It's been a-while, but with the frequency I've been working lately, I've not had much the time to update the blog with anything noteworthy that you couldn't get from various news sources. With that said, now's a more op-ed piece that people like to either disagree with or agree with.
I was on TSN earlier today when I saw the article written about how the NHL should switch to a Win-Loss system instead of having the 2-1-0 point system that's reminiscent of when games resulted in ties. The argument made, ones that I've heard plenty of times before, are that the games aren't as competitive with the current point system and undeserving teams may end up in the playoffs simply because they could make it to the "fourth" period.
So what do I think? I think it should be handled one of two ways:
Go back to tie games and remain with the 2-1-0 system: As a person who things the shootout is sort of silly, this is an easier way for us to handle the situation. Let the guys grind it out for potentially 65 minutes and if there's still no winner there, then the game's tied.
However, the majority of fans like the shootout and hey, I shouldn't hold it against them for that because it does decide a winner. So what would I like to see considering that I have to accept the shootout as a fact of hockey life?
Adopt the 3-2-1-0 system: That's 3 points for a regulation win, 2 points for an overtime or shootout win, 1 point for an overtime or shootout loss, and no points for a regulation loss.
The reason I'm huge on this system is that it's completely fair while promoting a sense of competition to get true results. For people who want to see better competition, the teams will have more incentive to battle for that extra point in regulation instead of skating loftily to overtime. For people who want to see the best team achieve the best standings, this standard would provide a better chance to feature teams that were able to finish games before the overtime period than to have teams at the top because by the end of the game, they were able to win at a skills competition against the opposing goaltender. It also gives credit to those who were able to go into overtime, even if they lost, as opposed to the teams who can't quite exude enough effort to require the extra time.
People can argue about how basketball and baseball don't have ties. Well, the last I checked baseball was nowhere near as intense of a physical sport as hockey. Also, basketball's scoring system is a whole lot more prolific than hockey's and will never require a free-throw contest to end the game. The players who play the game battle hard each minute their on the ice. I think that if the team was able to make it to overtime, it should shine on the stats for both the teams and (especially) the goaltenders.
The current system is flawed because it doesn't give the proper value to victories. The idea of going win-loss is flawed because it doesn't give proper value to losses. Traditionalists would like to see the games go back to ties but the modern-day hockey fan wants to see the shootout. That said, the 3-2-1-0 point system is, in my humble opinion, the best way to go in order to give the best teams the best chance at being in the playoffs.
What do you think?
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar