Fundamentally Flawed - Part 3
Okay, this is my last post about why the basic game of hockey is flawed from a game design perspective when compared to the other big 3 North American sports (basketball, football, hockey).
But before I go into the third game design flaw in the sport of hockey, I think I better clarify yet again the point I am trying to make with these posts. Jay made a very long rebutal to my arguments, and in doing so completely avoided the issues I raised. Let me make this as clear as I can: you are allowed to like hockey. Hockey has many elements that people enjoy. But there are certain game design elements present in hockey that limit the audience who will enjoy the game. If you like hockey, it's not BECAUSE of the flaws I mention - it's IN SPITE OF them.
Jay mentions fighting as a reason he likes hockey. Great - I like hockey fights, too. But that has nothing to do with the single value scoring system or the problem of too many ties. You could fix the single value scoring and ties and STILL have fighting. Let's take an example - pretend the player that wins in a fight gives his team an extra .5 of a goal on the scoreboard. Now how exciting is a hockey fight? Suddenly a fight late in a 2-2 tie becomes VERY exciting. And if one team wins the fight and takes a 2 to 2.5 lead, the other team will still be able to score to take the game 3 to 2.5.
NOTE - I AM NOT SUGGESTING THE NHL SHOULD ACTUALLY DO THIS!!!!!! I am just illustrating a point. Fighting is irrelevant to my arguments. As much as Jay and Trevor hate to admit it, single value scoring and ties are simply bad game design. All other things being equal, a game with multi-value scoring and less ties will be more popular with the general audience than a game that lacks these features. Obviously, all other things aren't equal -I never said they were. But from a theoretical perspective, hockey has problems.
Let's take a look at another example Jay uses - the incredible skill of a player stick-handling through opponents. He's right - it's fun to watch. But again, it has nothing to do with the point I'm making. Brilliant stick-handling would still exist in a multi-value scoring system; in fact, it could even be enhanced. Let's pretend that if one player dekes out 3 or more opponents before scoring then the goal counts double. Suddenly those exciting Jagr-style plays where you single-handedly take on the entire team become even more exciting as they develop! Imagine how the excitement would build in the crowd as the first, second and third player are deked in anticipation of a goal that counts for 2 on the scoreboard. (This would also encourage players to try this kind of spectacular play even more often, adding more opportunities for brilliance in the game.)
Jay... you aren't debating my arguments. You're actually supporting them! The only argument I can't oppose in your post is the one about blowouts. You're right; hockey has more games that are "over" with a huge amount of time remaining in the game. To me, that's boring. To most fans, watching a contest in which one team has given up and knows they are going to lose well before the end of the event is boring. You claim you actually enjoy watching blowouts. Good for you... but the general public wants the competition and excitment of tight games.
(Honestly, I don't think Jay really hopes for a blowout when he watches hockey. He probably wouldn't mind watching the Oilers win a blowout, but watching Detroit and Pittsburgh in the Stanley Cup final wouldn't be near as fun if every game was over by the end of the second period. I just think he's desperately flailing for ANY kind of argument to refute my irrefutable evidence, so he's throwing ridiculous statements out there. Every single list of "best games ever" in any sport lists close, hard fought games... not blowouts.)
Okay, on to my final flaw in hockey: lack of measurable statistical granularity. That's a fancy term we use in the game industry. Basically, it just means that people like to measure progress in a game. It makes it easier to see who is winning or losing if you have markers along the way. In football, every single play has this marker: Team A is 1st and 10 on the 35 yard line. Run a play. Now they are 2nd and 6 from the 39. Run a play. They get sacked. Now they are 3rd and 16 from the 25. It's easy to see if any individual play was good or bad, and it has a MEASURABLE impact on the outcome by changing down, distance to go and field position. In basketball, the score changes roughly 100 times in a game (50 buckets for each team). Every 40 seconds or so, there is an update in the progress. If your team gets a bucket, you know they are moving forward. If the other team scores, you know you lost ground. The fan has constant MEASURABLE updates.
Baseball is the ultimate example of this phenomenon. Every pitch has some measurable impact. It was a 1-2 count. Now it's a 2-2 count (the pitcher gained ground). Now it's a 3-2 count. (The batter gained ground.) Now it's a walk - the batting team has a man on first. Now they bunt him over to second. There is a man on 2nd base, but there is also 1 out in the inning. Every single play in baseball has a measurable statistical impact that affects the outcome of the game.
