alt="LA Kings Insider with Rich Hammond" />We know how Terry Murray feels about the shootout. He hates it. He said it last night and then, just to make sure everyone knew, he repeated it for the benefit of a local radio reporter who joined his postgame press conference late.
How do you feel about the shootout, now that it’s in its fifth year? I think not only has the novelty worn off, but I don’t really like it. The first year, especially, you could almost feel the excitement of fans when a shootout loomed. Now it’s just another part of the game. And not a particularly good one, to have two points awarded on the basis of a novelty. Is it an American thing to dislike tie games? When I look at the Kings-Sharks game on Wednesday, that was a tie game, in every sense. I don’t think anyone would have had a problem walking away from that game knowing that each team got one point.
Or how about — if we really need a winner — after 4-on-4 for five minutes, going to 3-on-3 for five minutes? It’s still a novelty, but at least it more closely resembles hockey.
What do you think?
Nothing is worse than playing your booty off for 65 minutes and then watching a game decided by 2 people, in a TEAM sport.
I hate it as a player, and I hate it as a fan. I’ve actually walked out of the arena before when the shootout has started, because to me it’s nothing more than a circus.
The point of competing in the first place is to provide a winner and a loser.
The day the ties ended, was a truly great day for our sport. I remember walking away from hockey games that ended in a tie and having no emotion about it. I want to be ecstatic or angry. Not Meh.
No team should get a point for losing! If you want to hand out three points in a game- winner should take all.
I hate seeing other western conf. games ending in shootouts- too many points being handed out!
3 points for a win
1 point for a tie
0 points for an overtime loss
No Shootouts!
I’m not a fan of the shootout, its a lame way to end a very exciting hockey game. Bring back ties, and maybe change the points system, 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an OT (or shootout)win and one point for an OT loss
Taking a team sport and turning it into an individual contest trivializes the first 60 minutes of play. Both teams bust their arses only to have the contest decide on a staring contest. The first one to blink between the goalie and the shooter almost always looses.
As far as picking your shooters goes, practicing a the shoot out against your own goalies is not a good indicator of who is going to do well against your opponents goalie. Your three players with the best stick handling skills coupled with fast hands is who you should go with.
Dang sorry I got a bit wordy on this one.
The shootout may not be for the purist, but I wonder whether TM would be so vocal against it had the Kings won the last two shootouts. This would have been a much more interesting point of discussion prior to the beginning of the season or prior to our having a losing record in shootouts.
I’ve always hated the shoot out. And I really hate the rationalization being that it’s exciting for the fans. You know what would be even more exciting? At the end of 65 minutes, each team sends out their enforcer to fight and the last one standing gets the extra point.
Team sports should never be decided by an individual skills event.
I am not a fan of the shootout but the only other thing I dislike more than a shootout is a tie. A tie game is retarded.
Both teams have the same oppurtunity to win in the shootout. The Kings have just have been terrible at it. At least this year our goalie is giving us an oppurtunity to win. I remember watching Labarbra(sp?) last year and every shot went in. It was dreadful.
The shootout is brutal. You play hard…are obviously the better team for that game, and then it’s decided by a player who happens to get lucky on 1 shot! I actually think the fans are getting annoyed at staying late after overtime to watch it. Not to mention when you lose…especially at home, makes me dislike it even more. It’s also fodder to get unnecessarily angry at one particular player or coach. It’s taking away from the real issue…which is how well the Kings are doing and how great it is to see such improvement.
Just give each team a point….geez it’s only math!
play 4-4 for 10 minutes instead of 5 min.
Winner in regulation get 3 points.
I have no problem with a tie after regulation or OT.
I never liked ties in sports and always that the end of tied games back in the days befgore a shootout was always a feeling of a letdown. Games should have winners and losers, this isn’t soccer and even soccer has a “shootout” in the world cup.
I don’t think just because the shootout is now felt as just part of the game doesn’;t mean it isn;t exciting. Much more exciting to me then five minutes of two teams not trying to score a goal, mostly trying not to make a mistake. That was how overtime used to feel to me. Teams wanted the one point so they never tried as hard to get that goal.
If you want to change it, I say get rid of the automatic one point for the loser. Two points for the game, the winner gets them. I love playoff hockey because this never comes up, but no way does the league ever go to that for the regular season, games would last too long.
and when kings win 2 shootouts in a row everybody will love it
I don’t mind the shootout as a way to eventually end the game in the regular season, but just make it 2 points for a win, 0 for a loss, end of story.
The problem with going back to ties, and the reason the shootout was brought in in the first place, was becasue teams would just sit back for the last 5 minutes of the game and all of overtime to ensure they at least got one point. That translated in to a LOT of boring hockey. If say, two teams from the same division were playing, it was too much of a risk to take any chances and go for the win in fear of letting a division rival come away with two points and you get none, so teams would just stay back and nothing would happen.
They can’t extend the length of the overtime periods because of the schedule and teams have flights to catch etc. We’ve seen in the playoffs that hockey games can go another 2 or 3 periods before a game gets settled. Even if you keep it at 5 minutes and go to a 3 on 3 system, how is that less of a novelty than a shootout? It still does not resemble a hockey game in any fashion and would look more a like a pick up game down at the local rink.
Maybe the shootout isn’t the answer, but going back to ending in a tie isn’t it either.
I agree with Terry Murray. It’s wrong that the winner of a crap shoot like the shoot out ends up with the same 2 points that the regulation winner of an actual hockey match gets.
Since the shootout is exciting and not going away, they really have to move to a system where a regulation win is valued most.
3 points regulation or overtime win
2 points shootout win
1 points shootout loss
0 points regulation or overtime loss
It makes so much sense they’ll never do it.
It would also eliminate the annoying “bonus” point where some games are worth 2 total points and some are worth 3 points. You’ll be able to actually watch a game between division rivals without thinking “for the love of god, don’t tie…”
The same total points awarded in every match is the right thing to do.
lets not forget the focus groups that recommended the shoot-out to improve the popularity of ice hockey IN THE U.S., also made such brilliant recommendations as the “enhanced” puck used by Fox so that it could be more easily followed on TV, eliminating the red line (which significantly changed the nature of the game), and change the name of the conferences (remember the “Campbell” Conference). Leave it to the ADD Americans who show up late and leave early, spend half the game on their cell phones, get mad when there are no fights, and cannot stand losing so they forced the IOC committee to allow NHL players in the Olympics (still the worst hockey decision EVER made in terms of player development and showcasing). And I’m an American!
The shootout isn’t hockey. It’s a skills comp. If it stays however, the point system should change a bit. 2 points for a win (any win), 0 points for a loss in regulation or overtime (like the playoffs but with points), and 1 point for a shootout loss.
I’m over the shootout. Games should not be decided by a skils competition. I totally agree with Rich and TM. I don’t care who gets the extra point, if it’s by playing the game. I like the 2nd overtime of 3 on 3 and then tie if there’s no scoring. I never left a tie game feeling meh, I always left feeling good for at least getting the point. Now I don’t even watch the shoot outs.
I’m not in love with the shootout but I see the need for it. The NHL has used this as a marketing tool and those less hardcore fans really enjoy it.
Everyone on this board LOVES the game and as die hard NHL fans we need more people to fall in love the game as much as we all have. If nothing eles leave the shootout as is so we can get more TV exposure and more importantly to bring back espn’s NHL TONIGHT….We need the Mullet back!
The shootout is horrible. If you want a winner just let overtime run.
I don’t mind the shootout, but three rounds are what I don’t like. Too short. Make it 5 shooters per side, not 3. The Shootout is part of the game and a skill. We need to work on that part, if the Kings were good at break-always we wouldn’t need the shootout. When was the last time a King scored on a break away during regulation play? Not this season! And they have had opportunities. The Kings need to work on this part of their game, it’s that easy.
I was actually thinking about this the other day, but I have a different idea: Get rid of the 5 minute overtime. We already played 60 minutes of hockey. Why risk more injuries and wear our players out by playing more hockey, and 4 on 4 to boot. If the game is tied after regulation, just go to the shootout.
DOh habitant!
I had all but forgotten that glow “worm” Puck. Now I will have nightmares again.
Without a shootout, the teams will be playing NOT to lose instead of winning which equates to a major yawner for the fans.
OK so I have an idea about how to fix this whole shootout problem. Tell me what you think…
First, the fundamental issue needs to be recognized. And most of us know what it is…the goals in a shootout are not really goals. They’re tee’d up opportunities. It looks like we mostly agree that the game needs to have the best opportunity to be decided by playing the game.
So I’ve had this idea for a while…and people usually have laughed but I think its perfect:
After 5 minutes of 4 on 4 OT play, have a second overtime period of only 2:30. This period should be played 3 on 3. If theres a penalty, so be it, 3 on 2 PK or even more exciting a 3 on 1 PK. It sounds strange, but at least if a goal is scored, its a hockey play. If the game is still tied after that, which I highly doubt will happen often, you award the tie to both teams with no extra point.
The reason why I think this works is because the excitement of a 2 on 1 or 3 on 2 to me is just as exciting as a breakaway. But its the passing and playmaking that makes hockey truly beautiful. But also, why limit the fun to just the goal scorers on a team. In this format defencemen get to showcase their talents, goalies definietly would get to show their stuff…and the whole team stays involved.
