The Advanced Stats Revolution and a New Voice

This is the first time I've attempted to put my thoughts on the Washington Capitals, NHL hockey, and whatever else I'm thinking about at the time on "paper".  I've always been hesitant to start a blog because the contrarian in me thinks it's foolish or silly or, simply put, annoying.  But I feel like a lot of the hockey writing out there is so focused right now, which isn't to say it's poor or that I can do any better, but just that the voices are all starting to blend into one. There are some pretty popular themes in the NHL right now, particularly concerning advanced statistics and the on-going debate as to their role in not only analyzing a hockey club but even in building one. The proof is in the pudding; there have been quite a few hires in the "special consultant" category that lend itself toward an advanced stats trend finding new legs in the NHL.  Perhaps they aren't "new legs" but different legs, as there have surely been folks going at it for quite some time.  This October, right here in Washington, we saw the hiring of famed advanced stats journeyman Tim Barnes, AKA "Vic Ferrari" (what a great name and with an homage to Andy Kaufman, how can you not like this guy, right?).  I'm not going to waste pixels describing Barnes or his work, but he's considered by many to be a visionary in the advanced stats field. It was an encouraging hire, and one that has seen little debate on the blogs and on Twitter. 

*DISCLAIMER*Before I go onto the next paragraph, I want to be very clear that I am not an anti-advanced stats heathen in any way.  I think that Corsi, Fenwick, etc. all have a wonderful place in the analysis of the game, and yes perhaps even in talent management.  But I also think that the professionals are professionals for a reason.  When a coach like Washington Capitals Defensive coach Todd Rierden, who by the way has played hockey on just about every level and coached the sport since 2007, says "You know, there are a lot of great things a guy like Brooks Orpik brings to the table that may not be reflected in his advanced stats" (paraphrasing), I tend to listen to him.  *END DISCLAIMER*

I think that sometimes as fans and writers and followers of the sport, we are too quick to chastise "the eye test" as it exists in our minds.  We externalize it as some sort of jargon about grit and intangibles, many of us going so far as to disregard it altogether. But we aren't inside the mind of a long-term professional hockey scout or talent assessment professional, and we aren't capable of defining what the "eye test" really is by their terms.  Perhaps the things they're seeing in the eye test lead to many of the very same conclusions our advanced stats tell us. Perhaps those things are even more legitimate in terms of knowing what to expect from a player, since as Barnes himself theorizes, hockey players are constantly changing (see: Marcus Johansson).  We sit in our computer chairs postulating and prognosticating about a team's success based on all of these variables, so much so that maybe we strip a little bit of the sport's humanity in doing so.  We miss that though they are elite, these players are humans, with a psychology to them not much unlike our own, so much so that they will react to things similarly to the way we do in our professional and personal lives when they're on the ice. That's measurable, too.

Here are some of the "intangibles" most advanced stats writers and proponents dismiss:  leadership, positive influence, leading by example, toughness or grit, and commanding presence. I would contend that all of them have some real psychological and physiological values attributed to them and that those values can sometimes outweigh the tangible ones, depending of course on the organization's needs. Leadership seems to have an especially important role on a team..  Going back to Orpik, Rierden said he "has a presence about him that you can't describe" and that "when the guys he’s sitting next to on the bench and they don’t have a good shift, they feel like they’re letting him down".  This is interesting to me because I've had that feeling on teams I've been on, not just with coaches, but also with older players, and it's always motivated me. Many of the advanced stats folks immediately found fault in this, but to what ends? Additionally, what if his presence and leadership and other intangibles are leading other players to higher advanced stat success?  In this example, take a look at the evolution of John Carlson.  Here are his stats from 2009-2010, without Brooks Orpik, to 2014-2015, with him (courtesy of War-On-Ice click for larger image):










For the first time since the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 seasons, debated as two of the finest Caps seasons in franchise history, his Corsi For % (CF%) is >50%.  Carlson's Time On Ice (TOI) per game is at its highest average and his Points per 60 (P60) is also a career high, not to mention his scoring stats (goals, assists, points) are all reaching career highs as well.  You can take a look at Brooks Orpik's numbers and naturally draw the conclusion that they're not so good (though they are improved from his past numbers, buried in a deep Pittsburgh defensive team playing with one of the best two-way forwards to ever play the game). But can you not feasibly argue that his intangible presence and leadership is proving useful to his linemate's production this season?  I don't see why not. 

But I digress.  As we go forward into the brave new world of advanced stats in the NHL, I see nothing but the potential for adequate and accurate talent analysis.  I reiterate that I'm not a stats Luddite, fearful of these new-fangled statistics nor do I believe that it is impossible to utilize advanced statistics in hockey, because that's not true, and I'm extremely optimistic about what some of the hard work of these folks will yield.  But I'm worried that the movement is becoming not much unlike other movements; bullishly committed to the science of things, the rational point of view: cliqueish, confrontational, unwilling to bend, and often rude to newcomers and those trying their hand in using stats for articles or blog pieces or simply out of intellectual curiosity.  It'd be nice to hear a new voice, one that doesn't discount the hard work of scouts and coaches and other professional talent management assessment methods simply because they rely on historical and experience-based knowledge over conventional statistics.  In short, just as I think that factoring together "Corsi" and "presence" can go a long way in building a championship team, I also think that when we're writing about hockey and our favorite teams, peppering in some traditional wisdom with your stats can help you tell a more complete story, and possbily attract more viewers and fans to the sport we love, to boot. 

With that, I conclude my first post.  I'm not going to write as often as I'd like, probably, but here it is for the 2-4 people that will probably read this (hi Sara!).  Let me know your thoughts, critiques, ideas, I'm happy to hear them, by email cpinto001@gmail.com, and give me a follow on Twitter if you're so inclined.  I will customarily end these posts with a song, video, or link to something that I really enjoy or am thinking about.  For today, here is this: