After watching the finish to USA vs Russia mens hockey yesterday, it seems like a very real possibility that this tournament could be decided in a shootout. Like most around here I'm not a fan of the shootout but I have to say it was entertaining to watch Datsyuk/Kovalchuk vs Oshie go to 8 rounds. What does everyone think of the format of repeating players after the first 3 shooters? Who is team Canada's shootout ringer that could go head to head against Oshie, Datsyuk, or J.Jokinen? Will this factor in to the decision of whether to start Price or Luongo? Here are a few NHL career shootout stats from Canada's top guys:
Would feel comfortable with Toews and/or Crosby in that format.
Crosby is such a smart shootout player, the kind of guy that might get stopped once but not twice. And Toews was in that situation before in the world juniors and went 3 for 3 on completely different moves.
Not so confident in Luongo or Price but as mentioned, with a 4 on 4 OT for 20 minutes there's a good chance it doesn't get there. If Canada wasn't feeling comfortable with a shootout they could go for broke in the OT and rush three guys up the ice on every possession and trade chances (like Canada juniors in 2010 in OT gold medal). It'd be a coin flip but at least it's a team-game coin flip not a skills competition.
__________________
Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?
If any game goes to a shootout, It is fair opportunity for both teams to win the game. It comes down to putting out who you believe will score, and it takes a lot of luck. Personally I rather not see a shootout decide a hockey game, but it is part of the game these days. I for one like the Olympic format over the NHL format. It was cool to see that Russia vs USA game. It was Best shooters vs Best shooters.
Hockey is a game of skill and strategy, but its also a game of bounces. Some nights the same shot goes in that didn't other games. Some nights a bounce is there and others it is not. Luck plays a part in every sport.
The Following User Says Thank You to Iggy Snipe For This Useful Post:
IMO hockey is a team game and should be won or lost on the strength of the whole team. If it must be decided by a shoot out I think that the whole roster should have to shoot before someone gets to go twice.
__________________
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. Winston Churchill
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Chingas For This Useful Post:
I love the shoutout and can't understand how people aren't excited watching it. I will agree that it's a coin flip, but if after all that time it's tied, thems the brakes
Maybe, but scoring goals has always been used to determine who wins
In a team setting. I assume we'll agree to disagree, but I don't think the shootout should be used to determine a gold medal game in any way shape or form. The fact that it may or may not be exciting is irrelavent, IMO.
In a team setting. I assume we'll agree to disagree, but I don't think the shootout should be used to determine a gold medal game in any way shape or form. The fact that it may or may not be exciting is irrelavent, IMO.
I disagree mainly because excitement and integrity are the only reason we watch. This isn't a legal institution where precedent and history are the point. The very point of hockey is entertainment.
I guess where I differ is I don't think there's a right or wrong answer with any of this and many people seem to have a very specific box hockey must fit into. Integrity is diminished as is interest in the sport if too many changes from its core are made, that is true. However, it's good enough for the most popular sport in the world, so I feel it does not diminish the integrity of the sport at all
Well if it comes down to keeping the shootout because it's exciting, I'm still in the "take it out" camp, 'cause I find 4 on 4 WAY more exciting than a shootout. Just because soccer does it doesn't mean it's a good thing to do.
The Following User Says Thank You to Kerplunk For This Useful Post:
Well if it comes down to keeping the shootout because it's exciting, I'm still in the "take it out" camp, 'cause I find 4 on 4 WAY more exciting than a shootout. Just because soccer does it doesn't mean it's a good thing to do.
I'm more saying, it's exciting and the game has to have a winner. There wasn't one after 80 minutes, so why take it out in favour of more time? The game isn't played 4 on 4 either, so that argument is arbitrary.
I'm more saying, it's exciting and the game has to have a winner. There wasn't one after 80 minutes, so why take it out in favour of more time? The game isn't played 4 on 4 either, so that argument is arbitrary.
Anything NOT the shootout is more exciting. Keep going till you have a winner. Why go to a shootout just to save time?
*EDIT: As a contrast to the shootout in hockey and soccer, the CFL uses a shootout system where all of the team participates, and baseball keeps going until someone scores normally. In general, I find it better when the whole team goes and plays in the extra time.
Anything NOT the shootout is more exciting. Keep going till you have a winner. Why go to a shootout just to save time?
Many people find it very exciting. As for why, only hardcore hockey fans appreciate an extremely long game. Growing the game is important. In 15 years I don't believe this will be a conversation, as the excitement of the shootout vs. Tradition will be irrelevant.
Hate the new shootout format. By cycling through the shooters you at least maintain a vestige of team participation. The same shooter going over and over again is a joke, and I can't fathom any rationale for it.
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Hate the new shootout format. By cycling through the shooters you at least maintain a vestige of team participation. The same shooter going over and over again is a joke, and I can't fathom any rationale for it.
I feel like a devils advocate here, but I like that too. Why watch some schlubb try and dangle when we can watch a creative guy do it? It's more exciting to watch TJ Oshie break in than Hal Gill
I disagree mainly because excitement and integrity are the only reason we watch. This isn't a legal institution where precedent and history are the point. The very point of hockey is entertainment.
I guess where I differ is I don't think there's a right or wrong answer with any of this and many people seem to have a very specific box hockey must fit into. Integrity is diminished as is interest in the sport if too many changes from its core are made, that is true. However, it's good enough for the most popular sport in the world, so I feel it does not diminish the integrity of the sport at all
I hate the shootout because it is the complete opposite of integrity. Reducing a team game that requires 20 players to win (well, 19 without the back up goalie) down to a series of one on one confrontations that hardly resembles what the first 60/65/80 minutes of the game was is completely lacking in integrity.
NHL pre-season hockey should not be decided by what is essentially a guessing game. Nevermind a game to win a championship - or to even move closer to one.
The Shootout
