I remember years ago when hockey used to be about the teams. It wasn’t Bobby Orr or Phil Esposito and the Boston Bruins. It wasn’t Denis Savard and the Chicago Blackhawks. Or Dennis Maruk and the Washington Capitals. Or Bill Root and the Montreal Canadiens. Ok. Enough of that.

Then, a guy from the NBA named Gary Bettman came along and proclaimed, “let there be light and ice!” And promptly decided the NHL needs to market its players above the clubs.

Suddenly, it became Jaromir Jagr versus Pavel Bure; Jarome Iginla against Vincent Lecavalier; Alex Ovechkin versus Sidney Crosby; Tom versus Jerry.

Not that the NHL are effective in branding their name and league, but I can see why they took this option.

It’s one thing for the league to market itself in this way but for experts to jump in on the act leaves them open to bias and exaggeration. That’s why we act so surprised while scratching our heads whenever someone carves a career without the blessing of the scouting and commentator community. We can’t handle when a player develops later on and was not “seen” by the network. It’s seen as suspicious and if you’re from Switzerland or France even worse for you.

As a consequence (and this is just my perception), our narrative has turned hockey into an individualist sport. It’s all about who makes the “key” save and which goalie “outplayed” who. Of course, we love empty phrases like “clutch” and “look in their eyes” and “chemistry” in general these days. We have to since we over-analyze and over think games. The drum beat of minutaie is mind-numbing to listen to or read.

The way I see it, every thing that happens in a game is hinged on the collective actions of an entire team; that’s why putting too much weight, for example, on “wins” by a goalie can be misleading. Try to keep the big picture in perspective.

How many NFL team have won a Super Bowl on “no-name” quarterbacks, again?

Sorry. My attention tailed off as I watch the Eagles take on the Giants.

Anyway.

Personally, I prefer when the NHL markets teams. The NHL has enough history to go that route. It worked perfectly for the NBA because in basketball, A) one player can have a direct impact on the flow and outcome of a game and B) the league is the youngest among the major pro sports and as a result, aside from the Boston Celtics and maybe the Minneapolis/Los Angeles Lakers, marketing franchises is harder. In any event, it differentiates itself from baseball and football both rich in historical franchises.

Players come and go. Franchises, on average, are rooted in the community.