2013 World Championships

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by valo403

Oh i see, 4 on 4 isn't hockey and neither is a shootout but somehow a shootout is a more pure version because it's a shootout? Well that right there is a genius argument. Really blew me away with that one.

Okay what is your comeback then? A shootout is what it is. 4 on 4 hockey is a gimmick. Now this is where you argue that I am wrong.

[nik-]

4 on 4 is so much closer to actual hockey than a shootout that this is a silly thing to argue about.

Why would anyone say that a shootout is more pure hockey than 4 on 4? Hockey being a team game immediately makes any number of players more than a shootout closer to pure hockey.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by nik-

4 on 4 is so much closer to actual hockey than a shootout that this is a silly thing to argue about.

Why would anyone say that a shootout is more pure hockey than 4 on 4? Hockey being a team game immediately makes any number of players more than a shootout closer to pure hockey.

Where did I say a shootout was pure hockey? This place is incredible sometimes. A shootout is a way to end a tie game in soccer, handball, hockey etc. That's what its for. 4 on 4 hockey is a scrimmage and a gimmick in organized hockey. Again I don't mind it in the NHL for 5 minutes just as I don't mind the shootout but 20 minute periods of 4 on 4 is a joke.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Where did I say a shootout was pure hockey? This place is incredible sometimes. A shootout is a way to end a tie game in soccer, handball, hockey etc. That's what its for. 4 on 4 hockey is a scrimmage and a gimmick in organized hockey. Again I don't mind it in the NHL for 5 minutes just as I don't mind the shootout but 20 minute periods of 4 on 4 is a joke.

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

4 on 4 OT is still a gimmick as hockey is a 5 on 5 sport. In a lot of ways a shootout is more pure than 4 on 4 hockey.

In what way is a 1 on 1 competition more pure than 4 on 4 hockey?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by nik-

In what way is a 1 on 1 competition more pure than 4 on 4 hockey?

Sigh.

-A shootout is a shootout. It's a universal way to end a team sport such as soccer, hockey, etc. A shootout is not mimicking or pretending to be hockey. It is what it is. IT IS PURELY A SHOOTOUT.

-4 on 4 even strenght is not a form of organized hockey, it's a scrimmage or a gimmick as used in the NHL for 5 minutes. IT IS AN UNPURE FORM OF THE GAME OF HOCKEY. It's no different than removing the short stop or center field in extra innings of baseball. It's altering the way the game is supposed to be played.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Okay what is your comeback then? A shootout is what it is. 4 on 4 hockey is a gimmick. Now this is where you argue that I am wrong.

A shootout is a shootout. 4 on 4 hockey is hockey played with one less player on each team. Which one is closer to hockey? The one that involves playing hockey or the one that is a shootout.

This where you try to tell me that 4 on 4 hockey is not hockey.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Saqe

You can´t compare nhl playoffs to a tournament with single game eliminations. The schedule is really tight in the tournament and with a single game elimination system a long over-time game would result in awful disadvantage for a team. Especially in the bronze and gold medal games when they are played within 24hrs of the semi-finals.

Obviously an entirely different level of competition, but playoff games at the Macs Tournament play full overtimes until a winner is decided. And this is a tournament where the quarter finals and semi finals are played on the same day, followed by the gold and bronze medal games the next day. If you want to avoid it, go out and be better than your opponent in the first 60 minutes.

But I am curious to hear a rationalization of how forcing teams to play until they decide a winner constitutes a greater disadvantage than using a system that is essentially random to pick a winner. At least in the former, the disadvantage is of your own making.

[GirlySports]

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by nik-

In what way is a 1 on 1 competition more pure than 4 on 4 hockey?

I think a better question is: In what way is a 1 on 1 competition better than 4 on 4 hockey?

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by valo403

A shootout is a shootout. 4 on 4 hockey is hockey played with one less player on each team. Which one is closer to hockey? The one that involves playing hockey or the one that is a shootout.

This where you try to tell me that 4 on 4 hockey is not hockey.

No it's where I tell you that you are arguing for the sake of arguing. I believe I have made my point now lets carry on with the topic and if you want to call me more names or discuss me being "destroyed" please take it to PM.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I think a better question is: In what way is a 1 on 1 competition better than 4 on 4 hockey?

I don't think it is, perhaps it's "more exciting" but it's a horrible way to decide a team a game. I'd prefer that they just do OT until there's a winner in the NHL even in the regular season.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I think a better question is: In what way is a 1 on 1 competition better than 4 on 4 hockey?

As has been discussed it's probably about what takes the least amount of time to decide a winner and ensure that the team awaiting the winner does not have the advantage of being fresher than a team that had to play 4 or more periods of hockey the day before. There is no garantee that a 4 on 4 OT will take any less time than 5 on 5 so it's hard to make an argument to support 4 on 4 OT (may as well play 5 on 5 OT) in a tournament such as the Olympics or World Championships where it's on a tight schedule.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

But I am curious to hear a rationalization of how forcing teams to play until they decide a winner constitutes a greater disadvantage than using a system that is essentially random to pick a winner. At least in the former, the disadvantage is of your own making.

