ON THE MARK.

SHOOTOUTS?  WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' SHOOTOUTS.
According to the National Hockey League, the Toronto Maple Leafs have lost 5 games in a row, even though they garnered points in two of those "losses".   The NHL also maintains that Claude Julien has more victories as a Boston Bruins coach than Don Cherry.   Ridiculous
Of course, both of those stats are incorrect, the result of the NHL introducing shootouts to begin the 2005-06 season, and screwing up stats geeks forever.   Look, you can't tell me a team has lost 5 in a row, when, under the "old" system, they would've been credited with two ties.  The Leafs have gone five games without a win, but at least give them credit for reaching overtime twice.  As far as I'm concerned, they're 0-3-2 in that span.  And while Claude Julien has been credited with 247 wins as the coach of the Bruins, 16 more than Cherry amassed during his time behind the Boston bench, that number is badly skewed.  The Bruins have lost 52 overtime games during Julien's tenure in Boston, and I'm going to assume that they've likely WON at least 52 overtime games that, in the old days, would've been ties.     By my calculations, Julien would have about 195 regulation wins and 52 overtime wins.  Since Cherry never had an opportunity to garner an overtime win, Julien's record is hollow.
     Watching the Leafs and Winnipeg go through all those shootout attempts on Saturday night reminded me of what I don't like about overtime.  The five minute 4 on 4 is a good idea, and I've got to believe that if they made it 3 on 3 for the NEXT five minutes, you'd get a goal more times than not.   Besides, the shootout is becoming ridiculous.  It's already a huge gimmick, as evidenced by some of the scoring attempts.  If hockey is truly a team game, then let the team decide it on the ice, not one player.   3 on 3 would be fabulously exciting, and would likely result in a ton of scoring chances.   As well, a mistake or a miscalculation when playing 3 on 3 could result in disaster, and we all love that edge-of-your-seat anticipation of a goal that is imminent.   If that doesn't float your boat, why not give out 3 points to a team that wins in regulation?  That would force teams to "go for it" late in regulation.  If there's one thing I hate, it's when teams are happy to have a single point, and just wait for overtime before putting any real effort into winning.  It's nice to have that single point in your pocket.
     If you're going to have overtime, make it worthwhile.   After seeing 10 skaters, 2 goalies and 3 officials on the ice, it would be great to see a fresh sheet of ice and the equivalent of "shinny" for the overtime.   Keep playing until someone scores.  You'll see lots of skating, quick line changes and the skilled players will shine.  Can you imagine going up against Crosby, Malkin and Letang in a 3 on 3?   Yikes!   I guarantee you that every goal scored in overtime will be considerably more exciting than watching Ondrej Pavelec stop Dion Phaneuf during round 9 of the "shootout".   Oh, and by the way, why didn't Leaf coach Randy Carlyle use Mikael Grabovski in the shootout on Saturday?  Was he punishing Grabo, or did he want to prove a point to the underachieving sniper and his teammates?   In the modern day NHL he could do both without taking much of a risk. After all, Carlyle's Leafs had already earned a valuable point, even though everybody thought they had lost the game.   Half a loaf is better than none and a real overtime is better than a shootout.