And as far as the fan experience…wow…imagine a 3 on 3 battle, and the extra point be on the line. Kopi – Smyth – Doughty vs. Thornton – Heatley – Boyle. Call me crazy but thats way better than a shootout.
Oh and if you extend the 4 on 4 to 10- 20 minutes, chances are one team will lose.
once the Kings traded Patrick O’Sullivan, I hated the shootout 43% more.
Personally, I don’t understand why they don’t pick an event out of a hat, like
TRACTOR PULL
PIE EATING CONTEST
CURLING
I agree with Gary. I hate going to a game that ends in a tie. You can never have a playoff game end in a tie, so why should the regular season games end in ties? I especally hate it when teams ended the year with a record of more ties than wins or losses. I agree that 3 points should be awarded for every game 3 for the regulation winner and 2 for the overtime winner, whether it be a shootout or not.
I’d bet top dollar that most games would have a winner if we had a 10 minute OT with either 3 vs 3 or 4 vs 4.
The league could also instruct a “no tolerance” clause in which refs must call penalties in the OT, resulting in more power plays.
Anything is better than individulizing a TEAM sport.
It seems to me that we need something inbetween a “REAL” overtime and the silly just for consumer consumption shootout. My suggestion is that Overtime should remain at 5 minutes of 4 on 4.
If the game is still tied they go to a Power play format of 4 on 3 for 2 minutes each. Each team will have an opportunity to score as many goals as possible during the 2 minutes. If the game reamins tied they go to a shootout but with 5 chances aside or until someone wins.
Tie games suck!
Wow…Ersberg…did we just agree on something? See everyone later, I’m on my way to hell to snowboard.
I would like to see OT extened to 10 minutes 4 on 4, but I can’t see the “no tolerence” policy happening. Only reason being that they technically already have it, but your relying on human beings to enforce it.
I can’t see 3 on 3 ever happening, although that would be interesting.
Play 4 on 4 for 20 minutes of OT if need be…but give me a winner without a shootout…if no winner after 20 minutes of OT with 4 on 4, well…I suppose I can live with it.
I HATE the shootout. I think it has no place in a TEAM sport. Kind of like PKs deciding the winner of the World Cup – stupid!
On another note: Power rankings- Ducks ranked 25th- haha
11. Los Angeles Kings (8-4-2, Previous: 25) – If everyone hasn’t figured it out yet, Anze Kopitar(notes) is the NHL’s next great superstar. The Kings are actually interesting to watch.
Kopi is getting some recognition nationally now.
With so much parity in the league, those teams that excel on the shootout get the bonus points that ultimately put them into the playoffs. I don’t know what the answer is. I’ve come to dread the shootout (unless we win, of course!) but I don’t care so much for teams playing for the tie. Going to a 4 on 4 then a 3 on 3 format sounds interesting.
I have to strongly disagree with you on that Paul:
“…..We already played 60 minutes of hockey. Why risk more injuries and wear our players out by playing more hockey, and 4 on 4 to boot. If the game is tied after regulation, just go to the shootout”
By that logic, why don’t we shorten the season to 60 games and have best of 5 playoff series?
Myself personally, I want to see the Kings play as much hockey as possible, they’re professional athletes that’s how they make a living.
cry babies
Not sure which option presented by my fellow fans would be best, but I do know shootouts is like baseball skipping extra innings and having a homerun derby.
I am vehemently against the extra point involved when teams go to OT.
Sadly I think our opinions fall on deaf ears, the NHL still thinks it can gain more fans if they keep shoving it down the throats of the general public.
wonder how the fans would feel had the Kings won the shootout these past two games?
Not that I’m a huge fan of the shootout, but I figure teams have played 65 mins to a draw. The ‘team’ portion of the game was inconclusive.
The deciding factors come down to strategy (both coach and players) and individual skill with a dash of luck thrown in for good measure; each team has three chances to decide its fate.
I’d be curious to see what the average percentage of games in a season end up in a shootout and whether it has a big impact on overall points.
the fact of the matter is, from a fans point of view… the shootout was the most exciting thing that happened in last nights game. win or lose.
Tantrum-
I understand what you’re saying regaring teams not trying to win in OT just to get the tie/point, but that laziness often spill over into the shootout as well.
It’s painfully obvious when guys do their round the in the shootout and slouch all the way to the net and fan one wide of the net.
I’d rather see 4 vs 4 for 10 minutes with penalties than this crap we have now.
