Take away the Shootout Point

by SA-Town on Feb 9, 2012 6:01 AM EST

As the Caps look to jockey for playoff position, (or not) points are all that matters. But for those of us who dont like the free point in OT, and devalue winning a skills competition to climb the standings....

Here is the true indicator of hockey success thus far. Wins and OT Wins

1)NYR - 30

2)Philly - 29

3) Boston - 28

4) Washington 27

5) Toronto 25

6) Jets 23

7) Pittsburgh 22

8) Ottawa 22

9) Devils - 22

The point is, shootouts must be won to get into good playoff position...but does it really matter come playoff time?

If this FanPost is written by someone other than one of the blog's editors, the opinions expressed in it do not necessarily reflect those of this blog or SB Nation.

Tweet Comment 11 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

While only discount the shootout though? If the measurement is intending to be a predictor for playoff time, then are the 4-on-4 results of regular season overtime any more indicative than shootout wins/losses? Playoff overtimes aren’t played 4-on-4.

Throw away all the extra points for OT wins/losses, simply giving everyone a point for making it to overtime, and the standing would look like this:

1) New York – 65pts
2) Boston – 62pts
3) Philly – 62pts
4) Toronto – 56pts
5) Pittburgh – 56 pts
6) Florida – 55pts
7) Washington – 54pts
8) New Jersey – 53pts
--
9) Ottawa – 52pts
10) Winnipeg – 51pts

by helo29 on Feb 9, 2012 4:18 PM EST reply actions

why* not while*

by helo29 on Feb 9, 2012 4:19 PM EST up reply actions

You can have 4 on 4 in OT if their our penalties so it is at least possible and still hockey. You aren’t ever going to get a shootout in the playoffs

by icehammer97 on Feb 9, 2012 7:36 PM EST up reply actions

You can still be awarded a penalty shot in the playoffs, right?

by aaronk21214 on Feb 10, 2012 7:56 AM EST up reply actions

Of course, but penalty shots are directly related to actions on the ice. Sasha and Brouwer were awarded penalty shots because they were interfered with by the opposing defender. Shoot outs are nothing more than the skills competition with something on the line.

by Yoshietree on Feb 10, 2012 8:16 AM EST up reply actions

Shoot outs are directly related to action on the ice (both teams having an equal number of goals in regulation/4 on 4 OT).

Every hockey game is a skills competition with something on the line.

Just playing devil’s advocate here, but I don’t understand people who feel the shootout/penalty shot is so abnormal as to not be “real hockey,” and yet have no problem with 4 on 4 deciding overtime, as if 4 on 4 time happened with any real frequency in regulation hockey. 4 on 4 hockey is a stripped down simulation of 5 on 5 regulation hockey, just like the shoot out is a simulation of both the penalty shot and/or the 1-0 breakaway (which both happen in regulation hockey on occasion). Granted, I think that 4 on 4 happens more often in regulation then a penalty shot or clean 1-0 breakaway, but 4 on 4 OT also happens more often than a shootout, so seams ok to me.

by aaronk21214 on Feb 10, 2012 3:56 PM EST up reply actions

So how would you handle things instead? Are you proposing eliminating all loser points, too, or just points for a win in shootouts?

Here’s one idea that might fit with your line of thinking:
First choose one of two ways to handle points for games settled in OT (no matter how many minutes and players you choose).
* Current system. 2 pts winner, 1 pt loser.
* Winner takes all. 2 pts winner, 0 pt loser.
If the game isn’t settled in OT, keep the shootout, but no matter what happens, each team gets only one standings point. Have the shootout, and keep track of who wins.
If two teams are tied at the end of the year in points, then use shootout victories as one of the tiebreakers. Whether it’s the first tiebreaker or not depends a bit on what option you chose for the games settled in OT.

Either way, the shootout doesn’t help teams in the standings during the season, but it still matters enough that teams will care about it.

by brooksengr on Feb 9, 2012 10:44 PM EST reply actions

The two easiest solutions IMO are:

1) Move to the international points system. 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for OT/SO, OT/SO loss garners 1 point.
2) Regulation win gets 2 points, OT/SO winner gets 1, OT/SO loser gets nothing.

by Yoshietree on Feb 10, 2012 8:18 AM EST up reply actions

I like option 1. Makes every game worth the same number of points.

by psuscott1 on Feb 10, 2012 9:28 AM EST up reply actions

Agreed with option 1. It’s unfair that some games put 2 points on the table, while others offer 3 points. If every game matters, then every game should matter equally. I’m surprised the players don’t get more upset about this, but I think the players care about other issues of fairness and competitiveness more than this.

The only downside is the four-line box score. Is it RW—OTW—OTL—RL, or RW—RL—OTW—OTL? Non-hockey fans would be confused by a 32—12—12—26 record in the sports section, but screw ’em.

by aaronk21214 on Feb 10, 2012 4:04 PM EST up reply actions

The point is, shootouts must be won to get into good playoff position…but does it really matter come playoff time?

I disagree. The biggest difference I see this year compared to priors for the Caps is the lack of OTL’s. This team played for that extra point so well in previous years. Look at FLA. They’ve won less than half their games, but they’ve been close in 11 more. The more you can turn what would normally be an L into an OTL, the better off you are, and this is another area this Caps team just underachieves. As long as you get the OTLs, you’ll be fine.

The bottom line is, I can’t watch this team right now and claim that they are playoff worthy. Hunter has been a regression, not an improvement, and if not for the boost to Ted’s treasure chest, I would not be rooting for this team to make the playoffs just to fizzle out vs NJD/PHI/PIT/OTT.

by FFSEnough on Feb 13, 2012 8:25 AM EST reply actions