Joined: May 2017
Posts: 6,729
Likes: 1,559
What's really funny is that the analytics community watches the most hockey of anyone because they're natural skeptics. The typical person who is actually deeply trying to understand hockey is super concerned that the data itself matches up with the game on the ice. We're constantly tweaking and adjusting to make sure that the numbers themselves are as close to resembling the entire point of it all: winning games. It's all about that.
It also informs how you watch the game. You look for things like possession through zone exits and entries, how different defensive structures inform the the type and volume of shots a team gives up, etc.
Eyes and Data are not 50 / 50. They're both inherently flawed. Most people who watch the game are prone to puck and hit watching and frankly don't really know what to look for while watching the game, especially away from the puck because it's fast and keeping track of 10 guys on the ice is tough. They remember the big stuff and forget the small stuff, and are prone to massive recency bias.
So you start with the data and use the game tape to fill in some of the gaps in the data.
The other problem is people utilizing the data poorly. Some common misapplications: overvaluing quality of competition (it means almost nothing in aggregate) and undervaluing quality of teammates (it means a ton), extrapolating too much from small samples, looking at things in aggregate that should really only be evaluated on a /60 basis, etc.
But the weirdest thing is people saying "watch the games!" and then using point totals to make arguments. If you want to make arguments with goal or point totals, you're making a statistical argument - clearly you're admitting that you value using data to evaluate players, as do we. So don't get angry that people found a better predictor for future goals than goals themselves lol.