[GT] WJC: Finals. RUS vs SWE 1:30pm MT. USA vs CAN 6pm MT

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

It's only apples and oranges to you because you choose to make an arbitrary distinction based on perceived importance. I don't. No hockey game should be determined via shootout. Not a WJC game, not an NHL game, not a Junior B exhibition game. The shootout flat out should not exist in this sport.

Regardless, you asked why people complain, I answered: because that's how changes get made.

Fair enough, complain away. Your conclusion that the shootout be removed is most certainly based on arbitrary perceived importance as much as you say mine is however. No opinion can be had in life without some degree of personal preference. I choose not to complain about it because I could care less if they switch it or not. I'm certainly not going to enjoy the games any more or less because of it and I doubt anyone else would either when it comes right down to it.

Either way, I really doubt anyone is complaining about shootouts on this board if the outcome last night is reversed. Canada has certainly been on the winning end of a few shootouts and not many people got up in arms about it. I would wager a large majority of fans view the WJC as somewhat of a novelty. To me it makes sense that the tournament itself be decided by a novelty of sorts.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Either way, I really doubt anyone is complaining about shootouts on this board if the outcome last night is reversed. Canada has certainly been on the winning end of a few shootouts and not many people got up in arms about it then. I would wager a large majority of fans view the WJC as somewhat of a novelty. To me it makes sense that the tournament itself be decided by a novelty of sorts.

There were plenty of people complaining about shootouts before the result was in last night. So if they were to change their mind based on Canada winning, they'd be hypocrites. What I suspect would actually happen is that they'd say "Yay, we won! Too bad it was decided in a shootout".

I don't mind shootouts in regular season that much, though I think if they just continued 3 on 3 until a winner was decided they wouldn't add much more time to the game on average. Last night, if they'd gone 3 on 3, the game would have been decided way faster than going through 10 shooters. No way there's not a ton of odd man rushes and breakaways. Moreover, it's just not a good way to end a championship game. Aside from soccer, it's just not done in any other sport (and it's even dumber in soccer because the game inevitably ends when a shooter screws up or a goalie is really lucky).

[CaptainYooh]

I could argue that 3 on 3 is as "chancy" and unfair as a shootout. The game has to end by a certain time and the TV time is very expensive to steal from someone else who paid for it. Unless it's a sudden death full strength playoff type game ending, does it really matter if it's a shootout, 3 on 3 or a coin toss? Maybe, just maybe, if the game was that even, give two gold medals?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I could argue that 3 on 3 is as "chancy" and unfair as a shootout. The game has to end by a certain time and the TV time is very expensive to steal from someone else who paid for it. Unless it's a sudden death full strength playoff type game ending, does it really matter if it's a shootout, 3 on 3 or a coin toss? Maybe, just maybe, if the game was that even, give two gold medals?

3 on 3 involves skating, passing, checking, shooting, defence, vision, line changes, stamina, penalties, all leading to a deke or shot and an attampted save. Shootouts involve a deke or shot and an attempted save. There are simply more hockey elements in 3 on 3.

I would bet a fair bit of money that 5 shooters in the shootout took as much expensive TV time as 3 on 3 would have. And it's not like they stole the time frlom another show - they are pretty much just Sportscentre now. In fact, 3 on 3 would have potentially more revenue for TSN, because there's more potential commercial breaks.

[Inferno]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I could argue that 3 on 3 is as "chancy" and unfair as a shootout.

Atleast a 3 on 3 is a team game. A shootout is just individuals.

[CaptainYooh]

Sure. It's just another alternative way to end the close game. What if there's no goal for 5, 10, 20 minutes? Then what?

[Itse]

Shootouts make the length of a game somewhat predictable.

TV channels like programs that last a predictable time.

It's not that ####ing complicated.

[TheAlpineOracle]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

3 on 3 involves skating, passing, checking, shooting, defence, vision, line changes, stamina, penalties, all leading to a deke or shot and an attampted save. Shootouts involve a deke or shot and an attempted save. There are simply more hockey elements in 3 on 3.

I would bet a fair bit of money that 5 shooters in the shootout took as much expensive TV time as 3 on 3 would have. And it's not like they stole the time frlom another show - they are pretty much just Sportscentre now. In fact, 3 on 3 would have potentially more revenue for TSN, because there's more potential commercial breaks.

It does involve more aspect of the game than a shootout, but a terrible team could be very good at 3 on 3. Look at Gaudreau. That guys is basically unstoppable on 3 on 3. Whatever team he is on, is likely going to win. The win has nothing to do with the team, and everything to do with having one player who cannot be stopped 3 on 3.

[thefoss1957]

Apparently Toews and Kane had a bet on the World Juniors...Toews had to pay off...

[Locke]

Haha! That is awesome!

[Huntingwhale]

Treliving's impressions of the Flames' prospects during the tournament.

Here’s an entire breakdown of Treliving’s evaluations:

*Team U.S. — G Tyler Parsons, D Adam Fox: “With them winning, it’s obviously great for them. I think they both played real big parts in not only (Thursday’s gam) but for that team. The attributes that make them really good prospects: Tyler’s athleticism and his competitiveness …. and Adam is just so calm and poised.”

*Team Canada — C Dillon Dube: “I thought he earned the coaches’ trust. In Kelowna, Dillon is a top offensive guy. He played more of a checking role and played against top lines which showed he has that ability to do that.”

*Team Russia — LW Pavel Karnaukhov: “I thought he was really good for the Russian team. He played on their top-two lines, killed a lot of penalties and made a real imprint on a team that won the bronze medal.”

*Team Sweden — D Oliver Kylington: “I think in all but one game, he led the team in ice time. He showed you what made him special … he was dynamic.”

All in all, Treliving was impressed with all of his prospects.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2017/01/06...-world-juniors

[Resolute 14]

Canadian and American IIHF officials looking to find a way to axe or dramatically reduce the likelihood of a shootout occurring, at least for the gold medal game:

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/rep...-sh&soc_trk=tw

[flame^thrower]

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Sam Constinteno on 960 says that when the American coaches were asked about Terry's shootout goals in the post game media scrum, they said that Terry is a shootout wizard but this tournament was more about Parsons than Terry's shootout prowess.

I think many missed this due to the arguing in this thread. I think Parsons was unreal and continues to come up huge in big games. Real happy we picked him. I was pleased with all our prospects this tourney.