Follow Paul on Twitter: @paulstewart22
Two different males could be 6-foot-2 and 225 pounds but their body fat percentages could be quite different. One is an elite athlete. The other is a couch potato. Or two different females could have the same body measurements but one was Marilyn Monroe and other one was far from Marilyn.
The same thing applies to hockey. Suppose a hockey team goes 2-for-5 on the power play. They had a pretty good night, right? Well, maybe they did and maybe they didn't. It all depends on the context. Here are two examples of how the same 2-for-5 stat could have very different meanings when placed in the context of the game.
Scenario 1: Trailing 1-0 early in second period, a team gets a five-minute power play; their first of the game but an extensive 5-on-4 opportunity. They don't score and, in fact, give up a shorthanded goal to make it a 2-0 deficit. Around 14 minutes into the second period, they get another 5-on-4. Forty-five seconds later, it becomes a 5-on-3. They don't score on either end of the advantage. In the final minute of the period, the opposing team scores at even strength, so now its a 3-0 game. The deficit grows to four goals early in the third period. Midway through the third period, the team finally gets on the board with a power play goal and trail 4-1. With 3:30 left in the game, they get another power play. In desperation, the coach pulls the goalie for a 6-on-5 attack. They score with 3 seconds left in the power play. That does it for the night, and they lose 4-2.
Scenario 2: Let's start with the same premise, except that the failed 5-minute power play does not result in a shorthanded goal against. Later, the scores on both ends of its 5-on-3 in the second period to take a 2-1 lead. Does the game still turn out to be a 4-2 loss? Maybe it would but, more often than not, the momentum shifts. Let's suppose the team does go on to win, 3-1, despite two unsuccessful power play chances in the latter part of the third period.
Any which way, the statistics will show you that the team had a 2-for-5 night on the power play. Within the game context, however, the power play goals in Scenario 1 were too little and too late to affect the outcome. Conversely, in Scenario 2, the two goals made a huge difference in dramatically changing the complexion of the game.
Small sample size, right? It's but a single game. That is true. But a team could have so-so power play numbers for a season and still be a contending team. Or the power play could be near the top of the league and everything else is near the bottom. Again, it's all about the bigger picture and the meaningfulness varies from team to team.
I use these examples because they are something to which hockey players, coaches and fans can relate. In recent years, with the growth of boutique stats, there have also been efforts to apply statistics to referees and penalties. It doesn't really work, though.
First of all, different leagues often have different rules or different interpretations. The same infraction that's just a two minute minor in one league may carry an automatic misconduct in another. Or the league may be more lenient about some infractions and stricter about others. For example, compare some of the PIM totals and volumes of power plays in IIHF tournaments compared to other sets of rules.
Secondly, much of the variance from official-to-official depends on his or her feel for the game and ability to take control. People used to say of me that I "let the players play." I put it this way: I called the penalties I had to call. There were games I worked where there were a higher-than-normal volume of power plays. The nature of those particular games dictated it.
There is, however, something to be said for an official's ability to deter penalties before they happen. Officials with strong positioning, confidence, communication, psychology and physical conditioning tend to resonate just a little more through their presence. It's not just the referees. It's the whole officiating team. Assemble strong teams of refs and linesmen and fewer liberties get taken.
I am also not fan of anything that encourages "penalty quotas" in the fashion of police patrols whose bosses get upset if they didn't write X-number of traffic tickets that month. These things tend to get couched nowadays in politically correct and/or corporate language -- such as "productivity goals" -- but are simply a cushy way of saying quotas. Penalty calls should be made to keep games safe and fair, not to keep one's boss off his or her back.
Officials, like players, need coaching. Bad habits can creep in and reminders -- sometimes gentle, sometimes not-so-gentle -- may be in order when attention to detail lapses either individually or across the team. The solution isn't to start calling a whole lot of certain penalties and then get lax on it again. Rather, the solution is to make the necessary corrections (such as reminding staff, through video teaching tools and other methods, of what does or does not constitute a penalty). Then stay on top of it. Eventually, the players will catch on.
From my perspective, stats are the seasoning on the steak, not the meat of the game itself. There are too many situational variables, too much that can be obscured or skewed within numbers and too many erroneous conclusions that can be drawn. That doesn't mean stats cannot be useful as supplementary tools for looking at the game. Just realize that, even within statistical analysis, there is still a lot of underlying subjectivity.
Using a player statistic example: Is a "high-danger scoring chance" solely a shot location? Is an "expected goal" different if the shooter is Jake DeBrusk, Jake Voracek or Jake from State Farm?
The same principle applies interpreting referee stats. How much cause-and-effect is there that 5% fewer obstruction-type penalties were called in Ref A's games this season? Home teams have had 52 percent of the power plays in Ref B's game. Does that really mean anything? Well, he's called 50 penalties so far this season, and 26 were on the visitors and 24 were on the home team. Guess his supervisor better have a talk with him to make sure he calls an extra one on a home team over his next 50.
Gotta balance those books, ya know.
*************
A Class of 2018 inductee to the U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame, Paul Stewart holds the distinction of being the first U.S.-born citizen to make it to the NHL as both a player and referee. On March 15, 2003, he became the first American-born referee to officiate in 1,000 NHL games. Today, Stewart is the director of hockey officiating for the ECAC.
Visit Paul's official website, YaWannaGo.com.
Blogger •Former NHL Referee • 
Join the Discussion:
»