Skip to content

Torts on the shootout: ‘That gimmick should be out of the league’

Jan 9, 2014, 5:37 PM EST

Torts

Reporters got a flash of the old, irritable John Tortorella today in Vancouver, where his winless-in-five Canucks are preparing for a visit from the St. Louis Blues on Friday night.

The topic du jour was the shootout, something Tortorella’s team has won just twice in eight tries this season.

“It should be out of the league,” said Tortorella. “That gimmick should be out of the league.”

When a reporter followed up with, “It is part of the league though…,” Tortorella interjected with a curt, “Yes, I know,” before adding, “You cannot practice the shootout in practice, no matter how you do it. So write your story.”

Despite the coach’s doubts that it would do any good — “You just can’t simulate game situation that way” — the Canucks did indeed practice the shootout today.

“Whether it helps or not, some guys can introduce or experiment with certain things,” a clearly skeptical Tortorella said.

Vancouver shooters are a dreadful 4-for-32 in the “gimmick” this season, a success rate of just 12.5 percent. Only Nashville (1-for-17) and New Jersey (1-for-20) have fared worse than that on a percentage basis.

At this point, even Google knows the Canucks are a long shot once overtime ends:

source:

Related:

Capitals coach on shootouts: ‘I don’t like it very much’

Lucic supports 3-on-3 overtime…of which he knows all about

  1. patthehockeyfan - Jan 9, 2014 at 5:47 PM

    AMEN, Torts! A gimmick is exactly what it is and is how I termed it in a post a few days ago.

    Go back to the days of one overtime. Still tied? Game over, each team gets one point.

    I never could understand why a team gets a point for losing.

    • joey4id - Jan 9, 2014 at 5:53 PM

      Teams got a point for a tie score after 60 mins. OT and shootout are to determine who gets the other point.

      • patthehockeyfan - Jan 9, 2014 at 6:08 PM

        Unnecessarily stating the obvious there, joey.

      • nbcornwell - Jan 9, 2014 at 6:33 PM

        Upvote just for the incredibly blatant obvious.

      • joey4id - Jan 9, 2014 at 6:43 PM

        I know it was obvious but the poster wrote they got a point for losing. You have to go back to the history behind making the change.

    • c9castine - Jan 9, 2014 at 10:12 PM

      the problem with torts is you can practice the shootout. the pens do it every day and haven’t lost a shootout in a couple years.

      you’d think you would want to as it could be the difference in wether your team make the playoffs or not, no matter how much you like what is, i agree, a gimmick.

    • ryanprzy - Jan 9, 2014 at 11:01 PM

      Exactly, Pat.

      There oughta be just TWO points at stake every game. If I wanted to watch a circus, I’d go to Ford Field during football season.

  2. joey4id - Jan 9, 2014 at 5:48 PM

    All right! What’s the alternative? You can’t keep the clock hot until there’s winner. Not we the current hectic, loaded, and exhaustive schedule. Do we just revert to what it was prior to the SP?

  3. nicofthenorthstar - Jan 9, 2014 at 5:53 PM

    Don’t agree with much this grouch says, but he hit the nail on the head here. The SO is a ridiculous gimmick.

  4. jpat2424 - Jan 9, 2014 at 5:53 PM

    D Bag

  5. penguins87and71 - Jan 9, 2014 at 5:58 PM

    I agree with Torts. The shootout has to go. The only thing is what are they going to replace the shootout with.

    • patthehockeyfan - Jan 9, 2014 at 6:05 PM

      Why replace it with anything? I can live with a tie after one OT, and one point for each team.

      Bettman instituted the SO to excite fans with the fact that the game has a winner. Though they may be out there, I haven’t read one article about a player who likes the SO. Tuukka Rask hates them. The Caps’ coach doesn’t like them. Now Torts comes out against them.

      One point that was made by a commentator after the Winter Classic – the game is a team-on-team sport. Losing a game by a SO places the loss on just one player – the goalie. That isn’t fair, and it’s just not right.

