Puck Prose
Fansided

Hockey’s Intangible Skills

By Ryan Ritchie

facebooktwitterreddit

Over the past few years, we’ve seen a massive surge in the use of hockey analytics.  They really got a kick start with fans after the release of “Moneyball”.  For those who haven’t seen it, I’d highly suggest watching it.  It’s basically how the Oakland Athletics used analytics to help build a team with a limited pay role.  It didn’t take long for the hockey world to develop its own version of analytics.

More from Editorials

At the beginning, I loved it.  The pure concept is genius and will have its place it hockey moving forward.  Although the formulas we’re using now may need a little tweaking.  When you’re using missed shots and blocked shots that never make it to the net as a positive to determine puck possession, the problem is clear.

I hardly consider a guy who can’t hit the net or find a hole to get the puck through, as a positive for rewarding the player.  You know when people can use analytics to try and defend a guy like Alex Semin, that we have a major problem in the system.  I was once a major proponent of using analytics, but until there’s a change to the CORSI formula; fans should be careful how they use analytics.

The problem today is that people seem to use analytics in a very irresponsible way.  They use them as a thesis to an argument.  “Well 5v5 he generates 3% more shots, therefore he must spend more time in the offensive zone so that’s makes him a great possession player”.

I really don’t care how much time a guy possesses the puck.  Phil Kessel taught us that he loves to hold the puck, maybe a little too much.  Only to miss the net or shoot it into a crowd.  Until these analytics are accurately telling us what’s being done with the puck, then we should tread carefully in how we approach analytics.

We’ve also have to remember that baseball and hockey are two very different sports.  A batter versus pitcher is a much more individual type team sport, compared to hockey where you’re working with teammates to generate goals.  A good or bad outing by a pitcher could make or break a team, whereas in hockey it usually takes more than one bad individual performance.

Last I checked, Baseball had formulas set up that help better predict how a player at each level projects to be at the major level.  As well, it’s able to project when a player should be able to handle the big leagues.  Last I checked, there was nothing of the sort in hockey analytics.  Heck, we don’t even keep extended stats in junior or at the minor level to be able to do it.

Even if we could perfect the analytics in hockey, there are still a few flaws in the system.  You often hear the term “intangibles”.  It refers to those un-measurable skills that can be the difference maker come post-season when evenly matched-up teams square-off.

Now I know there are some people out there who claim there’s no such thing as intangibles in hockey.  That couldn’t be any further from the truth.  There’s a ton of things that impact a game either positively or negatively that we are not able to measure through any type of statistics.

Apr 21, 2015; Detroit, MI, USA; Detroit Red Wings center Pavel Datsyuk (13) warms up prior to game three of the first round of the 2015 Stanley Cup Playoffs against the Tampa Bay Lightning at Joe Louis Arena. Mandatory Credit: Andrew Weber-USA TODAY Sports

Where in statistics is hockey IQ reflected?  We actually give out an award for a type of intangible with the Selke Trophy.  There’s nothing in the stats that tells you why Pavel Datsyuk or Patrice Bergeron are offensively gifted with great defensive skills.  In a sense, hockey IQ plays a factor in it.  One thing that can make a player stand-out is his ability to read the play and figure out where the defender is going to go with the puck and either intercept it or block the lanes.

What about a winger breaking out of his defensive zone? Where is the statistic that tells us who does the best job of maintaining possession and moving the puck forward?  These are just a few of the classic examples surrounding hockey IQ, but truthfully hockey IQ is used across the board in all aspects of the game.

Another intangible is basic preparation or work ethic when it comes to games and practices.  They say you want to play in practice as you would in a game.  Doesn’t mean guys need to go 100% though.  Jeff O’Neill was telling a story on Leafs Lunch last week.  Later in his career with Toronto, coach at the time Paul Maurice pulled O’Neill aside and called him out on the fact that he was always the last guy in line for any drill.  In Jeff’s case, it’s understandable with the way he explained it, but the point is, how we do know that young guys aren’t doing this?

Let’s use Nazem Kadri for example.  He got a 1-year contract offer for a reason, largely due to his lack of preparation for games.  I’m sure he’s not the only one in the NHL either.  Who knows how many players that battle inconsistency like Nazem has isn’t in the same boat?  Perhaps being naïve and immature plays a factor?  I could see a young guy breaking into the league, not really having any leadership to properly show him how to prepare and conduct himself.