Brett-
Yeah, what a trip, we agreed on an issue, and an important one at that. Typically we disagree on personnel topics, but that’s pretty easy to do considering the variables.
Anything longer than five minutes would be a disaster. I can’t imagine how the Kings, for example, would have looked after an extra five minutes of hockey in San Jose. I do not believe extending the overtime period is an option.
I’m not a fan of the three point game though. I think a regulation win should be three points, an OT or shootout win should be 2, and getting in to OT guarantees a point.
I think Coach Murray needs to make sure his disgust with the shootout does not trickle in to his handling of it. The Kings need Kopi, Fro, and Jack as their first three every time.
I personally like the shootout, its fun to watch and I do not believe it demeans anything.
Bringing the tie back would result in a lot of playing not to lose games not unlike VAN last night – not pretty and can be downright irritating to watch.
I have been asking for 3 on 3 second OT going back to 2003 as far as I can recall, never been a fan of the shootout… Yes, 3 on 3 would also be a novelty, but as some have already pointed out, it resembles more normal hockey action with passing, moves, breakouts, etc. And if this somehow has not produced a goal (highly unlikely), then go to a five round shootout and MAKE THE SHOOTERS TAKE THE HELMETS OFF!!! This is actually one change that can be implemented immediately and create some new buzz.
In case someone missed Mbar’s ***EXCELLENT*** post @ 10:33, here is a quick recap:
“they really have to move to a system where a regulation win is valued most.
3 points regulation or overtime win
2 points shootout win
1 points shootout loss
0 points regulation or overtime loss
It would also eliminate the annoying “bonus” point where some games are worth 2 total points and some are worth 3 points. You’ll be able to actually watch a game between division rivals without thinking “for the love of god, don’t tie…”
The same total points awarded in every match is the right thing to do.”
Could not agree more that all games should be worth the same, otherwise, there is an artificially created numerical vacuum..
“the fact of the matter is, from a fans point of view… the shootout was the most exciting thing that happened in last nights game. win or lose.”
I like the Harlem Globetrotters, too.
I like the shootout. It’s good for the game. However, I wouldn’t mind if another 5 minute period overtime of 3 on 3 hockey was added. I think that would be pretty exciting.
and i think we can all agree that the shootout should stay the heck away from the playoffs…
I’ve never had a problem with a tie in regulation. If you aren’t going to play the game it is supposed to be played to decide the win, then just have a tie. People would go insane if football ties were decided by a hail mary passing contest, or a field goal contest.
However if the shootout has to stay, I am also in favor of 3 points for a regulation win. I suggest this at some point last year and there was a discussion about it here. I seem to remember most people being in favor of such a system, but I could be remembering wrong.
I was a fan early on, but its losing its appeal to me, particularly after the last two games :)
However, given the “parity” in the league, imagine how many ties there would be if not for the shootout. Then we’d all be complaining about that.
While I dont like seeing the team lose on individual skills, from an entertainment prespective I think I’d get frustrated with a lot of ties a lot quicker than I did with the shootouts.
I think the whole argument’s a little overdone. When it comes down to it, there are no shootouts in the playoffs. You play till someone wins.
And maybe I’m a little old school but to me a tie is still a tie. If you can grab an extra point in the shootout, good for you. Bottom line is that we still want to win at the end of three periods. All the rest is just perception.
I can deal with a tie after a longer overtime period–say ten minutes. I loved “Ersberg’s” take on a hockey game ending with a shootout being like a great basketball game ending with a Harlem Globetrotters exhibition deciding who wins.
To put a finer point on it, I find the shootout entertaining, but it’s no way to lose a hockey game, and it should NOT be the way they’re decided. Sure, as I’ve said before, I’d probably feel differently if the Kings won all their shootouts, but that’s not going to be a reality for any team, let alone most teams.
Shootouts and the new point format came about because teams sat back in OT to preserve the tie and get a point. If you lost in OT in the “old” days, you lost the point, winner got 2. So just get rid of the shootout, make OT 10 minutes, leave it 4 on 4 to make it more exciting, winner gets 2 points, loser keeps the 1 point. If it ends in a tie, 1 point each. If you don’t think Vancouver sat back all night once they tied it waiting to get that game to OT and a shootout, you weren’t watching. That was a joke.
I actually despise the shootout – last night is a perfect example why. Both teams played a FANTASTIC game, with terrific defense and terrific goal tending, and then the game is decided in a pathetic shootout. Why have the game in the first place? Let’s just have a shootout every night, give the 2 and 1’s, and it’s over with. Pathetic.
maybe after regulation and ot, we can have each team designate one player for an ea sports nhl ‘10 showdown…?
based upon what i saw from hockeyfest this past august (thanks again, MATT GEORGE!), i would pick drew every time…much to chagrin of davis and jmfj…
With Jester’s Dead’s comment, I want to point something out. There are NO shootouts in the playoffs. Why should the regular season games be DIFFERENT then the playoff games? Ever since the shootouts conception, I thought that idea was completely insane, especially in a professional sports league.
