Post-Game Talk: New York Rangers at Detroit Red Wings - December 29

[chosen]

Shootouts are about the same as flipping a coin. Getting bent out of shape about them is beyond stupid.

 

[darko]

Brutal turnover from Nieves is the story of the night. Brutal. Don't have enough forwards to bench anyone now. Up 2-1 on the road late with barely any chances for Detroit on bad ice and he turns it over and the player behind him breaks in. Chytil and Andersson better be ready next year. This looks like a pre-season line up out there.

Why bench Boo? Ok he f***ed up but he'll learn from it.

 

[darko]

I don't want to harp on this but here are the graphs of Lundqvist's shootout save % through the years compared to average and there's also a line for his career average over league average.

View attachment 90327

So yes he does better than the league average pretty significantly and his save % is more erratic than I expected (also apparently he was really good in 11-12, I thought he was mediocre).

However the trend is going downward:

View attachment 90329

Far from worst ever lol.

 

[nyr2k2]

Shootouts are about the same as flipping a coin. Getting bent out of shape about them is beyond stupid.

Flipping a coin to decide the final result of a game is beyond stupid.

 

[leetch99]

Just play 3v3 until somebody wins

Games would likely be finished even faster than they are now ...and get rid of loser point . Should NEVER get a point for losing .

 

[chosen]

Flipping a coin to decide the final result of a game is beyond stupid.

Did someone suggest it isn't?

The point is that there is zero you can do to help your team win shootouts. People bitching and moaning about them is stupid.

The idea that some fans have that if they got to pick the shooters that it would turn out better is absurd.

 

[Vitto79]

Was at the game . Nice arena

Rangers should of closed it out but to be fair Hank was great and took a point

 

[Ori]

3v3 until someone score or remove OT hockey with draw result 1 points to both teams, and 3 points for a W.

 

[HFsNumber1Heel]

Rangers did look a little stale but hung in there to get a point. Getting 3 was going to be hard Howard plays them well, always. Good news is the Blue Jackets, Islanders, and Penguins all lost, and the Devils didn't gain any ground.

Take the point.

A couple of observations:

AA-There are some players you see and just think "wow, he was totally supposed to play for this team." I always felt Helm Abdelkader, and Wayne Simmonds should have been Rangers under Torts in another life, well same for Anastasiou with the AV Rangers.

Production from the "main" guys-The PP is ice cold as usual. Rangers PP always starts out fine but by December is awful. We've seen this story since Nylander/Straka left. It's cool that Vesey, DD, and the Hayes lines have been producing, but they need more out of Nash, Ziba, Shattenkirk, and Zuc. I'd also somewhat put Buch into that category. Disclaimer: I'm not saying they stink, or are bumbs, or trade them, just need more. Ziba's been a little tentative since coming back. I get it, he's worried longterm about his health and sometimes it takes guys a while to get going. He has to ultimately either make an adjustment to his game, or feel comfortable again.

Still too much passing. Howard must be in their nightmares because there were plenty of times they should have shot and passed.

 

[nyr2k2]

Did someone suggest it isn't?

The point is that there is zero you can do to help your team win shootouts. People *****ing and moaning about them is stupid.

The idea that some fans have that if they got to pick the shooters that it would turn out better is absurd.

My mistake, I thought this was a message board.

 

[Hire Sather]

Games would likely be finished even faster than they are now ...and get rid of loser point . Should NEVER get a point for losing .

3 on 3 is just as gimmicky as a shootout, you can't lose 3 on 3 and come out of it with 0 points, ridiculous.

 

[chosen]

My mistake, I thought this was a message board.

To clear up any confusion, it is.

Your earlier reply to me suggested that the notion of deciding the result of a game by a coin toss had been thrown into the topic, when it hadn't.

To ensure that no one else was confused, I let you and everyone else know that I never suggested it.

 

[nyr2k2]

3 on 3 is just as gimmicky as a shootout, you can't lose 3 on 3 and come out of it with 0 points, ridiculous.

The thing is, 3-on-3 is, at its core, still hockey. You still skate around and pass to your teammates and shoot and play defense and make line changes and all that. I mean I grew up playing 3-on-3 or 4-on-4 a lot of the time because we didn't have enough guys. It is a gimmick but it's still hockey. The shootout is just taking one small element of the game and making it a deciding factor. That's why I've always hated it.

I'd be totally fine doing the 3-on-3 and then calling it a tie after that. I mean I'd be okay with calling it a tie after regulation, but I understand the League's desire to have fewer games end in ties.

