Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: NFL Players Ready To Welcome Gay Teammate

Shot Through the Heart (Via Shootout)

We're approximately t-minus 35 hours until the puck drops between the Ducks and Red Wings, and this is exciting to me, because that means that we can all stop predicting what is going to happen. We have previewed the hell out of the upcoming season, looking at both goalies, each defense pair, and pairs of forwards. We've given you predictions on what is going to happen, both in terms of the Red Wings and the NHL. I have read countless previews around the blogosphere, and the themes are the same: Jimmy Howard has to avoid a major sophomore slump; Ruslan Salei provides stability to the third defensive pairing; Mike Modano and Jiri Hudler make the third line as dangerous as any third line in the NHL; the Flying Circus is reuinted and it feels so good; Johan Franzen could finally hit 40 goals this year; and the Wings must stay healthy. However, there's one area where the Wings have an opportunity to improve and gain valuable points in an ultra-competitive Western Conference: the shootout. Join me after the jump where I'm going to make your head spin-o-rama with how the Wings can improve in this area.

Star-divide

Let me start by saying this: I hate the shootout. Hate it. Loathe it. I think it's an abomination, akin to deciding a baseball game with a homerun derby. I get that it's used in international hockey, but that doesn't make it right, it just makes it common. I was perfectly fine with two teams battling all night neck-and-neck, and when the game was over they were tied. It was a sign that the two teams were equals that night, and both earned a point for their efforts and moved on. Then they introduced 4-on-4 OT and gave an extra point to the OT winner, while the loser still got a point for getting past regulation. That was cool, but I was never okay with the "loser point". Now, no one plays to win in overtime, because as long as you've got 2 good breakaway specialists, you are giving yourself a great shot at winning the game in the shootout. I tolerate it in the regular season, but know this: if they ever put this in to decide a playoff game, I am leading the lynch mob to the NHL's headquarters myself in protest. 

Having said that, the shootout is a part of the game right now, so the Wings might as well learn how to get better at it. Last year was a tough year for the Wings as they failed to win their division for the first time in 9 years. They finished 10 points behind the Blackhawks, and while the injuries were a major factor in determining their place, the number of points they gave away via the shootout also hurt them. The Wings went 6-9 in the shootout last year, and that's 9 points they failed to pick up. If you want to understand how important the shootout can be in helping you rise in the standings, look no further than the Coyotes last year: they won a whopping 14 games in the shootout, and that allowed them to finish 4th in the conference. In the West, points are going to be hard to come by, so the Wings need to figure this out so that they can get back to winning divisions. With that, I present the ways the Wings can become shootout kings (all stats courtesy of NHL.com).

  • The goalies. Among active goalies for their career, Jimmy Howard ranks 34th in shootout save percentage, and Chris Osgood ranks 51st. Essentially, they are giving up at least 1 goal per 3-man shootout round, and that puts a lot of pressure on the forwards to score more often (more on that in a moment). For Jimmy, I'm hoping that an entire season of being in the NHL and studying the different shooters will give him the confidence and understanding to stop them from scoring. He needs to be better and make that big save; either stop the first shooter before the Wings have their turn, or else stop the first guy after the Wings go. If Jimmy can get his save percentage up above .700, or even up to .750, the Wings' chances will improve dramatically.
  • Pavel Datsyuk and Todd Bertuzzi can not be the Wings' only consistent shooters. Last year, these were the only 2 Red Wings (minus Drew Miller and Niklas Kronwall, who each took 2 shots respectively) who had a success rate of 50% or more - and you can scratch the "or more" part. Pavel was 7 for 14, and Bert was 4 for 8. Conversely, future captain Henrik Zetterberg was a pitiful 2 for 11. Let that stat swish around in your mind for a second. I love Hank more than most of my friends, and about as much as my family, but for some unknown reason, he sucks at shootouts. Witness the penalty shot in Game 3 against the Sharks last year; was anyone else like me and thinking "let Bert take it"? It's not just Hank: Valtteri Filppula is 1 for 6 in his career; Dan Cleary is 2 for 11. The Wings had Jason Williams and his 33% success rate last year, but he's gone. What the Wings need is a guy who is going to be able to score with some regularity. Which leads me to.....
  • The arrival of Jiri Hudler is not only going to bolster the third line and the second power play unit; the guy is pretty good at shootouts. In his career, he is 7 for 18, the second highest success rate for anyone on the Wings who has taken more than 5 shots. I propose that the Wings' 3 shooters to start every shootout should be, in order: Datysuk, Bertuzzi, Hudler. Happy's presence in the lineup as a consistent scorer will allow the Wings to be much more dangerous, and I guarantee that the Wings will win end up with a winning record in the shootout this year due to his being back.

