Why the Hate for Stan Fischler?

[BobbyAwe]

I've summarized his idiocy on other threads about him, but my favorites (re: his personal bug-bear, the Oilers) are:
- In 1981, he said Gretzky only scored so many points (164) because his teammates were so bad.
- After 1983, he said Sather and the Oilers were "team arrogance" and would never win the Cup.
- After 1984, he said the Oilers would never win again.
- In 1988 (ish), he compared Mike Gartner and Mark Messier, and decided Gartner was superior.
- He declared that the Oilers had never had a Dynasty, because while they won five in seven years, they never won three in a row.

He just had ridiculously short-sided views. Basically he thought the real old timer's and the older style of game was so much better, and he was against practically any evolutionary aspect of the modern game. He hated the slap shot because he said when it first started to become popular, a lot of guys were trying to emulate Hull and Geoffrion and were just slapping wildly at the puck with no accuracy. That may have been true to a point, but the NEXT generation of players grew up practicing it and it became a normal weapon in almost every player's arsenal.

In the same fashion, he felt Orr's success as a rushing defenseman was responsible for a lot of defensemen trying to copy him and then neglecting defense because they couldn't get back in time like he could. Like that was BOBBY'S fault? Again, he didn't realize, or admit, that what Bobby did led to young kids on defense emulating him and in the decades to come there WOULD be more and more D-men who could rush the puck. It became part of the game.

 

[67 others]

I notice when his name is mentioned here there's usually a negative comment or two. I recall he wasn't that popular when I was reading his articles in the Hockey News and magazines back in the 70's. He didn't always follow the popular opinion; I recall once he was advocating a return to 4-on-4 hockey with a rover. He always had good anecdotes about the game from the 50's and 60's and it didn't seem like he was arrogant or a know-it-all. What am I missing?

He's the original version of WWF's Vince Russo complete with the over the top New York accent.

Had an inflated sense of self worth, came up with bizarre concepts and ideas and parroted them as gospel, fell in love with his own fame and it lead to brain drain.

He would sit in interviews and defend to the death his indefensible opinions like why Bobby Orr sucks and call everyone else tards for not seeing it.

 

[vikash1987]

I'm biased, but I absolutely adore Stan Fischler, a.k.a. "The Maven." I grew up with him as a regular on Devils broadcasts (granted, he was older at that stage), and I always loved his personality and his deep knowledge of NYC history and of hockey history. I have a treasury of his old newspaper columns, dating back to the '70s, and his books were what first got me into the history of the game back in the late '90s.

If anything, the one criticism I had was his lousy preseason record of predicting Cup finalists. Lots of Rangers picks, even when they were terrible.

Also, as a side note, folks may not be aware of this interesting story about Stan from Bobby Holik, taken from Ivan Tchechankov's piece on the IIHF site:

“I played in New Jersey and New York for a long time and I met this gentleman Stan Fischler, a world-famous broadcaster and writer. We had a good relationship during my NHL career and we stayed in touch after that. His interests outside of hockey are similar to mine – history, politics and all that. His son lives in the Golan Heights and his grandchildren are skating in the only regulation size rink in all of Israel. I was doing different things after the end of my career and had just started to work with kids and youth players. And Stan e-mailed me and asked if I want to do a hockey school in Israel. My response was: Absolutely!” explains Bobby Holik about how he became a coach in Israel.

 

[67 others]

I'm biased, but I absolutely adore Stan Fischler, a.k.a. "The Maven." I grew up with him as a regular on Devils broadcasts (granted, he was older at that stage), and I always loved his personality and his deep knowledge of NYC history and of hockey history. I have a treasury of his old newspaper columns, dating back to the '70s, and his books were what first got me into the history of the game back in the late '90s.

If anything, the one criticism I had was his lousy preseason record of predicting Cup finalists. Lots of Rangers picks, even when they were terrible.

Also, as a side note, folks may not be aware of this interesting story about Stan from Bobby Holik, taken from Ivan Tchechankov's piece on the IIHF site:

“I played in New Jersey and New York for a long time and I met this gentleman Stan Fischler, a world-famous broadcaster and writer. We had a good relationship during my NHL career and we stayed in touch after that. His interests outside of hockey are similar to mine – history, politics and all that. His son lives in the Golan Heights and his grandchildren are skating in the only regulation size rink in all of Israel. I was doing different things after the end of my career and had just started to work with kids and youth players. And Stan e-mailed me and asked if I want to do a hockey school in Israel. My response was: Absolutely!” explains Bobby Holik about how he became a coach in Israel.

Fischler was always wrong. Almost always in any sort of advice or prediction

This is the guy who said gretzky may never win a cup after 1983.

Hell, in 2015 right before the Penguins won back to back cups, he suggested Sidney crosby is no longer a kid and should be traded.
Fischler's One-Timers: What the Penguins should do with Crosby, and defending Julien - TheHockeyNews

 

[Michael Farkas]

My all-time favorite Fischler moment (I've actually met him, talked to him a few times...perfectly nice guy...he's opined on our lists to me before too):

On the Devils broadcasts on MSG, he used to sometimes pick a player to "watch out for" on the opposing team for the night so he can sound knowledgeable...but in actuality, he just dropped his pen on the roster sheet and whoever it landed on he brought up...well during one matinee between the Devils and Capitals in about 2007 or 2008, this little exchange happened...

Stan: "...the Devils need to fear Fehr (referring to Eric Fehr, but he pronounced it "fear") Doc and Chico, take it away..."

Doc: "Fear" is "Fehr" (pronounced correctly) and he is a healthy scratch today... [right into the normal opening] thank you so much for joining us, yada yada, yada...

I couldn't stop laughing, I wish they could have cut back to Fischler for just one second after Doc said that just to see his facial reaction...

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

... you mean Stanleys list from 1988?

1) Howe
2) Gretzky
3) Shore
4) Kelly
5) Boucher
6) Richard
7) Morenz
8) Beliveau
9) Harvey
10) Hall
11) Apps
12) Potvin
13) Orr
14) Hull
15) Trottier
16) Cook
17) Bentley
18) Vezina
19) Clancy
20) Lemieux
etc
etcetera

.... yep. Pretty messed up alrighty. Guaranteed to engender some anger, debate. But thats what he does. I dont know if he genuinely believes it himself, Im assuming so as he wrote it, justifying every single pick, and Lemieux of course still had history to create so I can understand why he'd be down the list but all the way to 20th?! And Orr at 13? WTF is that?!

Truth be told, is that really the most insane old-timers ranking youve ever seen? Keep in mind that the list is from 1988, so Lemieux ranking is not quite so out of whack with what hed shown to that point. Orr is admittedly far too low, and names like Kelly, Hall, Vezina, and the Isles are too high. But the inclusion of the Bread line, Shore, Harvey, Apps, Clancy, all agree with reliable sentiments of their importance that Ive read from those who saw them firsthand.

 

[edog37]

I notice when his name is mentioned here there's usually a negative comment or two. I recall he wasn't that popular when I was reading his articles in the Hockey News and magazines back in the 70's. He didn't always follow the popular opinion; I recall once he was advocating a return to 4-on-4 hockey with a rover. He always had good anecdotes about the game from the 50's and 60's and it didn't seem like he was arrogant or a know-it-all. What am I missing?

he wasn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but his knowledge of the history of the game wasn’t paralleled.

 

[67 others]

he wasn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but his knowledge of the history of the game wasn’t paralleled.

The problem was how he filtered that knowledge and dispersed it based on his often shit opinion.

I mean the guy decided to demonize Bobby Orr because Orr stopped giving him post game interview time after a few tasteless articles about him so Stan turned it up 10 notches. Its a real bitch move when a journalist decides to use his power over the medium of media to personally attack people they think have slighted them. Its actually a shame the world has turned in this direction in the last few decades on a massive scale with viral videos and shock headlines designed to reel in readers

 

[Big Phil]

This was an old post but Doug Brown actually led the '98 Finals in scoring so he ended up contributing more than expected. Not that I'm siding with Fischler in any way. He probably felt good about that remark after the '98 Finals though, if he can even keep track of his ridiculous takes on things.

Crazy to think, but you are right about the 1998 finals. Brown had 5 points in 4 games. I think Yzerman and Fedorov had 4 each or so. Probably the biggest spike in points in Brown's entire career though, at the right time of course. But Fischler said this in the summer of 1997 and he was just being himself, saying things purposely for shock value and I can't stand those types of analysts who have a great job covering a great game who just waste it by saying these things on purpose that even they don't believe. Never liked Fischler and it is a shame because he has been around for a long, long time and if he just stuck to telling stories of old time hockey experiences in the NHL he'd be interesting.

 

[MartinS82]

As a Penguins fan, he seemed to always hate the Pens. I used to read every issue of THN 3-5 times to just sponge the info (back in Southern California in the 80's there wasn't a lot of hockey content in the press!). I seem to remember he kept saying that Kirk Muller should be drafted ahead of Lemieux, and then would double down on that even as late as the early 90's. I was a kid, so I just always hated him because he ragged on my team.