This simply isn't true in hockey. You can have a great shift, dominate the play, pin the other team in their own end and fire off 4 good shoots on the goal... but if you don't score the result is the same as if you dumped the puck into the corner, circled aimlessly and waited for a whistle. It is very rare in hockey for something MEASURABLE to actually impact the game. A goal happens, on average, about every 10-12 minutes of game time. (20+ minutes of real time.) You could argue that a powerplay has some impact, but 75% of powerplays end up without a goal, so most of the time a powerplay has no MEASURABLE effect on the outcome of the game. In other sports, every 30-60 seconds you see some type of statistical change - the fan is rewarded in some way by measurable progress in the contest.
I realize that there are hundres of intangibles that are impacted by every shift of a hockey game, even if there is no score. Things like fatigue, momentum and the excitement of the crowd can impact a game. But it's subtle; you have to be a hardcore fan to understand and appreciate these things. The average viewer needs numbers popping up to understand and track the flow of the game. Without them, the action in hockey seems pointless. This is probably the biggest reason hockey hasn't caught on with a more widespread television audience: the announcers can't roll off cool statistics every 30 seconds that tell you what is going on.
The proliferation of measurable stats also makes it easier to appreciate the performance of star players in a sport. In the NFL, you can look at Adrian Peterson and see he rushed 24 times for 136 yards and 1 TD, and compare that to LaDanian Tomlison rushing 27 times for 48 yards and 1 TD. There is a HUGE amount of data to compare: number of carries; yards per carry; total yards; touchdowns. All these stats have a direct correlation to the action on the field. Every yard earned means a yard of field position - as a fan I can easily understand how that affects the game. More importantly, I can tell just by looking at these stats which running back had the better game - the stats allow me to envision the performance in a meaningful way.
Now, let's say Crosby plays a great game and gets 1 assist and is even for the game in +/-. Ovechkin plays a terrible game and gets 1 assist and is also even in +/-. How do I compare these stats? Well... you can't. Effectively, each player contributed the same value to the end of the game. You could look for some more stats, like total ice time, but what does that tell you? Let's say Crosby played 20:36 total ice time and Ovechkin played 18:23. Which one of these is better? Crosby was on the ice more, but he only accomplished the same thing (1 assist) as Ovechkin. Does that mean he was less effective? Maybe, maybe not... the point is, unless you watched the game yourself, you can't really tell anything about how each player performed because there is a lack of measurable statistics.
More importantly, the constant statistical changes in baseball, basketball and football allow the STRATEGY of each game to be visible to the average fan. In his post "refuting" my arguments, Jay talks about why he loves baseball. The strategy that he feels adds so much to the game is only possible because of the changing stats behind every pitch. You can't get the same experience with hockey... but you can get it with football and even basketball. In football, a team can go with a rush-heavy strategy, or change their plans depending on down and distance, time remaining and field position. In basketball, a team can play an up-tempo game, bombing away three point baskets to try and make up a deficit. They can start fouling the other team to try and limit their offense by making them miss free-throws.
In hockey, however, strategy is vague and intemperal. It is hard for the average sports fan to see and appreciate, which is a major reason hockey is less popular than other sports. This lack of stats cripples hockey. Hockey arguably has MORE action than any other sport. The speed, the hits, the crisp passing and stick-handling easily stack up against any other athletic venture. The problem is, most of this action is meaningless in the end result of the game (at least as far as the the average fan can tell). On the opposite end of the scale we have baseball, a slow-paced game with very little action... but lots of stats and, as a result, lots of drama for fans.
Okay, that's about it. Remember - I'm not here to convince you that hockey sucks. The whole point of this was to try and explain WHY hockey is less popular as a sport with the average North American fan. If you were to design a sport from the ground-up, there are certain elements you would want to give it so that it had the best chance of being successful. You would want lots of relevant stats. You would want as few ties as possible. And you would want a variable scoring system. Hocky has none of these, so it's always going to be at a disadvantage.
I'm not saying you can't love the NHL... but you better accept that it's always going to be a niche league because of the fundamental flaws in the way the game is designed.
