[News] Jim Hughson: Canucks Homer?

[PeteMoss]

I don't think he's an intentional homer... he just knows way more about the Canucks than the Flames and it becomes evident at times during his commentary.

[Igster]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Of course he is.
Shall we say it 1000 more times to make it more true? 10,000?

Maybe 100,000?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Poe969

Geez...is he your brother or something? I wish I had time to re-watch the games, heck I wish I had time to be able to watch 100% of the games on TV but I don't so I won't be able to take notes and present them to you.

So, you haven't watched all of the full games on TV? Could this have possibly affected your evaluation of the playcall?

In some respects I'm lucky. I usually have games on in the background while at work, and with NHL Vault it's easy to navigate them to find things I want to see.

Originally Posted by Poe969

I, and it seems a lot of others, feel that Hughson is biased towards the nucks. He does sing the praises of the Flames at times but I, and it seems a lot of others, feel he sings the praises of the nucks more ofthen. But, as you pointed out, I don't have written proof of examples so I guess he isn't.

That's group-think in action. All of us are intuitive pattern constructing social conformists. We see, hear, and believe things more readily that others do, regardless of whether or not they are accurate or true.

Originally Posted by Poe969

Hughson is a cunuck broadcaster and I wish they had someone else, and I'm not suggesting a Flames broadcaster, calling the games. I don't enjoy when a game is called with a biased towards either team as it makes the game much less enjoyable, again I have no written proof of this so I'm probably wrong.

It is not just "written" proof that you lack, you have no proof of any sort. Your feelings that are validated by invested fans do not constitute any manner of evidence to show that Hughson is calling with a demonstrable bias.

Like I said earlier, it is undoubtedly difficult for him to completely quell his own very positive feelings about the Canucks because of his history. But even while some of this is bound to come through in his call, it hasn't been all that bad (outside of Game 2, which I thought was pretty bad). It's just such a tedious thing to complain about.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Igster

Maybe 100,000?

Well, we must be getting close by now...

[Poe969]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

So, you haven't watched all of the full games on TV? Could this have possibly affected your evaluation of the playcall?

No, I don't usually get to watch games in full yet I still find some examples, much like one already pointed out about how Hughson said that Horvat would have bee a Calder candidate if he hadn't had a poor half of the season. That's like saying I would have been the best hockey player in the world if I didn't suck at it so much.

In some respects I'm lucky. I usually have games on in the background while at work, and with NHL Vault it's easy to navigate them to find things I want to see.

Because of the time difference here in Ontario, the games are on at late times and I can't just have them on. I'm on CP enough while at work, between actually working and coming on here I don't have time to do much else.


That's group-think in action. All of us are intuitive pattern constructing social conformists. We see, hear, and believe things more readily that others do, regardless of whether or not they are accurate or true.

So it must also be group-think that Hamhuis' hit on Bennett was dirty. There was only a minor penalty called and not a suspension yet most here think that it was a dirty hit but we must all be wrong because the league didn't suspend him.

It is not just "written" proof that you lack, you have no proof of any sort. Your feelings that are validated by invested fans do not constitute any manner of evidence to show that Hughson is calling with a demonstrable bias.

I gave an example of how "it seems" that he has more positive things to say about the canucks then he does about the Flames but since I don't take game notes of the broadcaster's comments or re-watch the games to collect examples for you, I will concede that my proof is lacking. I can only go off of memory and give examples of how he said things like the Horvat comment or how he didn't seem to think that Hamhius being the third man in was an issue.

Like I said earlier, it is undoubtedly difficult for him to completely quell his own very positive feelings about the Canucks because of his history. But even while some of this is bound to come through in his call, it hasn't been all that bad (outside of Game 2, which I thought was pretty bad). It's just such a tedious thing to complain about.

So you agree that it has been bad and you're only arguing for the sake of arguing....Ok, you're right, I'm wrong. That better big guy?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Poe969

So you agree that it has been bad and you're only arguing for the sake of arguing....Ok, you're right, I'm wrong. That better big guy?

No, I don't agree. I said that the call has not been bad outside of a single game (a game, I should add in which the Canucks looked terrific and the Flames looked terrible). You're arguing semantics.

My whole point has been that Hughson is doing fine, and that this is an insignificant issue that does not warrant the level of attention and complaints it has received.

And no one is "right" or "wrong" here. This is a matter of preference, but I have argued that if you believe that your complaint is justified, then you should be able to demonstrate it. And that takes work. Certainly much more work than any of us is willing to undertake to complete. So, as an alternative, I think a much better response is just to ignore what you believe Hughson is thinking while he describes the action on the ice, and just enjoy the game.

