Hey hockey fans ... shootout??

Okay, the NHL playoffs are well under way, the Memorial Cup is looming, as is the RBC Cup. So hockey should be front and centre in the minds of any hockey-minded folks, so ...

Where do you stand on shootouts? Like, love or hate em?? Regular season only, or playoffs too?

I'll get the ball rolling ... personally, I don't like them at all. I think they take a great, complex and multi-layered game and reduce it ... at the most crucial time ... to a one-dimensional skill competition. Personally, I love those overtime games and the 'sudden death' feeling that goes with them. What about you guys?

For the regular season, shoot outs provide a bit of zip for a game that struggles to capture the x generation. I do enjoy the 1 point for an OT loss scoring system, as it opens up the game and encourages chance taking.

For the playoffs? No way. Let there be triple overtimes, if necessary. Stanley Cup hockey is one of the most exciting sports extant.

Ouch stole my answer!!!!

I agree 100% that NO WAY in the playoffs. Reg season, yes, it adds something to the game after a 5 minute OT period.

Great subject, Doc! HUGE hockey fan here... not just a Flyers fan. I could go on and on about the new rules, but I'm going to try my best to stick to the subject at hand...

I am in agreement that the NHL should discontinue the shoot-out. At first, I found the shoot-out to be an exciting novelty. However, I do not like the fact that the past two seasons' playoff scenarios have been skewed due to, as you mentioned, "a one-dimensional skill competition". The best HOCKEY TEAMS should be entitled to the post season match-ups the have earned... PLAYING HOCKEY!

I enjoy the "sudden death" overtime period. If nothing else, I think the NHL got it right by opening up the ice with the 4-on-4 in OT. While I'd love to see them play every regular season game until there's a winner, I can't help but feel it would be a bad idea. In my opinion, it's simply not worth the injury/exhaustion risk during the regular season. Go back to the pre-lockout system. The tie-breaker scenarios (as screwy as they are) are a better assessment of a team performance than shoot-out wins/losses.

-Pete

Pete said:

Great subject, Doc! HUGE hockey fan here... -Pete

Click to expand...

Really? Couldn't tell from your avatar.

I'm a rather poor skater (wife and daughter both skate rings around me) but a high point for me was skating at Hershey Park at the exact place where Wilt Chamberlain once scored 100 points.

ouch said:

For the regular season, shoot outs provide a bit of zip for a game that struggles to capture the x generation. I do enjoy the 1 point for an OT loss scoring system, as it opens up the game and encourages chance taking.

For the playoffs? No way. Let there be triple overtimes, if necessary. Stanley Cup hockey is one of the most exciting sports extant.

Click to expand...

I also agree with the above. Was that ouch or Don Cherry?

ouch said:

Really? Couldn't tell from your avatar.

Click to expand...

Yes... it's been a rough season!

I used to live about 2 minutes form the rink you speak of. It's still there, although it's no longer home to the Hershey Bears.... who incidentally, begin their second round of playoffs on Wednesday!

"BEARS, BEARS, BEARS...WHOOOOOOOOOOOOH!!!"

Plaly-Off hockey rocks. 3 on 3 is the King.

Hate shootouts. But then again, I hate regular season OT as well. If you're going to play until there's a winner, fine, otherwise just end the game after sixty minutes.

Having said that, I like the four men and would be interested in seeing entire games played out that way, if only to see how it would go. At the very least it would rid us of the league's 120 worst forwards, which can hardly be a bad thing.

They should have them in the playoffs ; the continuous OT in the playoffs are just too long ! Damn, I watched game 1 btwn Dallas and Vanouver , and I live on the East coast by the way, I think the game ended at 2:00 AM ET ; even people started leaving the arena before the game ended.
Plus, shootout to decide playoffs games, what an unbearable intensity, oh mine !!!!!!!

