By J.D. Lagrange, Senior Writer, All Habs Hockey Magazine
Statistics will tell you if a player is a goals’ scorer, a play maker, an enforcer, a powerplay specialist, a faceoffs guru, an offensive or defensive player, amongst other things. With the newly found popularity of advanced stats in hockey, the methods of analysing hockey games and its players are getting more and more complex, cumbersome and hyperbolic, and that’s not necessarily good for the game.
PENTICTON, BC. — Hockey is a team game. You can have the best defensive player on the ice but if the other four players are lacking defensively, or if you have a horrible goalie in net, that player will have poor statistics. It doesn’t make him a defensively bad player but if someone relies on stats and supports their arguments with stats, they’ll argue hard as rock that he is.
There are many other major factors in the game of hockey that cannot be measured with statistics with some easier to understand or appreciate than others. In some cases, it helps to have the living experience behind you in order to appreciate the effectiveness of some of those factors. One can claim all they want knowing what it feels like to battle cancer but those who actually have or are battling that fight have a much better sense and idea of what it’s like.
Let’s explore some of the things that cannot be measured with statistics in hockey, and how it affects the game:
Intimidation
I have, in many occasions, locked into debates with people not believing in the effectiveness of an enforcer or having a team filled with players who can hit and drop the gloves at any time. Because one cannot prove something that’s not happening and because it cannot be measured by statistics, many people downplay this important aspect of the game. It does however have a huge impact on the way a team plays. This is a perfect example as a factor where having played in such situations gives a better understanding of its impact. Not all players but some of them get intimidated by physical play in the corners, some don’t like going in front of the net, getting hit, and they will get rid of the puck quicker than they normally would against teams that don’t hit has much. Some cheap shot artists are a lot more visible against smaller teams without enforcers or guys who will drop the gloves. How do you measure that? Not by stats, but by watching their demeanor on the ice. For example, since Marc Bergevin signed Brandon Prust and when George Parros was in the line-up, the Boston Bruins, Toronto Maple Leafs and Ottawa Senators have behaved much better than in previous years. Yet, Parros apparently had terrible advanced stats numbers.
Grit and character
How does one measure grit? I guess looking at the number of hits, fights or blocked shots, someone may attempt to qualify a player as being gritty. But it goes so much further than that! A player’s willingness to sacrifice his body in order to make a play, that’s being gritty. A player, in spite of a size disadvantage, goes into traffic and battles, or gives that player a solid body check, that’s gritty. Battling and digging the puck in the corner, bouncing back from a solid hit, determination, those are all part of the grit of a player, of his character. Some people are laughing at Marc Bergevin when he says that character is one of the primary qualities he looks for in a player. Why? Likely because it can’t be measured by stats. Yet, when talent is equal, grit and character is what differentiates winners and losers.
Pain tolerance
Another key point that cannot be measured statistically is the ability of a player to play injured. Some players have a very low pain tolerance and will not play (or play as hard) unless they feel at 100%. Others will have to be forced not to play by the coach or the organization, as we’ve witnessed in many occasions with Josh Gorges. Most players play injured in the playoffs. Not as many do during the regular season. It may affect their statistics a bit while playing injured, and statistical analysts will see that stretch as a slump. Teammates and coaches will see it as a someone having a high pain tolerance wanting to help his team regardless…
Defensive responsibility
While there are plenty of defensive statistics, especially the attempt by advanced stats, none can paint the full picture to determine if a player is defensively responsible or not. In most case, educated fans don’t need statistics to determine that. Phil Kessel and Alexander Ovechkin put up outstanding offensive stats but defensively, they are a liability for their team. Others will look at players making a diving effort and say that a player is good defensively, when in reality, he had to dive because he wasn’t in proper position to start with. How does one measure that with stats? It’s impossible. Coaching Rep hockey, I know which of my defensemen I like to see when the opponent comes on a two-on-one or a three-on-one, as I know that they’ll make the right decision. I also know which ones I cringe seeing in those situations. Yet, we seldom use stats in minor hockey in general. We saw Tomas Vanek make some great back checks… after turning the puck over. Some wingers are much better than others at getting the puck out of their zone. Defensemen know it too and so do the coaches. It’s not measured with stats, but the success rate can certainly affect other stats for everyone on the ice, one way or the other.
