Shootouts in hockey are lame. Yes, they are exciting. But they are also anti-climactic.
It's like if you are watching Star Wars, and right after Leia gives the medals to Han and Luke, Chewie took out a sword and cut her head off.
Tonight I saw my first regular season NHL shootout, and before it even started, I was thinking, "65 minutes of hard-fought hockey, and it comes down to this?" Six guys and two goalies isn't hockey. It's a sideshow.
Hockey is teamwork, offense and defense. If one team plays better as a team than the other, but the other has a better goalie or a better shooter, then the latter team has the advantage in the shootout.
People say they needed to get rid of ties. Maybe for marketing reasons, but I don't get it. They say people left unsatisfied when ties result. Good, they should, because it's a lame ending. But I don't feel satsified after a shootout, either. And not just because my team lost; if the Bruins had won, I'd have feel like we'd stolen a free point. Which is better I suppose, but not enough that it warrants screwing up the game.
Of course, it's not about the game. It's about marketing the game to people who don't already like it. And those people love shootouts, unfortunately.
Re:Only a matter of getting used to
theguvnor on 2005-10-25T12:00:47
s/US sports/North American sports/
If Europeans like shootouts, more power to them in their leagues. I intensely dislike shootouts for all the reasons Chris outlines: basically it's a chintzy way to decide a game where two teams have fought equally hard over 65 minutes, *and* I see no reason to _force_ a winner and a loser through a clunky mechanism that artificially reduces a team game to individual efforts. I cannot fathom why ties are unacceptable to so many people.Re:Only a matter of getting used to
pudge on 2005-10-25T17:03:49
I think you find it lame because there is no real shoot-out tradition in US sports.
No. I have followed soccer for much of my life, to some degree, and am well-acquainted with shootouts. I thought it was lame when a team lost in the World Cup via shootout, too.
It's also great when you're watching a match between two teams you don't really care about.
Well yes, that's the point. If I don't care, it's fine. But I do.
We don't have it in regular season games, though.
And on the other hand, we don't have it in playoff games.
They tried to reduce the amount of ties by introducing the three-point scheme. You get three points for a victory instead of two. That means a tie (worth one point) is now less useful to either of the two teams than it used to be before.
I like this method, and wish they would do it in hockey. Instead, an win and overtime win are both worth 2 points, and overtime loss is one point. I'd prefer an overtime win be worth two, overtime loss worth one, and you need to win in regulation to get three. So every game is worth three points, period.
The MLS experiment Re:Hockey still has ties
n1vux on 2005-10-25T19:27:14
At least the resurrected NHL (Neo-NHL?) are giving a bonus point, in addition to the 2x1pt for tie. None of the 3 points on offer for a clear winner are evaporating at end of game.When the MLS tried Shootouts to get overtime-happy Americans to watch the first few seasons, they gave only one point to only the winner of the shoot-out, so the loser of the shoot-out did not get a point for a tie. Two points evaporated when it went to shoot-out.
MLS dropped shootouts, reverting to international standard 1pt for a tie. Turns out TV Networks preferred a clean schedule -- 90minutes playing time fit nicely in 2 hours air time with no timeouts except for rare bad injury -- to a definite winner. They'll put up with a variable length game from NFL and MLB, but 2nd tier sports (in America) like Soccer (World Football), Lacross, (Field) Hockey, and Boxing-on-Ice (Hockey) need to fit the schedule.
I would predict the TV execs will axe the shootouts
... unless shoot outs pad the average game length to a nicer value. (3*20+2*[BREAK]+shootout]= ?? FYI, MLS retains OT only for post-season play, per FIFA standard, with normal playing OT for 15+15 minutes before a shootout.
Re:The MLS experiment Re:Hockey still has ties
pudge on 2005-10-25T19:56:47
At least the resurrected NHL (Neo-NHL?) are giving a bonus point, in addition to the 2x1pt for tie.
But it's not a bonus point. You win, you get two points.
None of the 3 points on offer for a clear winner are evaporating at end of game.
But there shouldn't be three points on offer, unless the winner in regulation gets all three of them. Instead, the winner in OT or shootout gets same points as winner in regulation.
I would predict the TV execs will axe the shootouts... unless shoot outs pad the average game length to a nicer value. (3*20+2*[BREAK]+shootout]= ??
It's only second-tier networks that show NHL anyway, except in hockey, where it is a first-tier sport (well, and NBC will be showing a handful of games after the New Year). So I don't think it will matter.
Re:The MLS experiment Re:Hockey still has ties
n1vux on 2005-10-26T01:26:40
But it's not a bonus point. You win, you get two points.Oh, that's not what I thought the first replier said. Yes, that does change everything. In Soccer, Regulation is worth 3 -- is Hockey only worth 2 in regulation, then?
second tier networks
With the MLB so-called World Series on FOX now, I'm confused as to what's 2nd tier and what's first
... Cheers,
Bill
Re:The MLS experiment Re:Hockey still has ties
pudge on 2005-10-26T02:08:00
Any win -- regulation, overtime, shootout -- is two points. A loss in regulation is no points, otherwise is one point. And there are no ties.
I'd love it to be either what we had before -- win is two, tie is one, and no shootout or points for overtime loss -- or have a win in regulation be three, a loss in regulation none, and a win in overtime/shootout be two, and a loss in overtime/shootout be one. Or better yet, a tie be one for each, with the final point simply lost to the ether since neither team was worthy to claim it.Re:The MLS experiment Re:Hockey still has ties
n1vux on 2005-10-26T21:39:00
OHHHH.So nominally it's 2pts on offer, but if you lose in overtime or shoot-out you get a point you get a point and the winner gets one too, so teams could conceivably increase their expected value of points by conniving to tie in regulation and only start playing in OT !? That's wrong, yeah.
Re:The MLS experiment Re:Hockey still has ties
pudge on 2005-10-26T22:10:15
Each team can still only get a max of two, but the total amount of points that the two teams will get increases by one after regulation. So yeah, in theory, the Bruins and Maple Leafs could have agreed before Monday to go to OT, and have the Leafs win at home in OT, and then tomorrow to have the Bruins win at home. A guaranteed three points for both teams is better than each risking getting none to try for four!
you're upset with shoot outs wouldn't be because the Bruins lost would it?
All kidding aside I'm assuming that you're talking about the Toronto vs Boston game. It was also my first time seeing a regular season shoot out and I have to say I agree with you. However, if the shoot out causes the teams to work harder in the 5 minute OT period I'm all for it.
Watching OT in last nights game was very exciting, almost playoff OT exciting. You could tell they players were really trying to finish the game without going to a shoot out.
Re:The real reason.....
pudge on 2005-10-25T17:06:56
you're upset with shoot outs wouldn't be because the Bruins lost would it?
I know you're kidding, but: correct. I was actually a bit more open-minded to it until right before it began. I thought: I don't care how this ends, it's a dumb way to decide this great game I just saw.
All kidding aside I'm assuming that you're talking about the Toronto vs Boston game. It was also my first time seeing a regular season shoot out and I have to say I agree with you. However, if the shoot out causes the teams to work harder in the 5 minute OT period I'm all for it.
How about simply taking away the extra point, so if you lose, you LOSE?
Watching OT in last nights game was very exciting, almost playoff OT exciting. You could tell they players were really trying to finish the game without going to a shoot out.
Yeah, although I can't figure out why the hell there was not a penalty shot called with just over two minutes remaining in the third. There was another one in the second. It's weird that they are big on shootouts, but still shy about penalty shots.
Re:The real reason.....
hide on 2005-10-25T17:26:23
How about simply taking away the extra point, so if you lose, you LOSE?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe this is the way it used to be. At the end of regulation they would play an additional 5 minutes. If someone scored during that time, the winning team would receive 2 points, and the losing team nothing. Teams started playing for the tie rather than the win to at least give them self one point. Rather than watching two teams playing to preserve one point I'd rather see them play for an additional point.
Yeah, although I can't figure out why the hell there was not a penalty shot called with just over two minutes remaining in the third. There was another one in the second. It's weird that they are big on shootouts, but still shy about penalty shots.
It's amazing how excited the crowd gets when they think there's going to be a penalty shot. Doesn't matter which team is going to be awarded it, the crowd is electric. I got all excited "YEAH! PENALTY SHOT!!!". Alas as you said, they are much too shy with the penalty shots. I hope their intention with the shoot outs wasn't to try and capture some of the "magic" of a penalty shot, if so they've failed miserably. Penalty shots are way more exciting than shoot outs.
Re:The real reason.....
pudge on 2005-10-25T17:56:55
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe this is the way it used to be. At the end of regulation they would play an additional 5 minutes. If someone scored during that time, the winning team would receive 2 points, and the losing team nothing.
Right. And it was good.
Teams started playing for the tie rather than the win to at least give them self one point.
No. It'd been that way for 100 years, teams didn't "start" doing anything. The problems had more to do with the fact that penalties were not being called, so teams just played trap and clutched and grabbed, so no one scored much in OT.
I think if they simply made the changes they did -- except for the one with the no-goalie-zone -- and went back to ties, it would solve all the problems they had before. Instead, the keep piling band-aid on top of band-aid.
Teams play for ties, so instead of fixing the play on the ice that prevents scoring opportunities, we take away the disincentive to losing, which is inherently a lame idea (when you have nothing to lose, it takes away from the excitement).
But that's not enough, oh no, now we have to also reduce the number of players. And then that's not enough, now we need to add a shootout... and isn't a shootout incentive enough to play hard? Why do we also need four a side and free points for losing?
Go back to no shootouts, five a side, and ties.
