The Shootout

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from gord11. Show gord11's posts

    The Shootout

    Last night's game was a great example of what Gordie Howe has always talekd about; a tie is a perfectly acceptable and - in last night's case - just as entertaining outcome to a hockey game.

    Reading here and there, I realize that the toothpaste will not go back into the tube on this one. Not only will the League not go back to 'Regulation Ties', it will venture further into Carnival Midway solutions.They may - may - one day get rid of the embarassing, nearly insulting shoot-out, but they will, no doubt replace it with something just as odious.

    I'm hearing things like; 'After the first 5 minutes of 4-on-4, go to another 5 minutes of 3-on-3' !!?

    And if there is a penalty called? 3-on-2? Two penalties? 3-on-1 ?! No penalties? Do whatever you want ot each other? Stupid.

    Regulation Tie or 10 minutes of 5-on5 sudden death overtime. Game over.

     

     

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Don-Bruino. Show Don-Bruino's posts

    Re: The Shootout

    And if still tied after going 1on 1 with just the goalies they should settle it by playing a 5 minute game of EA sports NHL (pick your year) - to see if that will settle the draw.

    What better way to settle a game than with a lottery!

    Just imagine all the proper possibilities. All the ears in Vegas are pricking up. Just the thing we need to ruin the game.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from RichHillOntario. Show RichHillOntario's posts

    Re: The Shootout

    In response to gord11's comment:

    Last night's game was a great example of what Gordie Howe has always talekd about; a tie is a perfectly acceptable and - in last night's case - just as entertaining outcome to a hockey game.

    Reading here and there, I realize that the toothpaste will not go back into the tube on this one. Not only will the League not go back to 'Regulation Ties', it will venture further into Carnival Midway solutions.They may - may - one day get rid of the embarassing, nearly insulting shoot-out, but they will, no doubt replace it with something just as odious.

    I'm hearing things like; 'After the first 5 minutes of 4-on-4, go to another 5 minutes of 3-on-3' !!?

    And if there is a penalty called? 3-on-2? Two penalties? 3-on-1 ?! No penalties? Do whatever you want ot each other? Stupid.

    Regulation Tie or 10 minutes of 5-on5 sudden death overtime. Game over.

     

     

     



    I'm with you.  Never been a fan.  Save anything gimmicky for the all-star game.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: The Shootout

    Seem to be a lot of logistical/scheduling problems associated with games taking any more time to complete than current.

    I feel, not only the current tie-breaker methods, but any of the proposed ones, work against the B's, and favour the danglers.  Guys like TS are born to play 4 on 4 and 3 on 3.

    I'm old school, but I really dislike ties.  I clearly remember the days when some teams spent the majority of the 3rd period playing for one.  This ones merely flavour, but I kind of like the current package better than the previous, and the proposals I've seen for the future.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: The Shootout

    Hate the shootout.  Hate it.  The slam dunk contest of hockey, and it decides games.

    Also hate ties, so I like the 4-4 and 3-3 options, by comparison.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: The Shootout

    As someone posted on BDC one time,  eliminate the extra point for a tie.  Shootouts then will be reduced.  Two points or no points will help.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: The Shootout

    In response to islamorada's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    As someone posted on BDC one time,  eliminate the extra point for a tie.  Shootouts then will be reduced.  Two points or no points will help.

    [/QUOTE]

    I disagree Isla. Last night was a great example of both teams deserving the points they got. It would be a travesty to see one team walk away with nothing after that game. I'm in the camp that has no problem with a hard fought tie.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: The Shootout

    Add 5 minutes to the OT and you will have less shootouts.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from islamorada. Show islamorada's posts

    Re: The Shootout

    I see your point. Yet imo losing in shootout is as bad as getting 0 points after two teams play an excellent game.  So reduce the number of shootouts even though some teams will be jilted by excellent play in a loss.

     

    In response to dezaruchi's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to islamorada's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    As someone posted on BDC one time,  eliminate the extra point for a tie.  Shootouts then will be reduced.  Two points or no points will help.

    [/QUOTE]

    I disagree Isla. Last night was a great example of both teams deserving the points they got. It would be a travesty to see one team walk away with nothing after that game. I'm in the camp that has no problem with a hard fought tie.

    [/QUOTE]


     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from jaymiller. Show jaymiller's posts

    Re: The Shootout

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Add 5 minutes to the OT and you will have less shootouts.

    [/QUOTE]


    Easier said than done , (not that i object to what's being proposed) but i suspect the NHLPA will put up as many roadblocks as they can.

