An interesting argument's brewing on social media right now thanks to a comment by Mark Spector of Sportsnet who derided guys who admit to feeling media pressure, suggesting they should be traded because you can't win with them. Mentally weak was him assessment...as some would suggest his take was. But nonetheless, I get that the press needs to be honest (insert fake news joke here) and I'm certainly not advocating that every article has to be glowing (unlike some leaders...) by any means. However, it does beg the question where's the line between honest criticism and negativity for the sake of it?
We need only take a look at the fans and media's reaction in this country when things aren't going well to see how ugly it can get. If you listened to Sens Twitter right now you'd think they were 0-22. Edmonton's down one day, up the next and Montreal is well, Montreal. Vincent Lecavalier won a cup in Tampa Bay and was one of the best players of his generation. He also made it known he had no desire to leave for Montreal because of the pressure that comes with playing in that market. He was called out by some because of this but I'd never characterise him as mentally weak. Joe Thornton has spoken on many occasions about his love for playing in California. How you can go to practise in shorts and walk around town without being recognised...presumably in his pre-Grizzly Adams days. Hockey players generally aren't much for the spotlight and when all that light is negative it makes it even harder to deal with.
We're all accountable in our line of work and holding these players to such a level isn't the issue as I see it. It's how easy it is to belittle them for faltering under this intense pressure while not having to deal with it yourself. Unlike a writer if they get negative feedback players can't just hit the block button and hide behind their laptop thinking themselves beyond reproach. It's easy to criticise (fun too!) especially when you're as established as many of the prominent hockey pundits here in Canada are. Lets face it, short of a Hollywood-esque scandal these guys aren't going anywhere. That type of security leads to comfort which can lead to arrogance when it comes to your approach in covering the team. You see fault and you start to feel that you know more than the guys on the ice or upstairs, that your insight is flawless. If you write a lousy article or a take someone disagrees with you may get hammered on social media but it doesn't impact your life in anywhere near as serious a manner. You are so unwavering in your belief, right or wrong, that you don't care. You're up their on your pedestal scoffing at anyone who dares to disagree. That's not the case in the NHL.
One of my favourite lines the last few years was from the Blue Jays John Donaldson when discussing the team's slump. He said "this isn't the try league, it's the get it done league". One could hardly sum up professional sports any better. Now, I'm not gonna feel too terrible for a bunch of multi-millionaires who play a game they love for a living, but I can see where they're coming from given this expectation. When you get paid what they do you're expected to perform. Period. That's definitely not unreasonable, few things are in fact more reasonable, so being criticised for not carrying your weight is, as Taylor Hall pointed out, not unfair. Its all part of the business. But if all people write about is the negativity and feed into that downward spiral, how is one not affected? It becomes a slippery slope that snowballs rapidly. Hall, refreshingly, pointed out the human side of the game and speaking, far as I know, as a human being, it'd definitely be something that's hard to drown out. Hall had personal success in spite of it, but to write guys off because their confidence is shaken when all they see is trade rumours in the paper everyday or constant articles detailing how it's their fault the team is failing, it's not easy at all. That's not say these things shouldn't be written about, facts are facts, but its how they're presented that matters. Thees are grown men and we need not treat them with kid gloves, but what would you do when people see you and start giving you a hard time at the mall or grocery store? When you're being made to feel that you're letting an entire community down? Easy to say "they know what they signed up for!" not so easy to brush aside.
That's not to say it's easy to write, believe me, particularity with the ever evolving media market. However, these columnists don't have to live with the same type of burden those they cover do, so they can fire shot after shot with little recourse. If a player doesn't succeed it can mean a demotion, a trade, a family being up rooted. It's not writers kids at school hearing about it. It's rarely their job on the line. All a difficult part of the industry, and one that players and coaches inevitably have to deal with. It's a part of why they get paid so well. But to say that it doesn't affect you is asinine. Look at the results when guys have moved on. Taylor Hall, who to be fair always put up solid numbers, continues to in New Jersey and Jordan Eberle has been revitalised on Long Island. A fresh start can make a world of difference because mentally they're in a better place. Why have people avoided coming to the Maple Leafs over the years? Because they don't want to shoulder that burden. It's why guys who have won there are so revered and why those like Jonathan Drouin who speak about embracing the challenge in Montreal are praised by the media.