 

[Megustaelhockey]

Letting others have the last word is okay sometimes, too.

 

[Ori]

The UK soccer table point system is very good though, and most leagues in EU use it 1 points from draw, 3 for a win, and teams don`t get exhausted playing OT hockey, and NHL - the worst time schedule of all professional sports.

 

[Hire Sather]

The thing is, 3-on-3 is, at its core, still hockey. You still skate around and pass to your teammates and shoot and play defense and make line changes and all that. I mean I grew up playing 3-on-3 or 4-on-4 a lot of the time because we didn't have enough guys. It is a gimmick but it's still hockey. The shootout is just taking one small element of the game and making it a deciding factor. That's why I've always hated it.

I'd be totally fine doing the 3-on-3 and then calling it a tie after that. I mean I'd be okay with calling it a tie after regulation, but I understand the League's desire to have fewer games end in ties.

That's fair, but your basically saying "Its almost real hockey"

Maybe 3 on 3 isn't just as gimmicky as a shootout, but it's not much less of a gimmick. There are more penalty shots in a season than non OT 3 on3 play. It's a totally different game than is played at 5 on 5. You can't play less than 5 minutes of 3 on 3 hockey and come out of it with 0 points. You play 60 minutes of legit hockey to a 1-1 tie, play 45 seconds of 3 on 3 pond hockey, score a goal and come out with 2 points while your divisional rival gets nothing? That will hurt the standings more than the current system does.

I really have no issues with the loser point. 60 minutes of 5 on 5 hockey played to a tie is deserving of a point.

I've always thought the solution was 10 minutes of 4 on 4 then a tie if no winner. Loser point stays.

 

[NickyFotiu]

Please put Nash on a line with Vesey. He is the "cooler" for our other offensive players since he rarely passes the puck. He will go 1 against 3 rather than give the puck to his open guys. Nash is very good playing his isolationist game but his linemates get wasted often. I would like to see JT-Zibs-Zooks or Grab-Hayes-Zooks. Put Nash with DD and Vesey. Leave the 4th line the way it is. They are a good match.

 

[nyr2k2]

That's fair, but your basically saying "Its almost real hockey"

Maybe 3 on 3 isn't just as gimmicky as a shootout, but it's not much less of a gimmick. There are more penalty shots in a season than non OT 3 on3 play. It's a totally different game than is played at 5 on 5. You can't play less than 5 minutes of 3 on 3 hockey and come out of it with 0 points. You play 60 minutes of legit hockey to a 1-1 tie, play 45 seconds of 3 on 3 pond hockey, score a goal and come out with 2 points while your divisional rival gets nothing? That will hurt the standings more than the current system does.

I really have no issues with the loser point. 60 minutes of 5 on 5 hockey played to a tie is deserving of a point.

I've always thought the solution was 10 minutes of 4 on 4 then a tie if no winner. Loser point stays.

I wouldn't do away with the loser point if you're doing 3-on-3. If that was the suggestion then I guess I missed that when I jumped in. My only point was that I don't think 3-on-3 is in the same level as the shootout in terms of absurd ways to end a game.

 

[Gordon Bombay]

I've always thought 3 pts for a regulation/overtime win, 2 pts for a shootout win, and 1 pt for an overtime loss would make things more exciting.

 

[kovazub94]

Almost full 7 pages of discussing Lundqvist in the SO. Ridiculous! I honestly would rather read about Vesey an AHLer or trading McD for McDavid, or something else just as stupid.

 

[LORDE]

There aren’t any shootouts in the playoffs.

/thread

 

[Tawnos]

Still surprised the Rangers never got a makeup call on that Smith penalty.

 

[NYRFAN218]

Was at the game last night. Beautiful arena, by the far the nicest out of the almost 15 rinks I've been to thus far. Did think the atmosphere was lacking and the game presentation was meh. Never made it to the Joe so can't compare it to that, just the other arenas I've been to.

As for the game, the first 5-10 mins were pretty bad from the Rangers standpoint but I thought they played a pretty good game after that. Howard was great as was Lundqvist. Smith call at the end of the game was horrendous. Shootout is what it is. With both Mika and Zucc failing to score; it's always going to be an uphill climb because those are the only two guys you can really bank on in the shootout. I really don't have an issue with Shattenkirk because of the career numbers. Best scorers/players doesn't always equal the best shootout guy.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Far from worst ever lol.

I was saying he's the worst NOW. Which in itself is probably hyperbole. But I've stated numerous times that he was either one of the best or the best early in his career.

 

[will1066]

Hope to never see you (again), Athanasiou.