Since Steve posted it, I'll comment.
 
>What the shootout will also do is punish the underdog team.  A less
>talented team that has played well enough to earn a tie will be at a
>tremendous disadvantage in shootouts because it likely won't have five
>snipers of the same caliber of its stronger opponent.  Furthermore, th
>superior team can also afford to play a conservative style in overtime
>confident in its ability to dominate in the shootout.
 
This author apparently did not think through this point.  A number of defects
immediately come to mind.
 
1. How does the shootout "punish" the underdog team.  The underdog team could
possess the greatest equalizer, a hot goaltender, thus providing it the
necessary ingredient to win the shoot-out.
 
2. The underdog team has played above its head for the entire night.  Why would
that necessarily change in a shoot-out?  It would seem there is a strong
element of chance in scoring in the shoot-out.  For example, the shooter
decides to shoot left corner, but the goaltender has committed to the right.
Granted the skill of the goaltender can offset most of the "luck" of the
shooter, but even the most skilled goaltenders occasionally let in a "soft"
goal.  In a shoot-out, I would suggest there is a significant "explanation"
to a successful shot that is not a product of the difference in skill levels
between the shooter and the goalie.  (Wow!  A statistician's dream!  A multiple
linear regression to determine what, if any, significant factors exist in
scoring a goal during a shoot-out.  OK all you stat mavens out there...)
 
3. A "superior" team might not have a monopoly on skilled "snipers".  There
might be a defensemen, or even a fourth liner who could have a wicked shot.
If anything I would suggest this aspect would favor the "inferior" team.  The
inferior team could be composed of a group of skaters with big shots, but who
can't play together, can't pass, can't do the things that good teams do.  But
on a given night they manage to play even with the "superior" team, thus
allowing them the opportunity to exploit the one element they possess: good
shooters.
 
4. Why shouldn't "superior"teams be favored?  Why is it better for an
"inferior" team to win a game on sheer emotion?  Is the goal of competition
to encourage an adventure in mediocrity, where there are no really good teams,
just teams with average players who occasionally turn it on for selected
contests?
 
5. Why would the "superior" team want to play conservatively in the overtime?
The longer a game goes, the more its "strength" advantage is negated.  A good
team would want to press its advantage in the OT since this would be its best
opportunity to ensure that all its favoring elements are utilized.  In a
shoot-out it's basically a crap shoot: the team that gets the puck past the
goalie wins.  You don't have to pass, screen, check or any of the aspects which
sets one team apart from another.
 
Having said all this, I would simply add that after all is said and done, and
all the Cassandras out on the list have posted their dire predictions,
shoot-outs aren't going to make that much difference.  Except of course to
Dave's Get-A-Lifers.  :-)
                    _
            "NYS   // Hockey"
        Go 'Gate  //   Brian Morris
          Go RPI //      Albany, NY
          ______// [log in to unmask]
         (______/