![Center Evgeny Kuznetsov Looking into Camera from Washington Capitals vs. Red Wings - Billy Sabatini - All-Pro Reels Center Evgeny Kuznetsov Looking into Camera from Washington Capitals vs. Red Wings - Billy Sabatini - All-Pro Reels](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F83c826b6-bf55-47b8-8826-18270adeec4b_1024x683.jpeg)
As I mentioned yesterday, the Washington Capitals needed to go to the shootout on Monday night to defeat the Calgary Flames, 3-2 on home ice in the District. And if we’re talking about the shootout and the Capitals, we can’t fail to mention enigmatic center Evgeny Kuznetsov, who has developed a shootout move that’s is nearly as unstoppable as it is vexing — at least if you’re rooting for the opposition. Here’s a video breakdown of his successful shootout attempt vs. Calgary on Monday night.
In the shootout, Washington has an embarrassment of riches. In addition to Kuznetsov, the team can also rely on winger T.J. Oshie, whose shootout performance at the 2014 Winter Olympic Games in Sochi vs. Russia earned him a legendary place in U.S. hockey history. As a Caps fan, I enjoy having this decided advantage.
But as a hockey fan, I could do without it. After watching another Kuznetsov shootout goal, I’ve seen some folks online refer to his super-slow and super successful move as a “mockery” to the shootout. Unfortunately, the shootout is a mockery of the sport of ice hockey and the sooner we can get rid of it the better.
Why was the shootout introduced? Coming out of the nearly disastrous 2004-05 lockout of NHL players, the league introduced a raft of rule changes to make the game more entertaining by tilting the game in favor of offense. After watching the New Jersey Devils go to four Stanley Cup Finals in nine seasons (winning three Cups), it was time to retire the “clutch and grab” version of the NHL that the Devils pioneered.
Clamped on to all of those changes was the elimination of ties, with thinking along the lines that fans wanted to see a clear winner and loser instead of a “kissing your sister” moment. I never understood this. From where I sit, what fans want is exciting, end-to-end action with swift skating and scoring. As the league has been experimenting with overtime rules, they seemed to have understood this, dropping the number of skaters on the ice first to four in 1999 and three in 2015.1
So what’s the solution? Let’s eliminate the shootout and get rid of the “loser point” that both teams are automatically awarded if the third period ends in a tie. Instead, let’s keep three-on-three play and expand overtime from five minutes to 10 minutes. With only six skaters on the ice, all that extra room and another five minutes of ice time, a higher percentage of games are sure to end on an overtime goal, which is still the most exciting moment in ice hockey. And to add some extra sauce for the goose, let’s make all wins — overtime or not — worth three points and bring back the tie.2
Why would this work? It’s simple game theory. People respond to incentives, and if you create an incentive to play winning hockey, you’re going to get more of it, and making a win worth three points is the best way to get there. If you want to play for a single point, rather than win the game, it’s going to mean fighting your way through ten minutes of overtime against a team hungry for three points and looking to gain a six point swing in the standings against a division or conference rival.
The change would make third periods more exciting by discouraging collusion. The stakes are smaller in inter-conference games because the teams aren’t competing against each other for position in the standings. In that case, it isn’t out of the realm of possibility for two teams to slow the pace late in the third period, bank a single point and then take their chances in overtime and the shootout.
As much as I think this could work, it still needs to be tested. Luckily, the NHL has just such a testbed in the best minor hockey league in the world, the American Hockey League (AHL). The AHL has accommodated the senior circuit before, and I’m sure they would do it again. Maybe I’m crazy — it’s not like I haven’t been accused of that before — but I think the potential for a more exciting game of hockey is worth it.
They also introduced the “loser point” in 1999, awarding a point to the team that lost the overtime period. I once saw the Capitals clinch a playoff spot with an overtime loss. It was epically stupid.
And here’s another benefit: the introduction of the “loser point” has created artificial parity by bunching teams up in the standings. After all, it’s harder to pull away from a team when the loser comes away with a point. Getting rid of the “loser point” and making a win worth three points will help clarify things by separating the great teams from the also-rans.
Totally agree ... except for the need for any OT at all. It's enough already, if the game ends in a tie, it's a tie. But give 3 points for the win and one for a tie and be done with it.