Like I said, I hope the shootout dies a horrible, painful death. I'd love to see 15 minutes of 4-on-4 OT, but that will never happen because they are too concerned about the length of the games. What I'd really like to see is eliminating the point for losing in the shootout, but keep that point for losing in OT. I think that in doing so, it would make teams really try to go for the win in OT, rather than just playing keep-away for 5 minutes so they can throw out their 3 third and fourth liners that happen to be shootout specialists. Unfortunately, until they do make a change, we're stuck with this, so the Wings need to make the most of it. Now, let's drop the puck and let the quest for number 12 begin.

Comment 25 comments  |  1 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

The hours are starting to move in slow motion.

with the built up anticipation of friday I can barely make through the work week…. just saying… Amerinadian you have brought up my biggest fear for the NHL, shotout in the playoffs. They would never dare to put that in the playoffs…………………………… right?

by bond021 on Oct 7, 2010 9:19 AM CDT reply actions  

I hope not

But, there’s no guarantees about this at all. I think the NHL realizes that they have a special thing in playoff hockey, and while they want to make changes, doing something to the playoffs would not only make the purists livid beyond all reason, it would also turn off the average fan who loves the excitement of seeing a game go into triple OT.

Like to keep your communication short and to the point? Follow me on Twitter

by Amerinadian on Oct 7, 2010 10:02 AM CDT up reply actions  

If they do

I will be at the front of the lynch mob with you. That would be the worst thing to happen to hockey since Bettman.

by eshad15 on Oct 7, 2010 10:56 AM CDT up reply actions  

Necessary Evil

I don’t like the shootout, but I don’t like our guys killing each other over a 15-minute 4-on-4 to turn around and play the next night and possibly do that all over again.

I also don’t like ties. I know that’s probably stupid American of me, but I need a winner and a loser in my athletic competitions. For every one game where, at the end, I say to myself “yeah, I’d be ok with a tie here”, there are ten where I think that one team or another deserved to win.

Still though. Good writeup and I agree, if they ever implement the shootout in the playoffs, I’ll be right there with you, pitchfork and torch in hand, storming the NHL main offices and throwing feces at the windows.

by J.J. from Kansas on Oct 7, 2010 9:50 AM CDT reply actions  

It's an idea

Maybe cut it down to 10 minutes? When you factor in the SO, you’re probably not adding much more in terms of time, but I agree that physically it’s more taxing to play more OT.

I never minded ties. I think I’d rather have them than have the SO decide the winner. Now, extending OT would be nice, but it will never happen. However, I am Canadian, so I like the fact that no one’s feelings are hurt.

throwing feces at the windows

My mind immediately flashed to the scene from Braveheart, except instead of lifting our kilts, it would be our jerseys. But I think we’d be just as muddy.

Like to keep your communication short and to the point? Follow me on Twitter

by Amerinadian on Oct 7, 2010 10:11 AM CDT up reply actions  

It's been said before, but...

Make it so that a win or OT win is 3 pts, a shootout win is 2 pts, and a OT loss or shootout loss is 1 pt. Thus, the incentive to win in OT over a shootout exists and the shootout is deemphasized, but there’s still a winner every game.

by Seth9 on Oct 7, 2010 11:05 AM CDT reply actions  

I like it

Basically, I want a win in the SO to mean less than a win in regulation or in OT. The one issue I’ve always had with the OT and SO loser point is that some games are “worth” more than others. All games should have the same amount of points awarded so that being able to get games to extra time doesn’t mean you’ll get more points, even if you lose. I want to see teams that are successful in regulation get rewarded accordingly.

Like to keep your communication short and to the point? Follow me on Twitter

by Amerinadian on Oct 7, 2010 11:09 AM CDT up reply actions  

I agree about all games being worth the same amount of points

3 points for a regulation win
2 points for an OT/shootout win
1 point for an OT/shootout loss

I’ve played around with the concept of eliminating the OT loser point altogether, but there’s something about it I don’t like. Not losing a professional hockey game over 60 minutes should count for something; it’s damned hard to do.

I also toyed with the concept of keeping the OT loss point, but eliminating the shootout loss point to make teams scramble for the guaranteed point in OT, but I could see a team needing one point at the end of the regular season intentionally losing in overtime just to secure that point, and I hate that thought with a burning passion.

by J.J. from Kansas on Oct 7, 2010 11:22 AM CDT up reply actions  

the shootout blows...

no doubt about it. When it first started, I thought it was going to be cool to watch and would add some entertainment. Then I started seeing how an individual talent contest counted as much as a team win in regulation and I began to hate it a lot.

That said…I HATE TIES…TIES ARE THE WORST THINGS EVER…while the shootout is far from perfect or ideal…it is ten times better than ending games in ties.

by HockeyGuy9125 on Oct 7, 2010 11:25 AM CDT reply actions  

insane, stupid, or bold?

i never minded the shootout, but i definitely see people’s arguments against it.

i personally hate ties, but what i’m about to propose (and i’m not the first to do so) might make me be ok with bringing back ties.

make it still 2 points for a win. then have it be 0 for a loss OR TIE. and get rid of overtime and save it for the playoffs.

by uvgt2bkdnme on Oct 7, 2010 12:59 PM CDT reply actions  

What's so bad about a tie? Then again if the shoot out is a sore spot work to mitigate it.

A tie at least signifies that both teams played an equal match with what they have as a team. A shootout just highlights individual talent for shooting and stopping the puck which there are some teams with talented shooters and goalies some not so much. I’ve seen way too many games settled by a skills match. 4 or 5 maybe but when teams rely on it for 14 games, Coyotes >:[ I’m looking at you, how can we tout hockey as serious all aspect team sport if it’s going to boil the game down to one on one?

If the shootout performance is proof of anything the Red Wings should do what no team would expect in this play OT for the shootout age: Live to win the OT rather than the shootout. Yup you heard me. Screw the shootout and go for the kill, balls to the firewall, whole nine yards hockey! Why? It would be a calculated risk towards playoff hockey mindset. Teams that concentrate on the shootout would be taken by surprise against teams that play for the win. The risk is beating up your team in OT rather than taking it easy for a shootout win. But think about the other 60 minutes of hockey you just got done playing. Ending a game in 2 minutes of OT versus extended play in a shootout which a good set of goalies (or poor shooting) can extend past 10 or even 16 shooters after playing 10 minutes of OT. The quicker a game is over the quicker the team can get to reflect, repair and rest.

The Red Wings are a better team for playoff wins than a shootout skills game. They should play that way to mitigate the shootout as a sore spot. Why not play to their strengths and show the other side their skills are concentrated in wrong aspect in hockey?

by Idle Drifter on Oct 7, 2010 1:03 PM CDT reply actions  

Have you been to a game that finished tied?

I went to a game that finished as a 2-2 tie against Minnesota. I appreciate being able to go to Wings games, but that was by far the most boring sporting event I’ve ever been to. 4 soft goals, no hitting, no fighting and lethargic power plays.

by Elfuego51 on Oct 7, 2010 4:09 PM CDT up reply actions  

That is a consideration

I went to a Blues/Red Wings game last year that ended in a shootout and the atmosphere during the skills competition was absolutley electric. I don’t like watching them much on television (although I’d still take a shootout over a tie 9 out of 10 times), but I have to admit that I was on the edge of my seat when I saw it in person.

by J.J. from Kansas on Oct 7, 2010 4:33 PM CDT up reply actions  

Your first mistake was going to a game where the Minnesota Wild were playing. The most boring hockey I’ve ever watched.

by dewman8810 on Oct 8, 2010 1:00 AM CDT up reply actions  

That's possible

But I’ve been to games that finished with a winner that were just as boring. The final score by itself will not dictate whether it was a good game or not. What if that exact same game you described finished 3-1 instead of 2-2? Would it all of a sudden be considered a good game?

Like to keep your communication short and to the point? Follow me on Twitter

by Amerinadian on Oct 8, 2010 7:48 AM CDT up reply actions  

No one agrees with me on this.

I would like to see it go to 3 on 3 after the first overtime. All of the open ice would make for a quick first goal I think. Also it would be interesting to see the breakout passes. It also helps that we have the best two way forwards in the league to help us out in this.

by Kjell on Oct 7, 2010 2:01 PM CDT reply actions  

In that case

Why not just break it down to a 1 on 1? Datsyuk vs. anyone will get you a quick goal.

by Elfuego51 on Oct 7, 2010 4:00 PM CDT up reply actions  

Still a team effort

if it is 3 on 3. I just like the open ice aspect of it. There is also some strategy on Babcock’s part to chose who should be on a line.

by Kjell on Oct 7, 2010 4:28 PM CDT up reply actions  

They tested out the 4-4, THEN 3-3 overtime this summer. Switched sides to make the long changes too. I wouldn’t mind that. But I think 3-3 right away is a bit premature…

by plopperrawr on Oct 8, 2010 3:07 AM CDT up reply actions  

Am I the only one?