[calf]

If Flames fans think it's a Canucks biased call, and Canucks fans think it's Flames biased, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

[Aeneas]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Personally, I like Hughson, and I don't care if he likes the Canucks. His call of the game shows that he likes hockey, and his enthusiasm for the sport comes through. Play-by-play commentary is way harder than it sounds, and he does a good job--quibbling over "bias" is just silly. He doesn't affect the outcome of the game.

I remember always liking Hughson from way back. I was fond of his game calling. Maybe mostly because I couldn't stand Bob Cole's love fest for the Leafs. I liked Cole's voice, just not what he was saying. I found Hughson refreshing.

Over the last 5-8 years I think his fondness for the Canucks comes through too much.

One small thing that bothers me is what he doesn't say. When a Canuck makes a hit, small one or large, you hear about it. Some times when a Flame makes a hit, he says nothing. No big deal though.

[Aeneas]

Originally Posted by calf

If Flames fans think it's a Canucks biased call, and Canucks fans think it's Flames biased, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

True. A Canuck fan I converse with daily thinks Hughson is in love with the Flames.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by calf

If Flames fans think it's a Canucks biased call, and Canucks fans think it's Flames biased, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

Originally Posted by Aeneas

True. A Canuck fan I converse with daily thinks Hughson is in love with the Flames.

Maybe Jim Hughson just loves hockey?

[getbak]

This one stood out to me when I was watching the highlights from Game 3:



"It's lucky it hit the goaltender or it might have got right through to Jiri Hudler."


Not really an unbiased call on that play. It certainly wasn't a good thing for the Flames that it didn't go to Hudler.

[RyZ]

#LegendofLack .......... it grows with every save.

[bob-loblaw]

This is minor and nitpicky, but why do some announcers have to add the first name to any player that has a slightly unusual last name. It seems like he always says 'Rada Vrbata' instead of just 'Vrbata'. Also, isn't it 'Radim Vrbata'? It's like announcers want to show off the pronunciation skills.

[aaronck]

This isn't new, in 2011 the Bruins didn't win the cup, the Canucks lost it with their sub par play...It was great to hear his call of the game 7 loss

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Flames89

I found him better in game 3, and I am wondering if he relatively* slants his calls towards whoever is the home team, as the side stories were more Flames based in game 3.

(* relatively versus his gushing for Canucks in games 1 and 2)

I think he honestly tries to call the games from both angles, and will sometimes even overcompensate, but he can't help but be more affected by how the Canucks do. He is emotionally invested in them and it comes through often. I don't think we should take it personally, but it is a weakness in the production IMO.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by bob-loblaw

This is minor and nitpicky, but why do some announcers have to add the first name to any player that has a slightly unusual last name. It seems like he always says 'Rada Vrbata' instead of just 'Vrbata'. Also, isn't it 'Radim Vrbata'? It's like announcers want to show off the pronunciation skills.

Or Luca Sbisa.

It's OK to just say Sbisa.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Or "18 Year Old Sam Bennett"?

Here's how it works. The guy is calling a series with two Canadian teams, so he has to hype up players on both rosters and seem excited for both.

When one team is playing better, the commentary favours that team. That stands to reason. However, when that team is not YOUR team, and you're already annoyed because your team is trailing, you feel especially hard done by on the commentary front.

The Canucks outplayed the Flames in game 1 except for a portion of the second period and the last part of the third, and were leading until late in the third. They were the better team during 90% of game 2. Hence, those games were Canuck friendly in terms of the play calling, and the home crowd factor probably played into it as well.

The Flames dominated 90% of game 3, and consequently the call was similarly favourable to the home side again (with, again, home crowd probably playing a role), leading to Canucks fans complaining about the commentators.

[Regular_John]

The "legend of Eddie Lack" stuff bugs me more than anything. How about the guy stands on his head and wins oh I dunno, a single playoff series before we start using the word "legend".

[getbak]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Or Luca Sbisa.

It's OK to just say Sbisa.

Masonraymond.


A few years ago, I thought the Blackhawks had a defenceman whose last name was Nicoletti. It took me a few games to finally figure out they were talking about Nick Leddy.

[Senator Clay Davis]

He's been mighty tame this series relative to a few years ago. I wonder how much of that is two Canadian teams being involved. If the Canucks get through to round 2 and get Anaheim though I can see the homerism hitting unbearable levels again, assuming he doesn't get "transferred" to doing the Montreal series. But for this series he's really not been over the top like he was in 2011. There were an insane amount of cringe worthy moments in that run.