Molinari in his latest Q & A

[Gaucho]

Q: "The NHL shootout has got to go. It's a disgrace. The shootout has nothing whatsoever to do with the playing of the game. What is so bad about a tie game?"


MOLINARI: "Absolutely nothing, at least in the view of the moderator of this forum, who also doesn't care for regular-season overtime. NHL officials, though, are convinced that the majority of fans want a winner in every game, and have no qualms about resorting to a dime-store novelty act like the shootout to determine one."


Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the majority of the fans absolutely love the shoot-out, right? I didn't like it at first either, but it has grown on me and it sure provided some memorable moments this season.

[ExPatriatePen]

Q: "The NHL shootout has got to go. It's a disgrace. The shootout has nothing whatsoever to do with the playing of the game. What is so bad about a tie game?"


MOLINARI: "Absolutely nothing, at least in the view of the moderator of this forum, who also doesn't care for regular-season overtime. NHL officials, though, are convinced that the majority of fans want a winner in every game, and have no qualms about resorting to a dime-store novelty act like the shootout to determine one."


Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the majority of the fans absolutely love the shoot-out, right? I didn't like it at first either, but it has grown on me and it sure provided some memorable moments this season.

I'm in the minority, but I can't stand it.

It's a team sport and 60 minutes of team effort (plus OT) gets decided by a one on one competition. It's inane.

But I know that's the hockey purist in me talking. And most Shootouts involve the crowd standing on their collective feet in anticipation of some kind of outcome.

I guess we all just like closure.

Having said all of that, I do have to admit that I enjoy penalty shots, and that some of the shootouts have been interesting.

I still don't think they're 'right' for hockey.

[Admin]

MOLINARI: "Absolutely nothing, at least in the view of the moderator of this forum, who also doesn't care for regular-season overtime.

Hey, the moderator of this forum doesn't like regular-season overtime either.

[ExPatriatePen]

MOLINARI: "Absolutely nothing, at least in the view of the moderator of this forum, who also doesn't care for regular-season overtime.

Hey, the moderator of this forum doesn't like regular-season overtime either.

Well, if it's time and a half I might be interested

[FallenHero96]

I disagree.... I like the shootout. I cant understand why people have this mentality that its a team sport and games cannot be decided by one on one penalty shots.....

These players are the players that make up the team. When a "team" wins, its because players scored, or players didnt allow other players to score. Individuals make plays that decide the outcome of a game, during the game, all of the time. It makes sense to me that if the players collectively cannot decide the outcome of a match, then it is fair to match the players on an individual basis. I mean, if the tiebreaker was everyone had to kick field goals, I could see your arguement. But its the same game in the same format in the same manner that could reasonably be performed in the middle of the "team" game, (breakaways).

[jdev28]

Does the shootout reflect on anyone's stats? I've bene wondering about that. Do the goals or saves show up anywhere in the stats?

[ExPatriatePen]

Does the shootout reflect on anyone's stats? I've bene wondering about that. Do the goals or saves show up anywhere in the stats?

I'm pretty sure I read where they don't count in the stats. They shouldn't.

[Kovy27]

The only stat that shows up is Goalie Wins.

[ExPatriatePen]

This is an old subject, so most of you will be forgiven for just passing over this thread, but *my* feelings, and I emphasize *MY* - are as follows:

I disagree.... I like the shootout. I cant understand why people have this mentality that its a team sport and games cannot be decided by one on one penalty shots.....

It's not a 'Penalty shot'. Penalty shots are awarded when the player awarded the shot has already put himself in a one-on-one position with the goalie through the normal course of the game. Someone impeded his progress to the goal and that's why the penalty shot was awarded.

These players are the players that make up the team. When a "team" wins, its because players scored, or players didnt allow other players to score. Individuals make plays that decide the outcome of a game, during the game, all of the time. It makes sense to me that if the players collectively cannot decide the outcome of a match, then it is fair to match the players on an individual basis.

I understand your point. And it's valid, but I disagree. I'd rather see hockey as a team sport completely. No one-on-ones unless they came through the normal course of the team effort.

Your use of the word "Collectively" is key here.

I mean, if the tiebreaker was everyone had to kick field goals, I could see your arguement. But its the same game in the same format in the same manner that could reasonably be performed in the middle of the "team" game, (breakaways).

No, it's very much like your analogy to Field Goals. Or A game of 'H-O-R-S-E' to end a basketball game, or a homerun hitting contest to decide a baseball game that's tied after 9-innings.

Just like in baseball, that player could have hit the homerun during the normal course of the game, but you wouldn't want to see a baseball game decided that way (I'm assuming)

The crux of my position is that Shootouts are NOT the same as Penalty Shots. The reason they aren't the same is what I said earlier, A penalty shot is awarded only when the shooter has already put himself in a one-on-one position through the normal course of the game.

If you've watched or played much hockey, you know how difficult that is to accomplish.

[FallenHero96]

This is an old subject, so most of you will be forgiven for just passing over this thread, but *my* feelings, and I emphasize *MY* - are as follows:

I disagree.... I like the shootout. I cant understand why people have this mentality that its a team sport and games cannot be decided by one on one penalty shots.....

It's not a 'Penalty shot'. Penalty shots are awarded when the player awarded the shot has already put himself in a one-on-one position with the goalie through the normal course of the game. Someone impeded his progress to the goal and that's why the penalty shot was awarded.

