Yes, I just used pig latin. Now tell me I'm not the freshest hockey blogger around.
Yesterday I talked about the corruption within the NHL's points system and how the "charity point" sort of undermines regulation play. In the world of blogging, or writing in general I guess, one story always leads to another. So, today, I am picking up from where I left off and discussing the infamous shootout. Because, honestly, who wants to read another article about Gaborik's potential chemistry with Brad Richards, or who will be the Rangers' next captain, or why Lady Gaga dressed up like a man at last night's MTV Awards? Okay, you may have something there with that last one, but you get the point.
Under head coach Tom Renney, the shootout was a friend of the New York Rangers. A tie game, which usually was a result of a late third period comeback, would be preserved until overtime in order to pick up the aforementioned charity point in the standings (going back to yesterday's argument), and if they got lucky, they would get to the shootout where Henrik Lundqvist was then counted upon to win them the game. It got to the point where fans were hoping for the shootout.
That all ended on the final game of the 2009-2010 season in Philadelphia. Oh yes, that dreadful day in Rangers history in which the shootout decided, and ended, their entire campaign that year. 82 games worth of puck decided on six shots. Six months of blood, sweat and tears all come down to a ten-minute skills competition. Now that doesn't seem fair, does it?
The following summer discussions started to formulate within the NHL about the future of the shootout and how it will be used to decide games that go beyond the five minute overtime. Now I am no NHL official or one of those "mainstream media" guys who totally know what they are talking about, but I still have the noggin to realize that the shootout, as it stands now, is destroying the roots of the game. It's corrupting the most respectable sport on Earth and the league, at some point, has no choice but to do away with it.
First of all, hockey is a team sport. By no means is there any form of a team involved in a shootout. It's goalie versus shooter, and to me, that's not fair to the Brandon Prusts of the league whose effort gets their team to the shootout, but they are never called upon to go out and shoot when it comes time to pick the first three shooters. It's not fair that the better, more complete team loses because the worse team has a few guys who excel at dangling the puck one-on-one with a goalie.
It just doesn't make sense that a 65-minute hockey game should be decided by six shooters and two goaltenders. Again, this is a team sport, therefore the team should decide it. And in the Rangers' case, the team should decide the outcome of their season, not just a small handful of the squad.
The shootout does not incorporate the heart and soul of hockey, and it sure as hell doesn't respect the work ethic that goes into the sport. That reason alone should have this idea of a one-on-one game-decider thrown away and never thought about again.
Personally, I want to see continuous overtime just like in the playoffs. Yeah, I've heard the line of garbage that it affects travel and everything, but you know what, they are professional athletes being paid millions of dollars - they can handle a late night on the job here and there.