www.bluelinestation.com

www.bluelinestation.com

It has been a strange start to the young season for the New York Rangers. It has been wildly varied in fan and media attitudes toward the talent level, personnel and performance of the team. I have been thinking more and more recently about the intersection between many of these concepts, and I’m going to try to keep my thoughts as organized as possible, so they don’t devolve into a jumbled mess.


I’m going to start with the game against the Capitals on Tuesday night. Both the eye test and the advanced statistics tell us that the Rangers were more or less dominated for large stretches of that game. The tremendous play of Henrik Lundqvist and the relatively poor play of Braden Holtby was largely the difference. Back in the old days, a win was a win. The Blueshirts picked up two points in the standings, besting one of their fiercest rivals in the process. They improved their season record to 8-2-2, which we all would have signed up for twelve games in. Yet, the shouting the following morning on various social media outlets was anything but positive…

This has been something of a theme so far in New York’s season. Issues have been raised (and rightfully so) about the performance of the defense. Similar concerns have been voiced about the relative lack of production from Rick Nash and Chris Kreider. The emergence of some of the depth players; Oscar Lindberg, Kevin Hayes and the fourth line, in general, have masked some of these issues. Henrik Lundqvist’s early season brilliance has similarly hidden some warts.

While the ultimate reliability of advanced statistics and possession metrics as indicators of future success continues to be debated by advocates of the old and new school, early season noise is one of the most treacherous by-products of the argument. The trump card of the week is the Maple Leafs being one of the league’s top possession teams in the early going, despite having one of its worst records. Evaluation contains many different methods and timeframes, depending on the tools for analysis. I’m not saying that the Leafs cannot be a statistical outlier, like the Kings last season, but I don’t think measuring possession samples in twelve games increments are behind the intention of the formula.

It is an accepted statistical principle that reliability will mature and stabilize over a large enough sample size. As advanced hockey statistics are only a few years old, I don’t necessarily think we have established those stabilization parameters with any real reliability, just yet. Not to mention that they are context-neutral and not intended to be comprehensive measures of complete on-ice performance. To try and argue that the stats tell us everything- or nothing, especially at this stage of the season is a fool’s errand.

So, if not statistics or rate stats, what do we base our small sample analyses on? The easy answer is the “eye test”, but that opens a whole different can of worms. This term is referred to generally by simply what you see when you watch a game. However, who said all eye tests are created equally? Wouldn’t the eye test of someone who has years of scouting and coaching experience be objectively superior to that of a habitual highlight watcher? What capacity for analysis lies within an individual “eye test”?

Another vague term that I find exceedingly problematic is “intangibles”. This term is often bandied about by the anti-stats crowd to assert the fallacy of non-testable hypothesis. Basically, if an individual’s assessment of a decision or a player’s ability does not match the stat line, it must be due to some intangible quality that imputes value that the statistics cannot find. I think the definition of “intangible” has gotten skewed a bit during this debate. Often cited as “grit”, “chemistry”, “leadership” or “standing up for teammates”, this concept seems to target specific things it would never be possible for statistics to quantify, not the ones that statistics haven’t been able to quantify, yet. For many of these concepts, the eye test will likely always be necessary.

Hockey is a game full of current “intangibles”. Broad strokes possession metrics don’t account for many things. A single fore-checker buying time for his tired line mates to change, a nice stick lift on the back-check, a smart play to lift the puck up off the boards to relieve pressure, driving hard to the net, etc., are not readily ascertainable in this context. That doesn’t mean the stats are useless, it means they are incomplete. These are the types of things that need to be quantified, not how tough a player is.

Additionally, we often find ourselves caught between the concepts of process and results. From a purely results-driven standpoint, Rick Nash is being paid more than any other forward on the roster, so he should have the most goals. Is this really the most intelligent way to look at the situation? We look at the process, as well. Rick Nash is generating scoring chances, has shots on goal, drives possession, but has a 3% shooting percentage. Is this because he is “unclutch”? Is it because he is unlucky? Is he guaranteed to regress back to his career averages? The truth is, there is no way to know for certain. People want to use statistics, as simple or complicated as those stats may be, to prove their position in the argument with absolute certainty. Unfortunately, that just isn’t possible at this stage. There are far too many variables that could be intelligently asserted to complicate the situation. Don’t even get me started on evaluating goalies…

The media’s role in the sport does not particularly help matters, either. Their content is generated to appeal to a large swath of both die-hard and casual sports fans. It is enough to keep you educated around the water cooler as a casual fan and demonstrative enough to the die-hards to keep you calling into radio shows and losing your mind in the comments sections. This week’s whipping boy is the guy who scores the overtime winner with the pun-filled headline on the back page next week. Sports journalism is very similar to film casting, some actors are heroes and some actors are villains.

So, what does this all mean? Truth be told, I’m not 100% sure. Maybe I’m just suggesting you don’t jump down a player’s throat because only one of the several forms of available analysis doesn’t like what it sees. Maybe I’m saying you should take a more comprehensive view of the situation before you start sounding like Larry Brooks. Maybe I would just like to see analysis of this beautiful game be spared the bile and ignorance of other sports coverage, and see some respect for the incredibly intelligent people who are seeking to quantify this incredibly complicated game down to a level that is digestible. This isn’t a shot at the anti-stats crowd, either. If you don’t like advanced statistics, fine. Don’t use them. Watch the game and interpret performance, as you will. Just understand that when arguing about what you see, you bring an incomplete measure to prove your point. I suppose what is all comes down to is intelligence. Do yourself justice and be credible in your positions. If you care enough to voice your opinion, care enough to learn about what goes into that opinion. Don’t pollute a website with ignorant ramblings. As hockey fans, we can be better. As hockey fans, we should be better.

Share: 

More About: