as a big hockey fan I don't like when games are decided by a shootout. They might as well have a coin toss at center ice to determine winner.

Well, there's a bit more skill to it than random, pure luck, BUT not much... :) And the shootout obviously punishes teams which are great defensively and rewards teams that have three or four great shooters (at the cost of defense).

I don't know what the best solution is, but it may very well be tie games. What about this: 5 minute OT periods (some of these are awesome, frenetic hockey). Win in OT, get two points with the loser getting one point. Tie at the end of OT, 1 point apiece. We'll still see teams going for overtime (but they'd just go for ties if you had no OT at all), but because it's a risk-free OT, you'll see even MORE frenetic overtime periods. You've only got a chance to win an extra point.

[kpaulhus]

I love watching the shootout. Half the time those guys could make sports center's top 10 with their dangling. I guess it comes down to how good your goalie is, and how many Crosby/Ovechkin/St. Louis snipers you have on your team.

[BruceMGF]

Well, there's a bit more skill to it than random, pure luck, BUT not much... :) And the shootout obviously punishes teams which are great defensively and rewards teams that have three or four great shooters (at the cost of defense).

That's not what happens. What you're describing is what the NHL had 1999-2005. There are hard numbers about this:

Overtime Incentives Study If you want teams to try their darndest to win in regulation, eliminate overtime altogether. This doesn't mean they'll lose their minds and both teams will pull their goalies with two minutes left in a tie game. But as long as there's the opportunity to win in overtime, the urgency to break a regulation tie is diminished.

[Chilli Dipper]

Hockey, like soccer, is a low-scoring sport. In both sports, penalty shootouts are arbitrary measures designed to force a result that bears little relation to the games that are played before them. I would prefer to deal with occasional draw in league play than put up with frequently-manufactured outcomes, but that sentiment is the minority viewpoint among American sports fans.

[iacas]

That's not what happens. What you're describing is what the NHL had 1999-2005.

It's not quite the same because the points were somewhat different, but the point is still semi-conceded.

If you want teams to try their darndest to win in regulation, eliminate overtime altogether.

I'd be down with that too.

[kpaulhus]

Hockey, like soccer, is a low-scoring sport.

Are you nuts? Hockey is 100000000X more interesting than Soccer. Take a look at some of the scores this past season....it wasnt odd to see a 5+ goal game?!?!?

[darkhunter139]

Are you nuts? Hockey is 100000000X more interesting than Soccer. Take a look at some of the scores this past season....it wasnt odd to see a 5+ goal game?!?!?

Yeah, hockey is the most exciting sport to watch imo. In soccer it is not uncommon to see less then two goals a game. And I like icas suggestion, do one five minute overtime if it is tied each team gets one point if someone can win it they get two. The five minute overtime is too exciting to get rid of all together and the NHL will never do that.