Toggle sidebar

Do Shootout Wins Feel Satisfying to You?

Not that we've ever won one, but I find shootouts to be the worst thing in the league. You battle and fight for 1 point over 65 minutes of attrition and then you get another one for about 5 minutes of skills? It's an absolute nonsense and all because people can't accept a draw/tie? If the best sport in the world can embrace the draw, hockey can. It artificially influences the standings and it's ultimately just not very fair.

OT is better for the fan and you win or lose to a hockey play at least. Move to the 3-2-1 points system and get it over with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheTotalPackage and Lshap
Shoot-outs suck.

More importantly, some games being worth 3 total points and some games being worth 2 total points is idiotic and would not pass muster in any other major professional sports league.

Overtime losses being worth 50% of a win is idiotic and would not pass muster in any other major professional sports league.

I didn't have any problem with ties myself, but since that cat's out of the bag I don't suppose we can ever go back. So, there's no choice left but to go to the "3-point regulation win" system (which is taking a giant dump on the entire history of the NHL, but such is life in the post-Lockout Bettman era). So, the best option would be this:

-- 3 points for a regulation win.
-- If tied after three periods, play 3-on-3 overtime for max. 10 minutes or until someone scores. If someone scores, that team gets 2 points and the other team gets 1.
-- If no one scores after 10 minutes of 3-on-3 (which would only happen about 10% of the time, I guess), then each team gets 1 point only. And that's the end of the game (no shoot-outs... ever).

This makes too much sense, though, so the NHL will not do it.
 
ClydeLee said:
I will never get the hardcore fan dislike of shootouts. It's always so foreign to me.
Click to expand...
What is it that you don’t understand? Honestly, I can at least see the point of people that can’t live with a tie that thinks shootouts are ok, but not sure they even like it.
 
The Gr8 Dane said:
Yes it is wasting 3 hours of your life for 1 game out of 82 in a year for no W or L is bad
Click to expand...
This is probably one of my biggest pet peeves and probably the reason we have shootouts to begin with. The mentality that there must be a winner in a regular season game. Are people paying money to watch a game or just interested in a win or a loss? If all you are interested in is a win or loss, why bother watching the game, just check the scores?
 
1865 said:
If the best sport in the world can embrace the draw, hockey can.
Click to expand...
What annoys me about that “best sport in the world “ is that they will decide their most important championship with a shootout…I get why they do it, but so lame
 
The Panther said:
Overtime losses being worth 50% of a win is idiotic and would not pass muster in any other major professional sports league.
Click to expand...
Hate to go there, but I will. OT losses are worth 0% of an OT win. You get 1pt for OT win and 0pts for OT loss. It also comes into play with tiebreakers.

I much, much prefer ties, but the point system doesn’t bother me. So I don’t think an OT win should be worth the same as a regulation win, but it really isn’t when you consider tiebreaker rules
 
Toby91ca said:
What annoys me about that “best sport in the world “ is that they will decide their most important championship with a shootout…I get why they do it, but so lame
Click to expand...

This is true, but after a full 30 minutes (1/3 of the original game) of extra time played.
 
While everyone's putting up proposals for how to deal with this, here's my idea to make regulation time matter more: 2 points for a regulation win, 1 point for an OT/SO win, nothing if you lose. Can't get it done before the game's supposed to end? Now you're fighting for half as much. That'll drive up competitiveness during the actual hockey portion of the game, and add a sense of urgency in the third period.

Alternately, you could devalue just the shootout, and do 2 points for a regulation/OT win, 1 for a SO win, nothing if you lose, and again you're putting more emphasis on the actual hockey and making the skills competition a consolation prize, like it ought to be, while still giving the networks the guarantee that the game will end in a certain amount of time with a definitive winner.
 
It’s more relief than satisfying. If it’s a shootout between teams that aren’t the devils I don’t even care to watch.
 
Machinehead said:
I don't care.

People say it's a coin toss like hockey in general isn't a coin toss.
Click to expand...
The outcome of a game might be similar to the odds of a coin toss, the problem is, the activity of a full game is nothing like a coin toss, while the shootout itself is closer to a coin toss.
 
I don't like shootouts at all but the Oilers barely ever have any so I don't get a chance to hate them much these days.
 
They do feel shallow. Moreso than even 3 on 3.

But standings are tight, so the importance of winning those is not lost.
 
As a Ducks fan any win feels good the past 7 years. That win against LA to get us back to .500 before the break felt fantastic.
 
I like the shootout. It's fun to watch a skills competition. And I feel like it's just as legit as 3on3 overtime, which is it's own gimmick. What's so wrong with a gimmick? I can tell you without a doubt that when my kids watch a shootout they're totally enthralled. The crowd loved it when I saw one live in the arena. And my friends that aren't big on hockey love seeing it too.

I've heard a thousand suggestions about how to change the points system, or how to remove the shootout. But none of them sound more entertaining, and none of them seem to fix any issues with the standings.

The shootout and points system are fine the way they are.
 
ponder719 said:
While everyone's putting up proposals for how to deal with this, here's my idea to make regulation time matter more: 2 points for a regulation win, 1 point for an OT/SO win, nothing if you lose. Can't get it done before the game's supposed to end? Now you're fighting for half as much. That'll drive up competitiveness during the actual hockey portion of the game, and add a sense of urgency in the third period.

Alternately, you could devalue just the shootout, and do 2 points for a regulation/OT win, 1 for a SO win, nothing if you lose, and again you're putting more emphasis on the actual hockey and making the skills competition a consolation prize, like it ought to be, while still giving the networks the guarantee that the game will end in a certain amount of time with a definitive winner.
Click to expand...
IMO, fans would scream bloody murder if they'd spend two and a half hours watching their team fight to a draw, only to be told the entire game doesn't count because the other team won a short gimmick.

I doubt anyone in the NHL or its fans would ever accept game results that ignore the actual game. If regulation ends in a tie, it's because neither team beat the other, neither won or lost the real hockey game, and both deserve the point.

I'm okay with the OT/SO as a bonus point, but not as a replacement for the regulation game.
 
Shoot outs aren't real wins, just like shoot out losses aren't real losses. They're basically ties for both teams and they're playing for the bonus point.
 
I turn off shootouts when I'm watching by myself, but I'll feel satisfied if I see it was a win after.
 
ponder719 said:
While everyone's putting up proposals for how to deal with this, here's my idea to make regulation time matter more: 2 points for a regulation win, 1 point for an OT/SO win, nothing if you lose. Can't get it done before the game's supposed to end? Now you're fighting for half as much. That'll drive up competitiveness during the actual hockey portion of the game, and add a sense of urgency in the third period.

Alternately, you could devalue just the shootout, and do 2 points for a regulation/OT win, 1 for a SO win, nothing if you lose, and again you're putting more emphasis on the actual hockey and making the skills competition a consolation prize, like it ought to be, while still giving the networks the guarantee that the game will end in a certain amount of time with a definitive winner.
Click to expand...
This is probably worst of both worlds though….certainly will drive the people who hate games with different amount of points crazy and it doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense to get no credit for being able to keep another team from being able to beat you other than in a shootout. I understand the logic that people might try to win more in regulation then, but I don’t think you’d end up seeing much of a result on that end anyway
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom