PDA

View Full Version : GMs discussing changes to OT and shootouts



blacksheep
03-10-2014, 11:38 PM
link (http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=445720)

Through Saturday, 121 of 962 games this season have gone to a shootout (12.57 per cent). Each team has participated in at least four, while the Washington Capitals lead the league with 15 of them through 64 games.

A handful of general managers said in recent weeks that there was an appetite to reduce the number of shootouts by making some changes to overtime. Detroit GM Ken Holland has long sought adding time or a three-on-three element to overtime, and it has come time that Don Maloney of the Phoenix Coyotes figures more members of the group are "open-minded to reviewing it and discussing it."

"In the past, it was generally touched on but deferred," Maloney said. "And I think as you go on with the parity of the league, I think we all have to take a harder look."

Jim Rutherford of the Carolina Hurricanes usually sits near Holland at these meetings and is in favour of his proposals to change overtime. After plenty of talk over the years, perhaps more will get on board.

"I think we're heading that way," Rutherford said. "It's been talked about a long time, this is not something new. I don't know how many minutes it'll end up being -- the total minutes in overtime. That's really where the big discussion will come. But I think the fact that this has been discussed for a few years now, I think it's gaining some momentum going into this meeting."

What that momentum will turn into remains to be seen. Rutherford and Holland would like five minutes of the already-established four-on-four followed by five minutes of three-on-three, while Doug Armstrong of the St. Louis Blues voiced support for simply making four-on-four overtime longer.
Interesting that they no longer like the shootout idea.
I don't like the current setup either. There shouldn't be a shootout in a regular season game. One, single OT period, and if nobody scores, each walk away with a point.
In the playoffs, multiple OTs. Max of three - then a shootout if necessary. That's what I'd prefer.

trujaysfan
03-10-2014, 11:41 PM
10 min 4 on 4 periods until it is over... 2 pts for a win 0 for a loss.

No loser points, no shootouts and no ties

Pronger84
03-10-2014, 11:42 PM
Here's what I think

1. OT (4 on 4)- 10 mins
2. If nobody scores in OT then both teams get a tie
3. Shootout, which is just for the fans, it doesn't count towards any points for either team.

blacksheep
03-10-2014, 11:45 PM
10 min 4 on 4 periods until it is over... 2 pts for a win 0 for a loss.

No loser points, no shootouts and no ties

Forgot to mention, I don't like the "loser points" either. But I disagree with you about playing OT until someone scores. Only in the playoffs. The regular season doesn't have to have a winner every game.

Bleedsblue&white
03-10-2014, 11:46 PM
What bothers me is the way they point to fans liking the shootout; Sure we like the shootout, it's exciting.
Now ask us if we want a game decided like that.

trujaysfan
03-10-2014, 11:48 PM
Forgot to mention, I don't like the "loser points" either. But I disagree with you about playing OT until someone scores. Only in the playoffs. The regular season doesn't have to have a winner every game.

Don't disagree with you but the americans hate ties and that is why i say just keep it going. I doubt many make it past 1 or 2 OT's since they know they need to score.

blacksheep
03-11-2014, 12:25 AM
Don't disagree with you but the americans hate ties and that is why i say just keep it going. I doubt many make it past 1 or 2 OT's since they know they need to score.

Americans hate ties, yet here we are discussing changes to the changes to prevent ties in the first place.
Fvck the Americans. Go back to hockey.

blacksheep
03-11-2014, 12:27 AM
What bothers me is the way they point to fans liking the shootout; Sure we like the shootout, it's exciting.
Now ask us if we want a game decided like that.

Exactly. It is exciting, but it's more of a skills competition than anything else. Not the best way to decide a game.

MyNameIsJonas
03-11-2014, 12:29 AM
Here's what I think

1. OT (4 on 4)- 10 mins
2. If nobody scores in OT then both teams get a tie
3. Shootout, which is just for the fans, it doesn't count towards any points for either team.

Potato for everyone.

Matrim
03-11-2014, 12:34 AM
Here's what I think

1. OT (4 on 4)- 10 mins
2. If nobody scores in OT then both teams get a tie
3. Shootout, which is just for the fans, it doesn't count towards any points for either team.

Yeah because I'm sure the players and coaches on both teams would be thrilled to waste their time doing a shootout after a tough game that ends in a tie. Just stop being a potato already.

Matrim
03-11-2014, 12:36 AM
It should be 4 on 4 for 10 mins, and then go to a shootout if need be, no loser points. Doubt many games go to the shootout with that format.

blacksheep
03-11-2014, 12:38 AM
Take away the loser point, and there won't be as many lackluster OTs. It almost seems like they don't try much in the current OT, because they'd rather play the shootout.

trujaysfan
03-11-2014, 12:40 AM
It should be 4 on 4 for 10 mins, and then go to a shootout if need be, no loser points. Doubt many games go to the shootout with that format.

i would be okay with this but if you win in a shootout you only get 1 pt.... shootouts shouldn't be valued the same as a win while playing hockey

BeLeafer
03-11-2014, 01:00 AM
Never had an issue with ties.

Metalleaf
03-11-2014, 02:26 AM
Yeah because I'm sure the players and coaches on both teams would be thrilled to waste their time doing a shootout after a tough game that ends in a tie. Just stop being a potato already.

Play for participants ribbons.

mbow30
03-11-2014, 07:14 AM
Potato for everyone.

Meh the most potatoey comment was that moron saying playoff gms should be decided by shootouts

voyager
03-11-2014, 08:34 AM
link (http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=445720)

Interesting that they no longer like the shootout idea.
I don't like the current setup either. There shouldn't be a shootout in a regular season game. One, single OT period, and if nobody scores, each walk away with a point.
In the playoffs, multiple OTs. Max of three - then a shootout if necessary. That's what I'd prefer.

Shoot outs in playoffs??! Are you ****ing daft?
That's P84/mongoloid level stupidity.

UWHabs
03-11-2014, 09:21 AM
10 minutes 4-4, using the long change. Do the dry scrape like they do for the shootout before that period.
If still tied, then go to a shootout. I've learned to accept some shootouts, but as they said, each team is on pace for like 10+ in the season - if we can cut that down in half, it'd keep the interest in it a bit, I think.

I'd like to see the points changed to the 3/2/1/0 style as well, but that seems like it will take longer to get approved. Start with the 10 minutes as a first step.

LeafGm
03-11-2014, 10:41 AM
I never had a problem with ties either. If teams play 65-70 minutes of hockey and come out of it with the same score, then neither team should walk away with either a bonus point or a "loss" at the end of the game. Just call it what it is: a tie.

So, with that in mind, I'd want to ssee them do it one of two ways. Preferably:

10 minutes of 4-4 OT.
No shootout afterwards.
If it's a tie, both teams get one point.
If one team scores in OT, the winning team gets 2 points and the losing team gets 0.

Or, if they insist on keeping the shootout:

10 minutes of 4-4 OT.
Shootout.
Winning SO team gets 2 points, losing team gets 1.
A win in regulation or OT = 3 points. A loss in regulation or OT = 0 points.

leafman101
03-11-2014, 10:45 AM
Ties were brutal. Teams stopped trying to score in the 3rd.

LeafGm
03-11-2014, 10:52 AM
Ties were brutal. Teams stopped trying to score in the 3rd.
And that's changed how, exactly? Now a lot of teams just start playing for the shootout from late in the third period all the way through OT.

But it'll be pretty tough to play shut-down hockey throughout 10 minutes of four-on-four hockey. Especially with a 4-3 power-play here and there.

leafman101
03-11-2014, 10:57 AM
Well every game was the last 5 minutes of regulation now. In OT things open up.

They should make OT longer, and probably go 3 on 3. Ties are gay though.

LeafGm
03-11-2014, 11:04 AM
Ties a lot less lame than having a glorified break-away drill to artificially declare a winner, and award real points that impact the standings.

worm
03-11-2014, 11:06 AM
they should do the horseshoe to figure out a winner

LeafGm
03-11-2014, 11:09 AM
they should do the horseshoe to figure out a winner
Might damage the ice, though.

Maybe they could just set up a dart board instead? First team to get a score of 180 gets the win?

leafman101
03-11-2014, 11:15 AM
Well thats the thing. Ties are more lame than shootouts, because of the effect on the rest of the game.

Teams playing not to give up the point was the worst thing ever. The loser point made the hockey a lot better.

Should just make it harder to get to shootouts. Not go back to boring, shitty hockey.

Habspatrol
03-11-2014, 12:07 PM
Ties were brutal. Teams stopped trying to score in the 3rd.

I don't think it's changed a lot. Teams still try and hold on to "at least get a point." The only thing that changed was the birth of the "extra point" for an OT/SO win may have caused teams to play a bit more wide open in OT in order to secure that 2nd point.

Go 4 on 4 for 10 minutes then call it a tie and each team gets one point... and if someone scores they get the 3rd point... that will open it up even more. Then there's no thinking that maybe you'll play for the shootout because you're good in the shootout.

Habspatrol
03-11-2014, 12:09 PM
Ties a lot less lame than having a glorified break-away drill to artificially declare a winner, and award real points that impact the standings.

I agree.

I actually don't have a big problem with a tie in general. I'd prefer they gave them more time to settle it and avoid the tie... but it beats the hell out of the shootout.

leafman101
03-11-2014, 12:10 PM
Nah that will ensure teams don't play in OT in in-conference games. Which would be brutal.

Just go with 10 minutes OT and the SO. Don't entourage teams to play for a tie. Its shit hockey.

The loser point has worked in that respect. Thats why no one in hockey is talking about getting rid of the SO despite the fact they all hate it.

Habspatrol
03-11-2014, 12:17 PM
Couldn't disagree more. The shootout is complete shit and encouraging teams to hold out for the shootout is utter crap. #bringbackthetie

BG
03-11-2014, 12:19 PM
If still tied after 4-4OT, winner decided by the team with most Cups.

BG
03-11-2014, 12:21 PM
Couldn't disagree more. The shootout is complete shit and encouraging teams to hold out for the shootout is utter crap. #bringbackthetie

Just knock off the loser point for SOL, force a team to win in OT or face a 50/50 chance of getting nothing at all.

leafman101
03-11-2014, 12:22 PM
Couldn't disagree more. The shootout is complete shit and encouraging teams to hold out for the shootout is utter crap. #bringbackthetie

Only teams don't hold out for the shootout, because they have the loser point already. Unlike with ties.

Fortunately no one in the NHL agrees with you.

Habspatrol
03-11-2014, 12:25 PM
Only teams don't hold out for the shootout, because they have the loser point already. Unlike with ties.

Fortunately no one in the NHL agrees with you.

Isn't this thread about the NHL considering changing the format?

leafman101
03-11-2014, 12:29 PM
Yeah, not getting rid of the SO. Literally no one is talking about that.

leafman101
03-11-2014, 12:31 PM
Looking at the numbers 240 games have gone to OT this year, and 103 of them have been settled in OT.

5 minutes really isn't very long. In theory if you double that time, that projects to 206 out of 240 games being settled in OT. Which would be ideal.

OT is just too short right now.

And other small tweaks, such as a pre-OT flood, and switching ends probably ups that number as well.

Habspatrol
03-11-2014, 12:35 PM
Yeah, I suppose the NHL does like to cater to people that don't really get hockey. They love the flash of the shootout. Whatever sells tickets in the US I suppose.

leafman101
03-11-2014, 12:38 PM
Players perspective:

Elliotte Friedman ‏
Mathieu Schneider saying players have asked about slowing the game down a little, "maybe a little relief for defencemen."

Says players happy with the game...don't want them to be any longer. Also discussed shot-blocking, although no idea how to deal with it.

Darren Dreger ‏
Mathieu Schneider says players aren't interested in making games longer. Says players would prefer games not ending in shootout...so.....PA would like to see more testing on long change in 4 on 4, or ways of encouraging games ending in regulation.

Schneider says players would like to see more interference allowed to slow game down. Removal of trapezoid to relieve pressure on D-men...

leafman101
03-11-2014, 12:41 PM
Yeah, I suppose the NHL does like to cater to people that don't really get hockey. They love the flash of the shootout. Whatever sells tickets in the US I suppose.

Not even "real hockey fans" enjoy boring hockey when neither team is trying to win. Thats why they changed it in the first place.

Its amazing how few remember how shitty hockey was 10 years ago.

leafman101
03-11-2014, 12:44 PM
Darren Dreger ‏
As we reported yesterday. Expect recommendation on widening hashmarks to 5 feet to eliminate scrums and promote more room and scoring ops.

Also, likely recommendation on moving offending centremen back 1ft to 18inches. Hoping to promote less cheating...

JaysCyYoung
03-11-2014, 12:45 PM
The trapezoid is asinine. Just make it so that goalies are fair game if they leave their net and play the puck.

leafman101
03-11-2014, 12:47 PM
They pretty much put it in place because of Brodeur and he's almost done, although there are still guys like him with Mike Smith and Price. But it really puts Dmen in a bad spot.

Habspatrol
03-11-2014, 12:48 PM
Not even "real hockey fans" enjoy boring hockey when neither team is trying to win. Thats why they changed it in the first place.

Its amazing how few remember how shitty hockey was 10 years ago.

Hockey was shitty because of the obstruction... not cause of ties.

The addition of 4 on 4 in OT opened it up a lot... and (though I don't like it) the "loser point" gave teams the incentive to go even hard in OT. The shootout though... did nothing but create a spectacle that has no business in the NHL. Is it possible that it has cause teams to "go for it" more often? I suppose, but I believe it's very minimal and not worth compromising the game itself.

10 minutes of 4 on 4, the lessened affect of obstruction and the "loser point" all make the threat of returning to the dead puck era an extremely unlikely scenario.

leafman101
03-11-2014, 12:49 PM
Yes, ties were a huge problem. Teams played to tie, which sucked. That is exactly why they got rid of them.

JaysCyYoung
03-11-2014, 12:51 PM
The shoot out and the loser point go hand in hand.

And yes, ties were a huge problem. Teams played to tie, which sucked. That is exactly why they got rid of them.

I'm not so sure this is the case though. Look at this year's Red Wings for example: they have got a very good chance at making the playoffs despite racking up a huge number of loser points (13 OT/SOL), just like some past teams used to make it on the basis of 15 ties.

Habspatrol
03-11-2014, 12:52 PM
The trapezoid is asinine. Just make it so that goalies are fair game if they leave their net and play the puck.

The trapezoid and the delay of game penalty for shooting the puck over the glass are terrible rules.

Lets make the puck over the glass be the same punishment as icing since it's essentially the same offense.

As for the trapezoid... do away with the rule altogether.

leafman101
03-11-2014, 12:52 PM
I'm not so sure this is the case though. Look at this year's Red Wings for example: they have got a very good chance at making the playoffs despite racking up a huge number of loser points (13 OT/SOL), just like some past teams used to make it on the basis of 15 ties.

Yeah exactly. They just give the teams those points without forcing them to dull the game down to a stand still to earn it. Thats why it works.

The results aren't different, its just how they get there. Either by playing shitty hockey, or by actually playing hockey. No one actually preferred the shitty hockey and thats why they changed it. Some just forget.

Habspatrol
03-11-2014, 12:54 PM
Yes, ties were a huge problem. Teams played to tie, which sucked. That is exactly why they got rid of them.

So you think it's all because of the shootout? Not the "crackdown" on obstruction, the loser point or the 4 on 4 that has brought that number down at all? Going to 10 minutes of 4 on 4 wouldn't lead to a bunch more games being settled in OT... it's all the shootout?

leafman101
03-11-2014, 12:55 PM
So you think it's all because of the shootout? Not the "crackdown" on obstruction, the loser point or the 4 on 4 that has brought that number down at all? Going to 10 minutes of 4 on 4 wouldn't lead to a bunch more games being settled in OT... it's all the shootout?

I said none of those things. All I said were ties were terrible for the game (among other things).

Lots of things helped fix it.

hockeylover
03-11-2014, 12:56 PM
Talking about doing away with the shootout as soon as the Leafs finally can win them for the first time in 9 years. Yeah, that sounds about right.

JaysCyYoung
03-11-2014, 12:56 PM
The trapezoid and the delay of game penalty for shooting the puck over the glass are terrible rules.

Lets make the puck over the glass be the same punishment as icing since it's essentially the same offense.

As for the trapezoid... do away with the rule altogether.

100 percent with you on the puck over the glass rule. I've despised it since they implemented it and it cost Canada the 2008 Worlds at home.

MindzEye
03-11-2014, 01:06 PM
I can't see them "doing away with" the shootout. They'll try a half measure first like going to 10 minutes of 4 on 4 OT before they just scrap the shootout altogether.

LeafOfFaith
03-11-2014, 01:10 PM
I like the trapezoid, actually.

As for shootouts, they're the worst. I'd be able to better stomach them after a 10 minute OT, however.

TheCountofMonteCristo
03-11-2014, 01:11 PM
i would be okay with this but if you win in a shootout you only get 1 pt.... shootouts shouldn't be valued the same as a win while playing hockey

well they are given less value in tiebreakers.

TheCountofMonteCristo
03-11-2014, 01:12 PM
Talking about doing away with the shootout as soon as the Leafs finally can win them for the first time in 9 years. Yeah, that sounds about right.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YRHDomoLb-A/TLa17o31c7I/AAAAAAAAAj0/W9HKa0hXem4/s1600/tin_foil_hat.jpg

JaysCyYoung
03-11-2014, 01:26 PM
I like the trapezoid, actually.

As for shootouts, they're the worst. I'd be able to better stomach them after a 10 minute OT, however.

Good Lord why?

It puts far too much pressure on defenders and it penalizes goaltenders who are competent puck-handlers.

GEEMAN
03-11-2014, 01:46 PM
link (http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=445720)

Interesting that they no longer like the shootout idea.
I don't like the current setup either. There shouldn't be a shootout in a regular season game. One, single OT period, and if nobody scores, each walk away with a point.
In the playoffs, multiple OTs. Max of three - then a shootout if necessary. That's what I'd prefer.


shootouts are a joke , never liked them

would prefer ....3 points regulation win

10 minutes of OT ....5 minutes 5/5 ....5 minutes 4/4

if no one scores 1 point each

if you score 2 points ...loser gets 1 point

shit you can win 10 games , lose 72 in shootouts and still make the playoffs

give the team 3 points for a regulation win , its something to work for your efforts

down the stretch with teams 6-8 points away , your done with these 3 point games every night , teams play not to lose and get the extra point

Habspatrol
03-11-2014, 02:09 PM
shootouts are a joke , never liked them

would prefer ....3 points regulation win

10 minutes of OT ....5 minutes 5/5 ....5 minutes 4/4

if no one scores 1 point each

if you score 2 points ...loser gets 1 point

shit you can win 10 games , lose 72 in shootouts and still make the playoffs

give the team 3 points for a regulation win , its something to work for your efforts

down the stretch with teams 6-8 points away , your done with these 3 point games every night , teams play not to lose and get the extra point

While your 10-0-72 example is technically correct. It's obviously not even close to a realistic scenario.

I am personally a fan of the 3 point system because it makes no sense that some games are worth 3 points while others are only worth 2. That said, I've seen dozens of times where the playoff picture is virtually identical when figured out using the 3 point system over the current system.

zeke
03-11-2014, 02:19 PM
All the rules they have put in place have worked and worked well. Hockey is much more attractive than it was 10yrs ago.

The only rule changes goin forward will be going in the same direction, not reversing.

Trapezoid, shootout, loser point, puck over glass penalty, no touch icing, two line passing - all of them have worked.

hockeylover
03-11-2014, 02:46 PM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YRHDomoLb-A/TLa17o31c7I/AAAAAAAAAj0/W9HKa0hXem4/s1600/tin_foil_hat.jpg

I meant it's our luck, not a conspiracy.

zeke
03-11-2014, 03:38 PM
No, its no coincidence that the anti-shootout noise has become louder as soon as the leafs started winning more than their fair share.

Habspatrol
03-11-2014, 04:03 PM
https://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m77s2xOVNH1qfaigwo7_400.gif

blacksheep
03-11-2014, 04:17 PM
Meh the most potatoey comment was that moron saying playoff gms should be decided by shootouts

... after three OT periods with no goal. In other words, as an absolute LAST resort.
How long should a game go on?

leafman101
03-11-2014, 04:18 PM
Until someone scores. Those insane OT playoff games are the best.

blacksheep
03-11-2014, 04:27 PM
So just play until they drop from exhaustion? Who plays the next game? The two farm teams?

LeafGm
03-11-2014, 04:29 PM
So just play until they drop from exhaustion? Who plays the next game? The two farm teams?
In the entire history of the NHL, playing OT in the playoffs until a winner is determined has never been an issue.

You're coming up with a solution to a non-existant problem.

JaysCyYoung
03-11-2014, 04:37 PM
... after three OT periods with no goal. In other words, as an absolute LAST resort.
How long should a game go on?

There's been 5OT and 6OT games before in NHL history.

Habspatrol
03-11-2014, 04:41 PM
There's no way that they should ever settle a playoff game with a shootout, ever.

Hell, if it ever got too ridiculous and went to like 6 or 7 OT periods I'd think they could send everyone home and come back the next day and pick up where they left off.

blacksheep
03-11-2014, 04:43 PM
The problem I have with all of this is that the game was fine before, as you all have noted.
Somewhere along the way, the league (read: Bettman) decided it needed to change the game to make it more exciting for the newer fans (read: Americans in his new markets).
But those changes haven't worked, and the GMs are now meeting to change the changes again.
Why not just go back to the way it was before?
No loser points.
No shootouts.
I'd be happy with that.

blacksheep
03-11-2014, 04:44 PM
There's no way that they should ever settle a playoff game with a shootout, ever.

Hell, if it ever got too ridiculous and went to like 6 or 7 OT periods I'd think they could send everyone home and come back the next day and pick up where they left off.

That means they'd play three days straight against the same opponent. I don't think that's a solution either.

Pronger84
03-11-2014, 04:46 PM
Yeah because I'm sure the players and coaches on both teams would be thrilled to waste their time doing a shootout after a tough game that ends in a tie. Just stop being a potato already.

I was merely offering up a suggestion, instead of being a childish little dick why don't you actually contribute something to this thread?

Pronger84
03-11-2014, 04:46 PM
There's no way that they should ever settle a playoff game with a shootout, ever.

Hell, if it ever got too ridiculous and went to like 6 or 7 OT periods I'd think they could send everyone home and come back the next day and pick up where they left off.

Agreed, no need for a skills competition to solve a playoff game.

JaysCyYoung
03-11-2014, 04:47 PM
I was merely offering up a suggestion, instead of being a childish little dick why don't you actually contribute something to this thread?

Why would teams participate in a shootout when the outcome of the game has already been determined though? Suggestions have to make a modicum of sense on some level for them to be taken seriously.

trujaysfan
03-11-2014, 04:54 PM
If shootouts are kept they should not be worth the same as a win while playing actual hockey.... 10 min 4v4 and if still tied go to shootout and winner gets 1 pt, never give a point for the loser in OT or SO

Habspatrol
03-11-2014, 04:57 PM
That means they'd play three days straight against the same opponent. I don't think that's a solution either.

Well there comes a point when not only does the quality of hockey degrade drastically, but it becomes a very dangerous situation.

I'm not sure if coming back the next day is necessarily the perfect solution but in the extremely rare case that a game goes past say 6 or so OT periods I think it beats the danger of one of these players dying of exhaustion or something else maybe less horrific, but still bad.

Like really, it's something that might happen like once every 10, 20 maybe 30 years. I think playing 3 nights in a row, while not appealing at all can be dealt with. That OT extension is very likely not to be another full game.

UWHabs
03-11-2014, 05:08 PM
Well there comes a point when not only does the quality of hockey degrade drastically, but it becomes a very dangerous situation.

I'm not sure if coming back the next day is necessarily the perfect solution but in the extremely rare case that a game goes past say 6 or so OT periods I think it beats the danger of one of these players dying of exhaustion or something else maybe less horrific, but still bad.

Like really, it's something that might happen like once every 10, 20 maybe 30 years. I think playing 3 nights in a row, while not appealing at all can be dealt with. That OT extension is very likely not to be another full game.

If you want to help save the players, I'd be willing to go down in players later OT periods. Even if they switched OT to 4-4 in the playoffs, that would at least help not kill some players (although granted it will still be tough on D, but you might see some teams try to get creative to rest their D).

But yeah, in the extreme rare event a playoff OT game goes too long, we can find a way to help them out without going to a shootout.

UWHabs
03-11-2014, 05:10 PM
Another option if you want to make the shootout less common - let the other team pick your shootout lineup. How hilarious would it be to see Orr, McLaren, and Gleason go up against Murray, Emelin, and Parros to decide a Habs-Leafs game. Wonder if teams would take more chances in OT in that case...

hockeylover
03-11-2014, 05:13 PM
Another option if you want to make the shootout less common - let the other team pick your shootout lineup. How hilarious would it be to see Orr, McLaren, and Gleason go up against Murray, Emelin, and Parros to decide a Habs-Leafs game. Wonder if teams would take more chances in OT in that case...

Hmm.

One more reason never to dress Orr and McLaren? I kinda like it.

blacksheep
03-11-2014, 05:19 PM
Well there comes a point when not only does the quality of hockey degrade drastically, but it becomes a very dangerous situation.

I'm not sure if coming back the next day is necessarily the perfect solution but in the extremely rare case that a game goes past say 6 or so OT periods I think it beats the danger of one of these players dying of exhaustion or something else maybe less horrific, but still bad.

Like really, it's something that might happen like once every 10, 20 maybe 30 years. I think playing 3 nights in a row, while not appealing at all can be dealt with. That OT extension is very likely not to be another full game.

Indeed. So a balance has to be set.
As Jays noted, there have been 5OT games in the playoffs, (although they have been very rare, fortunately, and occurred before the lengthy schedules and thirty teams we have now). Is it feasible, after an 80+ game season, to have a playoff game go on for an unlimited number of OT periods, risking severe injury or even death of a player, just to have the most exciting ending?
We just had Rich Peverley collapse on his bench during a game that wasn't in OT, and wasn't in the playoffs. Those situations are rare also, but how far do we push it before a player's welfare means less than a fan's excitement?
So I suggested a balance of three OTs, (and I'm assuming a 10min OT) before even considering a shootout. I thought it was a fair balance of excitement and safety for the players. And quite frankly, how many playoff games even get to three OTs?
In other words, not likely to ever NEED a shootout in the playoffs.
If that makes me a moron to mbow, then I really don't care.

LeafOfFaith
03-11-2014, 06:59 PM
Good Lord why?

It puts far too much pressure on defenders and it penalizes goaltenders who are competent puck-handlers.

Because it's ****ing annoying when the good puck-handling goalies constantly come out of their crease to kill the dump game. I'd rather they stay relatively put in net.

Habspatrol
03-11-2014, 07:21 PM
Indeed. So a balance has to be set.
As Jays noted, there have been 5OT games in the playoffs, (although they have been very rare, fortunately, and occurred before the lengthy schedules and thirty teams we have now). Is it feasible, after an 80+ game season, to have a playoff game go on for an unlimited number of OT periods, risking severe injury or even death of a player, just to have the most exciting ending?
We just had Rich Peverley collapse on his bench during a game that wasn't in OT, and wasn't in the playoffs. Those situations are rare also, but how far do we push it before a player's welfare means less than a fan's excitement?
So I suggested a balance of three OTs, (and I'm assuming a 10min OT) before even considering a shootout. I thought it was a fair balance of excitement and safety for the players. And quite frankly, how many playoff games even get to three OTs?
In other words, not likely to ever NEED a shootout in the playoffs.
If that makes me a moron to mbow, then I really don't care.

I wouldn't say that makes you a moron.







































You're a moron for a lot of other reasons.

Seriously though. It doesn't make you a moron, I just disagree with the shootout in the playoffs. I really hate it in the regular season but in the playoffs it's an absolute travesty imo.

Habspatrol
03-11-2014, 07:22 PM
Because it's ****ing annoying when the good puck-handling goalies constantly come out of their crease to kill the dump game. I'd rather they stay relatively put in net.

As someone who's not a big fan of dump and chase hockey to begin with I like having deterrents such as goalies who can help nullify it.

LeafOfFaith
03-11-2014, 07:49 PM
I don't love dump and chase either, but it gets considerably easier to defend against oncoming forwards when you know they have to rush through you.

And that sucks.

blacksheep
03-11-2014, 09:05 PM
I wouldn't say that makes you a moron.







































You're a moron for a lot of other reasons.
heh


Seriously though. It doesn't make you a moron, I just disagree with the shootout in the playoffs. I really hate it in the regular season but in the playoffs it's an absolute travesty imo.

Fair enough.
But like I said, if they simply MUST have their stupid little shootout, the only time we should see it is after three scoreless OTs.

