The "Big Three" and their absence from the shootout
by John Fontana on Oct 11, 2011 2:55 PM EDT
in Lightning Team News
Email
PrintThere was a question raised by some during the Lightning's shootout loss to the Washington Capitals last night, and that question was repeated by others this morning. It has to do with strategy, it has to do with perception of ability, it has to do with the fierce urgency to score in the shootout.
The question being raised was about head coach Guy Boucher's decision not to employ any of the perceived "Big Three" (Vincent Lecavalier, Martin St. Louis, and Steven Stamkos) during the shootout. All three players are known for their goal scoring ability, all three players have produced highlight-reel goals during games that make fans salivate and goalies despair.
So why aren't they being tapped first and foremost when the game is on the line? Because the shootout is a different beast, and Vinny, Marty, and Stamkos aren't shoe-ins to score.
You can see on NHL.com the team's shootout statistics:
| Player | Pos | Home: S | G | S% | GDG | Road: S | G | S% | GDG | Total: S | G | S% | GDG | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Vincent Lecavalier | C | 27 | 7 | 25.9 | 2 | 21 | 5 | 23.8 | 2 | 48 | 12 | 25.0 | 4 | |
| 2 | Martin St Louis | R | 16 | 5 | 31.2 | 3 | 13 | 1 | 7.7 | 1 | 29 | 6 | 20.7 | 4 | |
| 3 | Steven Stamkos | C | 17 | 3 | 17.6 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 25.0 | 1 | 21 | 4 | 19.0 | 2 | |
| 4 | Dominic Moore | C | 4 | 1 | 25.0 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 50.0 | 2 | 8 | 3 | 37.5 | 2 | |
| 5 | Ryan Malone | L | 5 | 1 | 20.0 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 40.0 | 2 | 10 | 3 | 30.0 | 3 | |
| 6 | Adam Hall | R | 4 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 6 | 3 | 50.0 | 0 | 10 | 3 | 30.0 | 0 | |
| 7 | Ryan Shannon | R | 6 | 3 | 50.0 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 12 | 3 | 25.0 | 2 | |
| 8 | Victor Hedman | D | 3 | 1 | 33.3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 33.3 | 0 | 6 | 2 | 33.3 | 1 | |
| 9 | Mattias Ohlund | D | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 100.0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 50.0 | 1 | |
| 10 | Michel Ouellet | R | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 50.0 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 25.0 | 0 | |
| 11 | Teddy Purcell | R | 5 | 1 | 20.0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 8 | 1 | 12.5 | 1 | |
| 12 | Matt Gilroy | D | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | |
| 13 | Gary Roberts | L | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | |
| 14 | Nate Thompson | C | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | |
| 15 | Mattias Ritola | C | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | |
| 16 | Alexandre Picard | L | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | |
| 17 | Tom Pyatt | C | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | |
| 18 | Steve Downie | R | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | |
| 19 | Pavel Kubina | D | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
Of the 23 skaters on the roster (including Scott Jackson and Mattias Ohlund, who are on injured reserve, as well as some of the players that are currently in the AHL), 18 of them have participated in the shootout. For some reason, retired forward Gary Roberts is listed on the shootout performance roster. I won't count him and we'll just call it an anomaly and look past it.
Of those 18 players, only 3 have more than 20 attempts during the shootout. I bet you can guess who they are. Captain Lecavalier has 48 total attempts, Marty has 29, and Steven Stamkos (in his short career thus far) has 21. Only three other players on the Lightning roster have double-digit attempts in the shootout (Ryan Shannon - 12, Adam Hall - 10, Ryan Malone - 10). This tells you who have been the go-to guys.
Of those six players, it's Malone and Hall who leads the roster in shootout scoring percentage (30%), it's Vinny that's in the lead for total goals scored (12). With Marty and Stamkos? They're both flirting around 20% in scoring percentage.
Decent numbers, right? Compare them with big names from around the league: Brad Richards has a 41% shooting percentage on 61 attempts in his career, Sidney Crosby is at 40.4 (21/52), Alex Ovechkin is 29.3% (17/58). Then behold the lesser stars - Jussi Jokinen is the all-time shootout leader with 28 goals (on 60 attempts, a 46.7% rate), the Rangers Erik Christensen has gone 23/44; Andy McDonald of the St. Louis Blues is 15/41 (36.6%); Joe Pavelski of the San Jose Sharks is 19/42.
