Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
REV-G

Are shootout goals counted in a players stats?

Recommended Posts

Just curious. Does Gallagher have a goal, from the shootout, or is he still listed at 0?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious. Does Gallagher have a goal, from the shootout, or is he still listed at 0?

Shoot outs have never counted on a players stats.

A good indicator that the shoot out should be dropped from the game entirely.

"The game winning goal does not REALLY count" ..... Try explaining that to a new fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the NHL, shootout goals do not count in a players' individual stats. In IIHF tournaments, GWG's count in a players' goal total. So Gallagher's still at 0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be awesome if they made a trophy for most shootout goals in a season like the Art Ross is for scoring or the Maurice Richard is for goals.

name it the Joe Sakic Trophy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shootouts don't count, nor should they, since shootouts have nothing to do with hockey in the NHL.

fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fixed.

No, I think I'd want to make a wider claim. It's a team sport. Deciding outcomes on the basis of an individual skills competition is a regrettable import from one of soccer's more ill-conceived traditions (not unlike diving, come to think of it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I think I'd want to make a wider claim. It's a team sport. Deciding outcomes on the basis of an individual skills competition is a regrettable import from one of soccer's more ill-conceived traditions (not unlike diving, come to think of it).

Well whether we like it or not. the shoot out is a part of the game. I think we should be keeping stats on this and that it should count. If you score on a penalty shot which is basically the same thing it counts towards your stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should not count toward your regular season stats because it is a completely artificial situation - unlike a penalty shot, incidentally, which is meant to compensate a player for a breakaway that he earned but was artificially deprived of due to an illegal move. We already keep track of players' SO goals, which allows teams to know which players do best in the ridiculous, novelty-act situation of the shootout. That's all we need to know.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should not count toward your regular season stats because it is a completely artificial situation - unlike a penalty shot, incidentally, which is meant to compensate a player for a breakaway that he earned but was artificially deprived of due to an illegal move. We already keep track of players' SO goals, which allows teams to know which players do best in the ridiculous, novelty-act situation of the shootout. That's all we need to know.

well said

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a fan of the shootout - tho it is entertaining and it does ensure the game ends in a timely manner. (seems no one noticed that my tongue was firmly planted in my cheek over the Joe Sakic Trophy comment). might as well play a game of darts to decide the winner, the shoot-out isn't hockey.

BUT - even more annoying than the made-for-tv skills competition to me is the loser point. I really wish the loser got NOTHING for losing - or at the very least make the games 3 points for a win (regulation or OT), zero for a loss, and 2 points for shootout win, 1 point for shootout loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd prefer 3 for regulation win, 0 for regulation loss, 2 for OT/SO win, 1 for OT/SO loss. That means there's three points at hand for a regulation game.

As much as people hate to admit it, four on four overtime is as unnatural to hockey as a shootout is. It only happens naturally when players so illegal actions in a game, same to a penalty shot.

I like the shootout,though if I was commissioner I'd just go with continuous overtime. I don't care if players are dealing with fatigue. Coaches having to deal with overtime for 82+ games are going to stray from defensive heavy strategies if it means holding a stalemate and exhausting the players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me the simple solution is 2 points for a win 0 points for a loss. I don't care how you win o/t or s/o the win is what counts. Loser points are just that for losers and to make the league look like it is more competitive than it is. If you score in a s/o goal counts in your stats. Does not count against goalies because it would be an unfair stat, and throw g/a and save % out of wack. Right now the worst hockey you can watch is 2 teams tied with 5 minutes to go. they are both playing to at least get the loser point. Change that to 2 points for a win and 0 for a loss and watch the tempo of the game change. Nobody wants to play o/t if they don't have to. This game is about winning not about coming close. As the saying goes close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades. Let's see real hockey. No ties only wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will be debated forever. I can't understand a point for a loss. It makes no sense. The origional reason was to encourage teams to play for the win (before the shootout was conceived). Even the 3-2-1 structure is not good enough for me. I believe a 3-1-0 or 2-1-0 should be the way. 2 or 3 points for a regulation or OT win, because the team won the game as a team. 1 point for a shootout win, because it is less of a win, and also to encourage teams to play for the team win. 0 for losing anytime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a broken system that came through out of evolution instead of someone sitting down and actually working to conceive the best system.

It used to be a game was worth two points. Two points for a win, zero points for a loss, one point each for a team in a tie.

The NHL then introduced the "overtime loss" when trying to break ties. That meant teams could tie for 60 minutes, receive a point for it, and then due to the new OT, a team could still earn that extra point from winning in overtime. When the NHL decided to bring over the shootout, it continued this system.

In Europe they work the three point system. Three points for a win, zero points for a loss. If the game goes to overtime or shootout, each team receives a point and is merely playing for the final point available. That allows a major incentive to end the game in regulation and a major incentive not to lose in regulation. If the game goes to OT or SO, it ends up a wash (like most standings are today). But add in the major incentive to a regulation win and the major disappointment of losing out on all potential points? The standings change drastically, as does a team's play in the third period.

