Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Enter Search Term. Use arrows to navigate between autocomplete results. If no results appear, use Enter to do a full site search.
Forum Closure ×
Canucks Community
Forum Closure

Is there such thing as 'expert' hockey analysis? How would this affect peoples perceptions of the Canucks?

hockeydude474

By hockeydude474
in Canucks Talk

Recommended Posts

hockeydude474 Abbotsford Prospect

hockeydude474

Posted
Posted

The Main Argument

Personally I feel annoyed that most of the media suggests that the flames will win round one. In this post I want to engage a discussion about the credibility of the self proclaimed hockey 'experts' that we see in the media.

Just as the topic says, is there really such thing as 'expert' hockey analysis or is everything we hear from the media ultimately just subjective bs from a bunch of guys in a position of power? Do the people who talk about hockey in the media actually have any advanced or formal training in understanding the game versus the regular fan? This is relevant because a lot of the so called 'experts' think that we are going to lose to the Flames in 6 games. What on earth is the epistemological basis for this other than personal bias? What information do they have that we don't? They also appeal to qualitative rather than quantitative methods for their conclusions. This, if anything makes subjectivity even worse.

Some common argument points I hear as to why the flames will win. Unfortunately, some media analysts fail to acknowledge any sort of comparison between these factors and the Canucks.

- The flames are a hard working team

- They have a good first line.

Honestly any regular pleb would know this stuff but these points are hardly an argument. Most of the time ESPECIALLY ON TSN, the people there don't even bring their opinions in the real of a diverse argument. They just pick a team they like and say positives about the team. How are they getting paid for this?

Ultimately, hockey analysts are not part of the team and every single team is a different environment. It becomes a normative discourse when a hockey analyst proposes a set of ideas, theories, and solutions which he thinks applies to all hockey situations. Normative practice arises because the analyst might assume that their own background and knowledge of the game applies to ALL factors and scenarios. Unfortunately, this isn't even possible to know concretely although I think it's safe to assume that every team is different. Even though every team is playing hockey, the factors that lead to success are apples and oranges. They are so many X factors that a basic qualitative analysis of hockey (Which is all the experts seem to provide) is basically useless as a method of prediction. In short, you can't just throw a blanket over the whole thing and apply an analysis with a single set of tools to a diverse realm.

I implore you guys to have a second thought about self proclaimed 'expert' opinions in hockey analysis. In my opinion these people are nothing more than a bunch of (mostly) rich white guys in a position of power with their own biases, faults, and lack of interaction on the actual playing field - the ice.

Additional Points Brought up in the Thread

- There is not much validity in arguing that previous experience makes you a professional analyst with a trust worthy opinion on the subject. See Kevin Lowe, Oilers president since 2008. He claims to having won the most Stanley Cups and is therefore knowledgeable and trustworthy. Quite obviously the Oilers have been terrible in the entirety of his tenure. As such, this is a good case study to demonstrate that this sort of inductive experience argument isn't perfect.

ALSO **** Sorry, I should of made it more clear - i'm not proposing that I know more than the 'expert' analysts. I'm proposing that no one has any higher basis of knowledge than anyone else. There is no such thing as an objective 'expert' and that everyone with an opinion on the topic has an equal weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Canuck63 Junior Prospect

Canuck63

Posted
Posted

Personally I feel annoyed at all of the media suggests that the flames will win round one. In this post I want to engage a discussion about the credibility of the self proclaimed hockey 'experts' that we see in the media.

Just as the topic says, is there really such thing as 'expert' hockey analysis or is everything we hear from the media ultimately just subjective bs from a bunch of guys in a position of power? Do the people who talk about hockey in the media actually have any advanced or formal training in understanding the game versus the regular fan? This is relevant because a lot of the so called 'experts' think that we are going to lose to the Flames in 6 games. What on earth is the epistemological basis for this other than personal bias? What information do they have that we don't? They also appeal to qualitative rather than quantitative methods for their conclusions. This, if anything makes subjectivity even worse.

Some common argument points I hear as to why the flames will win.

- The flames are a hard working team

- They have a good first line.

