Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

pudge (1)

pudge
  (email not shown publicly)
http://pudge.net/
AOL IM: Crimethnk (Add Buddy, Send Message)
I run this joint, see?

Journal of pudge (1)

Monday October 24, 2005
09:40 PM

Shootouts

[ #27300 ]

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.


List all Journal entries
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Shootouts 14 Comments More | Login | Reply /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I think you find it lame because there is no real shoot-out tradition in US sports.

    In European sports it is a common element in games, especially in play-off soccer games. They have an overtime of twice 15 minutes and if the match is still tied, it's penalty shooting.

    One can muse about the injustice of winning or losing a game based on a duel between goalie and the one shooting. But some of the most memorable games in football have actually been decided that way. It's the occasion where heroes and deadbeats
    • 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.
    • 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
  • Only they don't call them "ties" anymore. If the score is tied at the end of regulation, each team still gets one point, just like before. All the overtime and shootout stuff after that is simply to decide who gets the one bonus point.
    • 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 f

      --
      Bill
      # I had a sig when sigs were cool
      use Sig;
      • 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
        • 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

          --
          Bill
          # I had a sig when sigs were cool
          use Sig;
          • 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
            • 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.

              --
              Bill
              # I had a sig when sigs were cool
              use Sig;
              • 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 withou

    • 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 ha

      • 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 additio

        • 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 call
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.