Wanna blog? Start your own hockey blog with My HockeyBuzz. Register for free today!
 

PLUS/MINUS: Analytics

January 15, 2017, 12:27 PM ET [141 Comments]
James Tanner
Blogger • RSSArchiveCONTACT


PLUS/MINUS is the NHL's worst stat, mostly because it's based on a result which varies wildly from game to game. Despite knowing this for years, it remains a standard statistic used in broadcasts league-wide that seem designed to insult the intelligence of the viewer.

MINUS: The biggest minus I see in the NHL is the day-to-day coverage of and conversation around analytics. Like politics with its left vs right, the conversation is devolving right before our eyes into stupidity and extremism.

Analytics is a pretty dumb term for what it really is "using recorded data to better evaluate players and more accurately predict the future."

The reason the debate is so contentious is because of the following reasons:

1. It devalues the work of experienced NHL reporters and managers when people who just looked at some numbers say they know better.

These people get protective, for instance, hardly a single main-stream reporter ripped the Oilers for their historically bad Taylor Hall trade, focusing instead on pretending it was a fair trade. The same people then ripped the Panthers for firing their coach, even though as a hockey move it's not even 10% as terrible as what the Oilers did.

This is the first openly aggressive ripping the mainstream hockey media has done in years, and maybe ever, (because everyone with access, other than Don Cherry, seems afraid to hurt anyone's feelings for fear of losing that access) and they did this (i.e ripped Florida) because they are reacting with protectionism against a tide-change in how hockey is run.

But here is the thing: evaluating data always works works better than guessing, so refusing to evolve will only mean you end up left behind.



2. The people doing the math and understanding the way it works are right. People get mad at Liberals for being smug or condescending, just like they get mad at the analytics people for the same thing.

While acting this way is unbecoming, it's only a reaction to being right and being ignored. It's the frustration of having your empirical evidence being treated the same as some random dude's whacky opinion.

Global Warming is real and it's hard to even have a conversation with someone so closed off to science that they pretend it's not. But you're not only supposed to listen to that person, you're supposed to politely pretend that their crazy idea is equal to your fact. If people won't listen to objective facts, we get divided into groups and end up only talking with our chosen group.

You can say the same thing about Trickle Down Economics, taxing the rich or a multitude of other things we know the actual answers to but continue to argue about, mostly because we want to value our own beliefs as much as the opinions of experts, and we've wrapped our identities around these beliefs.

So I can't just change my mind and say I now believe in Global Warming, I also have to completely change everything I believe, who I talk to, how I think about myself and worse - I may have started a chain reaction that causes me to challenge everything I believe.

If you don't believe that analytics are the best way to evaluate players, ask yourself this: in what other subject besides sports would it be acceptable to say "I don't think observing, measuring and analyzing data is the way to go, I prefer to just guess."

It's a ridiculous notion.



3. Analytics draw us to conclusions that question what we thought were inherent truths about the game. Whether it's the effectiveness of checking, faceoffs, stay-at-home defenseman or blocking shots, statistical analysis has given us conclusions that are at odds with traditional hockey beliefs.

If you not only did something your whole life, but doing it made you a millionaire and put you to the top of your profession, how open would you be to being told you're completely wrong? Not very is my guess, and this is one of the challenges changing the game faces.

It's difficult to get people to believe some of the conclusions analytics help us draw:
- Jake Gardiner turns out to be somewhat close to an elite defenseman.
- Eric Gudbranson, former top pick, actual giant, is not very good.
-Brandon Sutter is barely a replacement player.
- Nick Bonino is a first liner.
- Antoine Vermette should have been retired three years ago, etc. etc. etc.

4. We live in a world that overly criticizes being wrong and does not encourage listening, and does not respect people for changing their mind.

Being wrong is one of the best things you can ever be, because you learn. But in a society where the internet exists, what happens is the slightest errors are attacked and mocked to the point where people would rather hedge their bets than be proven wrong.



So instead of being proven wrong, learning and changing your mind when you get new information (like you're supposed to) you can just search out other people who agree with you and facts be damned).

Just try to notice in the next few days how far people will go to remain neutral rather than take a side. The problem is that taking a side on something puts you into a group and once you're in a homogeneous group, you have no credibility because people can discredit you just by saying "well of course a liberal/conservative would think that."

When no one is wrong and everyone is biased, we're just all yelling into the wind.

Add in the fact that if you do publicly change your mind or people who don't know what the word actually means will call you a hypocrite. This leads to everyone going into their own groups and ignoring everyone else.

For example: Stats are stupid, so I'm only going to get my information from sources that agree with me.

Which gives you this, from Bruce Garrioch of the Ottawa Sun:

After handing over the reins to general manager John Chayka and giving coach Dave Tippett more power when GM Don Maloney was sent packing last summer, the Coyotes were supposed to revolutionize the hockey decision-making industry and go where no team has gone before complete with analytics. The result: another lost season.


In what world is this an acceptable evaluation? The Coyotes were one of the worst teams last year and they spent their summer acquiring assets by selling off their cap-space in exchange for prospects (The now have Chris Pronger, David Bolland and Pavel Datsyuk on their payroll). They have the NHL's best group of prospects and going into the season their plan was to play Shane Doan and Ryan White as regulars.

Anyone could have predicted they would be bad, since, you know, they're obviously in the middle of rebuilding. Toronto tanked. Buffalo tanked. But since the Coyotes hired a "stats guy" suddenly their horrible season is the result of analytics?

Or look at the Panthers: Their best winger hasn't played this season. Their #1 defenseman is either having one of the unluckiest years ever or devolved into a #4/5 dman. They actually have good stats and a record that should be better.

But all of that is ignored to make the narrative that stats are stupid. These teams failed because they had the gall to try something different. Who cares that one season and two teams are ironically being used as "proof" of a failed movement when the entire point of that movement is to not make decisions based on anecdotal evidence.



Conclusion:

The entire argument is ridiculous. In the entire history of the world, collecting information and evaluating it properly to make better decisions has never once been a bad thing. Hockey needs to grow up and accept this. TV needs to evolve and stop with the face-off talk and the plus/minus talk. They need to incorporate shot-attempts into their analysis and stop being such protectionists.

And in general, people need to learn to change their mind when they are confronted with new information, because, if you won't do that, you're essentially in a cult. No one group is right about everything, but you also don't get to have an opinion on a fact.

It might not be too melodramatic to say that one day, your freedom might depend on you being able to change your mind when you're proven wrong.

A casual hockey fan doesn't need to know about advanced stats. But anyone who writes about the game or works in it who dismisses them is ignoring a valuable tool.
Join the Discussion: » 141 Comments » Post New Comment
More from James Tanner
» I am Just Curious If This Works
» NHL At Least Tries to do the Right Thing
» The NHL Cannot Remain Apolitical and Must Show Leadership
» Time for a New Coach to Go Along with the New G.M
» Coyotes Eliminated Following Severe Beating