Our anonymous NHL player talks shootouts: Recently I read a stat that 28 percent of NHL games in January went to a shoot out. That didn't surprise me. It's a trend that concerns me.
I think a lot of teams are playing to get to overtime, even playing for the shoot out and roll the dice on winning the game with penalty shots. Dallas 4 or 5 years ago was good at it. They had good defense and goaltending, and a shoot out specialist like Jokinen. New Jersey is another. Minnesota is like that now with a tight defensive style, solid goaltending and shoot out guys like Koivu and Bouchard.
That style of team plays a passive forecheck, a 1-4 to slow the game down, chip it out and retreat. Teams like that are confident enough in their own end that they will play rope a dope and believe that they will win the game in a shoot out. They consider it a victory just to take the game beyond 60 minutes. It's funny that the NHL says we need the shoot out to create more excitement while many teams have perfected a boring style for 60 minutes so they can have a shoot out.
Gary Bettman says that the shoot out has an 85 percent approval rating from its fans. I'm not sure it's that high. I think American fans like it more than Canadian fans. I think for many the novelty has worn off. And I believe that's the case for players. I can tell you that it's extremely hard to digest a shoot out loss after you have outplayed your opponent by a wide margin and you know they are just hanging on for the shoot out.
So what's the solution? I'm a big proponent for 3 point regulation wins. Can you imagine how exciting tight games would be if there was an extra regulation point available for wins in regulation. Some might argue the system we have has generated great playoff races but those 3 point wins could give teams a chance to make up ground in a hurry. A couple of back to back 3 point wins and a team could make up 6 points in the standings in a hurry.
Traditionalists might argue that you would be tampering with the statistical history of the game. Didn't we do that when we implemented the 3 point games that see teams getting a loser point? You could still make statistical comparisons to the past with winning percentage.
I'd also like to see the NHL consider 3on 3 overtime. You can see that 4 on 4 isn't as wide open as it used to be. You still see teams willing to take their chances in a shoot out and playing conservatively in OT. I don't think you could do that with 3 on 3.
And I'm an old school guy when it comes to tie. In my books there's nothing wrong with a hard fought draw. I think with the number of games we play and the intensity of them guys are tired of going beyond 60 minutes as frequently as we do.
So will this be an issue when the next CBA is discussed? Obviously there are many issues that are ahead of it. But I hope that it does become a discussion point. I truly believe the 3 point regulation win and 3 on 3 overtime would be good for the game.
In soccer, there are fewer ties.
ReplyDeleteThere are also less attempts on net and less goals when a team has the lead.
When you use the 3 point system, you promote the fact that when you have the lead you just don't give it up. There will be less ties, but the quality of the games will get worse.