Recently, there has been a definite buzz about the effectiveness of analytics. We have recently seen some highly regarded analytics guys get let go from their teams: Matt Pfeffer with the Montreal Canadiens and Tyler Dellow with the Edmonton Oilers.
Of course, this has caused the usual stir between the two sides. This post is a sequel to a post I did way back where I told the story of how I started to appreciate analytics.
The other day on Twitter, I had someone tell me I was heavy for analytics. This took me back: there was no way, three years ago, I would be the one defending analytics and it’s place in hockey. In fact, I was one of those guys who denied its usefulness. To say I’ve done a 180 is an understatement.
When it comes to this debate, I am firmly in the happy middle that shrugs its shoulders and asks “why not both?”. The analytics side and the eye test side each have their pros and cons.
These pros and cons are purely the opinion of someone who appreciates both sides. This is coming from someone who saw analytics in the right light and still appreciates the old way. I’m also the guy who failed grade 11 math and detests Mathematics because, to be frank, I do not get it.
Analytics Pros
I appreciate that analytics provides a different way of watching hockey. By watching, I mean by analyzing a player’s efficiency. In the simplest terms, having the puck more=having more chances of scoring. Finding a player’s HERO chart adds a nice visual to see how good a player is when it comes to generating and suppressing shots.
When it comes to finding instant, raw information to judge, those HERO Charts from ownthepuck really hit it out of the park. The Vollman’ Sledgehammer charts that Lowetide uses quite often are another great visual. This information is easy to access, way easier than finding some highlights of a player with some bad music playing in the back.
Take Benoit Pouliot for example. When he signed long term at 4 million x 5 years, I groaned. I thought it was a horrible signing. You mean the 4th overall draft bust that bounces from team to team? Pouliot who was coming off a career year of 34 points with the Rangers? Great job, Oilers.
I was totally wrong. What the raw boxscore doesn’t tell you is what Pouliot does right: he keeps the puck in the zone and is capable in his own. Sure, offensive zone starts and injuries hurt him, but it shed a new light on how to perceive a player. That’s what I think is so cool with Analytics: it’s innovative with regard to what to track. For that, I appreciate it.
Also I think it’s bogus for people to say “you should watch the game more”. I used to be the worst for that, but really, how is anyone going to get the raw data? You need to watch the game to get the stats. It’s a moot point.
Analytics Cons
Sometimes, I find analytics to be robotic. When it comes to the emotional part of hockey, I find the eye test more efficient. That does not mean that all numbers presented do not tell an engaging story, far from it!
However, there are some aspects of analytics I disagree with. Take Alex Semin for example: he was a solid player when it came to puck possession. However, Alex Semin is one of my least favorite players, because of those parts that aren’t measured – yes, those pesky intangibles. There were many nights where Semin looked like he mailed it in.
I think intangibles do play a part in hockey and the culture of a team. I feel like analytics tries to cut that out at times in favour of pure production. I would love a way to effectively measure intangibles, but I’m too horrible at math to find something that would work. On the other hand, it’s possible there is something out there and I’m just oblivious to it.
Eye Test Pros
There’s nothing like watching history happen before your eyes. There is nothing like entering the bowl of the arena feeling the fresh coolness of the ice, and hearing the sharp sounds of skates gliding on the ice or the sudden booming explosion when the puck hits the boards.
As much as feeling contributes to the joy of the game, the eye test definitely romanticizes hockey and there is nothing wrong with that. It’s where you form your first opinions about the game. It’s how you decide who are your favorite players and your hated villains are formed.
I also think the eye test is effective for seeing those intangibles. People will wince when you talk about grit or intensity or truculence when it comes to hockey and I can’t blame them, though I think those characteristics do play a part.
In the moment, it’s great seeing how effective a player is. Take that Connor McDavid Goal against Columbus. It was pure bedlam, and everyone watching knew how good that play was.
Basically, what I’m trying to get to is this. When it comes to the narrative of hockey, the eye test is more emotional and people will connect to that.
Eye Test Cons
Despite appreciating intagibles on a certain level, I think there is way too much emphasis placed on silly intangibles of the game. I’m not talking about leadership or the effect of play after a fight. Rather, it’s about some of the most inane stuff you’ll find online:
- X Player’s body language was poor on the bench, so he must be bad in the dressing room.
- Y Player did not celebrate hard enough after a goal, he has no spirit.
- Z Player is smiling too much after a loss. He does not care about winning.
It’s just….if that’s how you are going to evaluate players, it’s not effective. I recently watched Moneyball again and there was a particular scene that stood out for me (careful some swearing for those at work). You have scouts talking about how his girlfriend is ugly so the player lacks confidence. That’s an awful way to evaluate the talent of a player.
Another problem with the eye test: I find biases play a huge part in analyzing a player (analytics is not exempt either). If I’m watching a game live, I will be biased for the Oilers to succeed. I will see some Oilers in a better light and that will skew my judgement of a player.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I think analytics and the eye test compliment each other extremely well. I do not find that one has to be exclusively tied to the other. In fact, I believe when someone decides to follow one or the other, they limit their scope of seeing the entire picture.
Both have their pros and cons. even though I’m not great at Math, I love analytics for it’s unique way of evaluating players. Each method is susceptible to biases and neither side deserves to be criticized as lesser than the other.
Add The Sports Daily to your Google News Feed!