Shoot out is fine.
Lets just win more of them!
So….if the points don’t change from OT to the shootout (2 and 1 either way), tell me why we even play OT again?
The original idea of going to 4 on 4 was to get more scoring in OT. It worked, but apparently not enough, so now the SO. As many have said, change the point structure, so that it is a step down Reg -> OT -> SO. Otherwise, we might as well get rid of the OT altogether and go straight to SO after regulation.
I would even be okay with making the points for going to a shootout 1.5 and 1.5 with the ‘winner’ of the shootout being a fourth or fifth tie breaker for playoffs.
At least then, the players would be having as much fun as the fans…
Here’s my idea:
Each team gets a 2 min. 5 on 3 (or 4 on 2?) powerplay in “overtime”
If no team scores, no points given
If both teams score, it’s a tie, 1 point each
If only one team scores, 2 points for them, zero for the loser.
Plus, it actually makes the games shorter, and you can root for rivals in other games to not score!
Crazy, huh?
Let’s be honest…there really is no good option.
As was mentioned, teams in the past were happy to play for a tie. It was some of the most boring hockey ever seen on the planet. It went hand in hand with the trap. If that’s the solution, lets just have a paint drying contest.
The shootout is a gimick who’s time has come and gone in my opinion. Problem is, that’s just my opinion. Anyone who has ever gone to a game that went to a shootout knows that everyone in the crowd stands during the shootout. If they weren’t excited, they would just sit thru it. So T is right that the fans do enjoy it..I guess!
I think I hate it more because we suck at it, but the excitement for me is not the same as it was when it was first rolled out. Now I dread it..again, probably bbecause we suck at it.
I like the 4 on 4 OT and would have no problem extending it out to 10 min or going to a 3 on 3 for 5 minutes. Injuries are a concern, but every team would have the same concerns and therefore, the same risks.
Even the idea of a 3 on 3 , which would be exciting, would eventually become a novelty act that will wear thin and eventually have the same disdain as the shootout. Also, if the 3 on 3 somehow doesn’t decide the game, then what?
It doesn’t help that we can’t win a shootout to save our lives
what is the point of having a game end with “no resolution”. Ties are terrible and they leave you with no conclusion. Only thing I’d change is having 3 points for a regulation win and divide up the 1-2 point split for ties. that way teams will have the motivation to end in regulation.
My comment from the other board this morning:
“I’ve felt for a long time that the league should take a cue from NCAA football. In the NCAA ties are settled by giving each team a shot at scoring from the opponent’s 25 yard line. If the game remains tied after a couple of rounds, the NCAA raises the stakes by eliminating field goals and extra point kick attempts. Team play is preserved, and the game ends with a winner.
It’s pretty obvious what the NHL should do. Award each team a 5-4 power play. A short-handed goal against doesn’t result in a sudden-death loss, but does count toward the short-handed team’s OT total (ie, give up a shorty and you’d better make the rest of your PP count). If the game remains tied after a couple-three rounds, raise the stakes and switch to 5-3 power plays. Continue until one team scores and the other doesn’t. Team play is preserved, and the game gets a winner.”
I LOVE the shootout… at the skills competition of the all-star game. Gotta love Ovechkin and all those props & silly antics… For me, this is the only place the shootout belongs in the game of hockey.
MLB doesn’t go to a HR contest after too many innings.
The NBA doesn’t go to the free throw line after too many OT’s.
The NFL doesn’t doesn’t start kicking field goals at the end of OT, they end it in a tie.
Maybe the problem at the NHL level, is that there are a lot of ties. However, I think this is because of a lack of motivation for a team to win.
So how about this:
Play 1 round of OT for 5? 10?
No shootout
2 points for the winner
0 points for loser or a tie
0 points for just getting to OT
Only the winner gets points, like other sports.
Now, there’s no reason a team shouldn’t be playing hard for the entire 60 of regulation and any amount of OT. Teams won’t be playing safe at the end to get their point from OT because only winning will mean anything, like it should.
I would like to see this poll after the kings win 2 shootouts in a row.
Tie games blow, at least you have a chance at an extra point.
If there was a tie, it would still be one point. I at least like the chance at the 2nd one.
