OK, now we're talking.
And I acknowledge your point, fully.
As a sidenote, I do not despise those fans I described. Honestly. That would be silly, as is hatred in general. I do grow extremely frustrated trying to engage in hockey talk with those who are incapable of formulating an original thought based on ANYTHING OTHER THAN a statistic.
So, when I and others refer to playing the game, trust me, it is not in the sense of "that makes me superior". It's simply that "doing" in this case adds an important evaluation dimension (in terms of observation and what to look for and appreciate beyond pure statistics). That is, one appreciates stats (and advanced stats) in much clearer context.
Which makes for enjoyable banter.
Not saying you have to play to know. But you do have to watch the game (the actual NHL game and a lot) as well as read/listen, to know. That is, numbers support an opinion, they are not a substitute for an opinion. Too often that is the case here, again, without ANY context. Hence the frustration.
Anyway, all good.
I've gone back and forth on the idea of "casual fans". Growing up, I always had an inferiority complex about the relative lack of popularity of the NHL and hockey in general (in the US). I always slept well at night believing that the average hockey fan was 100x more passionate (note: possibly hyperbolic) than the average baseball/football/basketball/insert-other-popular-sport-here fan. It was almost like an exclusive club that I was a part of. If I found another hockey fan on the streets of NY, invariably I would be able to debate with that person for hours about why Richter was better than Giacomin, why Brian Leetch should never have been able to wear #2 in the first place, why the Rangers shouldn't have mortgaged their future to the extent that they did for the cup in 94. Notice, no conversations along the lines of "Yea, I really like that bald guy...Messy-er?". That being said, I longed for the day when the NHL would dominate the sports media.
In recent years, the NHL has done a great job at expanding its fanbase - i.e. attracting more casual fans. And there's no question that it's helped put the league back on the map. It's grown the sport at the grassroots level, as well as generated a ton of immediate revenue. But now I see so many people who are "Rangers fans" who can't name more than one guy on the team.
I honestly don't know where I stand anymore. I sort of miss my "exclusive club". But at the end of the day, I'm pretty confident that the increase in "casual fans" is necessary to ensure the survival of the league in the long-haul. A lot of those casual fans turn into die-hard fans. Or they get other people to watch the sport and those people turn into die-hard fans. That's only a positive for the league and the sport.
Maybe I'm talking about a different kind of "casual fan" than you are. You're referencing fans who only talk about statistics, but who are still what I like to call "hockey-literate" - they know the players and some history of the game (presumably). You'd rather those fans watch more and use statistics to support their arguments rather than make their arguments. I guess I'm talking about a fan that's barely hockey-literate but still buys tickets and wears a jersey to the game. My heart is very conflicted about whether or not I like that type of fan, but my brain says they're needed for the sport to thrive.
So I guess my whole post was unrelated to yours. Typical of me
. Anyway, just wanted to get my daily diatribe out of the way...
