There’s been a lot of talk in the Sabresphere lately about the shootout and its role in the NHL, not coincidentally because the Sabres have lost two out of their last five games in the breakaway competition, and also because last night’s contest ended in controversial fashion. Here’s Blake Wheeler’s goal in the shootout for those who missed it.
Blake Wheeler with a filthy shootout winner for the @NHLJets pic.twitter.com/SxnblhVe2i
— ESPN+ (@ESPNPlus) March 31, 2022
It certainly looks like Wheeler stops and actually goes backwards briefly before firing the shot. I’m not here to get too far into the weeds on this particular goal; It should have been called no goal. If people see it differently, that’s understandable because it was at least close to being illegal if it wasn’t outright illegal. The outrage from Buffalo (such as can be mustered by a fan base watching a team entering its 11th season without a playoff berth) seems to have created a backlash against the entire institution of the shootout, which to me, is unwarranted.
The shootout is good!
Or at least, the shootout is the best regular-season solution to the problem of overtime when considering the desires of the NHLPA, the fans and the NHL’s national broadcast partners. We’ll get to that later, but first, let’s tackle some common arguments used to say that the shootout is bad.
The most commonly used argument is that the shootout is a “skills competition… – and I put that term in scare quotes because it’s often used in a derogatory fashion – that is so unlike the rest of the game that it tarnishes the proceeding 65-minutes of game play that came before the shootout. Nonsense. Shootout attempts happen at least once per game during the course of a regular 60-minute game.
They’re called breakaways.
Not once have I heard someone argue that a breakaway is not a hockey play or that it somehow cheapens the game because it’s unfair that someone got in front of the other team and rushed down the ice. Granted, there probably is at least one person out there who thinks abolishing the two-line pass rule opened up the game too much and these fancy kids are getting too many cheap breakaway opportunities. That guy isn’t changing his mind. For everyone else, though, we watch breakaways and think “this is fun. This is good hockey.… Why doesn’t that same enthusiasm doesn’t carry over to the shootout?
The second most commonly used argument against the shootout is that ties were just fine for 80 years of professional hockey and they would be just fine now. That’s fine and dandy, but the cat’s out of the bag. Fans have had a 15-year taste of games not ending in ties and they’re never going back. Ties are boring. ESPN can’t sell the sportsmanship and hard-fought effort of a 1-1 tie to a casual hockey fan in Austin, Texas the same way that they can sell the excitement and creativity of a game-winning shootout goal.
As for non-tie related shootout alternatives, well, most of them would run afoul of the players association. It’s doubtful that the PA would sign up for a longer overtime period because it puts addition strain on the players who have to go out there and play those minutes. National broadcasters would mostly like object as well. They have time windows with an early game and a late game, so they can’t extend these games in perpetuity because it cuts into the game on the schedule.
So why is the shootout good? For one, it brings us moments like Pavel Datsyuk’s amazing chip-the-puck-over-the-shoulder goals, or Thomas Vanek infuriating Dominik Hasek with his “around-the-world… shootout goals. These moments are part of hockey lore, and they make for some of the best highlight packages.
The shootout is also a way better experience in person than it is on TV. Even the most hardcore anti-shootout advocate is going to have a hard time not moving to the edge of his seat when the first shooter lines up at center ice to take his shot. It’s cinematic in an old western kind of way with two adversaries squaring off in a duel. Shootouts that go longer than three rounds are even better. The anticipation builds and the stakes are raised with each shooter who scores or misses.
Sabres fans probably have a different view of it because of recent history. The season when Robin Lehner couldn’t make a shoutout save to save his life comes to mind very quickly. He literally made zero saves on eight attempts in 2016-17, a feat that was so wildly improbable that fans will likely never see anything like it again. This year the Sabres are a respectable 3-3 in the shootout, despite the last two losses.
The hate for the shootout probably also stems from the fact that 3-on-3 overtime has been zapped of its former fun by coaches who realized that puck possession is the name of the game, and maintaining possession while limiting turnovers and odd-man rushes is the ticket to success. In some ways, then, the shootout is taking the blame for overtime being mediocre now. If the NHL wanted to alter the overtime rules to restrict teams from passing backwards to their own goalie or stop guys from voluntarily exiting the offensive zone and retreating back to their own end while teammates change, I’m all for that. But don’t lump overtime in with the shootout just because overtime is bad.
To be clear, none of what is outlined above should in any way be used as an argument to change playoff sudden-death 5-on-5 continuous hockey. That is glorious. But for the regular season, the shootout is the right answer.
That said, I’d love to hear the alternatives. Feel free to leave proposals in the comments.