04/23/24
December 04, 2006
NHL Shootouts, Season 2: More Shots, Fewer Goals: So far in the 2006-07 season, there are more shootouts per NHL game, more attempts per shootout, and more saves per attempt. What's changed? A column by sportsfilter member Amateur.
Yeah, it's a gimmick - but hey - it's pretty exciting. Is it a perfect system? No. 3 shooters seems too few to me, and there is a decided home-team advantage (shooting first and, uh, "cleaning" their end of the ice), and the extra point isn't ideal (some games being worth 3 points while others are worth 2), and the fact that they award each team a point immediately following regulation instead of after overtime (So these weird 3 point games only occur when there is a shootout)... Okay - so it's far from a perfect system. But it's also only one-year old, so I'll give it another chance. I never really had a huge issue with a tie, but if this is the alternative (while keeping in mind that we can't expect endless overtimes) then it isn't horrible. Why are the goalies stopping more pucks? I think that they're just getting more used to it. The more comfortable they get, the more pucks they'll stop. At least, that seems to be the most simple answer to the article's question. I mean - all the latest technological advancements in lighter, more water-resistent equipment has benefitted goalies more, I think, than the equivalent tech advances for players (sticks, skates, etc.). Goalies are faster and more mobile than ever. That and in half the arenas around the league, the ice sucks. It just sucks. And by the time the shootout rolls around, it's pretty slushy and hard to make the puck talk. Nice charts, by the way. Groovy study.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 09:52 PM on December 04, 2006
I think goalies are stopping more simply because they are more experienced. Last season was the first with the shootout so they had no idea what a shooters tendencies were. Now they have a better idea of who likes to deke, go backhand, five hole, etc. Also, I like Weedy's idea of not giving both teams a point until after OT.
posted by MrFrisby at 08:26 AM on December 05, 2006
I would venture that goalies are spending more time practicing facing shootouts and are watching more video to get an idea of a shooter's tendencies. I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard for the scouting department of an NHL team to put together a DVD of each of its opponents' shootouts. And I'm sure that most teams have a pool of about 5 shooters that could take any one of the first 3 shots. After those 5, there's probably less info on the shooters, but the shooters themselves probably have less practice taking penalty shots.
posted by cabuki at 09:14 AM on December 05, 2006
Nice piece, Amateur. I would never have thought of the missed-shots discrepancy. Also, I like Weedy's idea of not giving both teams a point until after OT. Might as well get rid of the OT then. You're not going to see a wide-open entertaining overtime period if it means risking the possibility of getting zero points out of the game. The current logic says that the players are thinking "well, we're guaranteed a point anyway, and if we don't score in OT it's essentially a coin flip, so we might as well do our darnedest to score in OT". It's overplayed, but it rings true. Also, Weedy, doesn't the three-point game happen with every overtime situation? One team's gonna walk away with two points, whether they scored in OT or won the shootout. The other team always gets one point. It's always been that way, but the addition of the shootout means that the three-point game happens EVERY time we see OT, therefore there are a lot more points handed out in the standings. The NHL needs to move to a 3-points-for-a-win system. (See Plank II of The Platform.)
posted by DrJohnEvans at 09:15 AM on December 05, 2006
The simple answer is athletes adapt, practice makes perfect, and all that. And when you're the house, odds are you'll be even tougher to beat. Nice work getting to the bottom of the 50/50 myth. And the ice cleaning thing should be regulated. As for more shoot outs. One word: parity. Teams have adjusted to the penalty standards and games are again being decided by the coaches and players. (though the last two weeks or so, I'd say the league has given the order to ease up on the whistles.) not giving both teams a point until after OT. Then OT will be played safely; for the tie, if you will. Of course, I also think all games should be worth three points if ties are out of the question.
