The State of Hockey

Jack Flask

Registered User
Jan 21, 2020
92
30
This has a lot more to do with NHL marketing in general. I don't think it's the product on the ice but more that nobody knows they are even playing. The game is as marketable as ever but the NHL is full of dinosaurs.
You said it. Marketing a lack-lustre product will have declining or stagnant results.
Its an easy fix to keep on track and appease a big chunk of the fanbase.
Theres lots of clean non-contact sports to compete with like baseball, basketball, golf, tennis, figure skating; why bother?
 

Tofveve

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
26,837
10,491
The West
If you give him some leeway on the 2008-2013'ish' period and include '07, then California based teams won 3 out of 7 cups and routinely made the playoffs. It's fair to say that there was enough talent to more or less stack up in entertainment value to the teams you referenced.

That's too big of a brush you painted the California teams with trying to discredit the original poster's (valid) point.

There was a bit of time when Kesler and before him when Dustin Penner played with Perry and Getzlaf that Anaheim were a bit interesting to watch.

You may disagree but winning hockey always has a merit of watchability to it, but it doesn't mean it warrants league-wide interest or even lingering interest within the fanbase. I know this as a Flames fan even.

You may notice I didn't list St Louis as a very exciting team to watch. Because to me they aren't/haven't been, and, as such I didn't pay attention to them as say I did to Pitts, Wash and Chi SC runs. Similar to St Louis, I had a hard time paying attention/having interest in the LA SC wins. Because of course it was exciting for both LA and St Louis to win their championships, finally, but to many people those were/are fairly boring teams to watch.

My earlier post was a response to a Californian who was lamenting some of the state of things today, while to me I can clearly see a connection between the teams within his vicinity and why he may feel this way. Instead of attacking that reality, think about it and see that I had a point. Compare that post to my first in this thread where I talked about as a Flames fan I find a lot of interest in watching Tampa, Wash, Pitts, Bos, hell even bubble teams like Tor, Chi, Vegas, and NYR. I mean this actually is more than at any time since the early 80s that I've felt this interest personally.
 

Jack Flask

Registered User
Jan 21, 2020
92
30
There was a bit of time when Kesler and before him when Dustin Penner played with Perry and Getzlaf that Anaheim were a bit interesting to watch.

You may disagree but winning hockey always has a merit of watchability to it, but it doesn't mean it warrants league-wide interest or even lingering interest within the fanbase. I know this as a Flames fan even.

You may notice I didn't list St Louis as a very exciting team to watch. Because to me they aren't/haven't been, and, as such I didn't pay attention to them as say I did to Pitts, Wash and Chi SC runs. Similar to St Louis, I had a hard time paying attention/having interest in the LA SC wins. Because of course it was exciting for both LA and St Louis to win their championships, finally, but to many people those were/are fairly boring teams to watch.

My earlier post was a response to a Californian who was lamenting some of the state of things today, while to me I can clearly see a connection between the teams within his vicinity and why he may feel this way. Instead of attacking that reality, think about it and see that I had a point. Compare that post to my first in this thread where I talked about as a Flames fan I find a lot of interest in watching Tampa, Wash, Pitts, Bos, hell even bubble teams like Tor, Chi, Vegas, and NYR. I mean this actually is more than at any time since the early 80s that I've felt this interest personally.
Please tell me what is interesting about the Leafs. Is it that they have Matthews, Nylander and Marner amongst others , making outrageous money and in 10 th place in the East , not contending for a playoff spot??
This is precisely my point: These ultra skilled fast players do not make a good hockey team or good hockey for that matter.
You find sanitized Toronto interesting but a team with depth like St. Louis boring??
Enjoy The All-Star game. Im sure it’ll be wonderful.
 

Tofveve

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
26,837
10,491
The West
Please tell me what is interesting about the Leafs. Is it that they have Matthews, Nylander and Marner amongst others , making outrageous money and in 10 th place in the East , not contending for a playoff spot??
This is precisely my point: These ultra skilled fast players do not make a good hockey team or good hockey for that matter.
You find sanitized Toronto interesting but a team with depth like St. Louis boring??
Enjoy The All-Star game. Im sure it’ll be wonderful.
I think Matthews is one of the best scorers the league has ever seen. His shot is phenomenal as is his hockey sense, positioning and puck handling. I don't know what's not to like about that. Marner is a good playmaker. I like watching those two, particularly Matthews.
 

MuckOG

Registered User
May 18, 2012
15,324
5,475
Is hockey the only sport where this topic is constantly being beaten to death? I don't see football, basketball, or baseball fans constantly harping over "exciting" or "boring" teams like they do in hockey. With those other sports, the emphasis is more on just wins and losses, not style points. Maybe I'm just missing something.
 

BigKing

Blake Out of Hell III: Back in to Hell
Mar 11, 2003
11,351
11,447
Belmont Shore, CA
google.com
Honestly, no offense, but earlier I mentioned a list of teams outside of my Flames who I follow. Now this isn't a sleight, but you mentioned prior to 2016 . . . Well I don't have any California team in the list I follow. In my opinion, even when LA was winning cups they were a boring team to watch. Again in my opinion, California teams have been boring to watch for years and years. For Anaheim basically since Kariya and Selanne and Perry and Getzlaf were all playing together. I never thought San Jose was all that exciting ever, even when they were winning. For LA, as much as Sutter helped win some cups there, his brand of hockey sucks (I know as a Flames fan suffering under Sutter brand hockey for like 15 years - one brother after another).

What I'm getting at, and again not trying to make you or any California team fans feel bad, is basically, you get star offensive talent like Tampa, Wash, Bos, Col, Chi, Flor, NYR (Panarin), Pitts, etc., and it'll be exciting to watch again (ala the Gretzky days in LA or in Ana the Kariya/Selanne days). I feel bad for a team like Arizona who have always been a pretty bad brand to watch.

Anyway, that's how I've always felt.

It has nothing to do with the California teams and everything to do with the type of hockey being played during that time. I could watch a game between two bad teams back in the day--especially if they were rivals--because of the intensity of the hockey. Your list is all good teams except for the Hawks and Rangers with the latter being a team that plays the other teams on your list a fair amount.

I was preaching that the entertainment value was going to be horrible once the Kings stopped winning because the games would look like exhibitions. I was saying this in 2015 when they won most of their home games and had just won the Cup the year prior. I could not blame any fan base for not supporting a losing team because there was very little entertainment value anymore unless your team is winning. I've been proven right.

I'm not lying when I say I missed less than 15 home games from 2001-02 through the 2016 season. I don't live 10 minutes from the arena, either. Went to London to see my shitty Kings open the season against the defending champion Ducks because I never wanted to miss a rivalry game. Last season: 0 fights between the Kings and Ducks and hardly a scrum until less than a minute left in the last meeting of the season and what was, I believe, the Ducks final home game so they showboated for the fans a bit. They play on February 1st but there is a Cure cover band playing at a bar five minutes from my place and I'm torn between schlepping up to LA for a listless "rivalry" game or selling my seats and staying local. Flew to England previously but now I'm hemming and hawing over a 40 minute drive.

Would have never been a doubt that I was going to that game. I went to all of them with Derek Armstrong as a #1 center. Went to all of them as they finished tied for last place in the league so I've been through horrible seasons before. Seven straight seasons of no playoffs. Didn't see a playoff series victory until the 10th year of season seats and 11 years of elapsed time when including the lockout. It was still fun to go to a game back then because even your bad teams played with pride and the opposition was going to bring it as well. Now? Just go out there and collect that check. We'll start hitting and playing with an edge once we are good again. Our opponents? They won't take any runs either because they know we are content with just getting out of this game without anyone getting hurt.