The idea of a shootout win being the same value as a regulation win is just as silly to me as four on four overtime hockey being worth the same as a regulation win. If you reward teams for regulation wins, you truly see the difference between a contender and a pretender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

100% agree.

To me the simple solution is 2 points for a win 0 points for a loss. I don't care how you win o/t or s/o the win is what counts. Loser points are just that for losers and to make the league look like it is more competitive than it is. If you score in a s/o goal counts in your stats. Does not count against goalies because it would be an unfair stat, and throw g/a and save % out of wack. Right now the worst hockey you can watch is 2 teams tied with 5 minutes to go. they are both playing to at least get the loser point. Change that to 2 points for a win and 0 for a loss and watch the tempo of the game change. Nobody wants to play o/t if they don't have to. This game is about winning not about coming close. As the saying goes close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades. Let's see real hockey. No ties only wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they should give 1 point for shoot out win none for loss, 2 for overtime, none for loss. ohh yeah and golie stats dont count yet the winning goal should. but not many in my circle think so :s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always been fond of the eccentric position that a tie should count for ZERO. You could then get rid of the shootout altogether and watch two desperate teams doing everything humanly possible to break ties, which should make for super-exciting third periods.

However, this proposal has gotten me beaten up by pretty much everybody to whom I've mentioned it. So, I'd fall back onto ehjay's suggestion above: 2 for a win, 1 for a SO win, 0 for a loss. That'd still stick us with this stupid shootout, but at least it would devalue the shootout somewhat. The "3 points for a win" suggestion is OK too, but I think the NHL will be understandably reluctant to throw its regular season points-total results all out of whack historically - suddenly you'll have teams having 150-point seasons, stuff like that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always been fond of the eccentric position that a tie should count for ZERO. You could then get rid of the shootout altogether and watch two desperate teams doing everything humanly possible to break ties, which should make for super-exciting third periods.

However, this proposal has gotten me beaten up by pretty much everybody to whom I've mentioned it. So, I'd fall back onto ehjay's suggestion above: 2 for a win, 1 for a SO win, 0 for a loss. That'd still stick us with this stupid shootout, but at least it would devalue the shootout somewhat. The "3 points for a win" suggestion is OK too, but I think the NHL will be understandably reluctant to throw its regular season points-total results all out of whack historically - suddenly you'll have teams having 150-point seasons, stuff like that.

Though we may disagree on a lot of issues, this isn't one of them. I have proposed this very approach. you are not alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always been fond of the eccentric position that a tie should count for ZERO. You could then get rid of the shootout altogether and watch two desperate teams doing everything humanly possible to break ties, which should make for super-exciting third periods.

However, this proposal has gotten me beaten up by pretty much everybody to whom I've mentioned it. So, I'd fall back onto ehjay's suggestion above: 2 for a win, 1 for a SO win, 0 for a loss. That'd still stick us with this stupid shootout, but at least it would devalue the shootout somewhat. The "3 points for a win" suggestion is OK too, but I think the NHL will be understandably reluctant to throw its regular season points-total results all out of whack historically - suddenly you'll have teams having 150-point seasons, stuff like that.

CC now you are starting to get "team thoghness" with support in the corners from BlueKross and me :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the shootout when the Habs aren't involved. They're also fun live. Luckily, shootouts aren't used to decide playoff games like soccer or the Olympics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always been fond of the eccentric position that a tie should count for ZERO. You could then get rid of the shootout altogether and watch two desperate teams doing everything humanly possible to break ties, which should make for super-exciting third periods.

However, this proposal has gotten me beaten up by pretty much everybody to whom I've mentioned it. So, I'd fall back onto ehjay's suggestion above: 2 for a win, 1 for a SO win, 0 for a loss. That'd still stick us with this stupid shootout, but at least it would devalue the shootout somewhat. The "3 points for a win" suggestion is OK too, but I think the NHL will be understandably reluctant to throw its regular season points-total results all out of whack historically - suddenly you'll have teams having 150-point seasons, stuff like that.

I don't get the 1 point for a s/o win. Ya win ya win. 2 points just get rid of the loser point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get the 1 point for a s/o win. Ya win ya win. 2 points just get rid of the loser point.

In that case it'd be more like basketball. No points, just wins and losses and a win percentage to decide the better teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CC now you are starting to get "team thoghness" with support in the corners from BlueKross and me :)

Truculence, brothers!!!

habs rule, the idea behind making the SO worth only 1 pt. is to devalue it so teams have more incentive to actually win a hockey game rather than rely on a gimmick. Everyone and his dog agrees that the loser point is asinine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case it'd be more like basketball. No points, just wins and losses and a win percentage to decide the better teams.

ok that is one way of looking at it. I don't have a problem with that actually, I mean this isn't a game show with choices of door 1 2 or 3. It is a hockey game and there should be a winner and a loser. Winner get points loser gets crap on a stick. Seems simple to me. Btw I hate basketball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...