posted by garfield at 09:16 AM on December 05, 2006
The current logic says that the players are thinking "well, we're guaranteed a point anyway, and if we don't score in OT it's essentially a coin flip, so we might as well do our darnedest to score in OT". It's overplayed, but it rings true. Then OT will be played safely; for the tie, if you will. Yes, I've heard this arguement in favour of awarding the point pre-OT several times, and I just don't buy it. In the "old" NHL? Sure. You could practically guarantee a tie by shoving your stick into a guy's sweater and water-skiing for five minutes. Now? 4 on 4 with minimal touching? I think it's entirely plausible to suggest that the point can be awarded post-OT, pre-shootout as it makes more sense this way (ergo the game isn't over and points aren't sorted out until after the 5 minute extra-time). Also, if you buy the parity angle (which, frankly I do) then how many teams will sit on 1 point with another available - I don't think this is any longer an affordable strategy for all but the top 3 teams in the league. But mostly, I think it's extremely difficult to sit on a point these days. Hell, it's difficult to sit on a two goal lead in the 3rd period these days (but I do watch a lot of Leaf hockey - so this may not be pervasive). I agree that the league should seriously consider just adopting a 3-points for a win system.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 09:43 AM on December 05, 2006
Then OT will be played safely; for the tie, if you will. My thinking was, that would give you more incentive to score in the OT because then you would not be letting the team you are playing get a point. Which would be important to teams fighting for a playoff spot or division/conference lead. Of course that logic would get thrown out of the window if an Eastern team were playing a Western team.
posted by MrFrisby at 09:54 AM on December 05, 2006
While it's a lot harder to hold up the other team now, it's still just as easy to play a conservative, defense-first game. It's not just about slowing the game down with hooks and holds. It's about your defencemen not joining the rush. It's about sending in only one forechecker. It's about not trying to force turnovers before centre ice. If one team's going all-out to try to score, then sure, with so much open space on the ice, it'll get exciting. But if both teams are playing not to lose, I think OT still becomes a waste.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 10:10 AM on December 05, 2006
Shootouts are for the entertainment of the peolple in attendance, beacuse we all know that when you watch any event live it is a differant element. I personaly am not a huge fan of the shoot-out the way it is now. It just doesn't give me that warm fuzzy feeling. It would be like having a field goal kicking contest to decide a football game, just move the footbal back every try, the losing team gets a half win. Look, if you win, you win three points. If you lose, you go into the locker room with you head down, licking your wounds after just losing three points. That is it, no two for a win, one for a loss. No other sport does such a silly system. Football, Basketball, Baseball? I'm sure they would love it. I am an Avalanche fan and they are in real trouble this year, but if they lose three points when they lose, oh well, they lose them. Shoot outs are fine, as long as the loser knows they are getting no points.
posted by Psycho at 10:12 AM on December 05, 2006
Re: parity - If both teams are so close in ability, then they would prefer securing a point in the standings first and foremost, and would be willing to chance the extra point; better to get something than nothing at all, no? I agree defending a lead is more difficult now, but only when the team sits back and allows the other team to attack attack attack. If the team in the lead continues to press, they have a better chance of retaining their lead and/or increasing said lead. Which I have no problem with. Defending a lead shouldn't be a time to rest and hope the other team doesn't capitalize on a scoring chance with the ice you've given them. Of course, I watch alot of Leafs games too, and the above is completely untrue if you consider the recent series against the Bruins, in which the Leafs completely dominated in SOGs, but would give up the critical odd-man rush after sustained pressured; the bend but not break strategy - something the Bruins should not rely on if Tim Thomas is your goaltender for 60 games.
posted by garfield at 10:15 AM on December 05, 2006
they would prefer securing a point in the standings first and foremost Which is why by giving both teams the point after regulation you have them playing not to lose even before the third period is over. If they had to make it all the way through overtime to get that point, it would make it even tougher because it wouldn't just be the last three minutes of the third but also the five minutes of overtime. That would be too long to just try and hang on for a tie.
posted by MrFrisby at 11:03 AM on December 05, 2006
by giving both teams the point after regulation you have them playing not to lose even before the third period is over. Exactly, which opens up over time. They've already secured the hand out, no need to be too careful in OT, unless you are playing a divisional opponent.
posted by garfield at 11:41 AM on December 05, 2006
Losers shouldn't get any points. Is there any other sport that awards a team for "making it" to overtime? It's just stupid. But then again, hockey is a canadian sport. It's hard to figure things out when your drunk and frozen.
posted by yay-yo at 12:10 PM on December 05, 2006
I still believe they should get back to 2 points for the win, no points for the loss, no matter which kind. It would get rid of stupid "franchise-high" records we keep seeing, realign team statistics with NHL history, and force teams to do everything in their power not to let the shootouts happen. On preview: unfortunately, one of our best posters beat me to it, with compelling arguments too.