Drew
But before I go into the third game design flaw in the sport of hockey, I think I better clarify yet again the point I am trying to make with these posts. Jay made a very long rebutal to my arguments, and in doing so completely avoided the issues I raised. Let me make this as clear as I can: you are allowed to like hockey. Hockey has many elements that people enjoy. But there are certain game design elements present in hockey that limit the audience who will enjoy the game. If you like hockey, it's not BECAUSE of the flaws I mention - it's IN SPITE OF them.
Jay mentions fighting as a reason he likes hockey. Great - I like hockey fights, too. But that has nothing to do with the single value scoring system or the problem of too many ties. You could fix the single value scoring and ties and STILL have fighting. Let's take an example - pretend the player that wins in a fight gives his team an extra .5 of a goal on the scoreboard. Now how exciting is a hockey fight? Suddenly a fight late in a 2-2 tie becomes VERY exciting. And if one team wins the fight and takes a 2 to 2.5 lead, the other team will still be able to score to take the game 3 to 2.5.
NOTE - I AM NOT SUGGESTING THE NHL SHOULD ACTUALLY DO THIS!!!!!! I am just illustrating a point. Fighting is irrelevant to my arguments. As much as Jay and Trevor hate to admit it, single value scoring and ties are simply bad game design. All other things being equal, a game with multi-value scoring and less ties will be more popular with the general audience than a game that lacks these features. Obviously, all other things aren't equal -I never said they were. But from a theoretical perspective, hockey has problems.
Let's take a look at another example Jay uses - the incredible skill of a player stick-handling through opponents. He's right - it's fun to watch. But again, it has nothing to do with the point I'm making. Brilliant stick-handling would still exist in a multi-value scoring system; in fact, it could even be enhanced. Let's pretend that if one player dekes out 3 or more opponents before scoring then the goal counts double. Suddenly those exciting Jagr-style plays where you single-handedly take on the entire team become even more exciting as they develop! Imagine how the excitement would build in the crowd as the first, second and third player are deked in anticipation of a goal that counts for 2 on the scoreboard. (This would also encourage players to try this kind of spectacular play even more often, adding more opportunities for brilliance in the game.)
Jay... you aren't debating my arguments. You're actually supporting them! The only argument I can't oppose in your post is the one about blowouts. You're right; hockey has more games that are "over" with a huge amount of time remaining in the game. To me, that's boring. To most fans, watching a contest in which one team has given up and knows they are going to lose well before the end of the event is boring. You claim you actually enjoy watching blowouts. Good for you... but the general public wants the competition and excitment of tight games.
(Honestly, I don't think Jay really hopes for a blowout when he watches hockey. He probably wouldn't mind watching the Oilers win a blowout, but watching Detroit and Pittsburgh in the Stanley Cup final wouldn't be near as fun if every game was over by the end of the second period. I just think he's desperately flailing for ANY kind of argument to refute my irrefutable evidence, so he's throwing ridiculous statements out there. Every single list of "best games ever" in any sport lists close, hard fought games... not blowouts.)
Okay, on to my final flaw in hockey: lack of measurable statistical granularity. That's a fancy term we use in the game industry. Basically, it just means that people like to measure progress in a game. It makes it easier to see who is winning or losing if you have markers along the way. In football, every single play has this marker: Team A is 1st and 10 on the 35 yard line. Run a play. Now they are 2nd and 6 from the 39. Run a play. They get sacked. Now they are 3rd and 16 from the 25. It's easy to see if any individual play was good or bad, and it has a MEASURABLE impact on the outcome by changing down, distance to go and field position. In basketball, the score changes roughly 100 times in a game (50 buckets for each team). Every 40 seconds or so, there is an update in the progress. If your team gets a bucket, you know they are moving forward. If the other team scores, you know you lost ground. The fan has constant MEASURABLE updates.
Baseball is the ultimate example of this phenomenon. Every pitch has some measurable impact. It was a 1-2 count. Now it's a 2-2 count (the pitcher gained ground). Now it's a 3-2 count. (The batter gained ground.) Now it's a walk - the batting team has a man on first. Now they bunt him over to second. There is a man on 2nd base, but there is also 1 out in the inning. Every single play in baseball has a measurable statistical impact that affects the outcome of the game.
