Generic Off Season Thread

[RichH]

[enough quoting of quoted quotes]

I'm sorry, what?

[add] something something That entire paragraph about Qualitative Analysis blah blah blah

Ah. Yeah.  That. [add] should be automatically appended to a lot of things.

I'm fine with ties. The end.

[Aaron M. Griffin]

I am in the minority regarding the tie/OT/shootout debate, but it has been reported that tomorrow the NCAA will announce that college hockey programs will transition to a half shield over two years.

I guess that it may not be accurate.

I thought half-shields were never being considered and they were thinking about 3/4 shields

That was my understanding too. I guess will we see tomorrow.

Also, Cornell Athletics responded to a comment of mine on Facebook that either news about the anticipated game against Michigan at MSG or Cornell's entire 2012-13 schedule will be announced "early next week at the latest."

[ugarte]

Anything less than 13/16th shields is too dangerous.

[Beeeej]

Sports Illustrated wrote on how players disliked the idea of shootouts to settle NHL RS games and now when an OT game goes to a shootout, they hustle around a TV to see the shootout.

Skills competitions are interesting, and people find them fun to watch, but that doesn't mean they're a good way of settling the question of which team played better hockey.  If you announced that two hockey teams were about to settle a tie game with bare-fisted, "Fight Club"-style boxing, I'm sure you'd get a ton of viewers, but it's still an idiotic way of determining who should move up in the standings.

Sometimes reducing the argument to the absurd proves a point but it doesn't work so well here. "[Pros] Hustle around the TV to see the shootout" means this is something that draws in the players themselves.

I knew what it meant, Bill.  Pros are just as prone to being drawn to watch spectacle as fans.  The fact that they gather around to watch the shootout still doesn't mean they think it's a good way to resolve a hockey game.  I think my post worked just fine here, but thanks for your concern.

[Aaron M. Griffin]

I am glad that so many people are alarmed about a shootout deciding a hockey game based upon a skills competition. It is unthinkable to desire the team with the more skilled players to win a sporting event. How outlandish an idea!

[Beeeej]

I am glad that so many people are alarmed about a shootout deciding a hockey game based upon a skills competition. It is unthinkable to desire the team with the more skilled players to win a sporting event. How outlandish an idea!

It is outlandish, because scoring on penalty shots is an infinitesimally small portion of the skills required of players and teams to win hockey games.  In fact, if not for the current shootout-to-resolve-ties system, you'd almost never see a penalty shot - just like in college hockey right now.

Do you think a baseball game tied after nine innings should be decided by alternating attempts to steal home or triple play opportunities?  Or should it be decided by continuing to play the game, so that the team that demonstrates superior abilities in all or most aspects of the game on that particular day ends up the winner?

[RichH]

I am glad that so many people are alarmed about a shootout deciding a hockey game based upon a skills competition. It is unthinkable to desire the team with the more skilled players to win a sporting event. How outlandish an idea!

Playing sound defense is also a skill.  This is essentially deciding the outcome of a game by playing an entirely different game.  Baseball doesn't decide tie games after 9 innings by pulling the players off the field and staging a HR derby.  That's essentially what the shootout is.

[Aaron M. Griffin]

I am glad that so many people are alarmed about a shootout deciding a hockey game based upon a skills competition. It is unthinkable to desire the team with the more skilled players to win a sporting event. How outlandish an idea!

It is outlandish, because scoring on penalty shots is an infinitesimally small portion of the skills required of players and teams to win hockey games.  In fact, if not for the current shootout-to-resolve-ties system, you'd almost never see a penalty shot - just like in college hockey right now.

Do you think a baseball game tied after nine innings should be decided by alternating attempts to steal home or triple play opportunities?  Or should it be decided by continuing to play the game, so that the team that demonstrates superior abilities in all or most aspects of the game on that particular day ends up the winner?

My qualm is not with the argument that shootouts are not the best way to solve the issue but the illogic of an argument that a sporting event cannot be resolved legitimately with what amounts to a skills competition because sports at their fundamental essence are nothing more than skills competition.

So, continuing with your baseball analogy, why is it any more legitimate for the game to be decided in the bottom of the ninth with a player stealing home than using that as a tie-breaking mechanism? Either way, the same set of skills will have decided the game. Those skills belong to an individual just as readily in your hypothetical overtime regime as they do during regulation. Your distinction is artificial.

It is absurd to claim that a sporting event being decided by a skills competition is illegitimate.

I am fine with ties, even though I find them dissatisfying. I am fine with even admitting that shootouts are not the best way to resolve competitions. However, the rationale that individual skills between a player one-on-one against the goaltender is somehow an illegitimate means to resolve a competition is nonsensical. Let's disallow all goals on breakaways! Better yet, let's penalize any team that leans upon one player too much, say a goaltender, because well, if the team does not support him well enough the game has devolved to a skills competition of the goaltender against the entire team.

It's true that if resolution must be achieved allowing both teams to continue to play until one teams wins is most just. However, sports are skills competitions. That is why we watch them. Situations change which skills are best suited to achieve a result. Who is to say that after 65 minutes a transition to a shootout is not legitimate? Various other scenarios, 4-on-4, etc. favor certain skills sets, but no one has qualms with them during regulation if they result when, much like shootouts, the play and conduct of the teams results in the situations.

[Beeeej]

I am glad that so many people are alarmed about a shootout deciding a hockey game based upon a skills competition. It is unthinkable to desire the team with the more skilled players to win a sporting event. How outlandish an idea!

It is outlandish, because scoring on penalty shots is an infinitesimally small portion of the skills required of players and teams to win hockey games.  In fact, if not for the current shootout-to-resolve-ties system, you'd almost never see a penalty shot - just like in college hockey right now.

Do you think a baseball game tied after nine innings should be decided by alternating attempts to steal home or triple play opportunities?  Or should it be decided by continuing to play the game, so that the team that demonstrates superior abilities in all or most aspects of the game on that particular day ends up the winner?

My qualm is not with the argument that shootouts are not the best way to solve the issue but the illogic of an argument that a sporting event cannot be resolved legitimately with what amounts to a skills competition because sports at their fundamental essence are nothing more than skills competition.

So, continuing with your baseball analogy, why is it any more legitimate for the game to be decided in the bottom of the ninth with a player stealing home than using that as a tie-breaking mechanism? Either way, the same set of skills will have decided the game. Those skills belong to an individual just as readily in your hypothetical overtime regime as they do during regulation. Your distinction is artificial.

It is absurd to claim that a sporting event being decided by a skills competition is illegitimate.

I am fine with ties, even though I find them dissatisfying. I am fine with even admitting that shootouts are not the best way to resolve competitions. However, the rationale that individual skills between a player one-on-one against the goaltender is somehow an illegitimate means to resolve a competition is nonsensical. Let's disallow all goals on breakaways! Better yet, let's penalize any team that leans upon one player too much, say a goaltender, because well, if the team does not support him well enough the game has devolved to a skills competition of the goaltender against the entire team.

It's true that if resolution must be achieved allowing both teams to continue to play until one teams wins is most just. However, sports are skills competitions. That is why we watch them. Situations change which skills are best suited to achieve a result. Who is to say that after 65 minutes a transition to a shootout is not legitimate? Various other scenarios, 4-on-4, etc. favor certain skills sets, but no one has qualms with them during regulation if they result when, much like shootouts, the play and conduct of the teams results in the situations.

It's "legitimate" because the governing body of the sport has installed it as the current method of deciding tie games in which overtime has not provided a resolution.  Legitimacy does not preclude absurdity.

Hey, maybe when it comes time for medical students to take their board exams, they should be judged entirely on their skills in the differential diagnosis of syncope, and nothing else.

[nyc94]

So, continuing with your baseball analogy, why is it any more legitimate for the game to be decided in the bottom of the ninth with a player stealing home than using that as a tie-breaking mechanism?

Because there is a choice (by the manager or the player) in whether to make the steal attempt.  And the game doesn't entirely hinge on the outcome.  Maybe they don't steal and the batter gets a hit.  Maybe the runner is out but the batter hits a home run on the next pitch.

[ugarte]

I am glad that so many people are alarmed about a shootout deciding a hockey game based upon a skills competition. It is unthinkable to desire the team with the more skilled players to win a sporting event. How outlandish an idea!

It is outlandish, because scoring on penalty shots is an infinitesimally small portion of the skills required of players and teams to win hockey games.  In fact, if not for the current shootout-to-resolve-ties system, you'd almost never see a penalty shot - just like in college hockey right now.

Do you think a baseball game tied after nine innings should be decided by alternating attempts to steal home or triple play opportunities?  Or should it be decided by continuing to play the game, so that the team that demonstrates superior abilities in all or most aspects of the game on that particular day ends up the winner?

My qualm is not with the argument that shootouts are not the best way to solve the issue but the illogic of an argument that a sporting event cannot be resolved legitimately with what amounts to a skills competition because sports at their fundamental essence are nothing more than skills competition.

So, continuing with your baseball analogy, why is it any more legitimate for the game to be decided in the bottom of the ninth with a player stealing home than using that as a tie-breaking mechanism? Either way, the same set of skills will have decided the game. Those skills belong to an individual just as readily in your hypothetical overtime regime as they do during regulation. Your distinction is artificial.

It is absurd to claim that a sporting event being decided by a skills competition is illegitimate.

I am fine with ties, even though I find them dissatisfying. I am fine with even admitting that shootouts are not the best way to resolve competitions. However, the rationale that individual skills between a player one-on-one against the goaltender is somehow an illegitimate means to resolve a competition is nonsensical. Let's disallow all goals on breakaways! Better yet, let's penalize any team that leans upon one player too much, say a goaltender, because well, if the team does not support him well enough the game has devolved to a skills competition of the goaltender against the entire team.

It's true that if resolution must be achieved allowing both teams to continue to play until one teams wins is most just. However, sports are skills competitions. That is why we watch them. Situations change which skills are best suited to achieve a result. Who is to say that after 65 minutes a transition to a shootout is not legitimate? Various other scenarios, 4-on-4, etc. favor certain skills sets, but no one has qualms with them during regulation if they result when, much like shootouts, the play and conduct of the teams results in the situations.

Please. Don't respond to this any more. It is sophistry and not particularly well argued.

[Rita]

So, continuing with your baseball analogy, why is it any more legitimate for the game to be decided in the bottom of the ninth with a player stealing home than using that as a tie-breaking mechanism?

Because there is a choice (by the manager or the player) in whether to make the steal attempt.  And the game doesn't entirely hinge on the outcome.  Maybe they don't steal and the batter gets a hit.  Maybe the runner is out but the batter hits a home run on the next pitch.

In the bottom of the 9th, the runner got into position to steal home during the course of play, and with a runner on 3rd, stealing home is a legitimate option available to the team on offense.

Using it in extra innings/tie-breaking situations would require you to artificially set up a scenario to put the "stealing home skills" to the test, like ok, top of the 10th, we are going to give each team a runner at 3rd and 3 outs to get him to score. Kind of like college football's ot system in getting the ball at the 25 yd line and having 4 downs to score or advance 10 yds. Bogus.

[redice]

I am glad that so many people are alarmed about a shootout deciding a hockey game based upon a skills competition. It is unthinkable to desire the team with the more skilled players to win a sporting event. How outlandish an idea!

It is outlandish, because scoring on penalty shots is an infinitesimally small portion of the skills required of players and teams to win hockey games.  In fact, if not for the current shootout-to-resolve-ties system, you'd almost never see a penalty shot - just like in college hockey right now.

Do you think a baseball game tied after nine innings should be decided by alternating attempts to steal home or triple play opportunities?  Or should it be decided by continuing to play the game, so that the team that demonstrates superior abilities in all or most aspects of the game on that particular day ends up the winner?

My qualm is not with the argument that shootouts are not the best way to solve the issue but the illogic of an argument that a sporting event cannot be resolved legitimately with what amounts to a skills competition because sports at their fundamental essence are nothing more than skills competition.

So, continuing with your baseball analogy, why is it any more legitimate for the game to be decided in the bottom of the ninth with a player stealing home than using that as a tie-breaking mechanism? Either way, the same set of skills will have decided the game. Those skills belong to an individual just as readily in your hypothetical overtime regime as they do during regulation. Your distinction is artificial.