These players are the players that make up the team. When a "team" wins, its because players scored, or players didnt allow other players to score. Individuals make plays that decide the outcome of a game, during the game, all of the time. It makes sense to me that if the players collectively cannot decide the outcome of a match, then it is fair to match the players on an individual basis.

I understand your point. And it's valid, but I disagree. I'd rather see hockey as a team sport completely. No one-on-ones unless they came through the normal course of the team effort.

Your use of the word "Collectively" is key here.

I mean, if the tiebreaker was everyone had to kick field goals, I could see your arguement. But its the same game in the same format in the same manner that could reasonably be performed in the middle of the "team" game, (breakaways).

No, it's very much like your analogy to Field Goals. Or A game of 'H-O-R-S-E' to end a basketball game, or a homerun hitting contest to decide a baseball game that's tied after 9-innings.

Just like in baseball, that player could have hit the homerun during the normal course of the game, but you wouldn't want to see a baseball game decided that way (I'm assuming)

The crux of my position is that Shootouts are NOT the same as Penalty Shots. The reason they aren't the same is what I said earlier, A penalty shot is awarded only when the shooter has already put himself in a one-on-one position through the normal course of the game.

If you've watched or played much hockey, you know how difficult that is to accomplish.

I know what a penalty shot is, give me a little more credit than that. My point was that it was a one on one situation similar to penalty shots. The whole picking up the puck at center ice and skating in on the goaltender part, that's all I was trying to say.

You make a valid point as well, by comparing shootouts to HORSE or homerun contests. However, you cannot deny how popular they have become, and how many fans get excited by the possibility of a shootout.

I guess it's all in your opinion.

[Ginger]

"ExPatriatePen" says to FallenHero96

It's not a 'Penalty shot'. Penalty shots are awarded when the player awarded the shot has already put himself in a one-on-one position with the goalie through the normal course of the game. Someone impeded his progress to the goal and that's why the penalty shot was awarded.

...and adds;

I understand your point. And it's valid, but I disagree. I'd rather see hockey as a team sport completely. No one-on-ones unless they came (as an awarded penalty to the other team.)

I'm in your minority too. I realize shootouts are exciting to most fans, but it does move away from the team concept. You can't argue that a penalty shot does that because that's a *penalty* to the other team for bringing down a skater heading to the net. A tie is NOT a penalty to either team, so therefore the game winner shouldn't be decided by a skills competition.

If we're going to keep them...& I'm sure the league will, then have the shootout using five players instead of three. At least it moves a little closer to the team winning the game.

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

I don't think people would enjoy watching H-O-R-S-E to end a game, a Homerun Derby, or a field goal competition, though.

I am very glad that it isn't going to be used in the playoffs though.

[ExPatriatePen]

I know what a penalty shot is, give me a little more credit than that. My point was that it was a one on one situation similar to penalty shots. The whole picking up the puck at center ice and skating in on the goaltender part, that's all I was trying to say.

No offense intended FH96... I'm sure you do... probably bad phrasing on my part if you thought I was 'attacking' your knowledge of the game.

I was just trying to explain what I feel is the significant difference between a penalty shot and a shoot out.

[ExPatriatePen]

I don't think people would enjoy watching H-O-R-S-E to end a game, a Homerun Derby, or a field goal competition, though.

I am very glad that it isn't going to be used in the playoffs though.

That is the paradox isn't it? They *are* entertaining. H-O-R-S-E, fieldgoal kicking or a homerun derby would *not* be.

I'll admit I was glued to the screen during a couple of notable shootouts this year myself (particularly the elongated one against the Isles).

I swore that if I attended a game this year that ended up with a shootout, that I'd either leave or turn my back to the ice as a protest.


It just seems so wrong to *me*

[DelPen]

I think the 4-om-4 OT is a horribly stupid idea. I love the SO and I would even prefer games skip the OT all together because you get nothing more between an OT win or a SO win, both winners get 2 pts and the loser gets 1 pt. Makes having an OT rather silly.

[Pitts]

Agreed DelPen. What I hate, especially when I'm at the game is when the game gets to OT...everyone gets excited about a shoot-out. Then, someone goes and scores and the public grumbles about not getting to see a shootout. OT is a waste of time and excitement.

[Daniel]

The only stat that shows up is Goalie Wins.

Doesn't the game winning goal count for the shooter?

[netwolf]

The only stat that shows up is Goalie Wins.

Doesn't the game winning goal count for the shooter?

I think it shows up in the box score, but not in the official stats.

[Kicksave]

Well, you have to look at it this way.

The NHL wasn't no ties. You can either:

1.) Extend the 4 on 4 overtime to the playoff format where you play until someone scores.

2.) Shootout

What is best for hockey in the long run of the season? The Pens would have been in serious trouble (not that they weren't in any already this season) if they had to keep playing continuous hockey during the beginning of the season where we went into the OT/Shootout for a good 4-5 games in a row.

Also, I know of MANY people whom I go to school with who did not like hockey what-so-ever but went with me to the Montreal game when Crosby scored in overtime. I got the one kid playing pick-up ice hockey and the other joining up a dek-hockey league over the summer. So I can first-hand say that not only the shootout more exciting to watch, but it is drawing more youthful fans which is what the game needs.