Tampa Bay's "Big Three" look a lot smaller in comparison, and make you realize that their abilities that we know about don't make them locks to score in the shootout. Yeah, we still expect them to because it's Vinny, Marty, and Stammer. But all three have had their struggles in the one-on-one competition.
And at the same time, all three have show us just what they can do in the shootout, though it doesn't always work.
And with struggles, that means other players in the lineup should get a chance to show their stuff.
 |
 |
56 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
While putting together this story
I was researching for quotes from Marty about shootout struggles. The power of Google has a short-term-memory and I was inundated with links and stories about Marty’s goal against the Blackhawks last Spring.
That goal, plus his “ass first” goal some years ago are the exception of his attempts, not the norm.
Typing is an adventure, and reading should be, too!
Raw Charge.
Well done John
My brother (Devils/Avs fan) was watching the end of the Bolts game while I was as well and texted me “no stammer vinny marty?” I’ll just forward him this link.
Just thought it was pretty pertinent, because even fans like him, who really don’t crawl the web to read hockey stuff, notice things like this and it’s nice to have logical answers.
you're not defending him are you?
are you his mom?
by toppleprone on Jun 7, 2011 9:43 PM EDT
Wow great post
at first I was like “so? SO? Those are fair percentages, aren’t they?”…But then they were compared to the other big shooters…and now I see. Great job!
Also a fan of the Rays and Lightning.
There is no offseason.
My icon was drawn by Samara Pearlstein, talented artist/blogger at Roar of the Tigers.
by Tigers&WingsFan on Oct 11, 2011 5:28 PM EDT reply actions
Statistics aside...
My angle as a coach (lacrosse, not hockey) is to reward players that show the effort I desire during play. Nate “Boucher,” like a few people on this site have affectionately referred to him as in the past, has earned the right, in Guy’s mind, to be in situations like that because of the work he does on and off the ice. The same with Moore. Boucher saw these guys working hardest during the game and if there is one thing that Boucher preaches, whether it is in his on ice systems or in practice, it is hard work.
At least in my mind.
shootout opportunities aren't a reward
needs to be about who’s most likely to hit them. Only reward guys who do the little things if the little things are indicators of shootout ability.
Heel for school, Vol for life!
Bolts, Preds, Canes (childhood team, home state team, hometown team). Canes mini-STH. Southern hockey solidarity!
by Incipient_Senescence on Oct 11, 2011 8:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Just because someone is skilled doesn't mean that they deserve any opportunity is what he is saying. Just because the "big three" are skilled, it doesn't mean they are the right guys for a shootout situation.
This isn’t the first time that Guy has chosen someone not based on skill. He chose someone because he saw “fire” in their eyes and it worked out well for him if I recall correctly. Sometimes if the best aren’t enough the average joe gets called upon.
by PreachITBrotha on Oct 12, 2011 12:14 AM EDT up reply actions
I'm not arguing that point
I’m arguing that we shouldn’t hand out shootout opportunities as reward for gritty play. We should do other things (like, say, practice shootouts and see who performs the best). If Guy sees something (be it fire in the eyes or whatever) that he thinks will translate to success, by all means select that guy. But in that case, it’s not a reward, it’s a choice based on projection of success, as it should be.
Heel for school, Vol for life!
Bolts, Preds, Canes (childhood team, home state team, hometown team). Canes mini-STH. Southern hockey solidarity!
by Incipient_Senescence on Oct 12, 2011 9:14 AM EDT up reply actions
Boucher has said that he puts guys out there who want to do the shootout rather than his best players. His theory, I think, is that they’ll try harder because they want to do it. And it’s worked for him – Hedman’s gone out there and done fairly well in the shootout. No one thinks of Hedman as a shooter, but he wanted to go and succeeded with it.
"You don't have enough talent to win on talent alone." -Herb Brooks
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning community. Follow me on Twitter: @dagmar27.
by Cassie McClellan on Oct 12, 2011 9:23 AM EDT up reply actions
they better not be trying harder
if we have someone who isn’t giving the cliched and impossible 110% in a shootout, there’s a problem. But I could see reasons (confidence, for instance) that guys who want to be there will have more success.
Heel for school, Vol for life!
Bolts, Preds, Canes (childhood team, home state team, hometown team). Canes mini-STH. Southern hockey solidarity!
by Incipient_Senescence on Oct 12, 2011 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions
Confidence was more what I was talking about, and not effort. Sorry to not have been more clear about that.