I also disagree on a random winner. That insinuates that you are flipping a coin or drawing a name out of a hat. The players still decide it only one on one and not in a team situation. If you are going to call one team scoring a goal on three attempts and one not scoring on three attempts random then so is any goal scored in a hockey game which insinuates that no skill is involved in either.

[valo403]

I agree that it's a skill, it's just a very isolated one. If you're going to do SO's I'd like to see a backchecker incorporated, which at least more closely mirrors a game situation and cuts out the annoying stop start/slowdown moves.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Where did I say a shootout was pure hockey? This place is incredible sometimes. A shootout is a way to end a tie game in soccer, handball, hockey etc. That's what its for. 4 on 4 hockey is a scrimmage and a gimmick in organized hockey. Again I don't mind it in the NHL for 5 minutes just as I don't mind the shootout but 20 minute periods of 4 on 4 is a joke.

Very strange argument. It is somehow better to settle a hockey game by virtue of a system (shootout) which is less like a hockey game than another viable alternative (4 on 4) that is more like a hockey game? OK then.

Nothing screams more gimmick (without the use of bold and large font) than shootout.

[Saqe]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Obviously an entirely different level of competition, but playoff games at the Macs Tournament play full overtimes until a winner is decided. And this is a tournament where the quarter finals and semi finals are played on the same day, followed by the gold and bronze medal games the next day. If you want to avoid it, go out and be better than your opponent in the first 60 minutes.

But I am curious to hear a rationalization of how forcing teams to play until they decide a winner constitutes a greater disadvantage than using a system that is essentially random to pick a winner. At least in the former, the disadvantage is of your own making.

Disadvantage in the next game. I think it´s pretty obvious, consider a triple OT game and the team that plays for bronze has to play in about 16 hours again. I´d consider that a huge disadvantage especially at the end of the tournament with already a lot of games in.

Arguing that the team should play better to avoid OT is completely moot argument, of course that´s the goal. Teams shouldn´t be punished in their next game simply because they went against a team that was evenly matched. Also how can you say that shootout is random? It might not be the best solution to end the game but it´s not random, otherwise you could just roll the dice. It still measures in some way who is the better team.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

As has been discussed it's probably about what takes the least amount of time to decide a winner and ensure that the team awaiting the winner does not have the advantage of being fresher than a team that had to play 4 or more periods of hockey the day before. There is no garantee that a 4 on 4 OT will take any less time than 5 on 5 so it's hard to make an argument to support 4 on 4 OT (may as well play 5 on 5 OT) in a tournament such as the Olympics or World Championships where it's on a tight schedule.

There is no guarantee that 4 on 4 overtime would be shorter than 5 on 5, but it should be obvious that the games will end quicker on average than 5 on 5. Also, why should we care if a team that couldn't win a proper hockey game in 60 minutes isn't fresher than their opponent in the next round? Better teams get advantages. Be it weaker opposition or extra rest for the next game.

As to the disagreement over the shootout being random, there is no corelation betwen shootout success and overall success. The short season this year did not allow the ranges to spread the way they normally do, but as many great shootout teams finish at the bottom of the league standings as they do the top, and vice versa. Hell, the #2 overall team in the league in shootouts last year finished one spot behind the worst team in the overall rankings. The top three teams overall last year (Van, NYR, Stl) were 7th, 20th and 24th in shootouts respectively.

So yes, I will insinuate that skill is not that great of a factor in shootouts. Greater skill on your team does not result in greater success in shootouts. It is all about guessing and luck.

[Saqe]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

So yes, I will insinuate that skill is not that great of a factor in shootouts. Greater skill on your team does not result in greater success in shootouts. It is all about guessing and luck.

So why are there players like Jokinen and Datsyuk who consistently are top shootout players in the league if it really is just rolling the dice?

[Sakari]

Continuous OT is better than shootouts because shootouts focus on individual skill not team skill and performance. It really is as easy as that.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Saqe

So why are there players like Jokinen and Datsyuk who consistently are top shootout players in the league if it really is just rolling the dice?

Because you are allowing confirmation bias and faulty memory to form an opinion rather than looking at the numbers. Jussi Jokinen was the top shootout performer in the 2005-06 season, but his next best season was 24th in the league the following year. His averages are badly skewed by his 10-13 run in that first year. In his last four seasons combined, he is 9-26.

Datsyuk, likewise, has only been 7th once (2009-10) and 11th (2008-09), but usually ranks in the 24th-30th range.

They are first and third all-time in terms of goals, simply due to the number of chances they get and as a result of single seasons that were well beyond their norms (Jokinen's 10-13 and Datsyuk's 7-14). Though at least Datsyuk's shooting percentage isn't nearly as inflated by a single season as Jokinen's is.