It is absurd to claim that a sporting event being decided by a skills competition is illegitimate.

I am fine with ties, even though I find them dissatisfying. I am fine with even admitting that shootouts are not the best way to resolve competitions. However, the rationale that individual skills between a player one-on-one against the goaltender is somehow an illegitimate means to resolve a competition is nonsensical. Let's disallow all goals on breakaways! Better yet, let's penalize any team that leans upon one player too much, say a goaltender, because well, if the team does not support him well enough the game has devolved to a skills competition of the goaltender against the entire team.

It's true that if resolution must be achieved allowing both teams to continue to play until one teams wins is most just. However, sports are skills competitions. That is why we watch them. Situations change which skills are best suited to achieve a result. Who is to say that after 65 minutes a transition to a shootout is not legitimate? Various other scenarios, 4-on-4, etc. favor certain skills sets, but no one has qualms with them during regulation if they result when, much like shootouts, the play and conduct of the teams results in the situations.

Please. Don't respond to this any more. It is sophistry and not particularly well argued.

Yes, but it's so damned funny and almost inspired me to inquire:  "With respect to ties, how could you possibly be fine with them but find them dissatisfying?".   I just LOL'ed and forgot about it......

[nyc94]

Also, the NCHC was supposed to make some "big announcement" yesterday. I have not been able to find any reports of their announcement.

NCHC tournament to be held at the Target Center.

http://www.uscho.com/2012/06/08/report-target-center-to-host-nchc-postseason-tournament/

[ugarte]

I am glad that so many people are alarmed about a shootout deciding a hockey game based upon a skills competition. It is unthinkable to desire the team with the more skilled players to win a sporting event. How outlandish an idea!

It is outlandish, because scoring on penalty shots is an infinitesimally small portion of the skills required of players and teams to win hockey games.  In fact, if not for the current shootout-to-resolve-ties system, you'd almost never see a penalty shot - just like in college hockey right now.

Do you think a baseball game tied after nine innings should be decided by alternating attempts to steal home or triple play opportunities?  Or should it be decided by continuing to play the game, so that the team that demonstrates superior abilities in all or most aspects of the game on that particular day ends up the winner?

My qualm is not with the argument that shootouts are not the best way to solve the issue but the illogic of an argument that a sporting event cannot be resolved legitimately with what amounts to a skills competition because sports at their fundamental essence are nothing more than skills competition.

So, continuing with your baseball analogy, why is it any more legitimate for the game to be decided in the bottom of the ninth with a player stealing home than using that as a tie-breaking mechanism? Either way, the same set of skills will have decided the game. Those skills belong to an individual just as readily in your hypothetical overtime regime as they do during regulation. Your distinction is artificial.

It is absurd to claim that a sporting event being decided by a skills competition is illegitimate.

I am fine with ties, even though I find them dissatisfying. I am fine with even admitting that shootouts are not the best way to resolve competitions. However, the rationale that individual skills between a player one-on-one against the goaltender is somehow an illegitimate means to resolve a competition is nonsensical. Let's disallow all goals on breakaways! Better yet, let's penalize any team that leans upon one player too much, say a goaltender, because well, if the team does not support him well enough the game has devolved to a skills competition of the goaltender against the entire team.

It's true that if resolution must be achieved allowing both teams to continue to play until one teams wins is most just. However, sports are skills competitions. That is why we watch them. Situations change which skills are best suited to achieve a result. Who is to say that after 65 minutes a transition to a shootout is not legitimate? Various other scenarios, 4-on-4, etc. favor certain skills sets, but no one has qualms with them during regulation if they result when, much like shootouts, the play and conduct of the teams results in the situations.

Please. Don't respond to this any more. It is sophistry and not particularly well argued.

Yes, but it's so damned funny and almost inspired me to inquire:  "With respect to ties, how could you possibly be fine with them but find them dissatisfying?".   I just LOL'ed and forgot about it......

I think federal litigation in close cases should be resolved by which firm writes more comprehensible timesheets.