I see why hockey writers are so quick to defend their craft, and why both sides of this argument elicit valid points. No GM, owner, coach or player should be able to avoid answering the tough questions when they aren't meeting expectations, like anyone else. Without honest writing to look at what the team is doing, and holding them to a certain level of accountability, it does a disservice to fans and its why great writers are so respected. That said, there's an art to tactfully and honestly assessing people. Often the truth hurts and we should never be afraid to speak it. I'm not all about participation ribbons and avoiding pointing out the facts because someones feeling may be hurt. Such is life. However, there's a line there somewhere where it can become personal. Just ask Jason Spezza who got tired of being the whipping boy here in Ottawa and asked to be traded because of it.The fans turned on him, much of it fuelled by the press, and he had enough. A genuine critique is a necessary part of the business but when you see things like this start to happen, is it time to take a harder look at how they're covered? Some may laugh this off, suggesting players are soft, overly sensitive and indulged. Some well may be, after all these are elite athletes one generally assumes aren't lacking for confidence. That said even the greats face self doubt at times and if you're constantly living in a negative head space, escape is a welcomed relief. Why do you think so many have turned to sports psychologists? It's simple to fire off an angry column or tweet, but do we really understand the ramifications of what they're going through? We all face pressure at our jobs and worry about providing for loved ones, (like I said I don't feel too bad for a bunch of rich guys) but imagine if on top of that you had your name scrawled across the paper everyday demanding you be fired. If every decision you made was analysed to death. Not something most of us are equipped to deal with. In this click bait, 24/7 press world, columns and headlines everywhere often focus on the negative because we as a society seem to feed into it. Lets face it, its often more fun to read and write when you can take a funny shot at someone rather than deliver a puff piece lauding their success like some sycophantic fan. And to be fair to those of us who do endeavour to write, if all we ever did was gush about how great things were we'd be equally (and rightfully) lambasted.
What can we gleam from all this? Well, like most things in life there's a happy medium somewhere. Like any good night out, you gotta know when to say enough. Writers, be critical, be honest, be fair but most importantly be respectful. Players, remember what got you here in the first place and accept honest criticism like we all have to face in the workplace. Be a lot easier for us all.
Monday, November 27, 2017
Monday, November 20, 2017
Rewriting the (Rule) Book
The NHL saw a pair of 10 game suspension handed down this week and, well, that's about where the similarity between the two ends. You may as well be comparing apples to pucks in terms of how they were decided.
To start there was a good old fashioned dust up late in the Flames Red Wings game last Wednesday. It began when the Wings Luke Witkowski who was headed to the dressing room was apparently slashed...? by the Flames Matthew Tkachuk who was, well, being Matthew Tkachuk. Anyway, all hell broke lose and, fairly or unfairly, Witkowski now pays the price. That's because when a player returns to the ice to fight it's an automatic 10 game suspension, per NHL rules. Now in this case, it kinda seem like a lot. The player was literally only a few steps down the tunnel when Tkachuk tapped him with his stick and he then turned around and charged back out. The idea of this rule was to prevent the wild, all be it entertaining, incidents that were common place in the 60-80's. The NHL set about instituting a strict punishment and you'd have to argue that it's worked well. However, as Wings coach Jeff Blashill pointed out circumstance should be taken into account. While the spirit of the rule is to be admired, was this really something that was 10 game worthy when hits, and dirty plays (like the one we'll get to) often get far less? Tkachuk was suspended 1 game for his part and it may not seem fair but the fact is the rule is clear (even if Witkowski was apparently unaware of it) applied accordingly, and he won't appeal.
This brought to mind the Denis Wideman and Antoine Vermette incidents where players contacted an official and were subject to similarly clear rules (OK, maybe less clear in the Wideman saga...) and subsequently suspended as a result. If the punishment for these types of incidents is laid out by the letter of the law, it begs the question, could the league change the rule book to implement stricter punishment in other situations where a lengthy suspension should be the outcome?
