Rethinking the shootout

I had contemplated writing this post a few weeks ago when the Rangers dropped several shootouts in quick succession, but I decided to hold out for the sake of objectivity. I think after almost ten (crazy, right?) seasons of sampling the utility of the shootout, it’s time to examine whether or not it is still a viable method for determining the winners of NHL games.

When the shootout was implemented in the 2005-2006 season, I’ll be honest; I was sick of ties. They were irritating. We didn’t get any sense of closure and half the time you weren’t sure what the prevailing emotion was. Did your team play well enough to win? Were they lucky to grab a point? There was just no satisfaction to it. Running the risk of being tarred and feathered, I’ll admit: I was on board with the shootout.

Hockey purists, wait, I don’t think that’s the appropriate term. Hockey traditionalists bemoaned the gimmick that had been utilized in the Olympic tournament since 1992. “It shouldn’t be used to decide regular season games” and it’s not real hockey”, they shouted. I didn’t care. It was cool. I was also 22, so get off my back.

Up until recently, the closure outweighed the negatives. I felt it was better than putting players through playoff style overtime marathons and definitely better than ties. I’m sure it helped that Henrik Lundqvist had a sensational track record in shootouts, so it didn’t drive me nuts the way it would for, say, Devil’s fans last season.

For a while I’ve been very much on board with reworking the point system (a 3-2-1-0 is my preferred arrangement), but the shootout was always part of that calculus. Now with some of the newer overtime formats being thrown around, plus the rise of the Premier League’s popularity in the United States, I think it’s time to revisit the conversation.

The biggest problem is the league’s insistence on parity. In the aforementioned Premier League, there are teams who are simply not in the same class as the top tier. Because the tie is available to them, they can hunker down on defense and try to escape the lopsided contest with a point. Now, it’s not apples to apples obviously, but that league has seen a meteoric rise in popularity in the states (probably due to Lockout III), with neither parity nor an absolute winner of every contest.

The scaling overtime rules being tested in the lower leagues seem to be showing positive returns, as well. For those not familiar, the AHL has a seven minute overtime. The first 3 minutes plus a whistle, are played 4-on-4. After that whistle, they switch to 3-on-3. It has produced more overtime winners and less shootouts.

Sure, you can make the argument that this is no less of a gimmick than a shootout. You are reducing a full hockey game to a round of 3-on-3 shinny to determine a winner, but at least it’s the same format as the actual game. You don’t allow one dimensional skill players the opportunity to determine the outcome in the standings.

After thinking about the issue, I think it’s time to acknowledge that the shootout has run it’s course. It was an interesting hook to get new fans involved after a nasty labor dispute, and it definitely had its moments (Marek Malik springs to mind). At this point, however, there is too much parity and too much money at stake to allow playoff inclusion, omission or matchup to be determined by the skills competition.

My vote would be to give the AHL format a try, and if that doesn’t work, just go back to the tie. What do you think? Would you keep the shootout? Bring back the tie? Just adjust the point system? We’d love to hear your feedback in the comments!