posted by qbert72 at 12:17 PM on December 05, 2006
yay-yo, despite his extraordinary carefulness and tact, is totally right, in my books. I would like to see a team play 4 on 4 without forechecking and trying to protect the 1 point they haven't secured yet. I don't think it's as easy as suggested. It's hard enough to do these days in the third 5 on 5. I don't think you're going to see a regression back to Jacques Lemaire hockey. And don't you think it's a little, well, contrived to manipulate the point structure in order to make overtime more exciting? It's like admitting the game is permenently flawed and could never organically reach a point where overtime is exciting enough for casual fans. This strikes me as being terrible reasoning. For one thing - it is exciting. Period. For another - the overtime point structure is not the issue with casual fans in the first place. Is a little too micro-managy for my tastes. Let the players and coaches try to figure some of this stuff out. I mean, if that is the reality, then it should be admitted and they should go back to awarding ties. I just think that when they changed/updated/enforced the rules package in the last three seasons, they may have went too far in retrospect in this instance. Now off for my afternoon Beer popsicle. Mmmmmm... Lick-Beer.....
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 12:26 PM on December 05, 2006
Ties would be the way to go, but that ain't gonna happen. However, if ties were to be allowed, I really like the EPL scoring system; reward out right winning, and still award some points for a close game. Of course, this is somewhat self-interested, because maybe then the Maple Leafs would be forced to truly rebuild.
posted by garfield at 12:37 PM on December 05, 2006
I always liked the ideas of a 4 on 4 overtime and it is exciting. For me the excitement ends when it comes to the shootout to decide a tie game. Points for win/lose/tie aside to me it just negates the previous periods. Again, if a tie is going to be decided by a shootout, why bother playing the game at all. Why not just forget defenseman, wings, etc., altogether and just have shooters and a goalie for 60 Min's. Figure out the points awarded separately, but bring back ties and drop this godawful shootout. It's just not hockey. Oh and while were at it go back to letting the goalie play the puck everywhere on his end again! I know the whole idea was to make it more exciting for American fans who for some reason the NHL thinks won't watch a lower scoring game or one that ends in a tie a lot, but screw 'em. In the first place that's not true. Plenty of Americans liked hockey the way it was when it came south and for those that don't, let 'em watch soccer.
posted by commander cody at 12:50 PM on December 05, 2006
your drunk and frozen /waits patiently
posted by yerfatma at 01:57 PM on December 05, 2006
your drunk and frozen...uuuuhh...I'll take drunk and frozen "ass to a jersey chair" for 100, Alex.
posted by NoMich at 02:25 PM on December 05, 2006
your drunk and frozen I apologize, "It's hard to figure things out when you'RE drunk and frozen."
posted by yay-yo at 04:09 PM on December 05, 2006
I haven't been drunk and frozen at the same time since the last time I was in deer camp. I wonder if we did any hunting that year? Can't remember.
posted by commander cody at 04:20 PM on December 05, 2006
Mmmmmm... Lick-Beer..... Beer licks. Favorites of deer in the Canadian wilderness.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 05:06 PM on December 05, 2006
Finally, somebody was accused of being drunk, and it wasn't the Irish! That's cause for a social! Aye, ye wee smug little Candians, with your beady little eyes, and you're smug little smiles... Yeah, I know, the character was scottish. Don't ruin this for me, man.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 06:06 PM on December 05, 2006
Aye, ye wee smug little Candians, with your beady little eyes, and you're smug little smiles... And did ya ever notice that when they talk the whole top of their head from the mouth up bounces up any down like it's not even attached to the bottom part and you can see right through? Damn Canadians!
posted by commander cody at 06:53 PM on December 05, 2006
Smaller pads? Maybe it just took a season for the goalies to adapt to the change in pad sizes? It could have been a 50/50 proposition before the rule changes.
posted by endorfin at 10:19 AM on December 06, 2006
If ties must go by the wayside (which I am against) then the NHL should go to a straigt up precentage like the NBA or MLB. I always thought that goalies have an advantage in a penalty shot/shoot out situation. The shooter is forced to make a move/shot because he will eventually run out of ice, whereas a goalie just has to stand firm until the shooter is in too close and all he gets a look at is a whole lot of goalie.
