hockeydude474 Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 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 More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.