Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Two Minutes Of Thunder Basketball Wins The Game

Puck Daddy's Sharks coverage vs. their Wings coverage

Over the last couple years, I've noticed that a lot of posters here at Fear the Fin, and on the Battle of California, have complained about Puck Daddy and what they perceived as an anti-San Jose tone to their posts. While I don't read Puck Daddy as much lately, I've noted some occasional sucker punches, typically digs at our lack of postseason success, or more specific jibes of the "Joe Thornton isn't a big-time player" variety.

Whatever, it's a snarky blog, and it's probably just like how every hockey fan thinks the opponent's broadcasting team are sniveling homers. As a Sharks fan it's annoying hearing the same insults over and over, but that's what fans of underachieving teams get, apparently. Wings fans aren't better people because the team they cheer for perennially contends. I like hockey and like my local team, who cares what assholes think? But I thought, "I should go compare posts about the Sharks and, say, Wings, and see if any of the bias talk holds up to scrutiny." So I did.

Star-divide

Methodology

I looked at all the Puck Daddy posts in November tagged "San Jose Sharks" and "Detroit Red Wings" and made a judgement call about whether the team was mentioned positively, negatively, or neutrally. A single post could have more than one statement that I judged positive/negative/neutral. For example, a capsule post might mention the Sharks upcoming games (I count those neutral), Antii Niemi's poor start to the season (negative), and how the Sharks power play has been successful lately (positive). Getting a Star of the Night was an automatic positive, as was an Honorable Mention. Dishonorable Mentions were negative. Posts that painted Sharks players in a good light, like pointing out Pickles "Lousy Gardner" video, were added to the positive column.

San Jose Sharks Results

Positive Neutral Negative Total +/-
13 27 14 54 -1

Thoughts on the Sharks Coverage at Puck Daddy

Altogether, I was a little surprised at how close the positive and negative totals were. I was curious about how this would compare to the Wings totals, though.

Detroit Red Wings Results

Positive Neutral Negative Total +/-
24 35 8 67 +16

Thoughts on the Red Wings Coverage at Puck Daddy

Well, that's quite a bit different. There were 49 total stories tagged "Detroit Red Wings", similar enough to the 44 stories tagged "San Jose Sharks." But the posts not only talked more about the Wings (67 statements vs. the Sharks 54), but were overwhelmingly positive. Many of the positive statements were praising specific Wings players, like Pavel Datsyuk or Nicklas Lidstrom. Another difference was due to multiple positive mentions in Honorable Mentions or 3 Stars posts for the Wings, while Sharks games usually had only 1 positive mention.

Final Thoughts

It seems pretty clear from these numbers that the Wings are portrayed more positively on Puck Daddy than the Sharks. While Puck Daddy posts aren't overwhelmingly negative to San Jose, the Sharks don't receive as much praise as the team they beat in the playoffs last year in 5 games.

Caveats

Puck Daddy writers have every right to praise or diss whatever team or player they want, and I'm not saying any of this is a conspiracy or anything like that. This is by no means a scientific survey. Off the top of my head, here's some non-tinfoil hat reasons for the discrepancy in +/-:

  • The Wings have a better record than the Sharks this year, leading to more positive coverage.
  • The Wings are in the eastern time zone, so the inherent bias of media coverage against west coast teams could play a role here.
  • The sample size is too small to make any real conclusions.

This item was created by a member of this blog's community and is not necessarily endorsed by Fear The Fin.

Comment 22 comments  |  1 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Interesting analysis, but I think you’re missing one key element. Simple time zone difference. I don’t think it’s so much an east coast bias as Wysh doesn’t stay up to watch the end of the Sharks’ games. We are almost always the last game on the docket for any given day, and that’s reflected in the number of times we are the very last mention in the “honorable mentions,” which is his way of making it look like he watched each game when we know he didn’t.

If you keep this up for another month or two, we might have some evidence to present at his annual performance review. ;)

Jon Casey fan since '84
Founder of Feel the Teal.
I have a Twitter Thing.

by stufflife on Nov 30, 2010 10:14 AM PST reply actions  

Yup, that’s possible. See my second caveat.

A West Coast correspondant would be a good addition, as I’m sure other west coast teams are in a similar boat.

by ievans on Nov 30, 2010 10:43 AM PST up reply actions  

It'd be interesting to compare this year to last.

At least, once the season is over. I feel like there was more positive reaction to the Sharks last year on Puck Daddy. Maybe the team was forcing that, I don’t know. And maybe it’s all in my head.

Thanks for doing this, though.

I just talk a lot and somehow accidentally say things that sound smart. It’s all smoke and mirrors, I tell ya.

by Auth0r on Nov 30, 2010 11:12 AM PST reply actions  

While this may have some merit

We’re getting awfully close to whiny fanboyism here. This seems way too similar to the guys who on MHH who wrote a fanpost counting positive/negative mentions of the Avalanche on Behind the Net, and then said Hawerchuck was biased against the Avs, ignoring the fact that the Avs were a pretty bad team last year that got awfully lucky with shooting and save percentages.

by tarlinian on Nov 30, 2010 3:33 PM PST reply actions  

And with the Wings doing (quite a bit IMO) better this year and having an overall larger fanbase, it’s entirely reasonable for them to have more positive articles written about them.

by tarlinian on Nov 30, 2010 3:34 PM PST up reply actions  

The point was actually to avoid whiny fanboyism, actually. Like I said, I’m used to people dissing the Sharks, and I expect it will continue even if we win a Cup someday. I don’t believe in conspiracy theories.

I thought it was interesting, and unexpected, that the numbers turned out the way they did. I honestly thought the Wings and Sharks winning percentage would be close to the positive/negative ratio. But the Wings are way out in front of that, and the Sharks are a bit behind.

I didn’t know about the Avs/BTN thing. Huh.

by ievans on Nov 30, 2010 4:29 PM PST up reply actions  

OH! Just realized you said the same thing .. ha! :)

Ever get the feeling we are on a collision course with reality?
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" -- Benjamin Franklin

by Angy on Dec 1, 2010 8:08 AM PST up reply actions  

Heh, me too…whoops :)

In Dinglebarn We Trust

by Niesy on Dec 1, 2010 8:14 AM PST up reply actions  

have you been taking lessons from the Avs fans? They did this same sorta thing with Behind the Net posts cause they felt they were being dumped on. :)

Ever get the feeling we are on a collision course with reality?
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" -- Benjamin Franklin

by Angy on Dec 1, 2010 8:08 AM PST reply actions  

Couldn’t this also be reflective of the fact that the Red Wings have had a tremendous season so far, whereas San Jose’s record has been mixed? It seems natural to me that there would be more positive stories for that club, as Detroit is at the top of the Western conference. Moreover, in that month, I think they went 10-2-1.

I’m not saying writers don’t get snarky (they like to beat old jokes to death, etc) but I think there’s a simpler explanation for a November disparity.

In Dinglebarn We Trust

by Niesy on Dec 1, 2010 8:12 AM PST reply actions  

See caveat bullet 1.

Like I said above, the purpose was to see if there was any merit to the widespread belief here that Puck Daddy is anti-Sharks.

by ievans on Dec 1, 2010 8:55 AM PST up reply actions  

Sorry, I couldn’t tell how much weight you were giving to your caveats over “Final Thoughts.”

I think they really do get hung up on some stupid stereotypes (the Joe Thornton thing), but that’s different in my mind to deciding which players get stars of the day.

In Dinglebarn We Trust

by Niesy on Dec 1, 2010 12:42 PM PST up reply actions  

I guess I intended my “Final Thoughts” to be more about the what (Wings got more positive mentions) than the why. I honestly don’t think there’s any organized conspiracy to trash the Sharks on Puck Daddy. As you say, they’re more into repeating the stupid stereotypes.

