Do Shootout Wins Feel Satisfying to You?

[MK9]

"Do shootout wins feel satisfying to you?"

Moreso than a goddamn tie.

 

[SeanMoneyHands]

Even 3 on 3 OT doesn't feel satisfying but it's better than a shootout. Bring back tie games. Shootouts bring people out of their seats and draw in new fans so Bettman is happy.

 

[Toby91ca]

Compared to a tie? Absolutely.

Nah, I’d take a tie, without any hesitation whatsoever…take a tie over 3v3 OT as well

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

I literally do not care. That's still an improvement over ties. f*** ties.

 

[Warden of the North]

Sure.

It's a regular season, I don't get too worked up about the manner they occur in.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I feel like a lot of the people who want to see ties must not be old enough to really remember ties.

They ****ing suck. For every one dramatic tie there are like 20 which are just a wet fart of an ending as teams lock it down to protect the one point.

 

[The Grinder]

The devils are pretty putrid at the shootout so I started to turn off the games at that point but then I obsessively refresh the scores page.

They are fun when you are live though so I think they are a net positive for the casual fan.

 

[FunkySeeFunkyDo]

Because they are stressful—yes.

 

[Joe McGrath]

I am very satisfied when the Hurricanes win in a shootout because they almost always lose them since they were actually good at in 05-06.

That said, extend 3 on 3 to 10 minutes.

 

[cjm502]

Not really but anything beats a tie

 

[Toby91ca]

I feel like a lot of the people who want to see ties must not be old enough to really remember ties.

They ****ing suck. For every one dramatic tie there are like 20 which are just a wet fart of an ending as teams lock it down to protect the one point.

I’m guessing you are way off here. I could be wrong though. Count me as one who remembers when ties existed and prefer that to what we have now. I’m guessing the majority of people that would prefer ties are those that watched when we had it. The issue back then was that OT was bad because no one wanted to lose and get no points. The solution to that is just awarding 1 pt each after regulation and then extra point for OT win…which creates the issue a lot of people hate, 3 pt games…which we have now anyway. You could simply go back to no points with OT loss if you want, playing regular 5v5 in OT…wouldn’t bother me, just 5 min of hockey…don’t care how they play it…can’t be worse than watching keep away like they play now.

The huge problem I have with the big solution people have to make all games worth the same by suggesting 3pts for regulation win, 2 for OT win, 1 for OT loss, etc is that the forced winner for each game by any means necessary (I.e. gimmicks)

 

[hangman005]

Nah give me a tie every day of the week over a shootout win or loss.

 

[SheldonJPlankton]

Continuous OT, just like during playoff times. We play hockey and let players and coaches decide the winner.

 

[Taro Tsujimoto]

I say yes. A win's a win (especially when your team is a perennial bottom feeder)!

 

[ijuka]

I feel like a lot of the people who want to see ties must not be old enough to really remember ties.

They ****ing suck. For every one dramatic tie there are like 20 which are just a wet fart of an ending as teams lock it down to protect the one point.

Teams don't currently lock it down to protect the one point?

 

[MessierII]

2 points is 2 points but it’s a horrible way to end a game. I’d rather have a tie.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Teams don't currently lock it down to protect the one point?

Not the way they did in 5v5 overtime ending in a tie.

There are FAR better solutions to the recent keepaway strategy than institutionalizing it.

 

[Toby91ca]

Continuous OT, just like during playoff times. We play hockey and let players and coaches decide the winner.

I’m assuming you aren’t serious, but in case you are, it simply isn’t possible to make that work. If games are decided within 5-10 min of OT it would be fine, but you can’t have games going to multiple OT and it really doesn’t matter how little it might happen, once is too much

 

[catnip]

Are they really supposed to? By the time you win in a shootout, you've already failed twice.

 

[Johnny HFBOARDS]

i shut off the game for Shootouts but love OT, I'll watch any teams OT

 

[TheTotalPackage]

I feel like a lot of the people who want to see ties must not be old enough to really remember ties.

They ****ing suck. For every one dramatic tie there are like 20 which are just a wet fart of an ending as teams lock it down to protect the one point.

Ties were a way better result than shootouts are. I don't feel a need to see a winner every night.

If two teams draw after 65 minutes, walk on your merry way with a point. A shootout immediately eliminates the team concept of the game, which is lame. The fact a team can seal an extra point in the standings after two shooters is even lamer.

Want to minimize the amount of ties. Go down to 4 on 4 or 3 on 3, and make OT 10 minutes. If neither team can end it then, what more can you do.

The fact teams can be propped in the standings artificially, primarily by hanging on and protecting for the guaranteed point, is just as much a wet fart as teams that clamped down in OT 30 years ago.

 

[ItWasJustified]

In the NHL where you get the same amount of points for winning in regulation, OT and shootout, yes.

In the SHL where you get 3 points for a regulation win and 2 points for OT/shootout, no.

 

[hangman005]

Teams get 1 point for being tied at the end of regulation. Both teams lose that point if still tied after OT. I think the 0 point games should make up for the 3 point games.

 

[KirkAlbuquerque]

Hell no

 

[3074326]

Nope, but it still manages to feel a million times more satisfying than a tie.

And regarding the argument about "the need to declare a winner" being the problem. Yes there should be a winner. That's the point of competition. Winning. At least for many of us.