Thursday, April 26, 2012

Short Summer

I dunno, I haven't really sat down to write all week. Sorry brah.


What kinda had me irked is the call of the Bruins V Caps game yesterday. I thought it was just myth making at it's most hackish. And I know a little something about hackish.

So it is OT, and the Bruin with the puck turns the puck over to the Caps fourth line. The Caps fourth line then skates the puck up to the doorstep of the Bruins goal, quick shovel of the puck produces a rebound, bang, game over.

To recap: turnover, rebound, game over. In overtime. In game seven.

To me, that suggests a tight game, at the very least. A game that you could probably say either team could have won. A coin flip type game. And in fact, when you look, you discover that the Bruins Caps series was one of the tightest ever played, looking at the goal differentials.

In fact, you could probably say that this incredibly tight series could have gone either way, for the Caps or for the Bruins. And for whatever reason, the Hockey Gods happened to be smiling on the District of Corruptia that day.

The broadcast crew doing the game (CBC) saw things a little differently, I guess. They saw a turnover that lead to a rebound that led to a goal as, and I am paraphrase quoting now, as a result of the Bruins 'Short Summer'.

They also said something or other about the Bruins 'short summer' left them short of 'conviction', or some nonsense like that. I think it was 'conviction', but it could have been 'commitment' or some other word that began with 'c' that implied some sort of character trait weakness. Character weakness brought about, of course, because the Bruins 'short summer' had 'drained their tank'.

I said it on twitter and I will repeat it here: These people are being paid to broadcast the game because the higher ups think the audience wants someone to take the pictures they are watching and provide them some context. They are there to help the audience understand better what is occurring. They are there to provide, I dunno, insight and analysis.

Too often though, they provide a narrative. And cool, I get that people like stories, that they like to put complex systems into neat little packages. But what the hell. It was a turnover that lead to a rebound that led to a goal. There is nothing...complex about that. It is hockey. It happens.

The Bruin guy could have turned the puck over for a few reasons. Those reasons DO NOT include that he spent the summer in a glow because he won the Stanley Cup last year. To even suggest that it was...

Look, I know it's like a thing, it's hockey faith: It's hard to repeat as Cup champions. But it's true not because a team that wins the Cup has a 'short summer'. It's true because of variance. It's true because of luck and bounces; inches hit or inches missed. It's true because The Hockey Gods Are Capricious.

If the Bruins guy doesn't turn the puck over, if he makes a good pass, then he springs a couple Bruins players into the Caps zone, and it's a two on two with the Caps defenders even to the Bruins forwards, and it's a scoring chance for the Bruins. If the Bruins make good on it, then the team that 'lacks conviction' due to a 'short summer' would suddenly be praised for 'it's gutsy character to overcome' and the Caps team today that is being praised for 'buying into the coaches system' would be being slagged for it's lack of some ethereal character trait.


This shit is insane and the older I get the more it rubs me raw. Like, just a few years ago we had back to back Pittsburgh Detroit Stanley Cup finals. Where was the 'short summer' effect? What mitigated it with those two teams? Why are other teams unable to mitigate it?

I think it's because it doesn't exist in reality. I think that it exists in the minds of broadcasters who have been trained to weave stories together out of whatever threads they have available. And I think it is silly. People see that.

There is a quote I like. Greek guy. An Athenian even. Homie goes: "To an imperial city nothing is inconsistent which is expedient." He isn't praising the imperial cities when he says it.

Thinking of changing my tag line again. Domebeer-aholics, we have done great things. Peter Loubardias is no longer ruining Flames games. Ken King is now openly admitting to running the team's hockey ops. All good, tangible accomplishments. Stick taps all around.

But the scourge that is the nincompoop management...that is something that we seem to be stuck with. I think we should keep fighting for these small victories. Let's take back what we can take back, right? This is street by street shit.

I think the next street we try to take should be Rob Kerr. I hear good things about Kerr on a personal level. He is a really good guy, apparently. Cool. He should run Flames Charity then. Because he is a terrible broadcaster. He makes mistakes with players names CONSISTENTLY. He butchers calls CONSISTENTLY (Oh player X shoots he scores oh wait no he doesn't). His biggest sin, though, is that he is boring. Him and Simmer are boring. Which makes watching the team boring.

I really don't get it. You know for Dodger games the radio and the TV gets Vin Scully, right? I don't know for the life of me why the Flames wouldn't use HALL OF FAME BROADCASTER Peter Maher for both TV and radio games. Add another point to the 'Ken King is stupid' column.

But I bring Pope Maher up for a different reason. Ever listen to him call a game? You know what he is not? Boring. He lies about the game he is covering. I don't mean lie, like John Weisbrod claiming the 2011-2012 season was about youth type lie. I mean lie like, Oh this game is boring to watch but I am going to call it like I am super excited and then that feeling will rub off on the audience.

And Rob Kerr doesn't do that. Which is a big sin in my eyes. We need to get this guy out of the booth.

So I may change my tagline to Furthermore...Rob Kerr should be fired.

Speaking of can go here and tell SNET to move Kerr out of the booth. Thanks and kisses.


  1. Yeah, I was watching the game in a bar last night and saw the "Stanley Cup hangover" graphic which made me roll my eyes.

    The Cup is hard to win. Very hard. You need to be pretty damn good but also have a big dollop of luck along the way too.

    But of course, the playoffs are a 'NO LUCK' zone in the minds of most hockey fans. It's the ultimate test for players/teams and whatever happens there is MORE indicative of their character and skill level because of the way we all mentally weight the games.

    So each year new narratives spring up around the winners and losers. The funniest part for me is how fans and pundits create a new "model" to build a winner based on each seasons champion. Bruins - gotta be tough. Pens - gotta be offensively skilled. If NSH or PHX somehow wins - gotta be all defense and goaltending.

  2. Hold up...did K Squared get to the DB? Heard you're moving out of your mom's basement into a brand new the Western World...that's called a bribe.

  3. See this is why I have like 8 para's to qualify it. I want KK fired. I also want Kerr fired. Thats my dilemma.

  4. Have you ever watched a Flames game on TV with Maher on in the background? I don't know how much is a timing-delay thing but he barely describes the play, is consistently late on the call and him and Rogers usually chat about random nonsense 5-7 seconds after a faceoff happens.

    Don't get me wrong, Maher is great on the radio and is every bit the gem that he is painted to be. But if he was on TV...oh lordy would you pull your hair out.


  5. Isn't watching games with TV muted and Maher on the only way to watch?

    Pull my hair out? Only from the masturbatory goodness that is a Maher call.

    Mike Rogers side stories about women and drinking aren't enjoyable to you?

    I'm sure you are going to tell me you didn't like it when Roger Millions would slag on the Flames for not being able to get the puck out of the zone, too. You'd be wrong though, because that was great.