Follow @james_tanner123 Discourse
The overall discourse surrounding hockey is very bad. I don't mean this as an insult, and I certainly don't mean to imply that the part of that discourse that runs through me is any better - I simply want to comment on something that, as a fan of the game, I find troubling.
Now, for clarification's sake, what I mean by "discourse" is simply the entire hockey conversation - everything from league press releases, mainstream media articles and TV spots, game broadcasts as well as both on and off-line conversations that fans have among themselves.
The problem as I see it is as follows:
1) All communication from the league and teams is watered down lawyer speak - whether we are talking "upper body injuries" or obtusely worded sound-bites from league execs talking about expansion, the discourse coming from the league itself is meaningless at best and insulting to people's intelligence at worst.
2) As a reaction against "trolling" that is destroying the discourse in virtually all subjects, people who challenge popular belief are written off with condescension and scorn as if their only motivation for saying anything is to get attention and be contrary.
For the record: this is almost never the case since its so difficult to do and you get told off constantly. If you weren't serious, why would you bother? Blogs that tell people what they want to hear and which write down to their audience get more hits than blogs that are supposedly "crazy" which is contrary to popular opinion. Ironically.
While people saying crazy stuff just for the sake of it may occasionally be the case, that rarely happens, and the consequences of the reaction to this non-problem are that certain opinions become entrenched and we are all the worse for it.
3) A general lack of respect. Whether its Twitter or comment sections, people are just mean. For those of us who get a perverse joy out of being hated, this isn't really an issue. But for most of the other people, it is a massive one.
Because people are afraid to be labeled as a "troll" they take safe positions and parrot established doctrines that do not rock the boat. My experience is that people are so afraid of being wrong and mocked that they default to playing it safe.
The problem with this is that to challenge existing norms and ideas is one of three useful roles a writer has (report and entertain are the other ones) and this leads to an eventual broadening and improving of the general discourse, whether the specific ideas pan out or not.
So we are too mean to each other, but that is only part of it.
The other part is that we get insulted when we are challenged, we challenge people in insulting ways, we work against each other and not together. The net result is that its not really fun to talk about hockey anymore.
You're either an idiot, or you're pointing out who is an idiot. We end up being more invested in either who broke the story, why someone said what they did or who says what about it - very rarely are we just trying to learn, have fun, have any meaningful discussion.
Plus, there is precious little love.
There should be absolutely no debate on whether or not stats are useful. The very fact that there is is the failure of the TV broadcasts who have been glacially slow in adapting to analytical developments. If its on TV, it gets accepted. That's it.
Doesn't matter what you analyze. If you just observe it and write your thoughts down you will be wrong. This is a fact. Human brains have an amazing ability to recognize patterns in order to survive. The downside is that you automatically apply patterns to things that don't exist and therefore are terrible at remembering what you saw and making an objective analysis out of it.
By scientific standards, the best hockey scout in the world sucks at his job.
So when you know this and you watch TV and you see the so-called experts talking about plus/minus and openly scoffing at possession stats, it has a trickle down effect that all but ruins the discourse of the game.
There is no reason for there to be two factions of NHL fans. If you aren't into stats, that is fine, you can enjoy the game without them. But to have an opinion that is not based on data that you will not change or that you will defend to the point of calling someone an idiot, is not OK.
We are a rational, fact based society. Sports is the last thing we have where it is OK to be an expert in without actually offering expert analysis. Imagine a world where Neal Degrasse Tyson was ignored because he hadn't actually been to space and you get the idea of how NHL "experts" get their titles.
Take any random ex-NHL player offering "analysis" on TSN on any given night and consider that the same company that employs him employs Travis Yost to write on their website. Why not put Yost on TV or at least pay him to coach the guys on TV in the realities of the NHL in 2015.
There are some very good ex-player broadcasters, but in general they are bad at analysis. Having physical talent doesn't mean you are a great analytical thinker, and the TV broadcasters owe the fans at least an expert panel or two that rises above the level of a call-in radio show or a message board.
Stats are objective, but how you interpret them is not. There are no absolutes and no one can really say they are right, but that doesn't mean that opinions don't need the weight of proof to make them valid.
My point here is this: If TSN and Sportsnet required their hockey "experts" to meet the minimum standards of good analysis (which is to say they don't use outdated stats, they try to be objective and are open to new information) then the entire discourse surrounding hockey would be much better.
My boy Hova once said "Don't argue with fools cause at a distance no one can tell which is which," which makes me wish I had busted out the Blueprint again when I first started doing this job.
Another thing is this: it's OK to change your mind.
And you should probably learn what jokes are.
And remember to always love people.
And if you have time to argue on the internet with people about hockey your life is probably not too bad, so try to be nicer.
And it doesn't matter who said what first. It certainly doesn't matter if you make twenty more bucks each month from your hockey blog - the competition is all in your head.
Don't be afraid to be called a moron, an idiot, a loser or a guy who knows nothing about hockey. You probably don't. Who does?
Not me, that's for sure.......just ask my readers. Ultimately, I am certain this will be misinterpreted as me putting myself above everyone else, so I want to make one final point: I don't. I get sucked into stupid comment section arguments that maybe make it seem like I take this more seriously than I do.
I don't. I am here only to make the world of hockey writing slightly more entertaining. I have no intention of ever working as a hockey writer for my real job, I just want to indulge my hobby and have some fun, maybe make enough cash to have a real excuse for watching so many games. And in no way do I think I could be better on TV than the guys who are - it's just that I know better options exist. (As they probably do for this space as well, I mean, never fail to try to recognize the irony of your position, that's another hot tip for ya).
I am just as much a part of the problem as everyone else - I say stupid crap all the time. I get in dumb arguments, I'm condescending, ego driven and occasionally even petty....but I just started thinking the other day - if we are going to bother doing this, why isn't it more fun?
It's OK for a ref to screw up a call, it's OK to write a stupid blog or to give a dumb opinion. Just be honest about it.
Thanks, as always, for reading.