They have done things like give Dishonorable Mentions to Sharks players even if they won (like Jumbo ending up with a -2 or something like that), which seems a little harsh, but they occasionally do that for other players too.

by ievans on Dec 1, 2010 12:59 PM PST up reply actions  

Yeah. Certain writers definitely have their likes and dislikes. Lambert goes out of his way to bash the Kings and some other teams. Bourne is ridiculously stuck on Thornton. No one will give the Sharks credit for making it to the WC finals, and yet they’re seemingly not as hung up on the Caps getting booted out in the first round. Some things stand out at different times.

In Dinglebarn We Trust

by Niesy on Dec 1, 2010 2:03 PM PST up reply actions  

For what its worth

I think its definitely caveat #2. Wings fans tend to think Puck Daddy, historically, has been very unkind to the Wings whenever possible (see most of Lambert’s comments on “what we learned”). That the Wings are possibly the best team in the league (at the moment) is likely the only reason for the disparity so far. Any cracks in the armor will be exploited, just you wait.

There are two fore-checking teams in the league that I fear as a Wings fan: SJS and CHI. Last night in no way eased my fears. Shore up that D and last night is a very different game.

by André Boillot on Dec 1, 2010 1:01 PM PST reply actions  

What you’re saying about the Wings record in relation to the disparity is a big part of why I’d be curious to see last year’s mentions, as well. The Sharks and Wings have somewhat switched places at the beginnings of the two seasons (well, I think the Sharks this year are a little worse than the Wings last year). It’s possible the comments might be totally switched in that manner, too. Would be hard to compare until both seasons are done, though, I think.

I just talk a lot and somehow accidentally say things that sound smart. It’s all smoke and mirrors, I tell ya.

by Auth0r on Dec 1, 2010 1:11 PM PST up reply actions  

You have to admit, the Sharks are an easy team to poke fun of from a media perspective. They are perennially one of the best, if not the best team in the league in the regular season… but only twice in their history have they made the Western Conference Finals. If I remember correctly, before 1997 the same things were said about the Red Wings. The Sharks dissing will continue until they can at least get past the Conference Finals.

And now especially with Detroit off to a great start, and San Jose not so much… wouldn’t it be expected that the “positive” talk would be more about Detroit than San Jose. Sure they beat Detroit in the second round in 5 games (albeit very close games, except the Detroit win), but they got swept in the WCF quite handily.

by dewman8810 on Dec 1, 2010 5:05 PM PST reply actions  

If the WSF were close in 5, why wouldn’t you say the WCF weren’t close if it took just one less game? Did you watch the series?

by pooponastick on Dec 1, 2010 7:22 PM PST up reply actions  

You can't just compare the 2 teams...

For all you know the Sharks might be the 2nd most positively covered beyond Detroit. Crunch data for all teams and you’d get a better basis for comparison.

by ManBearPig21 on Dec 2, 2010 6:25 AM PST reply actions  

Thats true, they may be the 2nd most positively covered, however, the large disparity is what is key here. It would be better if there were a whole litany of teams between to be honest otherwise those writers would clearly be Red Wings fans. A comparison is not used to say which is better its the magnitude of difference that is important, and you dont need other teams’ comparisons to determine the magnitude of difference.

by animadiversion on Dec 2, 2010 10:36 AM PST up reply actions  

Considering that I’ve been called an idiot fanboy and Avs fan wannabe for doing this in the first place, plus I am lazy, I won’t be continuing this one-off “research.” You’re right that doing all the teams would make for a better context to these numbers. But the thought of scanning through all the Puck Daddy articles to tally everything up makes me wince.

I thought about counting up the Blackhawks, since they are/were in a similar boat this year to us (elite team last year, so so this year), but then the NyQuill kicked in.

by ievans on Dec 2, 2010 10:52 AM PST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

The Official SB Nation blog of the San Jose Sharks.

Managing Editor

Bender-smoking_small The Neutral

Authors

Pavs2_small idunno723

Poseypavelski_small mymclife

Shark_trek_small jwizzle241

Ovechkin-russia-080518-584_small Ivano M

Xbox360hockey_small Jon Allred

Moderators

2296_s_small Nael M.

Mikeyicon_small ElvisVF101

Z_small ZeroIndulgence

313483_2054510893373_1562580382_31984672_1965025_n_small James Brady