 

[Andy6]

He’s a character. I remember reading his books “Hockey Stars of 1974”, and so on, as a kid. It was all from a New York perspective that seemed quite intriguing to someone who’d only ever heard hockey talked about on Hockey Night in Canada and the two or three other Canadian media outlets that we had access to, to whom the Leafs and Canadiens were everything and the American teams were Washington Generals-like nonentities that existed mostly so that the Leafs and Canadiens had someone to play. To encounter a knowledgeable writer for whom hockey revolved around the New York Rangers was a mind-bending novelty. In addition, he didn’t discriminate against the WHA, in stark contrast to Hockey Night in Canada, which literally never referred to the WHA in any way. That was much appreciated, as I was from a WHA city.

 

[LeafsNation75]

After John Tavares had signed with the Maple Leafs, it didn't make Fischler very happy.

Tavares Takes Stand on Departure - MSGNetworks.com

Fans React To John Tavares' Isles Exit - MSGNetworks.com

 

[ImporterExporter]

Yellow journalism. Deliberate malarkey.

Click bait before it had a name.

 

[rkhum]

Yeh I do not get the disconnect. The media, even the Rangers guys seem to all say what a gift he is to hockey. Yet all the respected fans I know hate him, my dad said he is extremely anti-Ranger and rooted for the Bruins. Is that tire?
In a nutshell, why is he so disliked?
Is he good or a media overrated darling like Greg Olsen?

 

[MS]

Fischler made a career out of being obnoxiously wrong about pretty much everything he ever said. He's an idiot who has probably had more bad takes about hockey than any other 3 people combined.

But, weirdly, he's also a vault of historical knowledge. Not too many people alive who watched New York Americans games in person.

 

[sdf]

I already hate him even though I hear this name for the first time

 

[OrrNumber4]

He was an early canary in the coal mines of how incentives can really pervert analysis.

 

[sr edler]

I think sports fans take things too literally at times. This is something I've noticed over the years reading this board. People get upset over the smallest of things sometimes. I have no personal relationship to Fischler, since I'm a Euro born in the 80s, and I never read any of his stuff, but journalists or media guys using expressive language or inserting personal opinions, or even telling straight out ambiguous stories at times, is hardly something new.

Anyone who's conducting any type of serious research must take stuff like this into account. I don't think you can read late 1800s/early 1900s newspaper reports for instance without this in mind. People like to be entertained.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Fischler made a career out of being obnoxiously wrong about pretty much everything he ever said. He's an idiot who has probably had more bad takes about hockey than any other 3 people combined.

But, weirdly, he's also a vault of historical knowledge. Not too many people alive who watched New York Americans games in person.

But a rich one.

 

[MS]

But a rich one.

For sure. He's done well with his schtick.

He has such a weird place in the sport. Basically any editorial opinion he's ever had on hockey has been comically bad, but his storytelling and knowledge of events from the 1940s and 1950s in particular is invaluable and some of his books have been a major contribution to the sport's canon.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

Incredibly Fischler is still publishing. Here's his gamer for last night's Islanders win, published three hours ago: https://thehockeynews.com/nhl/new-y...an-fischler-washington-capitals-morning-after

 

[rfournier103]

I get that a lot of dislike Fischler, and I can even see why. I do have to say that his work “Bobby Orr and the Big Bad Bruins” was the first real hockey book I ever read, and it piqued my interest in hockey and the Bruins. It not only covered Orr and the Bruins of the ‘60s and’70s, but also the rather colorful history of the franchise up to that point. It is a fantastic book, and had it been less interesting to me, I might not be the same fan that I am today.

 

[MS]

Incredibly Fischler is still publishing. Here's his gamer for last night's Islanders win, published three hours ago: https://thehockeynews.com/nhl/new-y...an-fischler-washington-capitals-morning-after

Ha, classic Fischler.

A pretty snappy, entertaining game review … but the one bit of editorial comment is to classify 26 year old Julien Gauthier, a journeyman with 40 career points playing <10 minutes on NYI’s 4th line, as a ‘rising star if ever there was one’ and ‘a star is born’ in the byline. Yikes.

 

[Vector]

Years and years ago someone once posted, in response to Fischler criticism, that “he’s forgot more about hockey than you’ll ever know!”. The retort to that was “That’s not a good thing”.

Has stuck with me ever since.

 

[rkhum]

He was an early canary in the coal mines of how incentives can really pervert analysis.

What, like he was the precursor to Steven A Smith?

I just don't get why in the media he is seen as this almighty figure but fans think he is moron. What is the disconnect?
Also, he is a NYer but is it true he hated the Rangers and liked the Bruins?