Crowd loves it and are on their feet…… I am old school but I like it
BTW, I would also change the points structure:
Regulation win: 2 points
OT/SO win: 1 point
Loss: 0 points
A loss is a loss is a loss, no matter how it occurs. This would give teams more incentive to play to win as the game draws near a close, instead of being happy to get to OT.
I wouldn’t warm up to the shootout even if it was creamated with me. This is nothing more than the sissification of the NHL.
I’m a Kings fan win or TIE, NOT win or shootout loss. Either way you look at it, that loss is a LOSS no matter how many points we get out of it.
I don’t mind seeing a 10 minute OT period and have it end there, but these shootouts just HAVE to go.
I’d be pretty happy with Mikko’s solution.
I think we need a winner. It’s good for the NHL.
My suggestion would be to add one more 5-minute OT period after the first one, still 4 on 4. If two OT periods don’t decide it, a shootout is fine for the regular season.
I have a crazy idea that is a little out of the box. I thought of this before I saw Waves’s idea and it’s a little different.
4-4 OT for 10 minutes.
After that, POWER PLAYS (5-4), 2:00 each with the VISITING team getting the first PP, since they are at a disadvantage the entire game not getting the last change. Go back and forth until there is a winner.
As far as the 1 point rule, NO 1 POINT AWARDS. It was always a total of 2 points per game total BEFORE the shootout (2 for a win, 1 for each team in a tie), why not go back to that. If there is NO reward for reaching overtime, teams are going to play MUCH harder because of the consequence. The result will me much better overtime games and there will always be a winner. Plus the extra bonus point issue gets eliminated.
There are no ties in Basketball or Baseball. There arein football, but it is so rare, they rarely matter. Why shouldn’t hockey adopt the ‘All or Nothing’ strategy in games? It would create more intense competition IMHO. Thoughts?
Do away with the shootout. And, if neither team scores 4 on 4 during the 5 min OT, neither team gets a point. That would really open things up !! Wishful thinking.
Why not go to a different way of awarding shootout points? That way the fans can still enjoy shootouts, but more fairness will result.
For example, award 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for overtime or shootout win, 1 for shootout loss.
This way the team that earns a win during regulation is rewarded properly for its effort. It’s unfair for a team to get the same points in a shootout now as a team that beat an opponent during regulation. Plus, this will incent teams to play hard right til the final horn of regulation, making the ends of games a lot more entertaining than just protecting the tie and waiting for overtime.
I’m thinking more like 4, 3 and 2. The logic is that a shootout loss counts for something like half a win, but an overtime win shouldn’t count for the same as an outright win.
…then again, maybe a team that wins in overtime should get more points than a team that wins by shootout (I think that’s what I’d like to see marginalized–the value of winning versus losing by shootout.)
I can’t stand the shootout since it started! I hate it, I hate it, I hate it; just as much as I hated in soccer. Hockey and Soccer are team sports, not one on one and to decided games like that to me is a slap on the face to all the hard work a team put in.
Bettman in my opinion has ruin the game. He wants to draw those who aren’t interested in the sport by making it a circus show. Can you imagine deciding a tie in the NBA by shooting Free Throws? A tie is a tie, if a team scores in overtime then give them the extra point so that the teams actually play to win, but get rid of the shootout, there is no “Team” in it!!!
Now FIRE BETTMAN, he is the worst thing to happen to hockey since… well since Bettman got involved!
I think this poll is a bit biased because we lost the last two games via shootout, I wonder what it would have looked like if we had won them both
Guys/Gals-
Ask yourself this simple question: Would you rather your divion RIVALS to earn the extra point through teamwork, blood/sweat/tears, hard hits, and talent or through a fluky skills competition?
That’s all the shootout is; it’s a mini all-star break. It’s no reflection of the talent as a team.
Ersberg, that’s why I think a shootout win should only be worth marginally more than a tie…something like 4, 3, 2 would be fine with me, in that regard, but in order to fully discuss it, the following would need to be addressed:
How much more is a shootout win than a shootout loss?
How much more is an overtime win than an overtime loss?
How much more is an overtime win than a shootout win?
IMO, you get to the tie, you get half the possible points. You win in overtime, I’m fine with getting all the points. Win by shootout, and you’re only slightly better than the team you “beat.”
Still, I’d rather see 4-on-4 play for ten minutes, ending with a tie if necessary.
I’m not against the shootout itself, just the reward for “winning” based on it, as though you actually beat the other guys by being better at the freak show (or got beat by losing it.)
Frequency-
I’d rather see it end in a tie as well. That’s one of the reasons why I want it gone.
2 points for regulation win or overtime win.
0 points for regulation loss.
1 point for tie.
Keep it the way it was, except, like you mentioned, 4 on 4 Hockey for 10 minutes.
