The perils of Maple Leaf blogging

I’m trying to recall exactly what I was thinking when I started writing here about the Maple Leafs.  Few if any of you likely remember, but VLM was 'launched', if I can call it that, in late September, 2009.  That was the era of a still “new-on-the-job” Brian Burke, but also after a series of highly unsuccessful Leaf seasons that ended without a playoff berth.

What I do remember is that my original intent was to develop a site that was a bit different, at least in terms of the subject matter.  I had many fond memories of the Maple Leafs of my youth (the late ’50, ‘60s and into the ‘70s) and I wanted to share some of my personal recollections and “stories”.  Those who have followed and maybe even enjoyed the site somewhere along the way know that this is a one-man effort (with the help of some outstanding posters, of course).  I never intended to "grow" the site or add writers.  It's just me, sharing my recollections about the 'old days' and making some observations about the current team.

It’s not a hockey humour site (I’m not funny).  While I talk about the past a lot, I’m not really a historian.  I don’t do research. 

Essentially, I write about what I remember, when it comes to the olden days. And that may be the only point of differentiation about VLM.  When writing about the history of the Leafs, I basically only talk about what I saw and remember myself—I don’t base anything I say here on what others have written in books about the old Leafs.

In a previous life, I’ve had the pleasure of interviewing many Maple Leafs and other hockey players as well, including some all-time greats like Jean Beliveau (right, one of the classiest individuals you can imagine, in any walk of life), Rocket Richard and yes, Wayne Gretzky.  On occasion I’ve shared some of those memories here, too.  (A couple of the old interviews are available on this site, under “Vintage audio”. I hope that feature is still working!)

I’ve also worked with some high-profile coaches in the NHL world on a professional basis, and that has no doubt shaped my perspective as well when I write about the sport and the people who are part of it.  I try to bring a thoughtful, open-minded voice to the discussions here.

Mostly, I just talk Leafs.  The new Leafs, yes, but also the “old” Leafs.  I especially enjoy reminiscing about the Punch Imlach era, which began in the late 1950s, and saw the blue and white take home four championships in that wonderful decade of the ‘60s.  Those were simpler times, for sure, and a lot of fun for a young Leaf fan—though there were many disappointments, too.  We didn’t win every year—and haven’t won since…

That said, I’ve also made it clear here that even though the Leafs have not won a Cup in 45 years, they have not always been awful since 1967, despite what sometimes seems to be the prevailing “opinion” out there.  There have been a few 'highs' and some great moments at certain points in the ‘70s, and of course in the Burns and Quinn eras.

Now, when it comes to writing about the present-day Leafs, this is where (and this I was probably not aware of going in) the challenge lies. I’m not in my “I know everything there is to know about (insert the topic)” part of my life.  You know, that heady time where younger people sometimes seem to think they have the world by the tail and are right about everything.

At (approaching) the age of 60, I’ve seen a lot, but don’t pretend to know it all. So I was caught, if not by surprise, then somewhat off-guard when I recognized how volatile the response could be when I penned pieces about the modern-day Maple Leafs.  I realize looking back now that my original intent was to write about my 'memories' almost exclusively, but somehow I started commenting on the current club, and that’s what readers seemed to want much more than talking about games that were played fifty years ago.

So I continued to comment on the current-day Leafs.

When you post as often as I have (moving toward 1,300 posts since VLM started), I guess you’re bound to say something that offends the sensibilities of some Leaf fans.  Some loved Burke, for example.  Others loathed him.  When I wrote about the former GM, it hit a nerve at times.  Some people stopped following the site.  I always thought I tried to provide a reasoned position for my views, but they were not always well-received.

It was the same with the lockout.  If you dared express a view that did not claim the players’ were absolutely “in the right”, you didn’t know what you were talking about. 

I need not list all the Leaf players who cause a rift in Leafworld.  Forget the last ten seasons.  Just the present roster:  Kessel, check.  Grabovski, check.  Our fighters, check. Reimer, check.  Phaneuf, check, check.

When I write positively and hopefully about the Leafs (goodness knows there is enough negativity about the team out there) I’m told I’m too Pollyanna-like.  If I criticize a decision or a player, I hear that I’m just acting like the mainstream media, and that I should stop being so negative on a Maple Leaf site.

Oh well.

Then there is the “stats” issue.  Goodness.  Does anything divide a fan base more nowadays than the chasm between those who seemingly truly believe “advanced stats” reveal who the really good players are versus those who rely on “seeing” and assessing the game with their own eyes? (I don’t much care myself where people stand on this question.  NHL teams have kept different types of stats since the ‘60s.  The Rangers, as I recall, under Emile “The Cat” Francis as GM and sometimes coach, first developed the “plus/minus” stat in the mid-‘60s before it became the norm to do so.  All NHL teams are well aware of the sophisticated stats that are out there these days, and utilize those numbers to varying degrees. It’s not like Carlyle and the Leafs go blithely along, unaware that such golden data exists…)

On this note, I'm not a fan of "group think", where like-minded commentators band together to search out and destroy those who see things differently.  Their view?  Everyone should hate certain writers or points of view, or whatever.  It makes little sense to me, but that type of attitude is most certainly out there.  And I guess I just don't get it.

Sadly, the stats thing has become like the Hatfields and the McCoy’s.  Never the twain shall meet, I guess, though it's not that complicated to me.  Good hockey people (same with fans) see the value of both statistical analysis and the experienced 'eyeballs' approach.

Unfortunately, this all leads to a sometimes-poisonous climate between fans (forget between fans and the organization, or fans and the “media”—I’m talking about fans battling fans).  It’s not a shock that Leaf fans often see the same picture differently—not at all.  It’s been this way for as long as I can remember.  (In truth, it’s part of the reason why I prefer to watch sporting events by myself when I have a serious rooting interest.)

The disagreements are not the issue.  But how we handle those discussions can be insulting and hurtful, and that’s a shame.

My point, I guess, is that I have done this largely for fun over the years.  (Anyone would prefer to do it for a large financial return, but that’s not the reality for most bloggers.)  Sure, I recognize that when anyone takes a position in public on any subject, even something as inconsequential as hockey and the Maple Leafs, others will react, and not always in a considerate fashion.

However, when I see the acerbic tone and some taking constant shots at one another in the fan/blogger community, it's simply not enjoyable for me.  That’s one of the reasons I’m posting less this spring and will continue on a lighter schedule in the days ahead.  I don’t enjoy personal attacks (though I have been relatively fortunate over the years, I guess) and am not one for vitriol, so the “fun” of doing a blog is curtailed when the response or subsequent discussion goes from thoughtful, considered and respectful to something less than that.

Again, I’ve been fortunate.  At VLM, I could name a long list of people who post here, either regularly or on occasion, that are fabulous.  They write well, always provide perspective and a rationale for their views, and even when we significantly disagree on the topics of the day, they/we do so in a respectful manner.  They make me think.  I’m good with that.  In fact, I enjoy a respectful clash of views.

The harsher stuff has no appeal, however.  Whether it’s on blog sites, chat forums, Twitter, whatever, it’s hockey, after all, that we’re talking about—not some important life-changing social issue. I assume if someone does not appreciate my perspective, they won’t visit VLM.  If they do, they will hopefully see that the tone and tenor of this site is, by design, different than what is often experienced in the conventional blogospehere. 

I’ll be making decisions about the future of the site over the course of the summer.  If readers would like to be in touch to share their thoughts as to whether VLM still has a role to play in the Leafland discourse, let me know.  My e-mail is Michael@prospectcommunications.com