The Instigator
pensfan3000
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
AlphaFSPG107
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The shootout should cease to exist in the NHL.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/4/2017 Category: Sports
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 564 times Debate No: 101658
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)

 

pensfan3000

Pro

The shootout should cease to exist in the NHL. 1st round is for acceptance only.
Debate Round No. 1
pensfan3000

Pro

Here are a couple of points about the shootout that makes it notorious:

1. The shootout is not actually hockey. It is just a series of breakaways. Hockey is a team game, and what the shootout is doing is just hindering one of the main aspects of the game.

2. On March 23, 2017, Sergei Bobrovsky stopped 45 shots and managed a 1-1 tie at the end of overtime. A couple of minutes later, he's a loser because he couldn't stop someone on a breakaway. If you think I'm lying, here's a site for you: https://www.nhl.com...
That is completely unfair to goaltenders who lose in the shootout, and the team feels cheated.

3. The shootout in hockey is the equivalent to a home run derby in baseball, a free throw shootout in basketball, and a quarterback throwing a ball through a hole in football. It just doesn't make any sense to be a tiebreaker.

In the third round, I will refute any and all of your arguments.

Resources:
https://www.thoughtco.com...
http://thehockeywriters.com...
AlphaFSPG107

Con

In your first paragraph you stated that shootouts are not hockey, yet merely a series of breakaways. However, breakaways are a part of hockey as they are events that are seen happening in the game. The reason these shootouts are done is because hockey is a physically imposing game and if after 60 minutes of play and an overtime period a winner isn't yet deemed the league doesn't want to physically tax players more or risk injury; thus the shootout. The shootout is a quick way to determine a winner and is described by many hockey fans as the most exciting event in hockey. Even though a goalie could have a terrific game but have it negated by a shootout, that is still a fair ending because the shootout displays both the skills of the shooter and the goalie. In the specific game you mentioned, Braden Holtby, also had a good game, blocking 29 out of 30 shots. {1} He just continued his excellence further in the shootout and was rewarded in the win. It is not unfair to losing goalkeepers as shootouts are not based upon luck or chance: stopping breakaways as a goalie takes tremendous skill.

The shootout in hockey, additionally, is not comparable to most of the things you mentioned because unlike the other examples a shootout mimics an exact situation that can be seen in hockey. In the Home Run Derby the ball is being pitched slowly and right down the middle which never happens in baseball. Additionally, a football players never has to throw through a physical hole in a game like one would do in practice. The only comparable situation you mentioned is a free throw shootout which would not be a bad way to break a tie. However, due to basketballs high scoring nature a quick tiebreaker isn't as necessary because there is never a long stretch in which no team scores. Not to mention that people are not getting body checked constantly in basketball.

Returning to a perspective of a fan, as I am and assume you are, the shootout is exciting. The anticipation and the pressure that lies on one 5-second span makes a shootout an exhilarating event.

ESPN ran a player poll on the shootout, 70 percent of the players stated they liked the shootout. The players are the ones who actually have to participate so their opinions should be held with high regard. One of your main points was the negativity players feel and the unfairness and how teams feel cheated. However if only 20 percent dislike it [10 percent said they were indifferent], then it seems as if the majority of NHL players do not feel the way you have described about shootouts. Sure a team will feel dejected after a loss but the general consensus is that players are in favor of shootouts. The players agree it adds a rush of excitement to the game for the fans. {2} To continue to use how the players feel as backing would be a logical fallacy because the majority of players says otherwise.

In conclusion, the shootout is good for the NHL for these reasons:

1) It provides a quick and fair ending to a physically imposing game.
2) It is a showcase of skill and reaction for goalkeepers.
3) It is a thrilling conclusion for ties and makes it more exciting for the fans.
4) The general consensus among players is that they are in favor of it.

Sources:

{1} https://www.nhl.com...
{2} http://www.espn.com...
Debate Round No. 2
pensfan3000

Pro

"However, breakaways are a part of hockey as they are events that are seen happening in the game." Breakaways do happen in the game, but breakaways in a real game require the player to sprint. However, in the shootout, players usually are slower and it does not mimic an actual breakaway situation in regulation or overtime. One source I used said that "However, when was the last time you saw someone weave into the zone on a breakaway, and take their sweet time going side to side as if they have all day? Never."

"The shootout is a quick way to determine a winner and is described by many hockey fans as the most exciting event in hockey." The shootout isn't described by many fans to be excitement, they describe it to be fear. For example, when the fans are watching their opponents shooting, they don't hope that their goaltender makes an acrobatic save; they hope that the opponents mess up or miss the net.