The second suspension stemmed from the Flyers Jets game where the Flyers Radko Gudas attempted to remove Jet Matthieu Perreault's head, which inevitably had people calling for his. The league responded with a ten game suspension that many feel wasn't enough, especially given the repeat nature of the idiot, um, offender. I understand why people would like to see a harsher penalty, (particularly to a guy like Gudas) there's no place in the game for that crap, but the fact is, with the current structure in place, it's not that simple.
First off with any suspension there has to be proof of intent and the fact is the league has no idea what's going on in Gudas's head (spoiler alert, not a hell of a lot). As mentioned he's a repeat offender and a guy who walks the line constantly. However, the act itself isn't enough and unless the file against you fills up a hockey bag (ala Raffi Torres) odds are he wasn't gonna get more. This begins to shine a light on one of the biggest problems in the league when it comes to discipline: how do you protect the players from themselves and punish these sorts of acts in such a way that more strongly discourages them?
If the league had gone to 20 games for example, Gudas would be quick (far more so than he is on the ice) and foolish not to go to an independent body to appeal, both from a professional and financial standpoint - Gudas will forfeit over 400k in salary as a result of this suspension. Then there's the process. The body involved in appeals is not a hockey one and what may be seen as obvious to some in the game may not be to them. They simply look at what's happened in similar incidents and apply justice as such. Gudas was falling forward and I've heard (morons) argue that he simply lost balance and didn't have any sort of control over what he was doing. There's also the fact that Perreault (thankfully) wasn't seriously injured on the play. These mitigating circumstance would be argued and a reduction in games would likely be the outcome. The NHL would rather not push the envelope by trying to implement such a lengthy ban then look bad by losing in arbitration.
The issue then becomes precedent. The fact that the player would probably win isn't because he wasn't wrong in committing whatever transgression got him suspended, but simply because the league, generally, hasn't tossed guys for long periods of time previously so it wouldn't seem fair to do so. Sure you have the odd Dale Hunter or Chris Simon thrown in but for the most part 10 games is seen as a sort of max for this sort of thing.
This got me to thinking should the league look at rule changes that would remove the sort of grey areas that lead to arbitration? Whether it's head shots, stick work, whatever, can they find a system that would outline the proper suspension? While I'm sure the players would jump at this idea, it may simply lend itself to further grey areas. Not all these plays are going to fit into a nice little box you can merely check off and say that's what they should get. However, it'd be a start and provide a much clearer guideline to work from.
Or do they go another route and put more weight on previous suspensions and punish repeat offenders more harshly? While this is already, supposedly, taken into account by the NHL's Department of Player Safety, should they up the anti make the punishment more sever to these particular players? To be fair Gudas likely would've gotten less had he not been a repeat offender, but how do you explain to the casual fan that these two guys got the same suspension given the optics? Not that the fight in Detroit looked like a picnic, but one is clearly more egregious than the other.
The whole thing seems contradictory because you're talking about protecting players from players and essentially the same body is arguing for both their rights, so should the victim's plight not be given more weight? Whatever the case the league, and the players association, need to take a serious look at how they dole out discipline. That's not to say there's been a rash of incidents like this, but until the issue is addressed there really isn't a strong enough deterrent in place to prevent guys from acting out.
To start there was a good old fashioned dust up late in the Flames Red Wings game last Wednesday. It began when the Wings Luke Witkowski who was headed to the dressing room was apparently slashed...? by the Flames Matthew Tkachuk who was, well, being Matthew Tkachuk. Anyway, all hell broke lose and, fairly or unfairly, Witkowski now pays the price. That's because when a player returns to the ice to fight it's an automatic 10 game suspension, per NHL rules. Now in this case, it kinda seem like a lot. The player was literally only a few steps down the tunnel when Tkachuk tapped him with his stick and he then turned around and charged back out. The idea of this rule was to prevent the wild, all be it entertaining, incidents that were common place in the 60-80's. The NHL set about instituting a strict punishment and you'd have to argue that it's worked well. However, as Wings coach Jeff Blashill pointed out circumstance should be taken into account. While the spirit of the rule is to be admired, was this really something that was 10 game worthy when hits, and dirty plays (like the one we'll get to) often get far less? Tkachuk was suspended 1 game for his part and it may not seem fair but the fact is the rule is clear (even if Witkowski was apparently unaware of it) applied accordingly, and he won't appeal.
This brought to mind the Denis Wideman and Antoine Vermette incidents where players contacted an official and were subject to similarly clear rules (OK, maybe less clear in the Wideman saga...) and subsequently suspended as a result. If the punishment for these types of incidents is laid out by the letter of the law, it begs the question, could the league change the rule book to implement stricter punishment in other situations where a lengthy suspension should be the outcome?
The second suspension stemmed from the Flyers Jets game where the Flyers Radko Gudas attempted to remove Jet Matthieu Perreault's head, which inevitably had people calling for his. The league responded with a ten game suspension that many feel wasn't enough, especially given the repeat nature of the idiot, um, offender. I understand why people would like to see a harsher penalty, (particularly to a guy like Gudas) there's no place in the game for that crap, but the fact is, with the current structure in place, it's not that simple.
First off with any suspension there has to be proof of intent and the fact is the league has no idea what's going on in Gudas's head (spoiler alert, not a hell of a lot). As mentioned he's a repeat offender and a guy who walks the line constantly. However, the act itself isn't enough and unless the file against you fills up a hockey bag (ala Raffi Torres) odds are he wasn't gonna get more. This begins to shine a light on one of the biggest problems in the league when it comes to discipline: how do you protect the players from themselves and punish these sorts of acts in such a way that more strongly discourages them?
If the league had gone to 20 games for example, Gudas would be quick (far more so than he is on the ice) and foolish not to go to an independent body to appeal, both from a professional and financial standpoint - Gudas will forfeit over 400k in salary as a result of this suspension. Then there's the process. The body involved in appeals is not a hockey one and what may be seen as obvious to some in the game may not be to them. They simply look at what's happened in similar incidents and apply justice as such. Gudas was falling forward and I've heard (morons) argue that he simply lost balance and didn't have any sort of control over what he was doing. There's also the fact that Perreault (thankfully) wasn't seriously injured on the play. These mitigating circumstance would be argued and a reduction in games would likely be the outcome. The NHL would rather not push the envelope by trying to implement such a lengthy ban then look bad by losing in arbitration.
The issue then becomes precedent. The fact that the player would probably win isn't because he wasn't wrong in committing whatever transgression got him suspended, but simply because the league, generally, hasn't tossed guys for long periods of time previously so it wouldn't seem fair to do so. Sure you have the odd Dale Hunter or Chris Simon thrown in but for the most part 10 games is seen as a sort of max for this sort of thing.
This got me to thinking should the league look at rule changes that would remove the sort of grey areas that lead to arbitration? Whether it's head shots, stick work, whatever, can they find a system that would outline the proper suspension? While I'm sure the players would jump at this idea, it may simply lend itself to further grey areas. Not all these plays are going to fit into a nice little box you can merely check off and say that's what they should get. However, it'd be a start and provide a much clearer guideline to work from.
Or do they go another route and put more weight on previous suspensions and punish repeat offenders more harshly? While this is already, supposedly, taken into account by the NHL's Department of Player Safety, should they up the anti make the punishment more sever to these particular players? To be fair Gudas likely would've gotten less had he not been a repeat offender, but how do you explain to the casual fan that these two guys got the same suspension given the optics? Not that the fight in Detroit looked like a picnic, but one is clearly more egregious than the other.
The whole thing seems contradictory because you're talking about protecting players from players and essentially the same body is arguing for both their rights, so should the victim's plight not be given more weight? Whatever the case the league, and the players association, need to take a serious look at how they dole out discipline. That's not to say there's been a rash of incidents like this, but until the issue is addressed there really isn't a strong enough deterrent in place to prevent guys from acting out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)