Honestly any regular pleb would know this stuff but these points are hardly an argument. Most of the time ESPECIALLY ON TSN, the people there don't even bring their opinions in the real of a diverse argument. They just pick a team they like and say positives about the team. How are they getting paid for this?

Ultimately, hockey analysts are not part of the team and every single team is a different environment. It becomes a normative discourse when a hockey analyst proposes a set of ideas, theories, and solutions which he thinks applies to all hockey situations. Normative practice arises because the analyst might assume that their own background and knowledge of the game applies to ALL factors and scenarios. Unfortunately, this isn't even possible to know concretely although I think it's safe to assume that every team is different. Even though every team is playing hockey, the factors that lead to success are apples and oranges. They are so many X factors that a basic qualitative analysis of hockey (Which is all the experts seem to provide) is basically useless as a method of prediction. In short, you can't just throw a blanket over the whole thing and apply an analysis with a single set of tools to a diverse realm.

I implore you guys to have a second thought about self proclaimed 'expert' opinions in hockey analysis. In my opinion these people are nothing more than a bunch of (mostly) rich white guys in a position of power with their own biases, faults, and lack of interaction on the actual playing field - the ice.

Geez .... what a bunch of verbal diarrhea. Another useless thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Dasein

Guest Dasein

Posted
Posted

I love it

Perfect bulletin material for WD

If this team didn't take Calgary seriously, they will now. You can't look at their inexperience and youth and think we have this series in the bag. They are one of the hardest working teams and we will need to match that to win this series

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Professor.of.Perception Abbotsford Regular

Professor.of.Perception

Posted
Posted

Solid post and well thought out.

Lets face it the media is there to cause a stir, and draw attention. If they can cause a controversy then they have done their jobs.
While they are without question sport insiders, i see no concrete evidence in them being "Experts". I view them rather as knowledgeable, and a good source of reference.
They are bias (many people are), and consistently put forth their opinions as fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RonMexico Canucks Second-Line

RonMexico

Posted
Posted

Didn't you get the memo? Everyone who watches hockey is an expert. Including yourself and most of the posters on this board. I don't understand why you felt the need to criticize the 'experts' you see on TV as though your analysis is better than their analysis.

Predictions from experts are no better than predictions from a monkey or an octopus. Take them with a proverbial grain of salt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ronalds.Kenins41 Canucks Second-Line

Ronalds.Kenins41

Posted
Posted

They keep pulling out the Hartley card, and the depth card. It's as if we don't have either of those things, when in reality, we got both, plus better depth.

Sedins will feast with no Giordano. Analysts are high on the fact that CGY made the playoffs

I don't really trust the media to give expert advice they have been lacking it for a while now.

But one of my friends who lives in Calgary said he won't be surprised if the flames beat the canucks in 6. He usually doesn't predict the flames to beat us unless they actually have a chance. Main point he brings up is that the canucks don't have the speed that the flames have, and that the flames are very similar to the 2008/2009 blackhawks which beat this team quite handily and dominated them for large parts because of their speed. I responded by saying that we played many games this year in February where we were outshot, outclassed by speed and just utterly dominated by the opponent but we still came out on top and we did because we have a great goalie in lack. He keeps saying that our speed is different than those teams and that I will be shocked when I get to see it firsthand on Wednesday. Well let's see, who's right..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JamesB Canucks Second-Line

JamesB

Posted
Posted

With sports talk radio going 24/7 and many hours to fill on TV (not to mention sport blogs, etc.) there is a lot of time and space to fill.

It is hard to be original so we do tend to hear the same thing again and again.

Most experts do not much insight that goes beyond what a reasonably thoughtful and well-informed fan would know. But some experts do have good insights and are worth listening to. Obviously Bob MacKenzie and Elliotte Friedman would be in this category and so would a few others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Canuck63 Junior Prospect

Canuck63

Posted
Posted

Didn't you get the memo? Everyone who watches hockey is an expert. Including yourself and most of the posters on this board. I don't understand why you felt the need to criticize the 'experts' you see on TV as though your analysis is better than their analysis.

Predictions from experts are no better than predictions from a monkey or an octopus. Take them with a proverbial grain of salt.