"You don't have enough talent to win on talent alone." -Herb Brooks
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning community. Follow me on Twitter: @dagmar27.
by Cassie McClellan on Oct 12, 2011 10:31 AM EDT up reply actions
I never mentioned gritty play, but I it could be read into what I wrote.
I just meant effort in doing what you are asked to by the coaching staff, whatever that may be. Hypothetically, if a player is not following the coaches’ gameplan or is unsuccessful during regulation/OT (doesn’t have the “hot hand,” some would say), why put the game in his hands?
Moore had 2 points and Nate had a goal. I can only assume that Boucher thought they earned the right (whether through scoring in game- though Purcell, Clark, and Gervais had 2 pts apiece, handling the puck well in game, or they simply wanted to do it and the Big 3 didn’t) to take the shootout shots.
Even if these guys are inexperienced (read it as nervous, if anyone wants to), the level of competitiveness in them can make up for lack of attempts.
Either way, its Boucher’s job, not ours. hahaha What do we have to lose if they miss shots, other than perhaps dignity among other fans, sleep, and hockey nirvana?
by Shenaniganos on Oct 12, 2011 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'm not disagreeing with Moore and Thompson being fine choices
just with your “reward” language.
Heel for school, Vol for life!
Bolts, Preds, Canes (childhood team, home state team, hometown team). Canes mini-STH. Southern hockey solidarity!
by Incipient_Senescence on Oct 12, 2011 10:59 PM EDT up reply actions
I think it’s a reward for playing well and producing that night. Producing, especially (“hot hand”).
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.
by red army line on Oct 13, 2011 2:58 PM EDT up reply actions
On the Money
I totally agree with you Shenaniganos,Lightning coach Boucher has a trait in his coaching style I call “What have you done for me Lately?” I admit I didn’t see the game but I also didn’t see the “Big Threes” names on the scoresheet during regulation. OK,it may have cost us one point but I am hoping the top scorers on the team got the message and will result in a better effort from them every shift because nothing goes un-noticed by coach Boucher.He amazes me how much he sees in every player,their work ethic and mindset in every game and he seems to pick his shootout line up baced on the performance of his players during regulation.Not always but a majority of the time,he knows enough to keep the other team guessing.As far as I see it,coach Boucher’s coaching style closely resembles the style of John Torterella and look at the results he was able to achieve.Everything will be fine when the new faces get the 1-3-1 formation down pat. I have faith in the entire organization and hopefully we will go as far as last year or further…go for it Bolts!!
This shootout lineup wasn’t a new thing or a “message” on Boucher’s part, IMO. Last season he did the same thing, not calling on the stars for shootouts because they weren’t all that great at it. The point of this article was that there are certain skills that lend themselves to in-game scoring and other skills that lend themselves to shootout scoring. Vinny, Marty, and Stammer tend to have more of the in-game skills than the shootout skills, and their records show that. Not that they are unsuccessful at it. Just that there are legitimate reasons that other players give you a better chance to win in that situation.
P.S. The term “Big Three” is giving me nightmares. :)
R.I.P. Belak, Rypien, Boogaard, Lokomotiv.
Even bears must face this fact: we're nothing without Rinne.--Grizzledbear, 10/9/2011
Part Predator, part Lightning.
I know
I know what coach Boucher did last year thank you very much for the information but if I am one of the top players on a team and not chosen to have a chance at the shoot-out after I put in a hard fought 65 minutes I would take that as a message.I would have something to say to the coach too and if need be practice even harder “in game skills” ,lol.It comes down to expectations and pressure management.That is the very reason Stammer didn’t get his 50 goals last year,but anyway if it were up to me Vinny,Marty and Stammer would be near the top of the list on the shoot-out roster each and every game until they were able to relax,block out the pressure and simply put the puck in the net
Look, you can either have a conversation with people here or you can be rude. If you’re going to be rude, I will not engage with you anymore.
Goodnight.
R.I.P. Belak, Rypien, Boogaard, Lokomotiv.
Even bears must face this fact: we're nothing without Rinne.--Grizzledbear, 10/9/2011
Part Predator, part Lightning.
