Certainly seems plausible. I am sure they are at least in part, on to something. I wouldn't exactly call that "complex" though, but perhaps we have different concepts of the word. Nor would I think that fairly straightforward explanation requires getting payed to "dedicate their time". Which you did not say, but seemed to imply. I could be wrong about that last part though. But that seems the crux of the general argument here.
I am really not interested in the "explanation....from most fans". Nor would I consider "most fans" insightful regarding every aspect of the game.
"When you listen to someone who dedicates their time coaching or evaluating goaltenders"...... So you are suggesting that this IS the explanation that ALL people who "dedicate their time coaching and evaluating goaltenders" will give? I certainly don't know the answer to this. But the way you worded it, that seems like what you are suggesting. What happens then if two different people who both "dedicate their time" have a difference of opinion? Does the world collapse? Or is it possible for 2 people who both "dedicate their time" to come up with 2 different explanations for the same thing? And is it possible to dedicate time without getting payed as a professional? Really, that's the entire argument here. Whether getting payed for something means you know more than someone who doesn't get payed for the same thing. At least, that is exactly what I have been arguing since the very beginning.
"All bullshit"? No, i highly doubt it's ALL bullshit. But that also does not mean it covers every aspect of the "why". There is also a human element. A human element without the possibility of external insight. And whenever you deal with a human element, you deal with uncertainty. So whether that explanation is true or not, it isn't necessarily the underlying cause or only cause. If there is one underlying cause even. I suspect it's more likely a multivariate situation. One with certain aspects that can never actually be deciphered, regardless of how much time one dedicates and some aspects that can. I am sure there are certain aspects that could be more readily deciphered by a psychologist than a goalie coach. But then, that's not really an aspect of the sport itself, but an aspect of anything that involves human beings. Human beings, are complicated by the way. If you were wondering. Unlike sports.
And yes, 6 year olds do play hockey. And I am sure some understand the game in great depth. And hockey does have it's own detail. But that detail isn't really complicated in terms of what humans are capable of understanding.
Even if it ended up "all (being) bullshit" that does not necessarily mean it's "complex". One does not necessarily follow the other. There are numerous reasons sports are so widely followed, so widely played and so widely accessible. And it is in part because they generally aren't very complicated relative to other realms. Detailed? Sure. Finer elements? Sure. Complicated? Not so much. Don't confuse all forms of detail with complexity. Some might suggest that some NFL playbooks are "complex". And perhaps relative to other playbooks, they are. But relative to the capabilities of human understanding, they are not. Seems there is this idea out there that I am for some reason, not accounting for the fine detail that these games entail at a higher level. But no, I am fully accounting for those things as well. While those fine details may be less obvious than others, they are still not "complicated" or "difficult to understand". I don't care if you are talking about in game tactics, techniques, whether you are talking about a batting stance a throwing stance or a goalie stance, all things considered, these are all things most anyone CAN understand and there are numerous paths to that understanding. Which is why sports are so accessible. But that doesn't mean everyone does understand. And if you truly think these things are complicated, then I am sorry. I'm glad I am not you. But I am sorry none the less.