Habspatrol
03-11-2014, 09:07 PM
Well if it's an absolute must then I'd vote for the most possible OT periods first.

mbow30
03-11-2014, 09:14 PM
Indeed. So a balance has to be set.
As Jays noted, there have been 5OT games in the playoffs, (although they have been very rare, fortunately, and occurred before the lengthy schedules and thirty teams we have now). Is it feasible, after an 80+ game season, to have a playoff game go on for an unlimited number of OT periods, risking severe injury or even death of a player, just to have the most exciting ending?
We just had Rich Peverley collapse on his bench during a game that wasn't in OT, and wasn't in the playoffs. Those situations are rare also, but how far do we push it before a player's welfare means less than a fan's excitement?
So I suggested a balance of three OTs, (and I'm assuming a 10min OT) before even considering a shootout. I thought it was a fair balance of excitement and safety for the players. And quite frankly, how many playoff games even get to three OTs?
In other words, not likely to ever NEED a shootout in the playoffs.
If that makes me a moron to mbow, then I really don't care.

you're a moron

mbow30
03-11-2014, 09:15 PM
seriously. a complete imbecile.

mbow30
03-11-2014, 09:15 PM
blacksheep is hands down the worst poster we have ever had here. ever.

blacksheep
03-11-2014, 09:27 PM
blacksheep is hands down the worst poster we have ever had here. ever.

Gee, I'm going to lose so much sleep over this...

dingledorf
03-13-2014, 08:27 AM
Everyone knows that I am a huge fan of the ultimate viewing pleasure, four on four, but these poor clods play what? a zillion games a year, playoffs, exhibition games? Making them play a 10 minute overtime? Great for fans, not so great for players health. And longevity. And Three on three? Crazy after five minutes of four on four. These guys are way too big to be able to play three on three imo.

The only problem I have with shootouts is that it must be hell on goalies groins, after a long game of 65 minutes. Has to be chewing them right up.

Did anyone happen to notice that the players in the NHL are so fast and big now that they almost made the Olympic ice surface appear NHL sized?

The level of play at the Olympics by the Canadians was phenomenal. If we had permanent four on four, that is what it would look like.

LeafGm
03-13-2014, 09:29 AM
Did anyone happen to notice that the players in the NHL are so fast and big now that they almost made the Olympic ice surface appear NHL sized?
Not really, no.

I thought the Vancouver Olympics on NHL ice was fantastic hockey, but with the exception of the US/Russia game, most of the Olympic hockey I saw this time around was extremely dull, trapping hockey. The big ice definitely made a pretty noticeable (negative) impact there, in my opinion.

JaysCyYoung
03-13-2014, 10:28 AM
Did anyone happen to notice that the players in the NHL are so fast and big now that they almost made the Olympic ice surface appear NHL sized?

The level of play at the Olympics by the Canadians was phenomenal. If we had permanent four on four, that is what it would look like.

No, that never happened. In fact, even Europeans online were conceding how awful the quality of hockey was in Sochi. Never figured you to be one to enjoy low-scoring hockey coupled with non-existent creativity and extreme trapping and grinding.

Even most of the Canadian wins were boring as hell to watch.

zeke
03-13-2014, 11:23 AM
The entertainment level of the olympic hockey was dreadful.

Wayward DP
03-13-2014, 03:48 PM
The entertainment level of the olympic hockey was dreadful.

Yeah, the Olympic hockey was painfully boring.

blacksheep
03-13-2014, 04:04 PM
It should have been 3on3 on the big ice. Right teeds?

Matrim
03-13-2014, 04:14 PM
I was merely offering up a suggestion, instead of being a childish little dick why don't you actually contribute something to this thread?

You could have just looked at my post right under the post you quoted, but I guess you were too overcome with anger for that.

worm
03-13-2014, 04:20 PM
ppl that do not want the shootout in the playoffs are the same people that still think the wildcard is ruining baseball

MindzEye
03-13-2014, 04:47 PM
ppl that do not want the shootout in the playoffs are the same people that still think the wildcard is ruining baseball

Nope.

Love the wildcard in baseball. Hate the idea of shootouts in the playoffs.

TimHorton
03-13-2014, 05:07 PM
People that want the shootout in the playoffs are paedophiles. That's a scientific fact!

MindzEye
03-13-2014, 05:20 PM
People that want the shootout in the playoffs are paedophiles. That's a scientific fact!

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/517/111/fbd.jpg

Wayward DP
03-13-2014, 05:31 PM
#harperscience

Metalleaf
03-13-2014, 09:06 PM
Shoot outs? In the playoffs?? Full Retard!!

LeafGm
03-14-2014, 10:00 AM
Yeah, there is no good argument whatsoever for having shootouts in the playoffs.

I'm not sure it was even brought up in the first place, because it's something that no one in any position of power in the NHL has ever even mentioned.