NHL - A Fundamentally Flawed Game
Okay, this is my first blog here at NHL freak. And, at the risk of getting flamed by all the hockey fans out there, I'm going to tell you why hockey is - at its core - fundamentally flawed compared to the other three big North American sports (football, baseball, basketball).
You're probably wondering why I'd come to a blog called NHL Freak just to bash hockey. Well, it's because Jay asked me to. But before you jam a puck down my throat, let me tell you where I'm coming from. I grew up in Edmonton in the 80's. I played competitive hockey all through my youth. I followed the Oil through the 90's. I was pissed when the strike hit in 94-95, but I came back. Then, a few years ago, the we had the lockout.
With no NHL, I drifted to other pro sports. When hockey started up again, I never really bothered to come back. Why? Lots of reasons, I guess. I was spoiled by the incredible Oiler teams of the 80's. I hated the trap and the low scoring games. But there was more to it. I realized hockey was lacking key things that the other three sports have.
Now, I'll admit that the NHL has done a lot the past few years to try and win fans back: scoring is up, the salary cap seems to be working, shootouts are always fun. But it's not enough. As I stated earlier: hockey is - from a game perspective theory - fundamentally flawed. That's why casual fans don't appreciate it. That's why the TV ratings suck. And that's why it will never catch on with the typical Amercian viewer. (The same issues that apply to hockey also apply to soccer, which helps explain why it hasn't caught on over here yet, either.)
Okay, enough preamble - let's get to the point. Why is the game of hockey, at the highest levels, fundamentally different than basketball, baseball or football? There are three big reasons.
Reason Number One:
Hockey is the only sport where you can't go from losing to winning on a single play. A batter in baseball can drive in two or more runs, the NBA has 2 and 3 point baskets, and football allows you to vault 3 or even 6 points at a time. This sets up an incredibly dramatic scenario: the team is behind, an athlete stands with one final chance, knowing if he fails all is lost... but if he succeeds he's a hero who has brought sweet, sweet victory to his team.
Hockey doesn't have this; not even in sudden death overtime or shootouts. In sudden death, a mistake by a goalie can end the game... but it can't win the game. A player with a breakaway in OT can win the game with one shot, but if he misses he doesn't lose - the game keeps going. The terror of absolute failure never hangs in the balance with the thrill of ultimate victory on the same play.
Same with a shootout: if you're team is tied and you're the last shooter, you can win it all... but you can't lose, even if you miss. Conversely, if your team is behind and you're the last shooter, you can lose the game by missing, but scoring only means everyone keeps going - you didn't win the game. (Same thing applies to goalies in reverse, of course.)
This may seem like a minor point, but the ability to go from losing to winning with one play creates a level of excitement that simply doesn't exist in the NHL. This is why you see plenty of football, basketball and baseball movies, but very few hockey movies. They just can't make a climactic scene with the true hero/goat dichotomy on a hockey rink.
I realize that movies are different than sports, but they're both forms of entertainment. They rely on conflict and drama to evoke reaction in the audience. Both movies and sports are reflections of conflict and drama in real life... and the sad truth is that there simply isn't as much drama potential in one single hockey play as there is in the other three sports.
Okay... I've got two more big reasons why hockey is a fundamentally flawed game, but in the interest of keeping this blog to a readable length, I'll stop with the first one and open myself up to the slings and arrows of public opinion. If you want to comment on this, go ahead - but try to comment on the point I'm making. Don't argue about the tradition and history of hockey, or how it appeals to a national consciousness, or how it celebrats speed and teamwork. I freely admit that's true for hockey - along with every other damn sport out there. I'm only here to say why, from a meta-game design view, hockey will always be lacking in the eyes of the casual fan.
Oh, and here's a preview of reason #2 - tie games. (Yes, I know about shootouts... but tie games are still a problem for hockey. I'll explain why in my next blog.)
Drew
Okay, this is my first blog here at NHL freak. And, at the risk of getting flamed by all the hockey fans out there, I'm going to tell you why hockey is - at its core - fundamentally flawed compared to the other three big North American sports (football, baseball, basketball).
You're probably wondering why I'd come to a blog called NHL Freak just to bash hockey. Well, it's because Jay asked me to. But before you jam a puck down my throat, let me tell you where I'm coming from. I grew up in Edmonton in the 80's. I played competitive hockey all through my youth. I followed the Oil through the 90's. I was pissed when the strike hit in 94-95, but I came back. Then, a few years ago, the we had the lockout.
With no NHL, I drifted to other pro sports. When hockey started up again, I never really bothered to come back. Why? Lots of reasons, I guess. I was spoiled by the incredible Oiler teams of the 80's. I hated the trap and the low scoring games. But there was more to it. I realized hockey was lacking key things that the other three sports have.
Now, I'll admit that the NHL has done a lot the past few years to try and win fans back: scoring is up, the salary cap seems to be working, shootouts are always fun. But it's not enough. As I stated earlier: hockey is - from a game perspective theory - fundamentally flawed. That's why casual fans don't appreciate it. That's why the TV ratings suck. And that's why it will never catch on with the typical Amercian viewer. (The same issues that apply to hockey also apply to soccer, which helps explain why it hasn't caught on over here yet, either.)
Okay, enough preamble - let's get to the point. Why is the game of hockey, at the highest levels, fundamentally different than basketball, baseball or football? There are three big reasons.
Reason Number One:
Hockey is the only sport where you can't go from losing to winning on a single play. A batter in baseball can drive in two or more runs, the NBA has 2 and 3 point baskets, and football allows you to vault 3 or even 6 points at a time. This sets up an incredibly dramatic scenario: the team is behind, an athlete stands with one final chance, knowing if he fails all is lost... but if he succeeds he's a hero who has brought sweet, sweet victory to his team.
Hockey doesn't have this; not even in sudden death overtime or shootouts. In sudden death, a mistake by a goalie can end the game... but it can't win the game. A player with a breakaway in OT can win the game with one shot, but if he misses he doesn't lose - the game keeps going. The terror of absolute failure never hangs in the balance with the thrill of ultimate victory on the same play.
Same with a shootout: if you're team is tied and you're the last shooter, you can win it all... but you can't lose, even if you miss. Conversely, if your team is behind and you're the last shooter, you can lose the game by missing, but scoring only means everyone keeps going - you didn't win the game. (Same thing applies to goalies in reverse, of course.)
This may seem like a minor point, but the ability to go from losing to winning with one play creates a level of excitement that simply doesn't exist in the NHL. This is why you see plenty of football, basketball and baseball movies, but very few hockey movies. They just can't make a climactic scene with the true hero/goat dichotomy on a hockey rink.
I realize that movies are different than sports, but they're both forms of entertainment. They rely on conflict and drama to evoke reaction in the audience. Both movies and sports are reflections of conflict and drama in real life... and the sad truth is that there simply isn't as much drama potential in one single hockey play as there is in the other three sports.
Okay... I've got two more big reasons why hockey is a fundamentally flawed game, but in the interest of keeping this blog to a readable length, I'll stop with the first one and open myself up to the slings and arrows of public opinion. If you want to comment on this, go ahead - but try to comment on the point I'm making. Don't argue about the tradition and history of hockey, or how it appeals to a national consciousness, or how it celebrats speed and teamwork. I freely admit that's true for hockey - along with every other damn sport out there. I'm only here to say why, from a meta-game design view, hockey will always be lacking in the eyes of the casual fan.
Oh, and here's a preview of reason #2 - tie games. (Yes, I know about shootouts... but tie games are still a problem for hockey. I'll explain why in my next blog.)
Drew
posted by Drew at
9:28 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home