*****************
Someone mentioned the Kings being more gassed if they played an additional 5 minutes, to make it a 10 minute period..
Players won’t be that much more gassed for playing an additional 5 minutes in OT, come on. I’m not buying that for a second. They get payed to play competitive Hockey for 82 games, plus the playoffs. They can handle it.
How about putting the targets in the four corners of the goal, 3 shooters each team, 4 shots each at new set of targets for each shooter, whoever hits the most wins. Or fastest skater, or a stick handling relay, or hardest slapper? Or maybe each team’s captain gets in one of those giant blow up balls and they race from goal line to goal line, wouldn’t that be exciting too? 65 minutes of hcokey coming down to a silly side show. Oh wait, that’s a shootout. I will agree it was exciting at first, but there is just to much riding on it. 82 game season and the difference between being in or out of the playoffs could be points from shootouts? That’s no good.
Call me a radical, call me a revolutionary but here’s my idea. At the end of regulation time, award 2pts for a win, 0 points for a loss and 1 point for a tie and everyone go home and have a beer. Think that might work?
I like it Mike.
cc: Gary Bettman
I am okay with the shootout, it’s the point system that is screwed up. Either get rid of the charity point or go with a soccer style point system. 3 points for win in regulation, 2 points for win in SO/OT, 1 point for loss in SO/OT, 0 points for loss in regulation.
Good woork, Mike. I’ll take a Guiness.
Wow, I thought I was the only one who didn’t mind ties. Not that ties are great, and not that the shootout isn’t exciting, but it seems too artificial. How about an Enforcer Throw Down, best 2 of three?
I don’t mind ties at all. Never understood why there was so much talk about how fans don’t know who won a game at it’s finish and all that. I never once walked out of the Forum with fans after a game and heard people lamenting the fact that someone, anyone, didn’t win. Not once.
The shoot-out isn’t terrible, but it’s not hockey. Why don’t they go to a home run derby in baseball after 9 innings? Heck, why not do it after three innings…
There is this perception that, “fans love the shoot-out”, backed up by how everyone is on their feets, etc. Well, it’s completely contrived excitement. It isn’t that fans love the shoot-out, it’s that you set up an incremental sudden death and fans realize the game rest on it. It’s the tail wagging the dog. You could say the game would be decided by a best two-out-of-three coin flip after regulation, and fans would be on the edge of their seat watching the coin flips too. Completely contrived.
Ties were just fine by me.
Gosh you mean I’m not the only reactionary old geezer on this site?
Keep the shootout but do what the Kings do in preseason…
Puck at center ice… whistle blows and the forward takes off. An opposing defenseman takes off from the blueline behind him forcing speed and direct approach.
OR
Keep the shootout but it has no point value – just declares the winner.
Go back to ties!!! Are you crazy? What is this, Soccer? Ties are for tee ball teams and European sports. There should always be a victor to a game.
I haven’t read all the quotes above but had to chime in.
Shoot out blows … can’t stand it and it’s not a proper way to determine a winner.
my 2.
I like the shootouts but I would be okay with a longer OT, just no more ties, they are a lot worse than the shootouts, teams stop playing and just hold out for that one point, OT became boring
The bigger problem I have is the point system, I think it should be dropped for winning percentage, just like the NBA….that way a team with 20 OT losses doesn’t finish ahead of team with more overall wins.
wavesinair is close, but here’s the answer: 5-on-3 for up to three minutes for team A. If they score, say after 1:24, then team B gets a 5-on-3 for 1:24. If team B scores before time runs out, they win. If not, team A wins. If neither team scores in 6 cumulative minutes of 5-on-3, go to a shootout (very rare).
Advantages: Maximum of 6 min of play, so no need to resurface the ice (assumes 4-on-4 OT is replaced by this practice). Gets all players involved, not just shooters and goalies. Preserves the current point system (keeps Marketing happy). System can eventually be translated to playoffs — does anyone want to see a playoff game go to a shootout, as will eventually happen otherwise? System can be marketed to advertisers (“Mountain Dew Extreme Overtime”). Closer to real hockey than alternatives.
I think ties kinda suck, but the alternative (winning or losing by freakshow) is worse.
NO shortage of comments here! Well, the English Premiership, the biggest soccer league in the world has ties ( a draw) all the time. Some of those games are really exciting but maybe the structure of hockey is so different that it doesn’t work well. Nonetheless, I really don’t like it. Also, if they extend the 4-4 to 10 mins. it takes less time than all the messing about for the shootout, and you’d definitely get a high percentage of results. THEN a team that held on for a tie (a weaker vs a stronger opponent) would have really earned the point.