Who now has that terrible, terible Bon Jovi song stuck in their head after reading this title of this post? amerniadian, I now hate you via association of my hate for Bon Jovi.

by Red, White and a Mile high on Oct 7, 2010 3:50 PM CDT reply actions  

Ha ha

You’re welcome – and I am not a Bon Jovi fan myself (although my wife loves them), and it took me most of the day yesterday to get the opening line out of my head.

Like to keep your communication short and to the point? Follow me on Twitter

by Amerinadian on Oct 8, 2010 7:44 AM CDT up reply actions  

I forget how quickly NHL season comes on us

As for the shootout, I’ve always been torn on it. I absolutely HATE the concept of a tie, I don’t think ties have any place in sports. But I think that a 5 minute overtime is not enough time. I think at the least them 10 minutes before going to SO. Or as someone above said, put more emphasis on winning in OT through points, that way teams don’t shut it down and play for the shootout.

The world's biggest BCS hater and damn proud of it!

Proud Colts fan boycotting StampedeBlue.com since 7/17/2010

The opinions of Brad Wells (BigBlueShoe) do NOT speak for all Colts fans. Most Colts fans are well informed fans and good-hearted people. Most Colts fans are not egotistical douchebags.

This has been a public service announcement.

by MrNFL on Oct 7, 2010 4:02 PM CDT reply actions  

Shootouts suck

But they’re not going away anytime soon. There’s no viable alternative other than lengthening OT, and that’s not happening…or going back to the old 2-pt system, but lol thats not happening either of course. So I see it as a necessary evil (someone else said that too).

However, that’s no reason to not try and change what we got, cause clearly its not as good as it can be. Here are my suggestions:

(1) Make a REGULATION win 3 points, OT/SO win 2 points, OTL/SOL 1 point. This way teams actually have incentive to win in regulation rather than sit around and wait for their free point at the ends of game. That, and it eliminates the conundrum of having some games hand out 2 points while others hand out 3 points. Thus teams have a better chance of actually playing catchup in standings (how many times last season did we see 2 teams just head of Detroit in the standings play to OT? It’s very annoying.)

(2) The shootout itself is too short. So, you’re telling me after 65 minutes of solid competition, the game hinges on likely no more than 4 of your players (3 shooters + goalie)? In some cases, the game is over after just the first 2 rounds! Now, it’s not a huge step up, but what’s stopping them from increasing it to 5 rounds rather than 3? So what if that’s what’s done internationally? You know what else is stupid about international SO rules? You’re allowed to have one player take multiplt, infinite attempts after the first 3 rounds are done! How is that fair? So just increase it to 5 rounds. Not much of an improvement, but an improvement nonetheless.

by tehGOALIE on Oct 7, 2010 9:05 PM CDT reply actions  

I like this

I’ve never understood why they don’t use 5 shooters like every other international and North American league. I also think that after the first 5 have gone, I don’t mind seeing them be able to go again if it requires extra shooters. Once they have shot a second time, then they would have to wait until all the players had shot before they could go again. This way you’re giving your best players 2 shots early, in the hopes that you can end the game quickly.

Like to keep your communication short and to the point? Follow me on Twitter

by Amerinadian on Oct 8, 2010 7:46 AM CDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about the Detroit Red Wings.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Reasons why the 2011-12 Detroit Red Wings season was great

Recent FanPosts

De_small
Should we Re-sign Abby? Am I the only one?
Small
Parise vs Suter
Small
What's next on Defense?
Small
More Thoughts on What Went Wrong
Small
Corey Perry? Strange coincidence
Small
Anyone else getting scared of the worst-case-scenario?
Epic_sax_guy_plz_by_epicsaxguyplz-d31pmuj_small
Great Moments in St. Louis Sports History
Small
Looking beyond next year...
Epic_sax_guy_plz_by_epicsaxguyplz-d31pmuj_small
Other Recent Personal Bests

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


The Gentlemen

Images_small J.J. from Kansas

Simpsonsabbey_small Amerinadian

Dsc07546_small JeffHancock41

Editor

Jabdelkadercamp08_small stripe

Author

Small Robocop

Photochop Guru

Whiteknight_small Josh Howard