    Would this thread even exist if the Bruins would have won ??

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from dezaruchi. Show dezaruchi's posts

    Re: The Shootout

    In response to jaymiller's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to SanDogBrewin's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Add 5 minutes to the OT and you will have less shootouts.

    [/QUOTE]


    Easier said than done , (not that i object to what's being proposed) but i suspect the NHLPA will put up as many roadblocks as they can.

    Would this thread even exist if the Bruins would have won ??

    [/QUOTE]

    I dislike shootouts regardless of who wins. I also don't think playing another 5 minutes would take any more time than the shootouts currently do so I'm not sure why the NHLPA would take issue with the idea. 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: The Shootout

    Would the objection be injuries ?

     

    And oh I permanently object to Kelly ever being on the shootout...ever!

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: The Shootout

    Aesthetically, no matter how it ended, that was a great game last night.  One of those "shame someone has to lose" games, but then that's apparently one of the things we love - someone winning.  So we're left with a conflict between those two statements and two ugly options: let it end in a tie or shootouts (pending a workable alternative to resolve games). 

    In my head, I've resolved the conflict.  As far as I'm concerned, the hockey game ended with a tie.  Each team takes a point and goes home.  Then, like Bucyk taking a bucket of pucks at the end of practice and roofing them from in tight, before they hit the showers, the teams put on this little exhibition called the shootout that only needs bad lighting and the players to take off their helmets for it to be an episode of Showdown.  For some reason that no one understands, the winner of this recreational activitiy gets a point in the standings.  In other words, it's not a choice of ugly, it's both uglies, but both uglies is better than either one.  It keeps both sides equally unhappy.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from red75. Show red75's posts

    Re: The Shootout

    I'm with gord, I'm fine with ties. The reason they brought in the loser point though was to stop teams in OT from playing not to lose and get them to go for the extra point. Fine, but then do what soccer does - no points for a loss, 1 for a tie, 3 for a win. No gimmics, other than maybe 4 on 4 OT, and no loser point.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: The Shootout

    Kelly is perfect in his career on penalty shots. Just sayin'.

    Kelly at least tried something.  Krejci looked like his feelings on the shootout correspond exactly to Al Iafrate's feelings about scoring empty net goals. 

    Bergeron is 2/2 this year.  Seguin 1/3.

    Anyone else find it odd that the Bruins don't really seem to have a rotation for this yet?  I'm thinking Bergeron's the only lock, but who else do they have who has the right kind of shiftiness for the shootout?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from SoxFanInIL. Show SoxFanInIL's posts

    Re: The Shootout


    I think the problem with considering ties again after last night's game is that most games that end regulation tied are not a result of 2 teams playing a good, honest hard game like last night.  More often, somebody (or both) are hanging on for most of the third to secure a point.

    I do hate ties. And I do hate the shootout.

    I suppose Id like the shootout better if the Bruins had anyone who could score on the SO beyond Bergeron.  (gee that kid in Dallas would be nice in those spots, this year's 1 for 3 notwithstanding)  Maybe try having Chara wind up from 15 feet away again would be effective.  Krug, perhaps?

    I wonder if eliminating the "losers point" in the SO ONLY would prod teams into settling it in OT?  Knowing they could get NOTHING if it goes to a SO might add some urgency?

    I dont see how 3-on-3 works in the case of penalties.

    I'd like to try no loser point in the SO along with a 10 min OT, 4 on 4.

     

     

     

     

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Davinator. Show Davinator's posts

    Re: The Shootout

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Kelly is perfect in his career on penalty shots. Just sayin'.

    Kelly at least tried something.  Krejci looked like his feelings on the shootout correspond exactly to Al Iafrate's feelings about scoring empty net goals. 

    Bergeron is 2/2 this year.  Seguin 1/3.

    Anyone else find it odd that the Bruins don't really seem to have a rotation for this yet?  I'm thinking Bergeron's the only lock, but who else do they have who has the right kind of shiftiness for the shootout?

    [/QUOTE]

    I prefer that at least one spot is reserved for a player that has a hot game that night...Soderberg certainly was worthy of consideration, but CJ probably saw his breakway last night (and the last game) and thought twice. My eyebrows hit the ceiling when they announced Kelly as third shooter. Which leads me to another question...

    How did all teams in the league get into this automatic "we want to go first in the shootout" mentality?

    I realize coaches think if they score first, it puts some pressure on the visitors but the idea of shooting rounds is so the 2nd team always get a shot at winning it outright or extending the shootout.