This simply isn't true in hockey. You can have a great shift, dominate the play, pin the other team in their own end and fire off 4 good shoots on the goal... but if you don't score the result is the same as if you dumped the puck into the corner, circled aimlessly and waited for a whistle. It is very rare in hockey for something MEASURABLE to actually impact the game. A goal happens, on average, about every 10-12 minutes of game time. (20+ minutes of real time.) You could argue that a powerplay has some impact, but 75% of powerplays end up without a goal, so most of the time a powerplay has no MEASURABLE effect on the outcome of the game. In other sports, every 30-60 seconds you see some type of statistical change - the fan is rewarded in some way by measurable progress in the contest.
I realize that there are hundres of intangibles that are impacted by every shift of a hockey game, even if there is no score. Things like fatigue, momentum and the excitement of the crowd can impact a game. But it's subtle; you have to be a hardcore fan to understand and appreciate these things. The average viewer needs numbers popping up to understand and track the flow of the game. Without them, the action in hockey seems pointless. This is probably the biggest reason hockey hasn't caught on with a more widespread television audience: the announcers can't roll off cool statistics every 30 seconds that tell you what is going on.
The proliferation of measurable stats also makes it easier to appreciate the performance of star players in a sport. In the NFL, you can look at Adrian Peterson and see he rushed 24 times for 136 yards and 1 TD, and compare that to LaDanian Tomlison rushing 27 times for 48 yards and 1 TD. There is a HUGE amount of data to compare: number of carries; yards per carry; total yards; touchdowns. All these stats have a direct correlation to the action on the field. Every yard earned means a yard of field position - as a fan I can easily understand how that affects the game. More importantly, I can tell just by looking at these stats which running back had the better game - the stats allow me to envision the performance in a meaningful way.
Now, let's say Crosby plays a great game and gets 1 assist and is even for the game in +/-. Ovechkin plays a terrible game and gets 1 assist and is also even in +/-. How do I compare these stats? Well... you can't. Effectively, each player contributed the same value to the end of the game. You could look for some more stats, like total ice time, but what does that tell you? Let's say Crosby played 20:36 total ice time and Ovechkin played 18:23. Which one of these is better? Crosby was on the ice more, but he only accomplished the same thing (1 assist) as Ovechkin. Does that mean he was less effective? Maybe, maybe not... the point is, unless you watched the game yourself, you can't really tell anything about how each player performed because there is a lack of measurable statistics.
More importantly, the constant statistical changes in baseball, basketball and football allow the STRATEGY of each game to be visible to the average fan. In his post "refuting" my arguments, Jay talks about why he loves baseball. The strategy that he feels adds so much to the game is only possible because of the changing stats behind every pitch. You can't get the same experience with hockey... but you can get it with football and even basketball. In football, a team can go with a rush-heavy strategy, or change their plans depending on down and distance, time remaining and field position. In basketball, a team can play an up-tempo game, bombing away three point baskets to try and make up a deficit. They can start fouling the other team to try and limit their offense by making them miss free-throws.
In hockey, however, strategy is vague and intemperal. It is hard for the average sports fan to see and appreciate, which is a major reason hockey is less popular than other sports. This lack of stats cripples hockey. Hockey arguably has MORE action than any other sport. The speed, the hits, the crisp passing and stick-handling easily stack up against any other athletic venture. The problem is, most of this action is meaningless in the end result of the game (at least as far as the the average fan can tell). On the opposite end of the scale we have baseball, a slow-paced game with very little action... but lots of stats and, as a result, lots of drama for fans.
Okay, that's about it. Remember - I'm not here to convince you that hockey sucks. The whole point of this was to try and explain WHY hockey is less popular as a sport with the average North American fan. If you were to design a sport from the ground-up, there are certain elements you would want to give it so that it had the best chance of being successful. You would want lots of relevant stats. You would want as few ties as possible. And you would want a variable scoring system. Hocky has none of these, so it's always going to be at a disadvantage.
I'm not saying you can't love the NHL... but you better accept that it's always going to be a niche league because of the fundamental flaws in the way the game is designed.
Drew
posted by Drew at
4:34 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home