Goodnight
I’m sorry if I upset you.That certainly was not my intention.This sight is to unite Lightning fans and I like coming here and chatting with like-minded people who want to rally their favorite team to success,like you and I,but it seems that I get absolutely no respect for my knowledge of ice hockey from a players perspective.I know how it feels to the get an 80 mile an hour slap shot on top of your foot,it drops you like a stone and will have you writhing in pain a month later.I also know how it feels to enter the last game of the regular season with 47 goals,score one in the first,one in the second and one in the last minute of the third to win the game,complete the hat trick and notch my 50th all in one shot,or how my right knee cap felt like it was torn from the tendons in my leg as I was bending it past it’s limits trying to lower my center of gravity and get as much mustard on that one-timer as I possibly could.Well he shoots he scores like I want our Bolts doing and I will do ANYTHING I possibly can to improve the Lightning’s chance at success,hope to chat later with you…ps tommorow night is a must win…sshhhh
I am not upset by your opinions. I am upset by your tone. Please give me as much respect as you would like me to give you. Please accept the fact that people here know just as much as you do and may still disagree with you. I would very much like to discuss issues with you, but you need to recognize that a) disagreement is not an attack, and b) I have as much ability to understand what is going on as you do.
(Please also use spaces after your periods so that it is easier to read your comments. Thank you.)
R.I.P. Belak, Rypien, Boogaard, Lokomotiv.
Even bears must face this fact: we're nothing without Rinne.--Grizzledbear, 10/9/2011
Part Predator, part Lightning.
ok
My responce was deleted already for some reason but I would like to change the subject before I get banned or whatever even though I am not in violation of terms of use.I never was allowed to finish my point about having a big strong ,fast skater on the bench.Not just for fighting or intimidation.Back in the ‘04 season we had a player named Frederick Modin,Swedish born ,I forget his number but won’t ever forget his contribution to the team that year.You could get the puck to Frederick in any situation and he WOULD carry the puck into the offensive zone.Despite any and all efforts by the other team,they couldn’t knock him down or get the puck away from him,as a line change was going on behind him.Fresh players jumped over the boards and led to many goals or at least scoring chances.This is a role that the Lightning still have not even realized there is a need for.Well there is! The dump and chase stuff is expected,relatively successful and pretty much the pattern of attack implemented by every team on any given night in the NHL,well I still think that this role could have been filled by (here it comes) Evgeny Artyukin,he did not have the right coach.Like the running back in football.Dont you want a player who can fight,muscle and bash their way into enemy territory,rag the puck and set up for a scoring chance?Of course you do…Raw Charge Rocks…Go Bolts
I do have a slight concern about lack of strength, especially on the back end, but I think that the team’s game plan is speed rather than size. They don’t necessarily want to slow down the game enough to allow a big strong guy to carry the puck in. The key to the Bolts’ transition game (when it’s on, that is) is timing and speed, not pure muscle. That’s why Ryan Shannon fits in so well with this team, where he didn’t in Ottawa.
I also think that, when it’s on, our transition game isn’t all that reliant on dumping and chasing. It relies on passing, instead, which means the timing has to be just right. We haven’t been “on” very often lately, and the fallback is to dump it.
R.I.P. Belak, Rypien, Boogaard, Lokomotiv.
Even bears must face this fact: we're nothing without Rinne.--Grizzledbear, 10/9/2011
Part Predator, part Lightning.
No Problem
I agree with you about a minor lack of strenth and that we don’t rely on the dump and chase as much as some other teams in th NHL. Blazing speed and accurate passing will get you far,indeed. A big strong puck carrier can help in many ways like during line changes. If you have a player that can keep possesion of the puck while fresh players are coming on is a very good thing especially if he can gain the other teams blue line thus improving your scoring chances and reducing the risk of a tired player getting called for icing and forced to stay out there. Frederick Modin did those things perfectly in ’04. I just want to mix up our attack in as many ways as we possibly can. I sure hope we can get back in the win column soon. ps,thanks for the advice
My personal preference would be to sacrifice a small amount of speed in exchange for being harder to push around, but I don’t foresee the team making that change any time soon.
If you’ve ever watched Ryan Suter and Shea Weber, that’s the sort of defense I’m used to—great positioning and vision, excellent at, as you say, maintaining possession into the neutral zone, and nobody’s moving those boys if they don’t want to be moved. But there’s a completely different vision of the game in Nashville than Boucher has, and Nashville is notorious for dumping and chasing. They can get it out to our blue line or to center and then they just get stopped and it’s either dump it or head back into the d-zone.