Veterans in the league have very specific game day routines.  Even things like eating properly at the right time can make a difference.  Don’t get me wrong, some of these kids have it built-in back in junior, that’s why guys like John Tavares and Sidney Crosby are the stars of the league.  Their intangibles are off the chart, and their work ethic exceeds most other players.

Probably the most important intangible in hockey can be used by all sorts of names.  You can call it heart, dedication, passion, or drive.  While slight differences with all the terms, they all basically measure the same thing.  Who brings it at a high level each and every night.  Use Alex Semin as a classic example.  Here’s a guy who lacks that passion and drive for the game.  It’s evident in his body language on the ice, and in turn ultimately led to his demise with the Carolina Hurricanes.

I don’t have any statistics to prove my point of course since we are talking about intangibles, but just think back to the most recent of cup winning teams.  There’s a reason the Hawks are a virtual dynasty.  They’ve got great skill and are high character guys with a love and passion for the game. Jonathan Toews isn’t the most elite scorer, but it’s funny how when April comes along, he’s almost always the best player on the ice.

Just look at Joe Thornton.  A supremely talented veteran, who for some reason can’t take his game to the next level come playoff time.  Most guys can kick it into the next gear with that passion to win the cup.  But Thornton brings the same intensity level as he has all season-long.  This is an intangible that both him and Marleau share, and not surprising the Sharks have had nothing but disappointment.  But it must be a lack of skill that prevents them from going deep right?

I’m also curious how much something like a team’s leadership core or veteran experience effect a team.  Compare Chicago and Colorado for example.  The Hawks have Toews, Kane, Hossa, Keith, and Seabrook all with veteran experience and all with obvious leadership skills.  Then you look at Colorado.  Youngest captain in NHL history (Landeskog),  Duchene and MacKinnon with Tyson Barrie on the back-end.

Prior to this season Ryan O’Reilly was considered part of that leadership core.  He also had clear character or leadership quality concerns based solely on the riff he caused with management over a contract.  Maybe the Avs core of guys will one day be a great leadership group, but right now it lacks experience.  And due to their recent seasons of underachieving, one has to wonder what the culture of that locker room is like, or how much better is it without Ryan O’Reilly around.

There’s an evolution in hockey where teams would prefer the cheap young prospect to the vet who might cost a bit.  But you got to wonder just how much all of the above comes into play with an NHL team.  I’m not saying there’s a direct correlation between these two, but who’s to say the severe reduction in goals can’t be directly related to the way teams operate now?  The way teams can overlook these intangibles because some prospect is going to count less against the cap.

It’s fine to have a young team to build around and grow with.  But you need to surround those young guys with veterans that can teach them the day to day operations that ultimately mold these intangibles.  Why did goalies flourish in Arizona/Phoenix with Sean Burke around?  He was a warrior veteran who showed up every night.  It’s not difficult to rub off on someone and teach them how to prepare for a game.  Every young goalie needs a mentor.  That could he half the reason St.Louis has had its struggles.  I hardly consider Brian Elliott a guy that Jake Allen could learn too much from in the way of off-ice preparation.

Everyone knows the Toronto Maple Leafs are going through a re-build.  Yet guys like Stephane Robidas, Brad Boyes, Roman Polak, and to an extent P.A. Parenteau all still exist on the roster.  What better guy to learn how to prepare yourself if you’re Morgan Reilly or Jake Gardiner, than Stephane Robidas?  Do you think San Jose brought in Paul Martin exclusively for his defensive skills?  No, they’ve got a couple young guys NHL ready, and Paul Martin is the perfect veteran presence to have these guys learning from.  You don’t have to like intangibles.  Most people don’t like things that can’t be understood.  But what fun would sports be if they were 100% predictable? The mystery of intangibles is what keeps us guessing, and what keeps us on the edge of our seat. So we as hockey fans should learn to embrace the fact that there’s areas of our game that’ll never have any measurable formula.

Next: 2015-2016 NHL Fantasy Pool Guide

More from Puck Prose

Home/Editorials