Even though it shouldn't be, it's a slow sports month for some writers. Whenever your local paper runs a sports piece from another publication in which the premise was subsequently covered by one of their own writers, you know the creative juices are dried out. If it's been said, why talk about the same thing again? Especially considering if the original article was already tenuous to begin with.
In the past two weeks, we've been treated to a couple of "controversies" relating to the NHL playoffs. One is the need for the NHL to apparently do something about the lack of scoring and the other calls for the ending of overtime.
Let's tackle the first. I don't mean to sound like an NHL exec, but there is nothing wrong with low scoring hockey. It would be a problem if the entertainment value of the games were excessively boring - as witnessed during the pre-lock out era with the clutch and grab tactics that ravaged the league. Perhaps the action has not been as exciting as we've become accustomed to but it hardly merits the shrieks we are hearing. The skating is refreshing and the free flow in the game is still there. This inevitably leads to more scoring chances. It's only natural it won't be as open as in the regular season as defenses become tighter in the playoffs. 5-4 games don't necessarily translate into better quality games. Some 2-1 games are simply outstanding to watch.
Are they that hard up for stories?
Next in line comes the overtime debate. All of a sudden extended OT’s are getting under the skin of some people. All it takes is one person to write up some article about and it spreads like wildfire. Personally, I love OT hockey. I’m sadistic enough to even say the longer the better.
It doesn't matter what I think because I blog but there are scattered calls to have hockey playoff games settled by shoot out after an OT session.
Traditionally, I have fallen under the category of "settling team sports by a shoot out is plain wrong." However, I can see the case in favour of it. Maybe it’s not the best way to conclude a match but what is the alternative? You can’t just have two teams play on and on and on - and on. And sometimes on and on. In hockey, the amount of OT going beyond two periods is really minimal so it shouldn’t be an issue. Athletes today are better conditioned physically and mentally. While there is some truth that the fatigue factor leads to a mistake and eventually a goal, the bottom line is that the two teams on the ice settle the game.
In an effort to justify this position, some compare and look to soccer. This is misleading. Prior to the introduction of shoot outs in the mid-70s soccer was settled by a replay after the extra time session. Can the reintroduction of the replay be a practical solution today? Probably not. What does that leave us with? You can’t play indefinitely since soccer has only three changes allowed in an entire match. And heaven forbid you lose a player to a red card or injury.
By contrast, in hockey there are line changes that can help a coach manipulate a bench. The depth factor becomes huge; especially if you had a fourth line player sitting for a couple of periods. In addition to all this, it's also an economic question - but that's for another day.
In any event, domestic league matches are not settled by shoot outs. Only in tournaments - hockey or soccer (e.g. World Championships, World Cup)- they are used. Tournaments have a rationale for employing the shoot out since they operate within a more confined time frame.
It's strange, I’ve suddenly mellowed somewhat on shoot out. Since the 1980s my hatred for it was a delicate combination of righteous indignation infusing the intellectual, spiritual and practical. It made no sense to me. It still doesn’t. But my pragmatic Spidey senses have taught me that presently there are no better solutions. We just have to accept it. Besides, the rule is the same for two sides. And no one can dispute the drama of the shoot out gimmick. And for you team oriented guys, we can take some solace in that it’s still a team concept – sorta. After all, it’s your teammate going up to kick in your honour.
Am I recommending the NHL consider the shoot out? No. As it stands, there is no reason to do so. If every game went to triple OT then maybe it warrants a look. Consider that up until the last round, 65 games have been played. 13 (20%) went into OT and seven (11%) involved multiple OT's. Seven of the 13 games were concentrated in two series (Vancouver/Anaheim and Vancouver/Dallas) and both involved the offense deprived Vancouver Canucks.
Does this merit an overhaul of the hockey playoffs? 20% does seem a little high (although only seven went beyond the first OT) but we need more of a trend before we advocate any changes. Again, keep in mind the bulk of the games (54%) were restricted to two series. Furthermore, can it be that the reason people jumped on this band wagon – besides reaching for stories – were annoyed that most of the extended OT periods were out on the west coast and forced many hockey fans to watch games well into the wee hours of the morning?
Hey, at worse blame parity. Anyway, sports writers always find ways to tinker and meddle in games in an effort to enhance them. It makes little sense to complain about OT of all things.
My suggestion? Stop complaining, whining and just enjoy. It is what it is.
they have played good....
ReplyDelete