Thank you RonMexico. EXACTLY!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sbriggs Canucks Regular

Sbriggs

Posted
Posted

Personally I feel annoyed at all of the media suggests that the flames will win round one. In this post I want to engage a discussion about the credibility of the self proclaimed hockey 'experts' that we see in the media.

Just as the topic says, is there really such thing as 'expert' hockey analysis or is everything we hear from the media ultimately just subjective bs from a bunch of guys in a position of power? Do the people who talk about hockey in the media actually have any advanced or formal training in understanding the game versus the regular fan? This is relevant because a lot of the so called 'experts' think that we are going to lose to the Flames in 6 games. What on earth is the epistemological basis for this other than personal bias? What information do they have that we don't? They also appeal to qualitative rather than quantitative methods for their conclusions. This, if anything makes subjectivity even worse.

Some common argument points I hear as to why the flames will win.

- The flames are a hard working team

- They have a good first line.

Honestly any regular pleb would know this stuff but these points are hardly an argument. Most of the time ESPECIALLY ON TSN, the people there don't even bring their opinions in the real of a diverse argument. They just pick a team they like and say positives about the team. How are they getting paid for this?

Ultimately, hockey analysts are not part of the team and every single team is a different environment. It becomes a normative discourse when a hockey analyst proposes a set of ideas, theories, and solutions which he thinks applies to all hockey situations. Normative practice arises because the analyst might assume that their own background and knowledge of the game applies to ALL factors and scenarios. Unfortunately, this isn't even possible to know concretely although I think it's safe to assume that every team is different. Even though every team is playing hockey, the factors that lead to success are apples and oranges. They are so many X factors that a basic qualitative analysis of hockey (Which is all the experts seem to provide) is basically useless as a method of prediction. In short, you can't just throw a blanket over the whole thing and apply an analysis with a single set of tools to a diverse realm.

I implore you guys to have a second thought about self proclaimed 'expert' opinions in hockey analysis. In my opinion these people are nothing more than a bunch of (mostly) rich white guys in a position of power with their own biases, faults, and lack of interaction on the actual playing field - the ice.

Ive decided we have lost are only face of Cunucks hockey on TV when Don Taylor left sportsnet. There isnt even a sportsnet pacific anymore just a bunch of nobodies from Toronto who could careless about the Cunucks. It doesnt matter if we talk Sportsnet or TSN they could careless about Vancouver I even heard so on Primetime Sports when Bob did a Canadian Play off review and said no one cares about the Cunucks outside of Vancouver so he left them out of the discussion. Now the only thing we have is the Team1040 and now TSN owns it so we have to put up with the TSN Insiders which makes me sick. Its a sad time for Cunuck hockey in the media and I hope Cunuck brass see this soon and force some changes so we get the kind of respect due to the 2nd largest market in the country with the 2nd best team in the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
higgyfan Canucks Franchise Player

higgyfan

Posted
Posted

I don't really trust the media to give expert advice they have been lacking it for a while now.

But one of my friends who lives in Calgary said he won't be surprised if the flames beat the canucks in 6. He usually doesn't predict the flames to beat us unless they actually have a chance. Main point he brings up is that the canucks don't have the speed that the flames have, and that the flames are very similar to the 2008/2009 blackhawks which beat this team quite handily and dominated them for large parts because of their speed. I responded by saying that we played many games this year in February where we were outshot, outclassed by speed and just utterly dominated by the opponent but we still came out on top and we did because we have a great goalie in lack. He keeps saying that our speed is different than those teams and that I will be shocked when I get to see it firsthand on Wednesday. Well let's see, who's right..

Cal are a fast team for sure, but fast teams can be slowed down. Hopefully Willie and the boys will find a way to stifle them.

As far as the 'experts' are concerned, I take them with a grain of salt. So many of them are from the east and really haven't seen much of the Flames or the Canucks play. So have at it...The Flames storyline is attractive to the media. Everyone loves the 'Cinderella' story.

The only one of that bunch that I listen to is Bob McKenzie and he's saying that the Canucks depth will prevail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...