Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMan
This, right there, is a big reason why mainstream media hockey analysis is of such limited value. Hockey just doesn't work that way.
In their minds, if you lose 4-0, not only did you play bad, but you can't possibly have done anything right. That is, of course, complete and utter bull. There are any number of reasons that could result in that score, not least of which a mismatch in goaltending, but when the score is lopsided, the media analysts only have one explanation: everybody sucked.
Picture the exact same game, but with a couple twists: Budaj makes a couple more saves and those couple of posts are fine-tuned a bit more towards the goal and they go in. The score could easily have been 2-2. Would the narrative be the same?
You bet your ass it wouldn't.
Mainstream media analyze hockey based on the final score, not based on what happened in the game. This happens because sports media don't do analysis, they do storytelling. Until they change that, no one should take it too seriously -- and they won't change it, which is why it's wise to look elsewhere for genuine analysis.
|
Your'e so right and that's why I prefer reading post from people like you then listening to propaganda that benefit their ratings.