It's fair to say that two of the most contentious issues in the NHL are the existence of shootouts and fighting. They're portrayed as representing opposite sides of the traditionalist vs. non-traditionalist duality that fight each other over every proposed rule change in the NHL. The irony is that they both exist, and will continue to exist, because of the exact same argument.
I love the shootout. It's the best way to end games because ties are a terrible way to reward fans paying $200 a ticket. Give me clarity or give me death! The reality of NHL games is that most of them look the same no matter who's playing. The keys to winning are always the same: establish your forecheck, maintain possession deep in the offensive zone, avoid giving the puck away in transition, cover your check in front, win the special teams battle, etc. Anything you want to add to that list will be the same for any time in every game against every opponent. Sure there's some specifics, like shoot high glove side against this goalie or play this defensive pair against that power forward, but when the game's over the winning team invariably did so because they performed the above. The shootout is the one place you see outright uniqueness and creativity, skills you probably won't see during the game (the penatly shot is, after all, described as the most excting play in the game by announcers for a reason), the kind of dekes players aren't able to perform during the game, the kind of saves goalies don't need to make all that often. Those who say that the shootout "isn't even hockey" are idiots, it's hockey boiled down to its barest essentials, shooter vs. goalie. Fans love the shootout, whether they admit it or not, because it's cut and dry, best shooter/goalie combo wins and when it's over there's no complaining over tactics, cheap shots, bad calls, etc. It's simply the cleanest way to break a tie. I love my team and if they're on TV I'll watch or if someone gave me tickets I'll always go but when you've seen playoff hockey at its finest, regular season games can be just plain boring. Shootouts give the fan guarenteed drama and excitment in what may have otherwise been a dull game. It's fullproof entertainment because everyone watches and nobody leaves during one. It goes without saying that the playoffs should be left alone, the shootout works in the season because it breaks up the monotony of a long season but playoff games with their long, long overtimes, with no commercial breaks(!), are one of the great spectacles in sports.
(Side note about regular season hockey games all looking the same: Baseball games each look different because you see different lineups, different pitchers, and different strategies. Football games all look the same but since there's so few each one is important. Basketball games tend to look similar but benefit from the kind of spontaneity and explosiveness that hockey lacks. This isn't meant to knock hockey, it's the greatest sport in the world, just meant to point out that because of the nature of the game the observer needs a pretty keen eye to notice the subtleties. In hockey, you don't see too many player beat their defender clean, whereas in basketball, players fake out defenders and blow by for huge dunks every other possession. That's exciting, because offense is always exciting in any sport, but when you see lots of it it's not as unique. Fans love one-timers, homeruns, alley-oops and Hail Mary's. They know how important defense is to winning and always appreciate blocked shots, double-plays, taking a charge and sacks but any fan would rather watch his team on offense than watch his team on defense. Hockey, by virtue of the speed of the players, the ability of defense to close off open space, sticks intercepting passes and goalies nearly the size of the net is a defensive sport, period. That's why it's hard to grow in the States (along with the obvious climate issue) and that's why it's a true sport for connoisseurs. That's also why when offensive does happen, it's a thrill because it's rare and takes so much work. It's the law of supply and demand.
Back to shootouts and fighting. Don Cherry likes fighting, for those of you who didn't know. He likes it a lot, and according to him so do you. The reasons for fighting to be in the game (cuts down on cheap shots, holds players accountable, referees can't call everything so some measure of vigilante justice is necessary, etc) are different than the reason why fighting is popular (people never leave their seats during a fight. I think that's the only one, but it's Don's favorite so we hear it a lot). The traditionalists who hate the shootout (pick any old GM, but most notably Bob Clarke when he was on TSN for a short stint, and also Pat Quinn because his team was awful at them. The more things change...) but want to get rid of the shootout tend to use the fans as it suits them. When the fans like something, then it's a reason to keep it. If the fans like something that's "not part of the game" then they dismiss the fans' opinions entirely. Sorry old guys, but the reality is that the shootout isn't going anywhere because as long as nobody leaves their seats during a shootout or a fight, they both stay.
The point system, frustrating as it can be sometimes when one's own team isn't benefitting from it, is fine the way it is. Lots of people want zero points for any kind of loss and I can see why, but then you're giving way too much credit to the shootout and 4 on 4 overtime. You'd be saying that teams who survive sixty minutes, plus five minutes of panicky overtime, then fall in a contrived gimmic (of course it's contrived, doesn't mean it's not entertaining. Playoffs are about winning, the regular season is about entertainment) are just as bad as teams who lose in regulation. They deserve an extra point for making it that far so let them have it. At the end of the year it makes for a good indication of how many close games that team played and a better example of how that team stacks up with the competition. Let's say the Leafs finish this season at their current pace and finish with a record of 34-32-16. That would give them 84 points and likely a 10th or 11th place finish (one can only hope!). Take away all those points earned from OT/shootout losses and they finish with 68 points and probably near last place (since you'd have an even greater point spread across each conference). The league's salary cap forces parity and makes trades harder, so if you take away the OT loss point you'd have teams who are out of the playoff race in December but can't make trades because salaries are so hard to move. Keeping the OT point fits with the system of parity the league has created. Now if you don't like parity that's fine, (I don't really, I like great teams and dynastie) but you then have to create an economic system that facilitates rebuilding. Rebuilding is done by trading top players for draft picks and prospects, not salary for salary, and with the current system teams can't dump contracts and aquire draft picks and prospects in return. Parity is what we have so you need a point system that reflects the league's mandate. Under the current forced parity system, the OT loss system is appropriate.
You may agree or disagree with the OT point but the bottom line is that you probably agree whether you like it or not. There's a difference between what people would like in theory vs. what system they actually want in play, and that discrepancy is usually reflected in what will benefit vs. hinder their own team. Using John Rawls' concept of the veil of ignorance and Original Position, I'll show you how each and every fan would choose the OT point system over a winner-take-all system. (Admission of guilt: It's really bad to used Wikipedia as a resource for political philosophical concepts but this is a blog and this is the internet.) The season starts with a complete fantasy draft, players are drafted throughout the league in a snaking system used in the 2005 draft after the lockout. In theory each team is now equal (with Mike Milbury no longer a GM, this is even more likely). Of course, at the end of the year some teams will prove to be great, some average, some terrible. You don't know how good your team will be at the beginning of the year, but let's say they can only be one of either great, average, or terrible. You're asked, as the die-hard fan of your favorite team, if you think the NHL should include a single point for OT losses. You know that lots of games will go to OT so this extra point will be valuable for average and terrible teams hoping to keep pace. Your team, based on the choices above, only has a 33% chance of being great, meaning it's more likely they'll be either average or terrible. That extra point looks pretty good for your team now doesn't it?
No comments:
Post a Comment