"The shootout in hockey, additionally, is not comparable to most of the things you mentioned because unlike the other examples a shootout mimics an exact situation that can be seen in hockey." Again, the shootout breakaway does not mimic an actual breakaway situation, it has a crucial difference.

"Returning to a perspective of a fan, as I am and assume you are, the shootout is exciting." Also, I am a fan too, but a shootout for me is the worst nightmare that I could have, it is fear.

"ESPN ran a player poll on the shootout, 70 percent of the players stated they liked the shootout." At first, I thought that I was stuck for good, but I was glad I checked your sources because I found out that the article you have is more than 11 years old. Most of these players have retired from hockey, and the opinions of the shootout could have changed. Therefore, your source is outdated and the NHL teams/players could have changed their opinion about the shootout.

"To continue to use how the players feel as backing would be a logical fallacy because the majority of players says otherwise." Again, the players' and goaltenders' opinions could have changed, and that they may dislike the shootout now.

Your first reason that the shootout is good for the NHL is that "It provides a quick and fair ending to a physically imposing game." The shootout is not fair, as it is an event that does not replicate a real event in a game, as I have stated already.

Your second reason that the shootout is good for the NHL is that "It is a showcase of skill and reaction for goalkeepers." The showcase of skill is also present in breakaways, which has the same skill requirements but is not exactly the same as the shootout. Breakaways are actually quite common during a game.

Your third reason that the shootout is good for the NHL is that "It is a thrilling conclusion for ties and makes it more exciting for the fans." Wrong. Read what I already said about the "false excitement" that the shootout gives.

Your last reason that the shootout is good for the NHL is that "The general consensus among players is that they are in favor of it." The source that you used to find this out, however, is outdated.

Therefore, there is nothing good about the shootout, and it should not exist. Vote PRO.

Sources:
http://bleacherreport.com...
http://thehockeywriters.com...
https://www.thoughtco.com...
AlphaFSPG107

Con

Since I've covered most of my points already I'll refute my opponents claims that mine are invalid then touch on some additional points:

To begin my opponent claims I am incorrect that a shootout breakaway mimics a real life situation. He states that they have all day and go side to side. However, players usually start fairly quickly and only briefly slow for a move. If you care to take the time here is a shootout highlight video to view, entitled "Top 10 NHL Shootout Goals Ever Seen"

https://www.youtube.com... {3}

This video proves two of my points I stated in my previous argument. One, players do not just go side to side in all of these they go forward at a fairly quick pace. This is because the NHL rules state "Once the player taking the shot has touched the puck, it must be kept in motion towards the opponent"s goal line and once it is shot the play shall be considered complete." {4). Since you cannot stop forward momentum you cannot simply sift lazily from side to side, and this video shows this does not occur in the NHL like my opponent stated it does.

Additionally, this video proves that the shootout creates excitement because the fans (provided its a home game) go crazy because these kinds of 1-on-1 battles create tension like my opponent said but with tension comes tremendous adrenaline and excitement; especially for the winner. So thank you, pensfan, for proving my point.

Also, to briefly touch on the claim that the poll I provided does not matter, it does. While they may be retired nothing about the shootout has changed since then it was merely ten years ago. So why does their opinion not hold any water? Additionally, he stated: [and I'm paraphrasing] that because they are retired the opinions must have changed. Well, unlike my opponent I provided statistical proof that the opinion I am defending is a majority in the NHL. My opponent provided no proof that the opinion is different now, and unfortunately for him will have no chance to do so seeing as this is the last round.

So to conclude and briefly add to my ultimate claim, the shootout should not be removed because it does create excitement regardless of the nature of said excitement, prevents risk of further exhaustion or injury [which is a topic my opponent never touched on], and is a fair way to break a tie in a timely fashion. Additionally, like penalty shootouts in soccer and the strange overtime rules in football, they may not be liked by everyone but they are traditional parts of the game and the NHL shootout has no major errors that make it worthy of removal. Vote CON.

Additional Sources;

{3} Video of Shootout; link listed above
{4} http://www.usahockeyrulebook.com...
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by pensfan3000 8 months ago
pensfan3000
Vote for pro!
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 8 months ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
Vote for con!
Posted by AlphaFSPG107 9 months ago
AlphaFSPG107
Wait, you're actually going to the lengths to point out I missed punctuation on a two word sentence?
Posted by pensfan3000 9 months ago
pensfan3000
Con forgot a period in 1st round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.