herman said:
I largely agree with this. It's hard to sell nuance and intelligent strategy when big boom bashing is what really rattles the boards. I also get that there is a huge lag in the way the game is being played in getting recognized by teams, management, broadcasters/journalists, and fans. Those who are operating ahead of the curve are not going to necessarily broadcast what they're doing while it's still an advantage.
I remember it was just a handful of years ago when the Tampa announcer was still calling out Icing etc. to explain to the crowd why the ref blew the whistle, or even the glowing puck era of Fox sports. This is a marketing problem, and the broadcasters are probably the best situated to teach people how the game can be enjoyed. Baseball and American Football are a great deal more complicated in the minutae of rulings and number of moving parts, but the fans have picked it up (partly due to glacial pace of play or turn-based action).
Maybe but both of those sports are also having trouble with reconciling what analytics are leading to in terms of strategy and roster construction while still appealing to fans. Baseball's a perfect example. In Baseball, taking pitches while waiting for one to smash into orbit is generally seen as a good thing by numbers guys. But everyone taking pitches leads to pitchers' arms getting tired which leads to pitching changes which all add up to games taking longer and Baseball is really wrestling with the length of games.
Look, I like to think I'm a reasonably smart guy and that I've followed along with the analytical revolution pretty well even if I have some differences with it but that doesn't mean I think it's all fascinating. Some of it is a slog, especially for someone who isn't much on math on his best days, and here at TMLfans.ca we're a subsection of a subsection of a subsection of NHL fans. Yes, the more people understand this stuff the more they might appreciate it to a degree but I understand Anton Stralman's value while still thinking he's not a very exciting player to watch.
You know, Vince Lombardi was wrong. Winning isn't everything in sports. Sure, to people employed within the game that has to be their priority and for us weirdos here understanding the nuts and bolts is a worthwhile pursuit but tickets still need to get sold to a general public and a general public is probably never going to get to a place where they appreciate minutiae the way they'd need to for this stuff to be appealing to them.
We saw it in the 90's with the Devils where the smart way to play defensive hockey that would allow a smaller payroll team to be "competitive" really hurt the sport. This isn't that but the more that winning gets pressed down into a single equation where strategy either fits it or it doesn't you will to battle what we're seeing some of in the NBA where it's a lot of sameness and every game is a pick and roll or 3 point contest and the winning team is the one that shoots 46.3 percent instead of 42.5 or whatever. Turn everything into a chess match and you find out pretty quickly why chess is kind of a niche viewing sport.
You know, we can talk all day about how rejecting modern structure and exploring traditional icelandic folklore is much more interesting artistically than a 3 minute pop song about a bad breakup and be right but sadly we still live in a world where Taylor Swift is going to sell more records than Sigur Ros ever did and the NHL is trying to fill the same arenas Ms. Swift does pretty easily.
