Thursday, November 30, 2006

Pros-Cons of the Shoot-Out!

1) OK, we will be up front with our readers and tell them we were NOT advocates of this way of ending tie games before last season started, but as we have seen more of these we have come around to begrudgingly accept them as part of the game, and the excitement they do produce for the fans
2) Almost all agree that a tie usually wasn't a good way to have a game end. The NHL was really the only major North American sport that allowed large number of ties each year. The 5 minute OT reduced the number by about 25% or so, but still many games stayed deadlocked, thus the apparent need to decide games without further playing(television) time.
3) The problem we have, and many other hockey 'purists' have with the shootout, is that many games are no longer decided by true hockey. There are many factors and strategies that determine the winner of an NHL hockey game. Juggling lines. Quick shifts to compensate for tired legs. Icing calls leading to critical face-offs in an opponent's zone late in the game. Power-play combinations. Penalty-killing combinations, etc. A shoot out uses merely a minuscule part of what NHL hockey is all about.
4) There appears no correlation between a teams success in non shoot out games and shoot outs. Some very good teams have very poor shoot out records, and vise versa. It may not have occurred last season, but we can envision a time when team A will fail to make the playoffs because they had a shoddy shootout record. Eclipsed by Team B with a good shoot out record, even though team A had a better record when playing 'real hockey'.
5) As some have written, this would akin to baseball having a home run contest after a regulation tie. Football a field goal contest. Or basketball having a slam dunk or 3 point competition. All would be popular with fans, but they wouldn't be fair tests of the 'better team'.
6) so the question is: Which is more important: Integrity/fairness of the game or entertainment? We believe we have already been told what the NHL's answer is to this. For good or bad, the shoot out is likely here to stay.

22 comments:

Joseph said...

i am not really a fan of the shoot-out either. i find that it makes the weaker teams, play for a tie in regulation time, and the o.t., in the hopes that they can luck out in the shoot-out.
the nhl could go with a 4on4 o.t for 10 minutes instead of 5...or 4on4 for the first 5, and 3on3 for the next 3...sadly i think the shoot-out is here to stay...thankfully the nhl "braintrust" kept the skills competion out of the playoffs.

Unknown said...

as long as they don't touch the playoff games, i don't have a problem with the shootout. ties are terrible. the shootout is exciting to just about everyone, even non-fans. i think it's here to stay as well, so teams need to accept that and adjust and play accordingly.

Faux Rumors2 said...

1) I like your idea to extend/tweak the O.T. rules. Hwever, we believe Bettman, et.al. are so in love with the shootout that its more likely they will do away with OT all together than to make it longer.

Joseph said...

soon the nhl will do away with sticks...have the players kick a big spotted ball into a gigantic net...shit players are already flopping and diving all over the ice..and the shoot-out is being pimped as the most exciting thing since the zidane head butt....ok rant over.

Stacey Schnall said...

I like the shoot out. I would not mind if they went to a shoot out as soon as the games ends. The overtime is so boring now. Teams seem to just go through the motions to get to a shoot out anyway.
I do agree with you guys that they should not use a shoot out in the playoffs. overtime hockey is great!

Anonymous said...

stacey schnall...

Just curious why you copy your blog posts from other blogs without permission?

Your first Post (November 6th) was copied word for word from thebagblog's October 28th Post.

Your second post (November 27th) was copied word for word from the same blog's October 6th post.

Your most recent post (November 30th) was copied word for word from Poppytalk blog's post on November 29th.

I have confirmed via email that both the bloggers in question did not give you permission to do this and were unaware of this until now. Just curious what is up Stacey?

Stacey Schnall said...

Like are you on drugs or something?
Everything that is on my blog is 100% my own work, and my own ideas. You DO need to get a life little boy

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Faux Rumors2 said...

1) Again, please folks, no spam!

Anonymous said...

FAUX...BLOGGER CLEARLY DEFINES WHAT YOU CALL SPAM...

POSTING LINKS WITH AUTHOR'S PERMISSION IS NOT SPAM

It is CLEAR THAT YOU DON'T LIKE POSTS THAT PROVE THE FARSE THAT GOES ON HERE...THAT PROVES THAT COMMENTORS ARE FAKE.

I suppose now there will be a rule stating typing in all caps is against blogger rules?

Anonymous said...

STACY

Instead of claiming I am on drugs explain the following:

1. How your first two posts are copied DIRECTLY from THE Bag Blog? You posted on Novmber 6th the EXACT same thing she posted on October 28. You posted on November 27th the exact same thing she posted on Ocotber 6th.

She has confirmed that this was done WITHOUT permission.

2. Your most recent post November 30th was copied directly from Poppytalk. Again I have confirmation this was done without permission.

For those wanting Links..I have added them to my HockeyNutz Blog.

To see my blog...click on my name here to see my profile...the link is in my profile to HockeyNutz blog...the links to PoppyTalk and TheBagBlog are on the right side!

Stacey...I await your explanation!

Faux Rumors2 said...

1) Your 2 latest posts are NOT Spam, as no other web sites were advertised, therefore they remain
2) You can say whatever you'd like. Use whatever invective you may wish. State your case in any form, BUT no SPAM. That should be simple, even for you.
3) Other posters such as the one you are talking to here can respond for themselves, but again, No Spam

Antzmarching said...

Ok, the "stalker law" NEEDS some enforcement here. Calling on Lt. Mike Rogo or Frank Drebbin for some back-up. LOL.

Antzmarching said...

And, if NUTZ goes anywhere near Oahu, Chin Ho can take over. Hey Stacy, are you now drinking FAUX's cool-aid?

Dis Man said...

Eres un idiota. ¿No puedo hablar inglés bien, así que el ou se ríe de mí? ¿Cómo dices? ¡Va la cogida tú mismo!

Joseph said...

je me excuse disman, mon espanol est pas tres bien mais je n'ai pas une ostie idoit tabernac.

Faux Rumors2 said...

1) Oh Geez. Not a rule, but we'd prefer if responses could be kept in one language! No more Spanglish, French or Gibberish. LOL

Joseph said...

my bad just wanted to show that disman isn't the only one who can play the bilingual game...dude tried to dis me is spanish, i fired back in french...i will stick to the english from now on.

Faux Rumors2 said...

1) We were just kidding. Feel free and retort to those jerks in any language you want! LOL

Anonymous said...

Faux or Faux2...have you read the Blogger policy about what SPAM actually entails? You have it completely wrong!


And even if you feel you have interpreted the Blogger Terms of Service wrong...the statement:

"...to any person who has not given specific permission to be included in such a process."

pretty much allows EXACTLY what I have done!

Posting links to websites is not spamming...and if you think it is...Blogger says it is ok if you have permission from the person in question!

Anonymous said...

With my previous post in mind...

Check out:

My Blog: IMHockeyNutz.blogspot.com
Flames: THEFlamesBlog.blogspot.com
Insider Buster: InsiderBuster.blogspot.com

AND...Stacy SCHNALL's Favourite places to COPY content from WITHOUT PERMISSION:

thebagblog.com

and

poppytalk.blogspot.com

Happy reading!

Anonymous said...

Surpise...Stacey Schnell disappears!