Last season showed that Boucher’s system can work when it gets going, and that speed and timing can make the difference in a game. But what we’ve seen early this year and early last year is that when it isn’t working there’s not really a plan “B” (for lack of a better term). And I guess it’s not a completely bad idea to direct your resources towards the kind of players you think will help you most over the course of the entire season, even if you struggle in the early going.
R.I.P. Belak, Rypien, Boogaard, Lokomotiv.
Even bears must face this fact: we're nothing without Rinne.--Grizzledbear, 10/9/2011
Part Predator, part Lightning.
Big 3 on Shootout
The Bolts don’t have a Dangler or top flight Puck Handler. Those are the types of players that historically have the best shootout results. Marty will impress from time to time but more often than not doesn’t have the moves to deke out NHL goalies in this format. Stammer has the blazing shot speed and Vinny has the toughness but as the percentages bear out, they fall short of the best shootout scorers in the league. Kudos to Boucher for bucking conventional wisdom.
solid point
who is our best puck handler, anyways?
Heel for school, Vol for life!
Bolts, Preds, Canes (childhood team, home state team, hometown team). Canes mini-STH. Southern hockey solidarity!
by Incipient_Senescence on Oct 12, 2011 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions
The Bolts don’t have a Dangler or top flight Puck Handler. Those are the types of players that historically have the best shootout results.
Both Kozlovs, Datsyuk, Jussi Jokinen, Kris Letang, Brad Richards, Radim Vrbata, Erik Christensen…I wouldn’t classify them as either a “dangler or top flight Puck Handler.” Just skilled, not necessarily a good player at in-game speed, but fast enough in the shootout.
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.
by red army line on Oct 13, 2011 3:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Forgive me if I've misunderstood your comment, but...
you don’t think Datsyuk is a top-flight dangler and puck handler? Pavel Datsyuk? Of the Detroit Red Wings? The guy who makes moves like these on a daily basis?
Stop smoking whatever it is you’ve been smoking because it has clouded your judgment.
R.I.P. Belak, Rypien, Boogaard, Lokomotiv.
Even bears must face this fact: we're nothing without Rinne.--Grizzledbear, 10/9/2011
Part Predator, part Lightning.
I forgive you. I mean, some of them fit those labels, but not every single one of them.
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.
by red army line on Oct 13, 2011 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions
So putting guys out to do their very first ever penalty shot attempt makes more sense?
I don’t think so. And by not letting the big three shoot, could have just won us the game and not lost it. I really can’t stand the shootout anyway, I wish they’d go back to ties.
"I'd run over my mother to win the Super Bowl." - Russ Grimm
I hate ties. Why play a game that no one can potentially win? What’s the point? That makes absolutely no sense to me.
"You don't have enough talent to win on talent alone." -Herb Brooks
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning community. Follow me on Twitter: @dagmar27.
by Cassie McClellan on Oct 12, 2011 9:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Nobody necessarily likes ties. But is the shootout the answer? Fun for most fans, I guess. I happen to think it’s silly to end a game like that. It’s something I will have to live with as long as those are the rules. I say, play until there is a winner, or accept a tie. Screw the shootout.
Until the powers to be come up with another solution, it is what it is. Shootouts will determine the winner.
by Slip Mahoney on Oct 13, 2011 12:09 AM EDT up reply actions
Oh, there is a group of people who believe that ties are a completely acceptable way to end a game. It’s mind-boggling to me, tho. I mean, isn’t the entire point of competition to find out who’s better?
Frankly, I don’t mind the shootout. I’ve never understood what he big deal about it is. Anything is better than a tie.
"You don't have enough talent to win on talent alone." -Herb Brooks
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning community. Follow me on Twitter: @dagmar27.
by Cassie McClellan on Oct 13, 2011 8:54 AM EDT up reply actions
I like the shoot out. I fantasize about making that last save in a shootout. Shootouts are fun every once in a while.
R.I.P. Belak, Rypien, Boogaard, Lokomotiv.
Even bears must face this fact: we're nothing without Rinne.--Grizzledbear, 10/9/2011
Part Predator, part Lightning.
yes, but. . .
if it’s becoming very clear that neither team is actually better, do we find an arbitrary way to pick one, or do we just admit that they’re even?
I got no problem with admitting they’re even.
Heel for school, Vol for life!
Bolts, Preds, Canes (childhood team, home state team, hometown team). Canes mini-STH. Southern hockey solidarity!
by Incipient_Senescence on Oct 13, 2011 9:57 AM EDT up reply actions
The whole game is arbitrary. Hockey barely has any set plays. So what’s wrong with ending an arbitrary game in an arbitrary way?
"You don't have enough talent to win on talent alone." -Herb Brooks
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning community. Follow me on Twitter: @dagmar27.
by Cassie McClellan on Oct 13, 2011 11:45 AM EDT up reply actions
I'm afraid I don't follow you here
in what way is the game arbitrary? Is the game not set up in a way as to determine (with some degree of accuracy) who is the better team on a given night?
Heel for school, Vol for life!
Bolts, Preds, Canes (childhood team, home state team, hometown team). Canes mini-STH. Southern hockey solidarity!
by Incipient_Senescence on Oct 13, 2011 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Hockey, generally speaking, is organized chaos. You have a position, and that’s pretty much how you know where you’re supposed to be. You also have formations like in football, sometimes, but that’s about as far as most things go. There are no set plays like basketball or football, except on the power play. It’s basically just go where the puck is, for the most part.
Often the only difference between a hockey team and a drop-in hockey team is the length of time the players have been together. In other sports, you can throw a bunch of strangers together and still readily win a game if everyone knows the plays. You can’t really do that in hockey, which is why chemistry is such a big deal.
"You don't have enough talent to win on talent alone." -Herb Brooks
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning community. Follow me on Twitter: @dagmar27.
by Cassie McClellan on Oct 13, 2011 1:29 PM EDT up reply actions
I mean, I know all that
I just don’t get the relevance
Heel for school, Vol for life!
Bolts, Preds, Canes (childhood team, home state team, hometown team). Canes mini-STH. Southern hockey solidarity!
by Incipient_Senescence on Oct 13, 2011 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions
All right, you two.... :)
read this post about “The Charm of the Shootout” from one of the best unknown hockey blogs in the universe
So believe me when I say that I am as appalled at myself for writing the following as you are at reading it: The shootout is awesome. It is ridiculous and wrong and like so many other things that are ridiculous and wrong, it makes for some damn good watchin’….It’s like getting a bowl of ice cream at the end of a big meal: it’s wrong and it’s bad and you really really shouldn’t but goddamn that shit is good.
R.I.P. Belak, Rypien, Boogaard, Lokomotiv.
Even bears must face this fact: we're nothing without Rinne.--Grizzledbear, 10/9/2011
Part Predator, part Lightning.
I actually don't care for sweet dessert either
my desserts are usually chips or tacos.
but entertaining television? yeah, I’ll give you that a shootout is that. I just don’t think it’s a good way to determine the better team. If your goal is entertainment, go for it. If your goal is to determine the better team, find a better way or say they’re even.
On the subject of declaring them even (or close to that), I actually don’t mind the Bettman points for an OTL. However, I think it’d make a lot more sense if we had 3 points at stake per game, and you won 3 for a regulation win, 2 for an OT win, 1 for an OTL, and 0 for a regulation loss. Never happen, I know, but it makes more sense to me than what we have.
Heel for school, Vol for life!
Bolts, Preds, Canes (childhood team, home state team, hometown team). Canes mini-STH. Southern hockey solidarity!
by Incipient_Senescence on Oct 13, 2011 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions
Read her whole post. One of the things she says is
It all comes down to this: What is hockey for? A person who believes in ties believes that hockey is for itself, that it is the means to its own end… Hockey is entertainment
Now I happen to think that hockey is not “just” entertainment, that it is meaningful and important and all that, and I still love the shootout. But then, as we have already determined, I am odd.
She also says that this is part one of her analysis and that the other part is somehow in conflict with this one, so I don’t know what her final answer will be.
R.I.P. Belak, Rypien, Boogaard, Lokomotiv.
Even bears must face this fact: we're nothing without Rinne.--Grizzledbear, 10/9/2011
Part Predator, part Lightning.
when I have more time, I'll go read that post
but I agree that it’s entertainment. But I’m also pretty big on sport for the sake of competition, for determining who is indeed better on that night. And that part of me dislikes shootouts and would actually prefer ties (which is interesting, because Cassie uses the same argument to rail against ties and in favor of shootouts. Obviously, I don’t think it follows, but there you are)
Heel for school, Vol for life!
Bolts, Preds, Canes (childhood team, home state team, hometown team). Canes mini-STH. Southern hockey solidarity!
by Incipient_Senescence on Oct 13, 2011 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions
If there are no set plays, and little on-ice structure, then what happens during any given game is arbitrary. In fact, because it is completely structured, you could argue that the shootout is the least arbitrary thing about hockey right now. Crazy, but true.
And the definition of arbitrary that I’m using is, “existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance…” [Mirriam-Webster Dictionary]
"You don't have enough talent to win on talent alone." -Herb Brooks
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning community. Follow me on Twitter: @dagmar27.
by Cassie McClellan on Oct 13, 2011 3:42 PM EDT up reply actions
yeah, we're using a different definition
I’m more using the primary definition by analogy.
Heel for school, Vol for life!
Bolts, Preds, Canes (childhood team, home state team, hometown team). Canes mini-STH. Southern hockey solidarity!
by Incipient_Senescence on Oct 13, 2011 4:02 PM EDT up reply actions
there is a group of people who believe that ties are a completely acceptable way to end a game.
A very, very, very large group of people (many of whom live outside of the US) ;)
I mean, isn’t the entire point of competition to find out who’s better?
Are you really better if you won in the shootout? I mean, put Tim Thomas in net and have a bunch of defensive forwards to get to the shootout and send out your shootout specialists. Pittsburgh did this quite a bit last season, and Phoenix the year before (10+ shootout victories each, if memory serves)
Also, isn’t that what the playoffs are for?
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.
by red army line on Oct 13, 2011 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions
I think that a team proves that they’re better if they win the shootout. If it goes all three rounds – and it often does – you have four players chosen from each team doing their best to win the game. If a game-winning goal is a penalty shot, does that mean that the team who won is of equal or worse ability? Of course not.
"You don't have enough talent to win on talent alone." -Herb Brooks
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning community. Follow me on Twitter: @dagmar27.
by Cassie McClellan on Oct 13, 2011 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions
this is exactly the point I was trying to get across
the shootout winner is the team with the best goalie or specialists. defense? not important
Heel for school, Vol for life!
Bolts, Preds, Canes (childhood team, home state team, hometown team). Canes mini-STH. Southern hockey solidarity!
by Incipient_Senescence on Oct 13, 2011 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions
You’re funny. The Lightning defense isn’t that great. So…it’s probably for the best that it’s not important.
However, defensemen do participate in the shootout – as shooters – so they’re still a part of the deal as well.
"You don't have enough talent to win on talent alone." -Herb Brooks
Raw Charge, an SBN Tampa Bay Lightning community. Follow me on Twitter: @dagmar27.
by Cassie McClellan on Oct 13, 2011 5:46 PM EDT up reply actions
No, I think the point is that it’s not hockey, so it doesn’t necessarily mean you’re the better hockey team (if we go by the definition they use to determine the SC winner). Then again, international play uses shootout too.
For the record, I’m not against the shootout, but I would like to see 10 min OT instead of 5 min OT and a different point system.
Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.
by red army line on Oct 13, 2011 6:58 PM EDT up reply actions
I played defense
in soccer. In a shootout, I could participate. And shoot. I hated shootouts. They completely marginalize 90% of the game, including all the best parts.
Heel for school, Vol for life!
Bolts, Preds, Canes (childhood team, home state team, hometown team). Canes mini-STH. Southern hockey solidarity!
by Incipient_Senescence on Oct 13, 2011 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions
The Need For Speed!!
Marty scored on a breakaway against Boston. Watch the video and the first one to correctly describe the move wins. Here’s the link……
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qet6mzaCgM4
Sorry, it’s a trick question. There wasn’t much of a move at all. Marty simply turn on the jets and headed for the net and wristed one past Thomas into the twine. A thing of beauty!
Over the last several years I’ve seen my share of shootout attempts and game time breakaways. I looked for some breakaway statistics, like John posted here on the shootouts, with no luck. Nevertheless, I’d take a somewhat educated guess and say that the percentage of real game time breakaway goals are equal to, or greater than, the percentage of successful shootout attempts.
Hard to believe that a real time breakaway, with opposing players breathing down your neck, could have similar success rates as a shootout attempt while the player is all alone on the ice. Well…………not really.
Just as you have seen in the video of Marty’s breakaway, speed makes the goalie retreat faster which allows for a better angle for the shooter. There’s more open net to shoot at. If one approaches the goal at half speed and tries to be cute, the goalie has every advantage. It’s much easier for the goalie to use good positioning when things are in slower motion. (CAustin can probably explain that better than I can)
If you watch the players with the greatest success in the shootout, most all of them approach the net with speed. Watch Brad Richards, he’s all over you tube. He doesn’t look like a guy whose trying to outfox the goalie. He wants the goalie back in the crease for a better, and more open, look at the net. He does it with speed and he’s successful.
There are a multitude of shootout videos on you tube. If you watch them I think you will see what I mean. The bulk of the successful attempts have the shooter moving in with good speed. Not lollyazzing into the zone with some highlight reel move in mind. Pick up the puck and get to it. There are exceptions of course. Some guys have sick moves, but not too many. Watch several of the videos. I think you will see what I’ve seen. Speed towards your target makes a huge difference.
The Bolts have pretty much sucked in shootouts over the last 2 years. Looking at the skill level of a handful of our guys, that can be hard to understand. I’d like to believe our coaching staff understands this weakness and is working to correct it. I’m not talking about lining guys up at the end of practice and having them take their shots. I’m talking about watching film, learning what works, stealing moves, and practicing what was learned.
I’m not a fan of the shootout in the least. It’s an asinine way to end 65 minutes of great hockey. Personally, I’m good with ties. However the shootout is a fact of life. I’d love to see this team capitalize on the extra point opportunity. Every point counts. Let’s get our share for a change.
Speed guys, speed!
There’s a reason that Pavel Datsyuk is one of the best in the league at the shootout. When a shooter is one on one with the goalie, he has time and space to make moves. He can also change his speed and his relation to the puck (I.e., pulling the puck in towards the body or deking or whatever) to prevent the goalie from reading the shot. It’s more than just telescoping (moving him back towards the net) but, you’re right, that is one aspect of it.
Breakaways are different in that you do have defenders incoming. Those “extra” players do two things: they make time critical and they cut down angles and east-west movement. A guy in a breakaway doesn’t have time to make fancy moves because he has to beat the goalie in front of him and the defenders behind him. He might pull the puck in and change the angle at the last moment, but he doesn’t have time to do a whole lot else without losing the race.
R.I.P. Belak, Rypien, Boogaard, Lokomotiv.
Even bears must face this fact: we're nothing without Rinne.--Grizzledbear, 10/9/2011
Part Predator, part Lightning.
by CAustin on Oct 13, 2011 9:45 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
agreed
Youre absolutely right about speed.If the goalie sees your coming fast and furious you won’t see him far from the goal line which opens up lots of net to shoot at and you can assume he won’t be thinking “poke check”.In my years as a player I found that a goalie too far from his net was easy prey for the for the most basic deke and if he’s deep in the crease,a good hard wrister at close range will almost always work.See,I didn’t have 20 thousand people in the stands and millions at home watching my every move and that’s the bottom line when it comes to shoot-out success,the ability to perform under extreme pressure…Tazz55 (#99)
Thompson's inclusion was intentional
No one’s yet cited the SPT article on Thompson’s shootout success in practice:
Forward Nate Thompson, left, scored on five straight breakaways against Dwayne Roloson in a practice at Mont-Tremblant. That not only sent fans into a frenzy, but it sent a message to Boucher that Thompson wants to be in a shootout, something he was not last season.The whole article is here.
"The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect"
- Smith in Orwell's 1984
THAT
is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for.
Heel for school, Vol for life!
Bolts, Preds, Canes (childhood team, home state team, hometown team). Canes mini-STH. Southern hockey solidarity!
by Incipient_Senescence on Oct 13, 2011 9:58 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Raw Charge
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Pages
Raw Charge on the Web
In Association With
Latest Puck Daddy - NHL from Yahoo! Sports
- Why the Devils and the Kings are evidence the Capitals shouldn’t trade Alex Ovechkin
- Eulogy: Remembering the 2011-12 New York Rangers
- Stanley Cup Final: 5 keys for New Jersey Devils and Los Angeles Kings
- Friday’s Three Stars: Devils head to Final; Brodeur, Kovalchuk the difference in Game 6
- Devils eliminate Rangers in Game 6, ending fear of the past, setting course for the future
SBNation.com Recent Stories
