|
Advanced Stats : Dumbing Down Hockey's Discourse? |
|
|
|
|
|
I have been watching hockey for most of my life. A lot of the time sporadically, but really getting into it when I was 13 and playing the game myself. That’s when I bought my first ever jersey with my own money. A Joe Sakic Avalanche jersey. My second ended up being a Keith Tkachuk Coyotes jersey…ya…I know. I really think I started seeing patterns and trends when I watched Junior and European hockey as well as NHL hockey. My friends and I would debate vehemently over who was a better player. What a player did better than others. Their value. How overrated they were. How underrated they were. Who “sucked.” Who “ruled.” The level of discourse ranged from great to mouth slobbering idiocy. We’re all inherently biased, but the ability to articulate an opinion and bring something to the table is highly entertaining. The search for a singular truth has always worried me and I tend to lean towards cynical skepticism to open faced sardonic dismissal.
This brings me to the point of this article. I’m neither a fan nor an opponent of “Advanced Stats.” I find them an interesting tool to see if my bias has been confirmed or if my opinion of a player might be ill informed. If I need to watch the individual player more and try to see what I’m missing, or if my opinion from viewings on multiple occasions calls these conclusions incorrect. At the end of the day, I find them to be an interesting and important information tool. I also think this is how the majority of people use these stats. A player plays well or poorly, you check his advanced stats and you generally find that they are trending the way you see they are there as well. It helps enforce what you can see with your eyes. However, what I’m seeing now is very worrying. I now see people using a chart as the be all end all of discussions. The chart says “X” and ergo it is true. The chart is perfect. The chart is “stats,” “math” or “aggregates.” The chart provides us with the perfect tool to completely ignore conversation, dialogue and debate. It simply IS. The chart says he is a first liner and therefor he is. The chart says he is a 4th liner defensively and therefor he is. The chart says he WILL BE a first liner next year…and well, that one has always been mired in excuses like the hilariously indefinable idea of “luck.” When the chart isn’t correct in its predictions or the aggregate result of the accumulation of various data to form the interpretation of the data that becomes the chart is inconsistent, it must automatically be assumed that “luck” or some other factor has in fact hijacked reality. This is my problem with this narrative. The charts, the graphs, they are all important in exploring the plethora of ideas and opinions on players and teams. Using them in conjunction with more mundane analyses of the game, as well as other forms of advanced stats help us come to a more reasoned approach to viewing players. It may in the end be the incorrect view or even a flawed one, but it is more reasoned.
Conversely, I find the opposite side of the debate to be as obtuse. Yet in the same way. Whereas someone might post a chart with the “mic drop,” defenders of players that aren’t at the forefront of several advanced stats metrics are similarly finding themselves using the argument of “Well this says it so it’s true.” Generally with regards to conventional points/achievements/intangibles. Or a media member saying it. Intangibles being my favourite because I think it is impossible to deny their existence, but also fairly difficult to prove their individual usage. Is it simply confirmation bias to claim a player has “high intangibles” because they are a part of a winning team? Are players natural “winners” because they happen to be a part of a winning team. Is a “winning culture” real? With players from every team and league in the development cycle of junior/pro hockey, some players will have been “winners” and “losers” at some point. A player like Rick Nash might be considered a consummate “loser” in the NHL, yet internationally he is a “winner.” Same with somebody like Kovalchuk. Is a player inherently more of a “winner” or that they “want it more” because they happen to be a part of a winning team? I don’t think so. I think that is a very flawed idea that simplifies things as much as posting a chart.
What it comes down to is the simplification of our discourse. In a culture of top-10 lists. 10 easy fixes. 5 quick tricks you didn’t know. One housewife found out how to make 30,000 a week from home. Lose 20lbs a day with this simple trick! We have the same in hockey. One quick chart to prove a 6th defender is a top-4! One simple graph that makes a top-15 scorer crap! Ten easy buzzwords to make one captain the best player in the NHL! Whereas we used to have to examine layers of a player’s ability, now we have two sides of the same extreme that won’t budge an inch to regard nuance.
I for one will continue to use both my eyes and my eye charts to base my opinions on players and teams. Or the trusted words of somebody I respect with regards to the subject matter. Yet I will always try to remain skeptical. I hope you will too as the dogmatic entrenchment of these two philosophies are truly stiffing meaningful discussion and debate.
Thank for reading.
Join the Discussion:
»