Evaluating The Overtime

After watching the Rangers lose in a shootout to the Islanders last night I got to thinking about how awful it was for a game to be decided in the skill competition. While a fellow Ranger fan pointed out to me that the sloppy play by both teams showed how ties should still be allowed as neither team played well enough to win. But this is not a debate as to whether or not there should be shootouts, but rather is the value of overtime has lessened.

By my math, an astounding 125 out of the 217 extra-time games (as of the games finished on March 4th) have been decided in shootouts. The Edmonton Oilers won 14 of the 17 shootouts they participated in. Having seen a few of their games, after a minute or so into the overtime, they start playing not to lose rather than to win since they have a better chance coming out on top in the one-on-one competition rather than the four-on-four overtime.

And they aren't the only team. The Rangers are one of them as well. Disagree? Then how can you explain them putting slower skaters out on the ice *cough, cough, Marek Malik, cough* when there is more room to skate? Ryan Callahan, the fastest Ranger in yesterday's loss, was relegated to the bench (as was the red hot Nigel Dawes) for the slower - yet more responsible - Brendan Shanahan.

The league initially made overtime 4-on-4 to increase scoring with more room. That clearly is not happening as 58% of games that go beyond regulation remain even. Shootouts are certainly a fan-friendly device to decide games but the brass tacks of it is that hockey becomes an individual sport, which it is not. The shootout certainly isn't going to go away, so what is the solution?

Rather than turning to the idea of 3-on-3 play, how about a change to the offside rules? The league could make it a carry-over offsides where a player can already be in the offensive zone as long as the puck is carried over the blueline or can get rid of the blue line entirely. Do these sound familiar? They should, at least for folks who play(ed) roller hockey. There was a lot more scoring in Roller Hockey International and that wasn't necessarily a symptom of lesser-quality players. Having lax offsides rules opens up the ice surface even farther and allows longer home run passes and even cherry picking. The latter has some negative connotations but shouldn't.

Say a team wants to send one of their guys to camp out at the far crease. If the other team leaves a defender there, then its a 3-on-3 situation in the zone. If they leave the player alone with the goaltender, then its a 4-on-3 in deep. Say the three are able to get the puck out, then the goaltender can try to come out of his crease to challenge the goal hanger or stop the home run pass, which increases the odds of a good scoring chance even farther.

If the five minute extra period still doesn't produce a winner, then you can still have the skill competition declare a winner, but I would rather see games ended based on team play rather than individual. And by changing up the offsides, that increases those odds.

A Little Of This, A Little Of That

With the Rangers off and a long Monday at work, I didn't post anything yesterday so today I feel like I was all lazy and stuff. To make it up to y'all, I will post two today - tonight's game wrap and this. So, what is it? Not a Faith No More song, but some odds and ends that I've found/saw/thought/whatever:

*The guys at Way Offside came up with a great term for the idiocy that has been perpetrated by the Flyers Steve Downie: Downie's Syndrome. Love it.

*According to Larry Brooks' article today in the Post, Tom Renney said, "Going 0-2-1 was disappointing. There are things I like, but part of our game seems to have vanished." Part?!? The Rangers got embarrassed out west, I would say most of their game was gone.

*Speaking of the Post, apparently they have an online blog too, called The Blue Seats. Apparently I had looked at it before but had discarded it, and looking again I can see if was for good reason: It isn't written by Brooks, it is two nobodies at the Post that write a fan blog. While I do greatly appreciate fan blogs (*ahem*), I don't want one from an accredited news source. As crappy and in-the-bed-with-the-Islanders as Newsday as, Steve Zipay's On The Rangers Beat does a magnificent job of blogging, well, on the Rangers beat. If I wanted a little bit of opinion with my information, then Sam Weinman's Rangers Report is the place to go. But, not only are the writers at The Blue Seats mediocre, they are also being unprofessional as the Post is supposed to be MSM (MainStream Media).

*If you haven't been keeping up with Zipay's On The Rangers Beat, he pointed out the possibility that the Rangers could open the season in Sweden, although its far from a done deal. While I thought a Czech vacation would be great, Sweden would be even better and it wouldn't hinge on the Rangers keeping Jagr in the offseason ... It also would likely be in one of the coolest-looking arenas I've ever seen.

*Now I don't speak Swedish, and I definitely don't speak Czech, but nonetheless I've been invited to help out over at The Dark Ranger's page. I haven't written anything for him yet, but you can be sure I will link Scotty Hockey to whatever I write, if only for the whoring, I mean, ego boost, lol.

*I kinda laughed at the play, but it appears that Marty Straka really did give himself a concussion in Edmonton. Feel free to clink the link for more info on the Rangers heading into tonight's game against Tampa Bay.

*The NHL announced the starters for the All Star Game. For shame to 'lil lundqvist lover' and the other Ranger fans out there - Marty Brodeur beat Hank for East starter by 45,000 votes. Not that many people will watch the thing on Sunday, January 27th at 6 p.m. in Atlanta, but whatever. I stand by my musing that the All Star Game should be the annual outdoor game but that cannot happen until 2011 (next year's ASG is in Montreal as part of their Centennial Celebration and there likely won't be one in 2010 due to the Vancouver Olympics).

*Stories like this never get old. So great to see ...

*One last thought before I get going - Mirtle presented an interesting idea to extend overtime to 10 minutes. As strange as it seems, I am actually really intrigued - if only to avoid some shootouts (I still think we need to avoid three-point games but that is for another blog, another time). Mirtle makes a great argument for extending the four-on-four; what do you think?