Me and the Blackhawks, together at last?

I've never been a big NHL fan. I think most of the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of longtime Blackhawks' owner Bill Wirtz, a notorious tightwad who refused to allow their home games to be televised because he worried it would cut into attendance. Which as we know has been a HUGE problem for the Cubs. And every other team throughout the history of televised sports that naively thinks that TV can be used to reach hordes of new fans -- people who might later, you know, attend a game -- as opposed to just slicing into the gate receipts. Additionally, unlike the Cubs -- and Bulls and Bears, for that matter -- the Hawks had no games of any kind on free TV, and instead were exclusively on SportsVision/SportsChannel/Fox Sports/Comcast Sports until very recently. And as a kid, we didn't have cable TV; first it wasn't available in our "unincorporated" neighborhood, and then later my parents insisted we didn't need it.* So while I tried to follow those Denis Savard/Steve Larmer/Al Secord/Doug Wilson teams in the early-to-mid 80s, without the ability to actually see the games, I never really got hooked.

* In high school, I decided that I could no longer tolerate living in an ESPN-free world and paid for cable and its installation. Soon after, as I admonished my parents for watching shows on my cable, they conceded that it really didn't seem fair and said they'd start paying me for it -- just as soon as I began giving them some money for the use of their TVs.

Well played, mom and dad.

A few years ago, however, the Blackhawks began moving in a new direction when Wirtz passed away and his son Rocky took over the franchise. The younger Wirtz announced pretty much immediately that home games would be televised, and quickly hired long-time Cubs' marketing guru John McDonough to be the team's president. Add in the organization's stable of good young players -- cultivated by years of high-position drafting due to perennial playoff absenteeism -- and I soon was willing to give the Hawks another look. With Jonathan Toews and Patrick Kane, among others, the team is really hard not to like, and I do follow them with some interest. Still I wouldn't consider myself much of a hockey fan, and my overall knowledge of the NHL is pretty limited. Relatively speaking, of course.

Which brings us to a few weeks ago. Having been treated to theater tickets by my wife -- and with "treated" I'm not being facetious; the play was actually really good -- I decided to return the favor by bringing her to a sporting event. My options were limited by her hatred of basketball, as its excess of scoring really enrages her for some reason. The upshot is that she prefers games where points are at a premium, so that left us with hockey. I got nosebleed tickets to the Blackhawks-Blues, and managed to keep it more or less a surprise until we pulled up to the United Center last Wednesday.**

** A secret largely ruined by Stubhub.com appearing on our credit card bill. Perhaps not the most well-thought-out plan on my part. But my wife was nice enough to play along as if she hadn't figured it out.

I've always said that hockey is much better in person than on TV, where it translates worse than the other major American team sports.*** And yet I had been to but one NHL game; my theory about hockey being great in person was based almost entirely on my experience as a diehard spectator at my high school team's games. I won't stray off-topic too badly, but man those games were a ton of fun. Even better than high school football, in a lot of ways.

** My rankings, by television-friendliness:
4. NHL The puck at times being hard to follow is just part of it; a lot of the best hits happen after the puck has left a zone, and therefore occur off-screen when the game is on TV.
3. MLB The evolution of baseball broadcasting has pretty much ruined it. Baseball is largely about tension and the anticipation of specific moments. The constant cutaways we have now have almost entirely eliminated that sensation for the at-home viewer. Watch an old game on ESPN Classic, and try to tell me it isn't infinitely better. Seriously, try. When a broadcast doesn't move off the centerfield camera without the ball being contacted, the suspense returns and the game experience improves dramatically.
2. NBA Really, very good on TV. Only quibble is the occasional missed replay when there is no immediate stoppage of play. Not much at all, and yet the NBA just can't compare to #1.
1. NFL Anyone beg to differ? I would rather watch an NFL game on TV than see one in person, and there's no way I'd say that about any of the other three sports. There's a lot of downtime in football, and on television most of it is packed with replays, so that 99% of the time you get to see everything you'd ever want to see, and more.

So as we made our way to our seats in the upper tier of the UC, I was expecting to have a good time. What I wasn't expecting was how good of a time I had. I loved every minute of it. The excitement each time the puck gets near the crease, the power plays, the breakaways, all of it. The Hawks won 3-1 -- losing the shutout on a where-the-hell-did-that-come-from goal with 1.5 seconds remaining -- but completely dominated the contest. They allowed just seven shots in the first two periods combined, and led 2-0 most of the way. Still, the two-goal margin was close enough to keep it interesting, and when St. Louis got a power play with about six minutes to go, the Chicken Little sports fan that lurks inside of me was already envisioning the lead shrinking to 2-1, and then disappearing entirely. The whole game, I had been praying for one more goal, just to cut some of my internal tension, and now I was sensing the Blackhawks' margin slipping away. So imagine my elation when Colin Fraser, with the Hawks a man down, somehow got a breakaway and scored a short-handed goal to completely seal the game. It was so shockingly unexpected, I pretty much lost it, cheering wildly with an open-mouthed, shit-eating grin that must have lasted a full five minutes.

Afterwards it was clear my wife enjoyed the game as much as I did, saying (more than once) that we had to go back again. I know why she enjoyed it: it was entertaining and exciting, and she doesn't think we get out enough. But why, exactly, did I love it so much? As I was thinking, That was a lot of fun. I really should become a bigger hockey fan, it hit me. Becoming a bigger fan would be the worst thing I could do; I relished the game so much precisely because I'm not that big a fan, and I don't know nearly everything there is to know about hockey.

When I watch a baseball, basketball, or football game, my enjoyment is marred by too much knowledge. I see players doing boneheaded things and coaches making terrible calls or playing atrocious lineups, and it infuriates me. It's difficult to enjoy whatever sport I'm watching because I'm so preoccupied with how badly everyone is screwing everything up. All my familiarity has bred nothing but contempt, and if I could, I think I'd erase all the existing sports expertise from my accursed brain. That way, all my sporting experiences would be like my hockey one.

So I will not become a bigger hockey fan. I will instead keep a safe distance, thereby maintaining a greater level of enjoyment when we actually do go to our next game. All of which gives me a new appreciation for a certain previously-vilified character: Bill Wirtz. I am sorry, sir; truly you were a misunderstood miser-genius. Your ridiculously archaic policies created a sanctuary for hockey, and to this day the sport is free from the wretched clutches of my knowledge. Thank you, Mr. Wirtz, I owe you one. And from what I understand, you'll probably find a way to collect.