My team winning a shootout never really makes me happy. It’s more like I breathe a sigh of relief.
Losing a shootout, though, makes me angry.
I really don’t like ‘em. I’d prefer a 10 minute 4-on-4 and the game ending in a tie if the OT didn’t settle it.
Hey the shoot out is just part of the regulare season scoring system. If we make the playoffs, we won’t have ot worry about tie breakers to settle a game, as every game is played to conclusion.
From a scoring stand point, the Kings, at least so far, have been the superior team when skating 4 on 4. In one game earlier this season, with coincidental minors, they scored two goals during a 4 of 4 (they also gave up one top the oppenents durng that sequence).
For last two years the Kings shootout has been dreadful. They need to learn to WIN games during ‘Crunch time’. You know before the shootout!!
So, I had this horrible dream…www.lakingsnews.com/2009/10/30/so-i-had-this-horrible-dream/
Oops…the link didn’t post as a link. Click http://www.lakingsnews.com and it’ll get you there.
The fact is this. The SO is part of the game, it’s the rules. Most of you in here are making excuses in here because you do not like the concept instead of looking at the underlying problem.
TM does not like SO’s and he is coaching like it. It’s not rocket science here. Take your best three skilled players who give you the best chance of winning. It’s that simple. It’s called best odds, which TM apparently does not get. Thinki about who your top 3 shooters would be.
Mine would be Kopitar, Frolov & Johnson. Who would your’s be???…Not the line up TM has put together. How can you leave out Kopitar, FRO & Brown against the Nucks.
3 points for a win
2 points for a win in o.t
1 point for a loss in o.t
4 on 4 for 5 minutes
3 on 3 for 5 minutes
if tied shoot out…? undecided yet but thats about the best it can get in my opinion
One thing I found it odd.. You know that in Europe, we have 3 points for a win and 2 points for shootout or OT win. that is what should be look at in NHL too, imo..
Because when you start NHL game there is 2 points to play for, suddenly when you go to OT there is 3rd point to be given. that is not what I think is a good system. maybe we do not have these OTs so much if we give 3 points to a winner.. teams want that more than to go easy road to overtime and try to get as many points in a coin flip.
Dave, the problem is shootouts are a crappy way to decide games.
’nuff said.
The shootout is good in EXHIBITION games where nobody cares about the standings. It’s where it affects the standings is where it doesn’t belong. It’s sissified the game enough that you can’t work hard to get a win, and the pansies that are afraid to get hit are deciding the games.
Two points for the winner in OT, none for the loser, and 1 each if tied. NO SHOOTOUT!
I don’t like the shootout. It’s too random and doesn’t seem a fair way to decide who gets the extra point. Also, it’s mathematically uncomfortable that some games are worth 2 points, some are worth 3 points. All games should be worth the same number of points, however you divvy them up.
No points for the loser – period.
OT is 3-on-3 for 5 minutes.
Shootout only if necessary (& stop putting in Smyth, Handzus, etc….Play Kopi, Fro, and JJ.) (shuda traded Barbs long ago…too many wasted games)
tantrum -
That’s why I now favor the idea I just thought of: two points for a win, zero points for a loss, and zero points for a tie. I don’t care if there is or isn’t OT. But you tie, both teams get nothing. Imagine the frenzy at the ends of games. Not only is there literally no incentive for sitting on a lead, but since tying and losing are the same, teams would have carte blanche to go for it b***s out.
I really don’t think there would be many ties under this plan.
The more I think about it, the more I love it. Imagine the two teams, as it gets to be about four minutes from the end of regulation, and they realize they’re in danger of getting nothing… It would be like a hockey org*sm.
Or put it this way: if ties really are the enemy, make them losses.
How about this you play 4 0n 4 till someone wins, no sucky ties no sucky shootouts and none of the other weird sugestions of 5 on or 5 on 4 in turns which. Other pro sports play till there’s a winner so should we. No excuses
I’d be for that, but the networks and the players wouldn’t.
Maybe you’re right Rich, maybe it’s an American thing to dislike tie games? Me, being Swedish, don’t see the problem with a tie game.
The shootout is not an accurate way of determining a winner – it’s taking a team sport down to the individual level, and mixing in a lot of luck, and I don’t like it. Nothing wrong with a tie game, and I always did wonder why this was put in.
The other option is of course to play until a winner is decided, which is nice for the fans but not as nice for the players who might have to travel and/or play another game the next day.
There is nothing worse in sports then a tie. I happen to like the shootout but if someone has a better idea I’m all ears. Anything but a tie. I would get so angry after going to a game that ended up in a tie it would make me feel like I just wasted my time and money. At the end of the day, I want a winner and a loser. Period.