There's a couple of reasons I don't watch intermission or post-game anymore:
1) I don't need to hear the same hockey cliches over and over again
2) They exist to bias you. In the sense that the replays and analysis you see in the intermission and post-game report are things that they want you to see. The reason the hot-takes on HF are so predictable during and after games is that they are always specifically focused around things that are shown on replay during the game, or replay during intermission post-game. Why? Because if you're using the eye-test to evaluate, what are you going to remember more, the 100 or so shot attempt events that happen during the game, or the 5-7 things that MSG shows on replay over and over again and breaks down?
There's a fascinating difference of hot-takes between the people who go to the game, and the people who watch the game on TV.
It's just like the little stats they throw at you during the game that compare Ranger players to the league.
"The only defensemen that have at least 6 goals, 14 assists, 20 points, and are a +12 are these 12 top pairing defensemen, and Nick Holden"
Then, people remember that shit stat and claim, "Nick Holden must be good, look at who he has *similar stats* too"
Gotta shoehorn our players into something where they appear better than they are.
It was like when Spooner was on fire when he first came over and they were pushing the "we can still make it after selling" narrative. Talking him up as putting up some of the most points of the "deadline acquisitions".
Yes, Spooner was a deadline acquisition, but he was a legit salary move Boston could rid themselves of Beleskey. They also didn't want to keep Spooner anyway, but spin away MSG.