There's No Tying in Hockey!

[RichardGraham]

Hi Folks,

I'm in the middle of an e-mail argument with a buddy of mine in New York City, also named Rich. He's a die-hard New Jersey Devil's fan, which makes absolutely no sense, but his arguments do have some value. /wtimages/icons/wink.gif

Where do you folks stand on the topic of NHL shootouts? Here's the latest salvo in the war between Rich's:

Rich S:

"I see the shootout as a marketing tool, nothing more, nothing less. Those who feel that there must always be a winner will like the shootout. Those who see the value of a tie see two teams who played through regular time and there is no winner in the particular contest. Playoffs and The Cup, of course, are different as you mentioned. But the shootout is too much like luck. Regardless of the shootout or not, we'll still have the same number of teams in the playoffs.

A tie makes a team try harder. A shootout says, "Hey, we might get lucky."

Rich G:

"I appreciate all your points and your arguments. I probably agreed with you about this at one time.... before shootouts ever came into existence. I was a traditionalist in many ways. However, what I see happening in the world is that people have less and less time... we want to see a resolution. What other sport has ties? Not baseball. Not basketball. Not football any longer. Soccer, maybe. Who cares who tied whom? Life moves too fast now. There are too many more important things to think about -- people are swamped for time, and a tie feels like a waste of time. Why play if you start at 0-0 and end up 4-4? Sure, goals have been scored, but there's no conclusion. I know that I always hated paying money to go to National Hockey League games and having the game end in a tie... especially before the four-on-four overtime came into being in the NHL. Even then, it seemed that many teams played not to lose in OT, so I walked out of the arena somewhat unsatisfied. No one won? Then why go to the game?"

[One thing I forgot to add -- I in NO WAY want to see shootouts in the NHL playoffs. In the playoffs, let them play for DAYS until a winner comes through -- NO. SHOOTOUTS. IN. THE. PLAYOFFS. EVER.]

Sincerely,

Richard Graham
Editor
Inline Hockey Central

[treytai]

I do not have a problem with shootouts in regular season, just not for playoffs. The bigger issue I have is teams getting a point by just getting to overtime. My feeling is if you lose you lose no matter if it is overtime or shootout. Why should teams get a point for losing?

[Brooklynite10]

I feel shootouts are great for the game. Any game in the past that was played without declaring a winner or a loser was an emotional letdown. "The thrill of victory or the agony of defeat"

[Maskman]

I really dislike giving out 3 total points for an OT game because when the score is tied late both teams sit back and wait for OT. This is my solution.

4 Pts for a Regualtion Win
3 Pts for an overtime win
2 Pts. for a shootout win
1 Pt for a shootout/OT loss
0 Pts. for a reguation loss.

It sounds complicated at first but it really rewards teams that can take care of business in regulation. Teams are also discouraged from sitting back in OT and waiting for a shootout.

It would def make for some incredible playoff races.

[DannyG]

"There's 8 chuckkars in polo and 3 periods in hockey."
-etched in the carborundum tablets at the center of the universe

Let's simplify this fellahs...if we have it in the playoffs, where it counts(?!), then we should do it in the regular season...

Teams switch ends, put 20 minutes on the clock, and we keep playing periods until someone scores...period, end of discussion...

I admire those with formulae for standings points based on ties/ot variations, but c'mon...

Imagine if MLB played on extra inning, with 8 players on the field, then to a home run derby if nobody scored in the extra inning...

c'mon, play the game til somebody wins!



<font color=purple>DannyG</font color=purple>

[Brooklynite10]

baseball is not as physically demanding as hockey is. it can not be like that in the regular season. just picture a game going into 4 overtimes ending about 1-2am. a team traveling, then playing a game the next night at 7pm. these players would have nothing left and it would not be fair to those players and the fans who have paid good money to see a hard fought game

[DannyG]

That is a valid point...

I would offer two points in trade-off, however:

1. The situation that you describe would be a rare exception, although I acknowledge that it would occur. A given team has maybe 10 back-to-back dates each season. An overtime game would happen a percentage of these, and a multiple overtime might happen a percentage of those...you get right down to it, and this might happen once-per-season per team.

In fact, this situation would add to the "lore of the sport..." Imagine two teams coming down to the wire fighting for a playoff spot, and this happens to one of them. What a great excitement factor for the players, and the fans! Can they do it, in spite of the double-game problem! Can they overcome the long game the night before, and the fatigue factor! Can't you just hear the announcer hype before the game the next night! Which brings us to the next point:

2. no fan ever left a sudden death overtime game feeling cheated...in any sport...every sudden death game becomes a fantastic marketing tool for the league...in fact, you might even have some people accuse the league of fostering overtime games to get more fans in the seats...

I still maintain that sudden death, play it all the way, is the way to go, hands down...and it's probably etched in the carborundum tablets as well...

<font color=purple>DannyG</font color=purple>

[WMBG_GM]

I think that what we currently see is a compromise of sorts:

The TV folks want a predicatble schedule. They don't want 4 hour hockey games. Messes with their revenue stream too much.

The hockey fans want a resolution to a game. I think this is pretty universal. I'm guessing but I bet at 70% of hockey fans would say "give me a winner" (note, there is no disctinction made there between sudden-death or shootout, just an end result).

On the flip side, NHL management wants/needs a) TV $$$, b) happy fans and their $$$, and finally, c) happy owners (aka, don't grind down my players, break my transpo schedule, etc etc).

So we get the current, predictable (2.5 hour game), winner every time, teams get to the hotels on time, game we have today. And honestly, I enjoy it.

Only way I think it can be improved is to quit given any points to the loser. Every game is 2 points. You want them, win them. No "OTL", No "SOL", Just a "W" or and "L". Why on earth they went to a game system that removes the tie but kept the scoring system that accounts for ties, I have no idea.

As far as "It is a 5 v 5 game, it should be played and won that way". Well, you had 60 minutes to win it. You didn't. You get 5 mins of 4 v 4 to try and do it as a team. You didn't do that either. Well, now it is 1 v 1, it is going to happen. Still bother you? Hit the #&$%@# net!

;)

Ben Loyall

[Brooklynite10]

good post. i totally feel that the loser still getting a point being ridiculous.

[DannyG]

I agree with both Ben and Justin above, compromise it is, all the factors involved, and if ya lose, ya should lose...

I do report, however, that the carborundum tablets at the center of the universe hold the following note:

"...oh, yeah, and in hockey, the teams should play until one wins, t.v. or not..."

<font color=purple>DannyG</font color=purple>

[WMBG_GM]

:)

But I do have to ask, isn't a shootout the ultimate form of sudden death?

All of us who have fallen on our faces trying to not overskate (remember my indian name is "skates like a$$"), it definitely takes more than a bit of skill.

I think a big part of the "NO SHOOTOUTS!!" school of thought comes from a institutional distrust of goalies in general ;)

I mean, come on! How many times have you turned yourself inside out trying to keep a guy outside only to have Mr pipes there let in some weak %$$^ from outside the dots!?

(said with big grin)

Ben Loyall

[NLane]

hahaha. I have seen that!