It's fine if you like things the way they are now more than in the past, but it is a difficult argument to make that hockey is more exciting with less hitting and even less fighting. Like, what has more pages: the thread about McDavid's GOTY or the Tkachuk/Kassian incident? Hell...the only really exciting thing I've seen live at a Kings game this year--when I actually do go--was the Tkachuk/Doughty scrum. Come to think of it, Calgary is the only team that I feel is a "must go" because I never know what could happen. I actually love that he clowns Doughty all of the time because it adds spice to the game.
 

BigKing

Blake Out of Hell III: Back in to Hell
Mar 11, 2003
11,351
11,447
Belmont Shore, CA
google.com
Is hockey the only sport where this topic is constantly being beaten to death? I don't see football, basketball, or baseball fans constantly harping over "exciting" or "boring" teams like they do in hockey. With those other sports, the emphasis is more on just wins and losses, not style points. Maybe I'm just missing something.

Baseball fans are constantly harping on how the entire sport is boring to the point that they had to wonder if the Astros scandal was "good for baseball" because people were actually talking about baseball.

Big time baseball fans are having a real issue with how the game has devolved in to a home run or strikeout fest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blueinbigd

Jack Flask

Registered User
Jan 21, 2020
92
30
Is hockey the only sport where this topic is constantly being beaten to death? I don't see football, basketball, or baseball fans constantly harping over "exciting" or "boring" teams like they do in hockey. With those other sports, the emphasis is more on just wins and losses, not style points. Maybe I'm just missing something.
Ya youre missing something. Baseball is having issues with fans disgruntled with the game being 30 mins longer than it should be. See exodus of fans at 7th innings as example. Tv revenues keeping baseball afloat. Take a look at most stadiums during reg season, theres more empty seats than people.
Im a big hockey fan , just not happy with wheres it at, im not alone
 

Jack Flask

Registered User
Jan 21, 2020
92
30
I think Matthews is one of the best scorers the league has ever seen. His shot is phenomenal as is his hockey sense, positioning and puck handling. I don't know what's not to like about that. Marner is a good playmaker. I like watching those two, particularly Matthews.
No kidding. I agree hes an awesome skill guy but if you cant understand the points many here are making about the game then like I say enjoy it and enjoy the all-star game. It may be right up there for you. For me the missing elements in hockey are obvious.
 

Perfect_Drug

Registered User
Mar 24, 2006
15,383
11,590
Montreal
I have a funny theory about the demise of the entertainment value of hockey.
And strangely enough, it has to do with the ending of the Cold war, and the fall of the Soviet Iron Curtain.

Prior to 1991, the NHL was largely built on NHLers who dominated on individual skill. 'The individual' was the primary political driver, along with capitalism. Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux were the kinds of players that could only be born out of an untethered creative open field of possibility. The USSR was focused on "the collective".

The way the Soviets practiced and played behind the iron curtain, was to operate as a 5-man unit, and play with them a hundred hours a week from the age of 5. What ensued out of that relentless style of practice (that infringed on human rights) were they were able to weave and play like an improvisational jazz band. They could just know and sense and feel the rhythm of the other players which lead to a fluid style of play.

Anyways, North America borrrowed WAY too many of the elements we learned from the Soviet systems, including creating our defensive schemes today (which are now taught in much lower levels).

Hockey isn't an individually creative sport anymore. Sure there's the occasional McDavid, Kane and Marner, but since the fall of the Soviets, hockey has been much more about a collective than individual. It's about systems, and defense, and team possession.


but bah.. maybe im talking out of my ass.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mbraunm

cliffclaven

Registered User
Nov 29, 2018
1,516
982
“State of hockey” was a full weekend of crap. LOL.

In the middle of a season of meh.

Get used to it. Unfortunately.
 

Jack Flask

Registered User
Jan 21, 2020
92
30
Games have been far more exciting recently with certain rivalries getting nasty, more scraps and higher compete level for playoff spots.
This is better hockey. Hope the shinny ballet is over and this continues
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->