    Image if the Red Sox were playing at Fenway in the WS and said to St.Louis,

    "We want to bat first because we think you will feel the pressure if we score first. But don't worry, in the 9th inning you will get the last at bat. It is a chance we're willing to take..." ?

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanDogBrewin. Show SanDogBrewin's posts

    Re: The Shootout

    How about the players that performed the best in the game ?

    When the Bruins shooters were announced all I saw on the silly Intranat was "Why wasn't Sodeberg in the shootout ?". If you are not going to have a set rotation, go with your hottest forwards.

    Somehow I need to find a way too pin the shootout rotations on Geoff Ward!

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bookboy007. Show Bookboy007's posts

    Re: The Shootout

    In response to SoxFanInIL's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I wonder if eliminating the "losers point" in the SO ONLY would prod teams into settling it in OT?  Knowing they could get NOTHING if it goes to a SO might add some urgency?

    I dont see how 3-on-3 works in the case of penalties.

    I'd like to try no loser point in the SO along with a 10 min OT, 4 on 4.

    [/QUOTE]

    That would eliminate the shootout, but not in the way you anticipate.  If I get a loser point for losing in OT but no loser point for losing in a shootout, I'm going to pull my goalie.  If the point is valuable enough for me, I may even instruct my team that if they have possession in neutral zone or in the defensive zone with less than 20 second left to put the puck in their own net.  It's basically the same rationale for kicking a field goal on 4th and 1 inside the 20.  Yeah, you could go for double the points if you take the risk, or you can take the sure thing 1 point.

    In that scenario, the only time I'm gambling on the shootout is if I'm trying to catch up in the standings and need 2 every game out.

    And now I realize that I've watched too many teams coached by Roger Neilson over the years.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BadHabitude. Show BadHabitude's posts

    Re: The Shootout

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:

    Aesthetically, no matter how it ended, that was a great game last night.  One of those "shame someone has to lose" games, but then that's apparently one of the things we love - someone winning.  So we're left with a conflict between those two statements and two ugly options: let it end in a tie or shootouts (pending a workable alternative to resolve games). 

    In my head, I've resolved the conflict.  As far as I'm concerned, the hockey game ended with a tie.  Each team takes a point and goes home.  Then, like Bucyk taking a bucket of pucks at the end of practice and roofing them from in tight, before they hit the showers, the teams put on this little exhibition called the shootout that only needs bad lighting and the players to take off their helmets for it to be an episode of Showdown.  For some reason that no one understands, the winner of this recreational activitiy gets a point in the standings.  In other words, it's not a choice of ugly, it's both uglies, but both uglies is better than either one.  It keeps both sides equally unhappy.




    What the hell was Jack talking about?  I've seen players work after practice plenty of times.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from DrCC. Show DrCC's posts

    Re: The Shootout

    There's a statistic that shows that the team that scores first is more likely (2 to 1?  I don't remember exactly) to win.  Going first gives you a chance to score before the other team has the option.

    I think this may be one of those situations where the statistic doesn't mean what they all think it means.

    As for the shootout, keep it (maybe with the extra 5 minutes of OT) but remove the extra point for winning it.  Want that bonus point in the standings?  Win on a hockey play.  Want an edge in a low-ranking tie-breaker?  Win in the shoot out.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Canadianfan6. Show Canadianfan6's posts

    Re: The Shootout

    The shoot out is eliminated in real hockey, called the playoffs!

    I don't worry about shoot out results it is just a NHL marketing gimick.

     

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ergoetal. Show Ergoetal's posts

    Re: The Shootout

    In response to Bookboy007's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Kelly is perfect in his career on penalty shots. Just sayin'.

    Kelly at least tried something.  Krejci looked like his feelings on the shootout correspond exactly to Al Iafrate's feelings about scoring empty net goals. 

    Bergeron is 2/2 this year.  Seguin 1/3.

    Anyone else find it odd that the Bruins don't really seem to have a rotation for this yet?  I'm thinking Bergeron's the only lock, but who else do they have who has the right kind of shiftiness for the shootout?

    [/QUOTE]

    I'd try Krug and maybe Hamilton, and anyone, everyone, before Kelly.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: The Shootout

    Rask is just mad bc he is exposed.  He doesnt have 5 guys in the slot blocking shots.  Cry baby.  ;-)

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from shuperman. Show shuperman's posts

    Re: The Shootout

    I hate shootouts as well.  Play 5 mins of 3 on 3.  4-4 doesnt solve it enough.   it would be exciting to watch.  

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share