Offensive responsibility
It’s easy to count goals, assists, points, shots on goal, shooting percentage, powerplay points, first or second assist, and so on. How do you put into statistic someone’s offensive flair? A player’s ability to find the open ice, to position himself into a good passing lane to make it easier for the puck carrier? How do you measure a players’ ability to position himself in order to draw a defenseman with him to give options to his teammates on the ice? How does one quantify the effectiveness of a player placing himself perfectly in front of the net to make the goaltender’s life difficult, preventing him from coming out to cut the angles or to see the puck? Those are key plays during a game and they often go unnoticed by traditional fans, especially those who have their nose into stats guides. Yet, coaches, players and GMs notice the players doing the little things right.
Hockey IQ or hockey smarts
It’s not like school here. You can’t just take a test and here’s your result. How does a player react to the play, how is his anticipation, both offensively and defensively? Does he pass the puck at the right time? Does he shoot when he should be? How is his vision on the ice, his ability to recognize plays when they develop, at both ends of the ice? How does he read the plays? Does he get the coaches’ systems and can he adjust depending on game situations? It was said many times that while Wayne Gretzky was not the best skater, while he didn’t possess the best shot, he could anticipate the play two or three passes before it happened. That’s an example of possibly the best hockey IQ to ever put on the skates. But how does that reflect (directly) into his stats, his records? Because it cannot be measured doesn’t make it less important when judging a player’s abilities or his effectiveness in a game.
Skating ability
While we can see if a player is a fast skater or not, there are no stats qualifying skating attributes. I was talking to speedster Russ Courtnall a few years ago at the BC Hockey Hall of Fame and we chatted about a tip that the Roadrunner, Yvan Cournoyer, had given him back when he was playing with the Canadiens. Cournoyer told Courtnall to stop skating in zig-zags, that with his speed, if he went in straight line, no one could keep up with him skating backwards. In that series against Boston, Russ took Cournoyer’s advice and blew past none other than Raymond Bourque and scored a beauty goal. How strong is a player on his skates? How hard is he to be knocked off the puck? How quick is his transition game, going from offense to defense or vice-versa? How is his body positioning, for shooting or pass reception? Can the said player be as effective skating with and without the puck? How are a defenseman’s pivots from the right side and the left side? There are no stats for those but does anyone think for a second that they are none factors during a hockey game and don’t affect statistics one way or another?
Chemistry
Ah chemistry. A school topic, a science none the less, one that emphasizes measurements, solutions and yet in hockey, it’s an intangible. Go figure. Why is it that you can have three extremely talented players on a line and they don’t generate anything? Change one of them with a lesser skilled player and that line is on fire. It’s like they know, without knowing, where each other will be at any given time. Yet, it will have a direct effect on their stats either negatively or positively. You have two defensemen who will play extremely well together while others will be all over the place. It doesn’t make them bad or better, it’s that they do or don’t have chemistry with that other player. But scoring chances will be prevented or created, goals will be saved or generated because of it, and it will be reflected on their statistics.
Team player
How does one measure through stats his willingness or unwillingness to buy into a team concept? You have a player who is accepting to take a certain role on his team, who will do what the coaches are asking of him. A good example of that is Dale Weise who has said himself being happy in Montreal because he was given a role. With John Tortorella (twice), he wasn’t. It affected his utilization, his stats, in a negative way back then and while he is the same player, he is more effective today. While his statistics were different, he was always a good teammate, a good team player but how would that be measured? If a guy doesn’t stir any controversy in the dressing room no matter his role, if a player steps on his personal ego for the better of the team, it makes for a better team and that again cannot be measured by stats.
Leadership
Perhaps one of the most underrated qualities by statistical fanatics is the leadership of a player. Yet, it’s one of the most coveted qualities by GMs and coaches in a player. Those are the guys you don’t need to motivate as a coach. They’re the guys who lead by example, they guys who will step up in the dressing room to rally the troops. They’re they guys who, when things aren’t going well during a tough stretch, will stand up in the dressing room and help motivate, cheer and put a positive spin on the situation. They’re often players who have been there and done that, players whom the young players can respect and build their career at their image. You also have silent leaders who will preach by example by always giving their best effort, whether it’s in practice, training in the off-season, or in games. There are no statistics that can measure the leadership of a player but it’s a key component of a winning team.
While it’s not surprising that some bloggers would want to create such hype in an attempt to make themselves relevant to the hockey world or to find their niche, it is mind boggling to me that so much talk is being generated with advanced stats these days, so much emphasis is being place towards such statistics, when so many unquantifiable key factors make little to no headlines amongst hockey gurus, the professionals of the sport. Less time needs to be dedicated to the “Corsi and Fenwick” of this world, and more to the “Orr and Cherry” of the game.
We need to stop putting so much time and effort towards quantifying and need to put more focus and emphasis on qualifying when watching the game of hockey. We need to bring the balance back to the middle and take statistics, advanced or traditional, for what they are: a compliment to the game, one that does not tell the whole story.
Well. That’s just about the most ridiculous piece I’ve read in a long time. There’s so much wrong with it that I’m not sure where to start.
It’s pretty obvious the author has little understanding of the subject he’s hoping to dismiss, and little inclination to learn; the piece reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what advanced stats actually do, and posits to dismiss their importance based on that.
Advanced stats as they are today, are about measuring a player’s impact on the game in an holistic way. They are not about measuring *tools*, they are about measuring *effects*. As such, they do not specifically measure things like “defensive responsibility” and “hockey IQ” separately, they do measure the effects thereof. It would be the same thing for “size”, “physical play”, “skating speed”, or “deking ability”. They’re concerned with whether the player is, overall, effective on the ice.
If a player is effective, it doesn’t matter if he achieves that effectivness via hockey smarts or skating speed. Advanced stats are concerned with effectiveness, not the cosmetic details. As such, they are, in fact, the only tool that’s worth a damn for measuring things like defensive ability. For example, long have people assumed that big, hitty defensemen without offensive skill were the most effective as defense. Partly because of advanced stats, teams are coming to the realization that such players are pretty ineffective (they may defend well, but spend too much time doing it) and are moving more and more towards defensemen with strong transition skills as more effective in the long run. One key understanding that is fostered by advanced stats is that you can’t split defense and offense as if they were separate games.
Then there’s the “Orr and Cherry” aspect, of course. We shouldn’t be surprised that fans of rock-em sock-em hockey would try to desperately cling to the by now pretty thoroughly disproved notion that intimidation is a huge part of hockey. As teams become smarter and more aware they rely less and less on goons of Colton Orr’s ilk, as they increasingly recognize their general uselessness. The best teams in hockey increasingly eschew goons and other intimidators, in favor of fourth lines that are capable of outplaying their opposing numbers.
Then there’s the elephant in the room, the underlying problem with the notion of “unmeasurables”: by definition, if you can’t measure it, you can’t tell *in any way* if player A has more or less of it than player B. If you could tell, then that would be a measure.
The only reason to care about ‘intangibles’ is if they have an impact on the team’s play — and if they do they can hardly be said to be ‘intangible’. Things like grit and character do matter, to an extent, but their impact on the game will be measured by tools such as advanced stats. If a player’s ‘grit and character’ is so intangible that one cannot tell its impact upon the team, then one wonders why a team should bother.
It’s all right to be a fan of old-school hockey with all its fights and hittiness and dump-and-chasing, but it does not justify the making up of reasons for ignoring the wealth of important knowledge the study of advanced stats have given us. It is especially ridiculous to wish for less “Corsi and Fenwick” in favor of more “Orr and Cherry”; it’s become clear, by now, that “Orr and Cherry” hockey is hopelessly ineffective, and if a team’s goal is to win, they must move away from that approach as much as possible.
Advanced stats are a vital measuring tool that has helped advance the understanding of the game. They are about taking an unbiased, quantitative look at the game, rather than attempt to “qualify” it based on predetermined criteria that may or may not be helpful. And one should certainly not dismiss the measuring tool because one happens to be unhappy with what the tool has said about what makes for effective hockey.
While I try responding to comments, I must admit that I was debating whether or not I should get involved in this discussion.
In all due respect, Mathman, it is not surprising that you would disagree, or even put down the facts brought forward in this article and that, for several reasons. For one thing, with a username like yours, it is obvious that the emphasis on your hockey theory is based on numbers, you’ll have to admit. Also, you and I have had more than our fair share of debates and it’s no secret that we’re at two different ends of the spectrum when analysing hockey games. Lastly, I know that for you and a few of your friends who believe that unless you can’t quantify it, it doesn’t exist, it’s hard if not impossible to make you admit that some things cannot be explained by numbers.
But for someone to come here hiding behind a username and qualifying this article as ridiculous and attacking my “understanding” is beyond what I am expecting from people claiming to be so smart to the point of “understanding” the numbers behind a game as complex as hockey.
You see, in hockey, there’s a physical attribute and a psychological attribute and both are inter-related. Yes, some of it will have its impact on numbers, but not everything can be measured, whether you want to admit it or not.
The biggest difference between some of us who also take the psychological aspect of hockey into consideration, the unmeasurable facts of the game, and those like you who almost solely rely on advanced stats, is that most of us acknowledge that statistics tell SOME of the story, but we also know that it doesn’t tell ALL of it, far from there. And that’s where experience comes into play, as an important aspect to help explain those non-measureable factors of the game. Oh one doesn’t need to have played the game to understand the unmeasurable aspects of it, but it is clear to those who have when reading or listening to someone who doesn’t get it, or argue against them. If you’ve never been intimidated in a hockey game, it’s more difficult (but not impossible) to wrap your head around the fact that it’s an important factor in the game. If you haven’t dropped the gloves yourself in the heat of the moment, it’s harder to get a grasp of what it does to your teammates on the bench. If you’ve never played against a physical team, you haven’t felt the hurt or the impact it has on your body, on your the psychological side of your game, of your team’s game. You can try downplaying it all you want, it is still a fact.
In all due respect, once again, we’ll have to agree to disagree. Just like I will never be able to convince you (or anyone who thinks along your lines) that the factors mentioned in the above article have a huge impact on hockey games, the same can be said the other way: you will never convince me, no matter how much we debate, that they don’t.
“I know that for you and a few of your friends who believe that unless you can’t quantify it, it doesn’t exist, it’s hard if not impossible to make you admit that some things cannot be explained by numbers.”
If it is something that happens, it can be counted.
All of those things you mentioned, intimidation, chemistry, hockey IQ, whatever…, show up in the numbers. If a player is intimidating other players, it shows up in the numbers. If two players play exceptionally well together, it shows up in the numbers. If a player has excellent hockey sense, it shows up in the numbers.
It may not be easy to tease out exactly which aspect of a player’s toolkit helps a specific player be effective, but if it has an impact on the game it eventually shows up in the numbers.
Your argument is nonsensical. You can agree to disagree, but if that’s your choice, you’re being willfully ignorant.
I’m sorry to say that you’re mistaken when saying that those aspects “can be counted” as they can’t. What you’re referring to as being able to measure are the results of the points I’m making. For example, you are attempting to put a number on intimidation by measuring a player’s production, when in reality it goes well beyond that. If the said player doesn’t go in the corner first to retrieve the puck (to avoid getting hit), it doesn’t show a giveaway or often not a takeaway, and it’s not measured at all. It does however have a huge impact on the game itself, whether you want to admit it or not.
Another example of that is the presence of a respected enforcer. You cannot measure what’s not happening, like cheap shots (no stats for that) or other players picking on smaller players on your team. By watching the game (and only by watching, not statistically done), every Habs’ fan could notice that the Leafs, Senators and Bruins weren’t playing the same game when Parros (who unfortunately was injured most of the year) was dressed. Why that is? It’s not measure in stats, advanced or not. But yet, it was obvious watching the way the games were going.
There are many other examples like that and one can attempt to measure everything statistically, many key aspects cannot. Measuring the effects or the results is NOT measuring the unmeasurable.
Sorry, I won’t go into the name calling. Not my style. :)
Comments are closed.