Is Bryan Hayes a Maple Leafs Insider? And So What?

Every once in a while, a hockey discussion takes a little turn that has nothing to do with hockey. That happened when a writer referenced Bryan Hayes worrying that Morgan Rielly could become a problem for the Maple Leafs. That led to a reader discussion, and one comment caught my attention: “NHL insider Bryan Hayes.”

Now, I like Bryan Hayes. I think he’s very good at what he does, and I have a lot of respect for him. So this isn't an argument against Hayes. It’s really a question about that word insider.

“Insider” is a title that hockey writers throw around a lot.

We throw it around all the time in hockey. Somebody is an NHL insider, and suddenly what they say seems to carry a little more weight. Which got me thinking: What exactly is an insider inside of? And, perhaps more importantly, so what?

The word itself is powerful. It gives somebody credibility before they have even made their argument. In the old language of persuasion, Aristotle called that ethos. You trust the person because of who they are, what they know or who they supposedly have access to. Hockey writers and broadcasters use that all the time.

But do the insider’s ideas make sense?

But there's another part of persuasion that matters just as much. That's logos. What is the actual argument? What evidence is there? Does the conclusion make sense?

If Hayes says Rielly could be a problem, then that's worth discussing. Maybe he's right. Maybe he's hearing something from people around the Maple Leafs. Maybe he's simply looking at the roster and reaching the same conclusion plenty of other people are reaching. Those are three very different things.

And being an “insider” doesn't automatically tell us which one it is.

Readers need to give the content the old litmus test. Does it make good sense?

That's what I find interesting about the way we consume hockey information now. We sometimes give the label of “insider” more attention than the information itself. We hear “insider” and almost subconsciously move the argument closer to fact.

But an insider can be wrong. And somebody who isn't an insider can be right. That's not a criticism of Hayes. It's actually a reminder that being connected and being correct are two different things.

I've spent a fair amount of my life around universities, where we tend to put a lot of emphasis on expertise and credentials. Those things matter. But eventually somebody still has to ask the simple question: What's the evidence? Maybe we should do the same thing with hockey.

So, is Bryan Hayes a Maple Leafs insider?

I don't know. And frankly, I'm not sure that's the most important question. The more interesting question is: What did he say, why does he believe it, and does the argument hold up?

Because being an “insider” might get our attention. It shouldn't get a free pass.