I don't get the shootout so much in the pros. In the playoffs I like to see the team with the heart and determination win and grind it out. This is what makes playoff hockey!! Furthermore I have played college hockey for the past 4 years and every team has scoring players among other types of players. My point is that in a shootout the best "team" might not make it to the next round. A penalty shot in essence is not hockey.
Like the shaving world the game of hockey is like a good shave it takes a blend of prep. time and the correct tools to get a great outcome. Sure there is an easy and quick way to get things done by newer, "faster" ways but I don't think any of us would be spending time in this forum if that where true. All in all Hockey in my mind is not just finishing but checking, passing, and rebounds are what makes it great.

Game 5, 2000 Stanley Cup Finals (Stars/Devils)

" Thu, June 8, EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J. (AP) -- The Stanley Cup was in the building, and the Dallas Stars weren't about to let go of it -- no matter how long it took.

Mike Modano deflected in Brett Hull's shot at 6:21 of the third overtime, ending what was the longest scoreless overtime game in Stanley Cup finals history as the Stars staved off elimination by beating the New Jersey Devils 1-0 in Game 5 Thursday night.

Hull threw the Stars' 41st shot of the game on the net from along the right wing boards and Modano, who hadn't scored a goal in the finals, pushed it between Martin Brodeur's pads.

After the goal, Brodeur stood motionless in the crease, his head bowed and the puck sitting in the middle of the net."

I was there. Thanks for reminding me.

I watched it on the tube. When was over, 1 AM your time ?

how about some more creative ways to decide a game like 4 on 4, or penalising the team with the most penalty minutes with an extra powerplay against them in 2nd ot. no line changes during ot (let them play till they drop) decide the game with a fight (should get the crowds in), or the players could strike until declared the winner (they have some experience in this area i believe).

juggler78 said:

how about some more creative ways to decide a game like 4 on 4, or penalising the team with the most penalty minutes with an extra powerplay against them in 2nd ot. no line changes during ot (let them play till they drop) decide the game with a fight (should get the crowds in), or the players could strike until declared the winner (they have some experience in this area i believe).

Click to expand...

juggler78 said:

how about some more creative ways to decide a game like 4 on 4, or penalising the team with the most penalty minutes with an extra powerplay against them in 2nd ot. no line changes during ot (let them play till they drop) decide the game with a fight (should get the crowds in), or the players could strike until declared the winner (they have some experience in this area i believe).

Click to expand...

You actually touched on a new rule that has been enacted since the lockout... the 4-on-4. I don't mind this rule, as it does open up the ice, which should generate a goal much quicker. In theory, the 4-on-4 decides a winner in a shorter period of time, without adversely affecting the integrity of the game.

-Pete

ouch said:

I was there. Thanks for reminding me.

Click to expand...

Bit of a Devils' fan, are we?

Pete said:

You actually touched on a new rule that has been enacted since the lockout... the 4-on-4. I don't mind this rule, as it does open up the ice, which should generate a goal much quicker. In theory, the 4-on-4 decides a winner in a shorter period of time, without adversely affecting the integrity of the game.

-Pete

Click to expand...

4-on-4 is okay with me at least in regular season OT, as the players are bigger, stronger and faster than back almost 100 years ago when they nixed rover and went to 5-on-5.

I remember the 1993 playoffs, when Montreal won OT after OT after OT ... set a record for consecutive OT victories (11?) and won the Cup. That was a blast.

I personally like how it is now. I enjoy that during the regular season, getting to overtime guarantees you one point, but there is incentive to push forward. Shootouts don't bother me here.

As for the playoffs, I would really hate to see a shootout. Can you imagine after a long, tough, 7-game series having it all decided by a shootout? I personally don't want to try and imagine...I think I got sick to my stomach thinking about it just now...

Doc4 said:

I think they take a great, complex and multi-layered game and reduce it ... at the most crucial time ... to a one-dimensional skill competition. Personally, I love those overtime games and the 'sudden death' feeling that goes with them. What about you guys?

Click to expand...

I like the edge-of-your-seat excitement that comes with sudden death. Each team had its chance and at the end it comes down to a real simple condition: Put the puck in the net or lose. It only gets more intense at playoff time.

Side note. Is Don Cherry still around? Does he still wear those long collars? One of the few things I don't like about living in Houston is not being able to watch Hockey Night in Canada.

Until next year, Go Aeros!