posted by HATER 187 at 01:36 PM on December 06, 2006
If the increased save percentage (decreased scoring percentage) is due to some kind of learning or adjustment on the goalies' part then we should have seen a slow decrease in scoring percentage throughout the 2005-06 season. For 2005-06: First 300 games -- 51 goals on 159 attempts (32.1%) Second 300 games -- 78 goals on 236 attempts (33.1%) Third 300 games -- 101 goals on 290 attempts (34.8%) Last 330 games -- 100 goals on 196 attempts (33.8%) Another thing I should have mentioned: the number of overtime games is actually down compared to last year (20.8% vs. 22.9%). And yet the number of shootouts is up. Which means that five minutes of four-on-four has been less effective at settling ties this year, for some reason.
posted by Amateur at 02:31 PM on December 06, 2006
Another thing I should have mentioned: the number of overtime games is actually down compared to last year (20.8% vs. 22.9%). And yet the number of shootouts is up. Which means that five minutes of four-on-four has been less effective at settling ties this year, for some reason. Maybe - but this doesn't strike me as statistically significant. A 2% change isn't really indicative of a paradigm shift. San Jose hasn't gone to OT yet. Let's revist at the end of the year.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 02:59 PM on December 06, 2006
If the increased save percentage (decreased scoring percentage) is due to some kind of learning or adjustment on the goalies' part then we should have seen a slow decrease in scoring percentage throughout the 2005-06 season. Not necessarily. There is no telling when a player will pull out his A-one move, or when he will try something new, or when he'll blast a slap shot from the hash marks. Way too much situational and individual variance to say the goalies weren't learning. For example: Sheldon Souray can't make his fake slapper to deke move again for awhile, and I'd suggest he won't be successful on the majority of other moves his tries. Not to pick on Sheldon, but that move can't work often. PMB's move from last night is another example. Great when it works, but I dare him to try it again soon. But as counterpoint, there is no telling if and when the shooters were improving also. Jussi Jokinen aside, most players found the shoot-out difficult. So, what I'm getting at is I have no idea what I'm talking about.
posted by garfield at 03:41 PM on December 06, 2006
PMB's move from last night is another example. Great when it works... You have to skip to the end, it's the second to last highlight, but here's the move.
posted by SummersEve at 04:13 PM on December 06, 2006
Star netminder Martin Brodeur e-complained to NHL Director of Hockey Affairs Mike Gartner, about the contact being made with goaltenders during the shootout. This came as a result of an incident in Tuesday's game between Minnesota and Chicago. Wild forward Pierre-Marc Bouchard scored the winning goal against Blackhawks goalie Nikolai Khabibulin when Bouchard's spinning deke took out the right skate of Khabibulin, leaving an open backhand. According to the New Jersey Star-Ledger, Brodeur did not ask Gartner to immediately file an official complaint, but wants to avoid the shootout from turning into a circus. For example, there is the concern that players will start lifting the pucks onto sticks and firing lacrosse-style shots. It's an interesting issue, and we'll see how things unfold. I saw the play live and my first reaction was goalie interference but in the NHL's rush to placate the casual fans insistence upon all things offense it was called a good goal. If it had happened during regulation I doubt it would have been allowed to stand. At least in hockey threads around here we can disagree and not worry about Mr. Texan's snarking everything he doesn't agree with............
posted by skydivedad at 03:52 PM on December 07, 2006
Apparently the link above to the Brodeur e-complaint is borked. It wasn't when I previewed it. Try this one.
posted by skydivedad at 03:55 PM on December 07, 2006
I read about that on tsn.ca not too long ago. I didn't see the goal so I tried searching for it, but I can't find it. And remember, Marty is part of that Rules Committee, or whatever it's called. So he's the one in charge of looking out for goalies.
posted by MrFrisby at 04:22 PM on December 07, 2006
The rule change to settle tied games with a shootout has left me cold on hockey altogether. Most of the time I start feeling that why bother to play the game at all and just have one shootout after another. Far from exciting I find it a dull way to decide a game and I'd much rather the game end in a tie then doing this. It's turned me of hockey, something that I never thought was possible. When watching a tie game come down to the shootout I turn the channel, because as far as I'm concerned that's not hockey, it's a gimmick.