    • dhawks19 - Jan 9, 2014 at 7:27 PM

      Maybe 3 on 3 the problem is if teams play two overtimes and then have back to back games they would be tired. Also I think the NHL should install a 3,2,1 point system 3 points regulation win 2 points OT win 1 point OT loss. This way every game is a 3 point game and teams actually have an incentive to win in regulation.

  6. blackandorangeforlife - Jan 9, 2014 at 6:07 PM

    Put it back to what it was….2 points for the win and 1 for the tie then end the game
    4on4 3on3 2on2 does not work either…It gives better teams a chance to win and not so great teams a better chance to lose….They implemented a salary cap to provide parity….Rewarding a more talented club takes away that parity!

    • Lupy Nazty Philthy - Jan 9, 2014 at 6:19 PM

      Better teams have a better chance to win 5-on-5 too. That’s why they’re the better teams.

      • blackandorangeforlife - Jan 9, 2014 at 6:53 PM

        5on5 is a slower game….that is why they went 4on4 for OT….To open up the ice!

      • bigtganks - Jan 9, 2014 at 9:19 PM

        Post of the year. That was awesome! Lol

  7. Lupy Nazty Philthy - Jan 9, 2014 at 6:12 PM

    I hate the shoot out so much. It’s not exciting at all.

    The 5 minutes of 4-on-4 just before the shootout is some of the most exciting hockey the NHL has to give, then they ruin it with a shootout.

    How about we just make these millionaires play 10 or 20 minutes of 4-on-4. Someone will score.

    Get rid of the loser point. too. Why have a system that makes sure the games end with a clear winner, why reward the loser?

    • killerpgh - Jan 9, 2014 at 8:11 PM

      Because the “loser point” helps keep bad teams in the playoff races longer. Thus keeping fan support longer in some cities. The same reason the NHL won’t go to a 3-2-1 point system. I don’t agree with artificially keep team in contention, but that’s why the NHL does it.

      • patthehockeyfan - Jan 10, 2014 at 7:55 AM

        Well-written, killer, and food for thought.

        It would be interesting to look at the standings and remove those one-point losses from teams’ total points. Let’s see if the same teams are still in contention.

        I’m going to do that this weekend.

      • patthehockeyfan - Jan 10, 2014 at 2:08 PM

        I was too curious to wait. I copied the standings as of now (1/10/14; 2:00 p.m.) and subtracted points for overtime losses.

        As to changes in the standings:
        WC-Pacific Division – no change
        WC-Central Division – no change

        EC-Metropolitan Division:
        The Rangers move up two spots to 3rd place (from 5th) knocking the Caps and Canes down one place respectively.
        The Columbus Blue Jackets move from 7th to 6th place (tying in points [38] with the Canes, and moving the Devils down to 7th).

        EC-Atlantic Division:
        Only Toronto and Detroit change places (Toronto from 5th to 4th). The Wings are tied with the Sens with 38 points.

        Other stats:
        Team with most OTL points: Red Wings [10]
        Five teams with 9 OTL points: Canes, Devils, Hawks, Canucks and Coyotes
        The Sens have 8; every other team has less.

        Team with the fewest OTL points: Penguins [1]
        Second fewest [2] – the Bruins

        I’m a geek. I love statistics.

      • Lupy Nazty Philthy - Jan 10, 2014 at 8:46 PM

        Killer, True, I guess… but the playoff race would be tight regardless. It was exciting before they ever had it, why would it be differnet. It’s just the law of averages. The middle of the pack is naturally where the bulk of the teams end up. The playoff race is usually close anyways. They could get rid of the loser point and lose none of the excitement of the race. It was more exciting before they had it.

        The thing I don’t like about the loser point is that if the game is tied late in the 3rd period. Teams stop trying to score and play it safe defensively to make sure they get that point. It makes for some extremely boring hockey.

        The 3 point system would fix that. Give 3 points for a win, 2 for an OT win, 1 for an OT loss, 0 for a regular loss.

        @pat,
        I do that too sometimes. Re-calculate the standings to see what they’d be if we still had the W-L-T system. Leafs would be doing so much worse if shootouts didn’t exist. They’re lucky they’re doing good in them this year, otherwise they’d be way lower. Soon enough, I guess.

  8. hockeyflow33 - Jan 9, 2014 at 6:22 PM

    I don’t coach in the NHL but I’m fairly certain practicing the shootout is one of the most basic drills you can do.

  9. slaugin - Jan 9, 2014 at 6:23 PM

    I hate ties, I dislike Shootouts, so I’ll take the shootouts over the tie. It’s not like they are in the playoffs so I can deal with it. I would rather see OT extended to 10 mins than SO however

  10. xxakshunxx - Jan 9, 2014 at 6:24 PM

    Whats the alternative? Leaving the game after shelling out a hundred bucks in a tie sucks.. and making the OTs 20 mins long will probably eventually result in additional injuries to players, then you’ll get some coach crying about that too

  11. sclairebear - Jan 9, 2014 at 6:29 PM

    Too many fans, love the shoot-out. It’s not going anywhere, but the point system definitely needs fixing.

  12. penguins87and71 - Jan 9, 2014 at 6:34 PM

    I think it’s stupid how each team gets at least a point out of just getting a point by going to overtime. The NFL, MLB, and the NBA don’t do this. I think the NHL should have a 5 on 5 10 minute overtime and if that doesn’t end the game then it would end up in a tie. If one of the teams win in OT that team gets 2 points and the other team gets 0. If it ends in a tie both teams get 1 point.

    • hockeyflow33 - Jan 9, 2014 at 6:56 PM

      Have you ever been to a 15 inning game where position players are pitching?

      It’s not a good time.

    • blackandorangeforlife - Jan 9, 2014 at 7:36 PM

      You must not have been watching hockey all that long then as that 1 point has been around forever……All games that were tied after 60 gave both teams 1 point
      until 1983 when overtime was reinstated giving the winner 2 points

  13. ash0war - Jan 9, 2014 at 6:37 PM

    Everyone that hates SO, hate it because the team they like sucks at them…. He wouldn’t be staying that if the Canucks were good at it.

    • patthehockeyfan - Jan 9, 2014 at 6:40 PM

      Not!

  14. penguins87and71 - Jan 9, 2014 at 6:39 PM

    I totally agree. I don’t think the NHL will get rid of the shootouts, even if the players and coaches hate it. The fans love it. I just can’t see it going anywhere.

  15. smplatt014 - Jan 9, 2014 at 6:39 PM

    I do not want to go back to the days of tie game. There are plenty of players that do fine in a shootout. Isn’t it the coaches job to send out your best SO player verses the biggest names. Stop crying over spilled milk, you’ll end up with another failed post season attempt anyway.

  16. zinger99 - Jan 9, 2014 at 6:56 PM

    The shootout is a joke. 2 points for a shootout win is a bigger joke. Nobody deserves 2 points for a shootout win! 1 point. That’s your consolation prize. Want 2 points? Win in regulation or OT. Oh yeah,the loser gets no points! Only league in the world that rewards losing.

  17. penguins87and71 - Jan 9, 2014 at 6:59 PM

    That’s not true ashOwar. I’m a Penguins fan. I can’t stand the shootout and the Penguins are undefeated in the shootout.

  18. csilojohnson - Jan 9, 2014 at 7:16 PM

    Clearly you can practice the shootout.
    I would think that would be the only thing you can simulate in practice.
    Pump some crowd noise in and make the losers buy dinner or something to add a little nerve.
    I cant believe this clown called Malkin and Crosby cry babies. Everytime something doesnt go his way its “stupid!”.
    I would love to see a cut and paste video of Torts and Kanye going on rants. With maybe Ebony and Ivory as background music? Or something angry. Some motivated person should make that happen.

  19. chanceoffleury - Jan 9, 2014 at 7:19 PM

    Maybe I’m alone on this but I HATE ties. They are the epitome of mediocrity. These are professional athletes & there should be a defined winner and a defined loser every game. Sudden death overtime, 1 10 minute period of 4 on 4, then go to 5 minute periods of 3 on 3 until somebody scores. And get rid of the loser point. I think you’ll see more intensity during regulation knowing there’s no release or reward unless you put one in the net.

    And as a Pens fan, I constantly hear about how the shootout favors them and that’s why they’re good. But better teams don’t win because a certain type of overtime benefits them, better teams will win overtime games because better teams *expect* to win all the time, no matter what type of way you order them to do it. At first glance you’d say the shootout is 100% offense driven. But the Pens, who have an insanely good track record in this aspect of the game, best player in the shootout is on the defense side, not the offense. I think it’s crazy that they are one of the only teams that practice the shootout every practice. Especially because despite being good at them, they don’t even need them. Not like other teams do, at least. The Pens would still have the best record in the east with or without the shootout. There are a good chunk of teams where the shootout could end up making or breaking their season in any given year.

    It’s widely accepted that this isn’t an appropriate way to establish whom the better team is after 65 minutes, but it’s been this way for 10 years! In a case such as the shootout, it’s better to protest for change while embracing and making the best of what is, than to just refuse to adapt. Until it gets changed, all teams are aware that this is what the tiebreaker is. If they don’t stress it’s importance in practice then they can’t act surprised and combative when it costs them a point. It’s not like the Canucks or Red Wings or any other team wasn’t let in on this secret that the rest of the league knew about. It’s not racism or a genocide, it’s a hockey game. It makes a bigger statement to accept and use the current rule to your advantage while still protesting for a more fair way to decide a winner than it does to pout about it for a decade.

  20. csilojohnson - Jan 9, 2014 at 7:28 PM

    I would extend the OT to 15min and keep SO.
    Dont see why it is a big deal.
    Most losses fall on the goalie anyways. (Atleast in the fans eyes)
    Ties suck. Ties dont belong in any competitive sport.
    5 minutes of OT is an absolute joke though. Not enough time for the teams to get a flow going 4 on 4.
    Full 20 min sudden death period would be ideal. Would see much less shootouts.
    Either way. Its part of the league now like it or not. Gotta do what you gotta do to win games. If you cant win in regular time or OT. You might want to practice the shootout instead of crying about it….

  21. kuch5248 - Jan 9, 2014 at 7:33 PM

    Whats so wrong with the shootout?? Im a flyers fan and we arent exactly known for winning shootouts but I still get excited when they go to a shootout

  22. muckleflugga - Jan 9, 2014 at 7:37 PM

    patthehockeyfan

    gee whiz…nay…hang damnation: gee whillickers!

    such oversight…i can’t understand why the nhl hasn’t given your posts and opinions due consideration…it’s rude frankly…here’s the league address…a strongly-worded letter is in order:

    national hockey league
    1251 avenue of the americas
    new york, ny 10020

    i talk to them all the time, and have found them to be gracious listeners…about eight whiskeys in…hell, even the jack rabbits, coyotes and crows in my yard listen and agree…

    a tie is a tie is a tie…leave it at that

    why reward teams only able to compete equally on the scoreboard in the game’s legislated 60 minutes, with extra time to alter what has been proven equal while bastardizing the game’s structure through separate stages of overtime

    the only material change in the present is ability to move one component of excitement in regulation time, through overtime then a shootout

    it’s absurd…

    gary, i want a word

  23. benrob99 - Jan 9, 2014 at 7:58 PM

    You people are delusional. The shootout isn’t exciting??? It’s two highly talented players mano a mano with the game on the line. Yeah sounds horrifically boring.

    Also torts is an absolute idiot and the biggest crybaby in all of sports (apologies to the Hargbaugh brothers).

    PS… You can’t practice shootouts???? is he on drugs? that may be the dumbest thing he’s ever said…. and THAT’S saying something.

    • shortsxit34 - Jan 9, 2014 at 11:35 PM

      You said it best when you wrote, “It’s two highly talented players mano a mano with the game on the line.”

      Hockey is a team sport.

  24. killerpgh - Jan 9, 2014 at 8:20 PM

    I have never seen anyone get up and leave when OT is over and the Shootout is about to start. So I have a hard time believing that many fans hate it. I enjoy watching the shootouts. I don’t like how some games are worth 2 points and other are worth 3 points. But I don’t think the NHL will ever go to a 3-2-1-0 point system. Some teams would be mathematically eliminated from the playoffs by January and others would have the division locked up with not much to play for 1/4 of the season left to play.

  25. penguins87and71 - Jan 9, 2014 at 8:39 PM

    The shootout might just be the most exciting and suspenseful way to end a hockey game. But personally I hate it. The thing is hockey’s the ultimate team game. All 5 players on the ice play defense and play offense. The problem I have with the shootout is that after three 20 minute periods and a 5 minute overtime it comes down to a skater VS a goalie. I mean I just have a problem with a game coming down to individual talent on each teams side. The shootout doesn’t show who was the better team that night. The only thing that it shows is who had the better talent that night.

  26. penguins87and71 - Jan 9, 2014 at 8:45 PM

    I just don’t like how both teams get a point by just getting to overtime I think that’s stupid.

  27. bccaps - Jan 9, 2014 at 8:49 PM

    I’d like to see them remove the shootout altogether and make every game worth the same number of points:
    Win/lose after 60 minutes: 4/0
    Win/lose after OT: 3/1
    Tie: 2/2

    That gives increasing reward and diminishing penalty the further the game goes on.

    The only problem with that, and another reason they have it they way they do, is that teams will be out of playoff contention (and therefore game attendance lower) earlier on in the season. And as we all know, it’s all about money.

  28. muckleflugga - Jan 9, 2014 at 9:04 PM

    killerpgh

    what, fans are going to leave after sixty minutes after already having suffered through tension in a draw…?

    points as awarded in a regulation sixty minutes or in a five minute overtime are immaterial, they’re constants carried on average, by average teams through entire seasons…all that varies is a run of luck here or there and

    teams damaged by overtime and shootouts are dominant teams, less inclined to be tied against average or less than average teams…they’re damaged because lesser teams in a common parity floating in the middle of performance curves, have potential to secure two points when parity with an equally average opponent declares through logic, one

    there are fewer teams functioning near the top of the curve, so there is less opportunity for better teams to benefit from overtime and shootouts as do average and lower than average teams

    the current set-up invites average and lower than average teams, to play for a guaranteed point through tie in regulation while praying to get lucky in a shootout while securing a second point…every team has two or three guys that are competent one on one…odds are good for a win when a win should not have been available in the first place

    the current overtime set-up reduces the game to four on four, then one on one…a balance that brings lesser teams into parity with greater opponents populated with better players and better team play…left sitting and watching while the lesser teams roll their better players in greater room under compressed time

    so why reward average teams playing average teams with a point to go into overtime…it’s counter intuitive…if they deserve a point, then a single point should be sufficient through regulation…finis

    in a regulation game decided by one goal or greater, only two points play…the integrity of the game and dynamic in standings have been warped and twisted by variable arising from three point games held against the standard in two point games

    as much by resulting totals and as much by behaviour leading to overtime and subsequent shootout…while the game has been corrupted by fault in design, average teams deliberately playing to share three points through overtime have corrupted the game implicitly, tacitly or otherwise

    ability to stay close in standings to better teams has been afforded by game structure allowing average teams to compensate for deficiencies accordingly…it’s a contrived reach toward parity

    straight time or overtime, only two points should be at stake, period

  29. Wineshard - Jan 9, 2014 at 9:14 PM

    I say they put 4 foam targets in the corners and whomever can hit all four the fastest gets the extra point in the event of a tie after a 5 minute OT.

    A picture of Gary Bettman on each target would be ideal.

  30. multiplemiggs - Jan 9, 2014 at 9:25 PM

    The shootout is the best thing to ever happen to the NHL. Can you remember walking out of the building after your team just tied? Felt like a waste of money. then both teams would go out there and skate around each other in an absolute bore fest for five minutes dumping and not chasing so they can each get a point. OT was the biggest scam in hockey before the shootout. Anyone who played hockey all the time as a kid knows whats its like to only have 1 or 2 friends to play with a certain time of day. obviously your playing a shootout or skating around shooting at an empty net if no ones around. Not being able to “practice” a shootout is the most obsurd thing I’ve ever heard this airhead say. If you dont know the BASICS of the game then why are you even playing in the NHL?

    • shortsxit34 - Jan 10, 2014 at 12:30 AM

      What do you you mean they would skate around for 5 minutes to get a point? Why would teams refuse to play offense if an extra point was up for grabs?

      • patthehockeyfan - Jan 10, 2014 at 8:35 AM

        shortsxit – I’m going to paste a link here to a very interesting July 2013 Hockey News article about teams not scoring in the final 5 minutes (actually, the final 6 minutes, 21 seconds).

        http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/52635-NHL-in-need-of-new-threepoint-system.html

        They’re referencing a 2/14/10 game. Here are a couple of paragraphs (sorry for the length) that will answer your question:

        After combining for 52 shots and six goals through the game’s first 54 minutes, the teams didn’t score as regulation time wound down. Worse, they didn’t try to.

        In fact, in the final 6:21 of the game, neither team registered a shot and Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin played just 50 seconds. As a point of reference, the teams went on to combine for seven shots in the ensuing five-minute overtime with Crosby and Malkin each getting more than three minutes of ice time.

        Such a contest, eventually won by Nashville in a shootout, is emblematic of an NHL culture in which several franchises not only play for overtime, but pick and choose when they do so. You see, while Pittsburgh and Nashville were both competing for playoff spots back in February of 2010, they were doing so against different competition. Specifically, Pittsburgh’s stranglehold on the fourth seed in the Eastern Conference wasn’t hurt by ceding two points to the Predators, nor was Nashville’s spot as the seventh seed out West hurt by the Penguins receiving one point for the shootout loss. And because the NHL’s point system rewards an OT or shootout winner with the same two points as if that team had won in regulation, both the Penguins and Predators benefited by the game heading to overtime.

        Hence, no shots in six-plus minutes of regulation.

      • shortsxit34 - Jan 10, 2014 at 9:57 PM

        Where does any of that address the claim though?

        “In the ensuing five-minute overtime with Crosby and Malkin each getting more than three minutes of ice time.”

        “NHL’s point system rewards an OT or shootout winner with the same two points as if that team had won in regulation”

        What part suggests that, on a regular basis, a team would sit back and not try to win a game during a 5-minute overtime?

  31. blomfeld - Jan 9, 2014 at 10:06 PM

    WELL THE EARPS SURE LIKED SHOOTOUTS

    And it’s a good thing they did, otherwise ‘lawlessness & mayhem’ would have prevailed in the fledgling Arizona territory of the early 1880’s. As it was, the trouble making Clantons and McLaurys were ‘dealt with’ by the Earp brothers in no uncertain terms and ‘peace & order’ carried the day.

    Friends, I say that not only is the shootout necessary and exciting , but as well it could be the most ‘red-blooded’ aspect of our game today ! A score needs to be settled and so what better way to do that, than to have the two antagonists square off ‘face to face’ as men of honor with the winner taking all ? In former times, men of ‘higher’ standing would often duel with pistols to settle a score. And today you’ll find your everyday Joe willing to ‘put it all on the line’ as he partakes in a game of chance (vice). The bottom line is that shootouts are a ‘heterosexual’ expression of red-blooded male behavior, no different than holding a door open for a lady or performing acts of ‘courage & sacrifice’ where others have fled the field. So as a ‘values-driven’ and red-blooded man myself, I say that Bettman’s shootouts not only rock, but that they’re here to stay !

    GO SHOOTOUTS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)

  32. ttt56 - Jan 9, 2014 at 11:46 PM

    teams that aren’t as talented as the teams they are playing or teams that need a point tend to gum up tie games at the end of the 3rd and in OT instead of trying to score. That’s why the “skilled” teams and their fans don’t like the shootout. getting a point for 2nd place totally dilutes OT, regardless of what gimmick is after it, but isn’t 4 on 4 a gimmick to start with? the NFL got it right as it could be, but hockey has no answer. and neither do i. thankfully the playoff games keep going until someone scores, because that’s the only way a hockey game can end.

  33. benrob99 - Jan 10, 2014 at 12:02 AM

    So what do you make of football? THAT’S the ultimate team game. You go sixty minutes of blood sweat and tears… then with 4 seconds left out comes some skinny fat guy who’s uniform hasn’t needed to be washed all year and he kicks it 50 yards for a score to win the game?

    Ban the Field Goal!!! It’s a gimmick!

    By the way… NFL teams practice FG’s in practice too.

    • shortsxit34 - Jan 10, 2014 at 12:32 AM

      Because that’s a great comparison…

      Field goals are a normal scoring play in football. Shootouts aren’t.

      • killerpgh - Jan 10, 2014 at 12:47 AM

        But penalty shots are…

      • shortsxit34 - Jan 10, 2014 at 3:00 AM

        Penalty shots are a normal scoring play…

        A point goes up on the scoreboard just like any other goal during the game. A player gets credit for a goal, just like any other goal during the game. The play takes place during regulation or overtime, just like any other goal during the game.

  34. russiangretzky - Jan 10, 2014 at 6:52 AM

    Then why do shootout wins not count in the standings towards wins needed to get into the playoffs?

  35. hockeydon10 - Jan 10, 2014 at 9:13 AM

    Probably just have to combine a few of the suggestions to have a lot less shootouts.

    Overtime is 10 minutes
    Overtime is 4 on 4
    Overtime is the long change (like 2nd period)
    Overtime win is 2 points
    Overtime loss is 0 points

    Because there is no intermission before overtime players will get tired and be more prone to mistakes. This leads to more scoring chances.
    Because it’s 4 on 4 this leads to more scoring chances.
    Because it’s the long change, this leads to more scoring chances.

    The league will not get rid of the shootout due to the popularity of it. Sure, a lot of people on blogs and message boards rant against it, but virtually nobody leaves the building during a shootout; virtually nobody turns off the TV during the shootout. The league sees this as a successful way to avoid ties.

    Shootout follows overtime tie
    Shootout win is 1 point
    Shootout loss is 0 points

    They won’t change the points system either, but I can wish it so.

  36. rdurk86 - Jan 10, 2014 at 10:06 AM

    He’s just mad because his guys can’t lay down and block the shootout attempt.

  37. shoobiedoobin - Jan 10, 2014 at 1:19 PM

    Only time in history I’ve ever agreed with Tortorella.

  38. cspsrbums - Jan 10, 2014 at 10:53 PM

    Everyone hates the shoot out when your teams not doing well in them. So what the shootout decides the extra point nothing more it’s 1 point. If you don’t like the shootout then win in Reg. Or OT pull your goalie your going to lose in the shootout anyway. So quit whinnying people you sound like Torts a Bit h. There should be a winner it’s part of the game and don’t tell me you can’t practice it. Learn to take advantage of it. Maybe we should take away the pp next.

Featured video

More than a Stanley Cup hangover?
Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. S. Crosby (3559)
  2. B. Bishop (3531)
  3. C. Perry (2265)
  4. C. Crawford (2095)
  5. B. Elliott (2068)
  1. D. Krejci (1959)
  2. C. Kunitz (1933)
  3. J. Schwartz (1828)
  4. O. Palat (1657)
  5. T. Oshie (1556)