Looking at the loser points, which is the point the NHL gives each losing team when a game goes to overtime or a shootout, the Chicago Blackhawks are currently this years biggest losers. Hoo-hah!
With 7 loser points awarded, the Hawks currently lead the league in the moral category of "at least we got a point out of it". The Flyers and the Habs are the frontrunners in the East with 6 and 5 points respectively. The NHL might as well have a trophy of some sort at the end of the season that honors the team who wasn't the best, but was good enough by their standards.
In the NHL's version of musical chairs, everyone gets a seat. This bugs me because these are the types of games we used to play at the insane asylum institute I used to work in (or live in, I can't remember anymore). I'm a big boy now, I can admit when my team lost. You don't have to sugar coat it for me.
I'm too lazy to check out my previous posts from my previous blog, but I distinctly remember a team or two who made the playoffs in the past two years because of these loser points. That said, every team is awarded these points and take them without question. It's equal. It seems to be a different team every year who is hot in OT or the shootout.
My question is, wouldn't overtime or the shootout mean that much more if both teams were going after a single 2 points instead of already having a point each in the bag?
If I remember correctly, the whole reasoning behind this hideous extra point to the losing team was to make teams go for the win. To stop playing the trap and waiting for a tie to ensure the team gets a point out of it because, now, they had nothing to lose. When the tie died (hee hee, filthy hippies) with the birth of the shootout, this should have ended that concern. At least you think it would have.
What defensive team with no scoring talent that has gotten away waiting for ties, or the loser points awarded, is going to excel in the shootout? I know each army has it's gladiator for these purposes, but it still takes an average of 2 goals to win in a shootout these days (don't quote me on that please).
If we wanted more offense, why not award a team that has won by more than 2 goals an extra point? We could also get into an "illegal defense" type of penalty for a team that only sends one forechecker into the offensive zone. Hell, we could even award a penalty for even touching a guy who doesn't have the puck (oh wait, the instigator penalty. HA!).
As ridiculous as all that sounds, it isn't half as ridiculous as this loser point system. If anything, a team could play the entire game holding onto hope that the score is 0-0. They still get a point despite the absence of offense. What else is the coach supposed to do with the untalented bench thrust upon him by upper management?
I personally play a lot of strategy games online and I know for a fact that's easier to defend than it is to attack. If you don't have the skills, manpower, or the arsenal to take the other side than it's better to sit and wait it out. The lessons of WWI still hold true today.
I also know most coaches careers live and die on their win-loss record. If I was a coach with a lack of talent in the dressing room (compared to the rest of the league of course, I still feel winded after putting on my skates), I would coach the exact same strategy. Limit goals against.
I'm babbling now, but these are my feelings.
I could save myself a lot of time by stamping that last sentence.
Anyhoo, I am babbling.
No comments:
Post a Comment