Skip to content

Add Craig Anderson to the list of those who dislike the shootout

Jan 24, 2014, 11:10 AM EDT

Nikita Kucherov, Craig Anderson AP

The problem with complaining about the shootout right after you lose one is it comes across as sour grapes. But in accordance with my previously stated new purpose in life, I have to pass along what Senators goalie Craig Anderson said after Ottawa fell to Tampa Bay, 4-3, in the “gimmick” last night.

“It’s a skills competition,” Anderson said, per Senators Extra. “Flip a coin and call heads. That might be a better way to settle it.”

When asked for confirmation that he wasn’t a fan of the shootout, he replied, “I’ve never been a fan since Day One.”

Anderson’s argument, which seems to be gaining more and more momentum these days, is that the shootout is “taking a team game and making it individual.”

There have now been 120 shootouts in the NHL this season. That’s 120 points, or 6.9 percent of all the points that have been awarded, from a competition that proves nothing about the actual quality of a hockey team.

For the record, Ottawa is 2-6 in the shootout.

  1. patthehockeyfan - Jan 24, 2014 at 11:37 AM

    I’m not fond of the idea of flipping a coin. Personally, I’d rather see a tie and each team get a point.

    The headline, “add to the list of those who dislike the shootout,” was intriguing. Among players and coaches, the shorter list would be of those who LIKE it, if any.

    Yes, I know, fans like it and want to see it. Someone commented several times on these stories that he didn’t want to spend a hundred or more dollars to see a tie. Fair point. And so, goalies and coaches have to live with it.

    I’d still rather go back to the time when there were ties. Two equally-matched teams playing to a draw. No gimmicks. No skills competition. Just playing to the realization that they both played hard, and one couldn’t get the better of the other. No one-on-one bs.

    • c9castine - Jan 24, 2014 at 10:54 PM

      theres no freakin ties in sports. the word tie almost makes me angry. no point in playing a game if your not going to get a winner out of it.

      i used to like the shootout for the sole reason that it eliminated ties, but the more times goes on the more i hate it and think there is a better way,

      i dont necessarily know what that better way it, wether it be more 4 on 4, 3 on 3, or take the shootout format and replace it with 1 minute power plays or something.

      but shootout has got to go. if you took away OT loss points, chicago would be 5th in the western conference. they would be 3rd in their division instead of leading it. some things would change up around the wildcards in each conference, but to be honest chicago is the only team really benefitting from OT loss points right now. still think it sucks.

      • patthehockeyfan - Jan 25, 2014 at 6:51 AM

        For those of us who have watched the sport for a long time, there used to be “freakin ties.”

        Shootouts were instituted for newer fans who didn’t like ties and had to see a winner. Reading others comments, shootouts and points for losing teams were added in order to keep not-so-good teams in the playoff hunt. Neither of these reasons for shootouts and a definite ‘winner’ has anything to do with the sport and everything to do with the newer fans.

  2. martysbetter - Jan 24, 2014 at 11:44 AM

    The “didn’t pay hundreds of dollars to see a tie” argument is so lame – since when is the measure of a quality hockey game determined by the result?

    The shootout is an abomination to the league, its a carny game plain and simple – make regulation/OT wins 3 pts, losses 0 pts and ties 1pt each.

    • patthehockeyfan - Jan 24, 2014 at 11:53 AM

      Agree with what you wrote, marty. Quality hockey games can be terrific between two teams that simply can’t get the better of one another.

      I’ve read arguments against the 3-point. Don’t actually recall them; but, my point is, when you wrote regulation/OT wins – 3 points, losses 0 points and ties 1 point each, why wouldn’t a win (in regulation or OT) simply count for 2?

      • martysbetter - Jan 24, 2014 at 12:23 PM

        The idea would be that the 2pt difference between a ROW and a tie would give teams incentive to go for the W down the stretch instead of playing for a tie.

    • msmithkey - Jan 24, 2014 at 2:02 PM

      The thing I don’t like about 3 pts for ROW is that it penalizes defensive based teams who play close games every night and favors the more inconsistent offensive based teams. Personally I would prefer a longer OT and a tie if no goals were scored during 4 on 4 hockey.

      • martysbetter - Jan 24, 2014 at 2:13 PM

        How would it favor either team?

      • jpelle82 - Jan 24, 2014 at 3:52 PM

        a 6-1 win would be the same as a 2-1 win in regulation…defensive teams wouldnt suffer…as long as they are winning. i still like the tie over the shootout but the 3 pt games wont favor anyone necessarily. chicago might have something to say about it right now though…they would be 3rd in their division if the 3 pt system were in play right now because they cant seem to win in regulation lately

    • c9castine - Jan 24, 2014 at 11:03 PM

      got to be honest man, i think your argument was lame. while i agree good games can be played in a tie, count me among those that think its a complete waste of time and money to play a game where there is no winner and loser. you didn’t really argue anything except to ask when a good game was measured by the result and i kinda thought every damn time. its only stupid if you think a 6-5 game is by default better than a 2-1 game, because its not. but results of the play are everything.

      i also think your scoring system is silly i don’t know why you’d award 3 points for any kind of win. what the hell is wrong with 2?

  3. slaugin - Jan 24, 2014 at 11:50 AM

    Of course goalies don’t like shootouts, especially if they’re 2-6. I don’t know why it’s such a big deal, your team tied and has a chance to get an extra point. I’m not a fan of the shootout but as long as it doesn’t affect the playoffs I can deal with it

  4. ironyisadeadscene - Jan 24, 2014 at 11:55 AM

    Just add five more minutes of OT please….pretty please….let’s give the teams every opportunity to avoid going to shootout.

  5. artn4gkr - Jan 24, 2014 at 12:06 PM

    I like the shootout. I hate ties. If I’m going to invest several hours of my time, I want a winner. While I enjoy a good game of defensive hockey, a 1-1 tie sucks. Go with a shootout.

    • patthehockeyfan - Jan 24, 2014 at 2:03 PM

      Though I disagree with your sentiment, I didn’t thumb down your remark.

      A 1-1 tie is great and exciting hockey. In fact, I like a good defensive struggle, and prefer 1-1 tie to, say, 3-3.

      I don’t have a problem investing several hours to watch two evenly-matched teams play to a tie. Our opinions just differ.

  6. paperlions - Jan 24, 2014 at 12:11 PM

    Whether you like shootouts or not, this argument is just silly as it applies to any individual game of hockey: “from a competition that proves nothing about the actual quality of a hockey team.”

    There are plenty of games in which the team that plays better loses. There are plenty of games in which the far better team loses….and I bet those 2 categories add up to far more than 6.9% of the pts awarded to teams in the NHL. Over the coarse of a season, the better hockey team will win more games, but there is far too much variation in performance and luck to ignore that fact that plenty of teams get 2 points that didn’t earn them on any given night.

    • Jason Brough - Jan 24, 2014 at 12:15 PM

      “There are plenty of games in which the team that plays better loses.”
      Actually, I think that makes the argument to limit the number of shootouts even stronger. Hockey is already random enough.

  7. cspsrbums - Jan 24, 2014 at 1:04 PM

    I would bet most shootout results are probably close to even or just off a point or 2 one way or the other. Teams need to practice it like anything else. Maybe they should make every player on the roster shoot before you better players can shoot a 2nd time and it should carry over to the following games till every one on the ice that night has at least 1 chance. If 5 shootout pass and everyone in the ice that night has had a 1 chance in the past shootouts, Then you can start over. It would be a team again

    • patthehockeyfan - Jan 24, 2014 at 1:11 PM

      Jeez! I got tired just reading your comment. The idea of every team member getting a shot, then keeping a list of who hasn’t shot and carrying it over to following games … nah! I just made myself tired typing that.

      Bad teams benefit from shootouts; good teams suffer. Just get rid of the damn thing, Bettman! Your gimmicks (Bettman’s) might be good for the game; but, they’re bad for the sport.

    • msmithkey - Jan 24, 2014 at 2:07 PM

      After taking 5 minutes to decipher what you were saying I was very irritated that it was the worst idea I have ever read on this site. You owe me 5 minutes of my life back.

  8. hky187 - Jan 24, 2014 at 1:51 PM

    3 on 3 for 5-10 min

  9. georgejarkko - Jan 24, 2014 at 3:43 PM

    How is a shootout a gimmick but 3-on-3 isn’t?

  10. pfhockey - Jan 24, 2014 at 10:45 PM

    They should make a 4 on 4 for 10 mins. Time runs out, tie. It would likely take the same amount of time if they had a shootout to go with the 5 min.

Top 10 NHL Player Searches
  1. P. Kane (1686)
  2. P. Kessel (1455)
  3. M. Richards (1212)
  4. P. Datsyuk (1072)
  5. N. Backstrom (1031)