"The shootout is about to start. I have never watched a shootout and don’t intend to today. It isn’t 'real' hockey. Good night."
- Longtime Caps' radio voice Ron Weber to Ted Leonsis after yesterday's OT
8 months ago
J.P.
15 comments
0 recs |
Comments
This is my sentiment exactly. An arbitrary skills competitions shouldn’t decide games.
by Ovechwin on Mar 9, 2009 12:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Well, in fairness, they’re not “aribitrary skills.” It’s not like games are decided by whomever can parallel park the best or type the most words per minute. :)
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Mar 9, 2009 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d like our chances in a drag race.
by Scott in Shaw on Mar 9, 2009 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Shoot-outs:Anti climatic
1) Dead on! No matter who would have won yesterday the results are anti climatic compared with the actual hockey game.
2) Just wait until they institute the shot out in the playoffs! Think it won’t ever happen? Bank on it!
by Fauxrumors on Mar 9, 2009 1:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The points still count in the standings...
so whether or not you like this method of tie breaker as a fan it has serious implications. I watch Caps Shootouts but when I’m watching on CI I’ll change games as soon as it goes to SO. I’d really like to see 10 min. of 4/4 before the SO, I think that would significantly limit the number of games that get to SO.
by Fehr and Balanced on Mar 9, 2009 2:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Let Hockey decide Hockey games!
1) Anything that would reduce the number of those silly side shows after the real game is over would be an improvement.
2) Unfortunatly were probably going in the opposite direction of more SO’s not less. The league/TV likes to know what times games will end so expect them in the playoffs in the not so distant future
by Fauxrumors on Mar 9, 2009 2:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Other than the usual rumblings after the rare 3 OT game, show me a reasonable source that says expect shootouts in the playoffs in the not too distant future. Look how afraid they are to get rid of fighting, you think they are going to pull something like playoff shootouts?
You’re way off on that.
Russian Machine Never Breaks
by macvechkin on Mar 9, 2009 3:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There will never be playoff shootouts. The players and coaches would never, ever go for it.
Frankly, I don’t mind the regular season shootouts. They’re kind of stupid and definitely are not representative of the game of hockey, but they’re fun as a fan and are relatively harmless standings-wise, IMO. If your team is really horrible at them or really good at them, it might sway the standings a tad, but seeing as how they’re part of the game and every team knows it, I don’t have a big problem with it.
Put it to you this way, I’ve never seen the Caps win or lose a shootout and thought, damn, I wish that had ended in a tie instead.
by grapejoos on Mar 9, 2009 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but they’re fun as a fan and are relatively harmless standings-wise
i beg to differ…from 1 April 2008
“Of all the teams in the Eastern Conference, perhaps none have benefited more from the shootout than the Rangers. Currently in sixth place in the real-life Eastern Conference with 91 points, the Blueshirts fall all the way back to 10th place in our adjusted standings”
http://www.nysun.com/sports/how-the-shootout-affects-the-standings/73937/
(source)
by Yoshietree on Mar 9, 2009 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the article, interesting to see some hard data. I knew the Rags benefitted from this when I said it, both this season and last. I still don’t really have a problem with it because there’s nothing unfair about it – every team knows the shootout matters, so it’s fair to reward those that excel at it – but it does undercut my harmlessness point. The effect on the standings is far from extreme, IMO, but this does prove that one exists.
I still think the fun-factor (and overall popularity factor) is enough to outweigh their somewhat arbitrary nature and retain them, but I suppose they do make a difference.
by grapejoos on Mar 10, 2009 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t think it’s fair that some games impact the standings by two points and others impact it by three.
fwiw, I worked out what it would be like if the NHL awarded three points for a win, two for an OT win, and one for an OT loss for last season.
by David M. Getz on Mar 11, 2009 12:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem with that is that teams played differently knowing the current points set-up than they would have under your point system, so retro-fitting the standings isn’t terribly useful, imo.
The other thing is that the current system makes it look like teams are competitive way deeper in the season, which helps with ticket sales and fan interest. With a 3-point win, there will be teams that are 30 points out in December. The League wouldn’t want that.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Mar 11, 2009 8:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The problem with that is that teams played differently knowing the current points set-up than they would have under your point system, so retro-fitting the standings isn’t terribly useful, imo.
No doubt. It was an exercise in exploring curiosity than anything else.
That said, the current system still creates bad incentives for teams.
by David M. Getz on Mar 11, 2009 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed 110%.
Japers' Rink: Hockey blogging from the most powerful city in the world
by J.P. on Mar 11, 2009 12:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok, this is a good point. I even read your post but just forgot about its wisdom. I relent, shootouts are dumb. The logical conflict of 3-point vs. 2-point games is the type of thing that moves the indignity meter for me.
by grapejoos on Mar 11, 2009 11:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs























