Intangibles and Statistics: A Love Story

by tkent on Jul 6, 2011 10:37 AM EDT

The very heated discussion taking place in the comments of the post about the Corvo trade has inspired me to weigh in with my thoughts about intangibles and their place in hockey analysis. Statistics are a wonderful thing, I don't really know what it is about them but I find it comforting to get lost in them. I find myself staring endlessly at career records and dreaming of the days when 200 point seasons were possible. Each time I get lost in statistics, I find myself wondering what it is that makes the great players great. What allows great teams to win championships?

MattS made a good point that if it were just up to statistics, the President's Trophy winner would probably win the Cup every year. I think that is a bit cliche, but a reasonable point that illustrates impressive statistics don't necessarily result in a championship team. Upsets happen though, statistically inferior teams upset goal scoring powerhouses. That brings me to the crazy, not-very-definable-kind-of-black-magic world of intangibles. Phunwin has stated that intangibles are constantly overvalued. I don't agree with this and welcome criticism of my viewpoint. I think intangibles are a critical part of the puzzle that a team must assemble to win a Stanley Cup. The basic statistics (G, A, +/-) reflect the talent of the team. However, I think the talent is not a good explanation of why a team wins or a line performs. The intangibles are the reason a team or a line works together and produces results.

Some of the intangibles I value the highest would be teamwork, heart, and grit. Bergeron has all of them and I know I speak for many of the SCoC readers when I say that he is undervalued as hell in the NHL. His statistical numbers aren't Top 10 (except maybe face offs) but he would make every single team better if he was a member. He plays a smart and unselfish game and is true to his teammates. His heart is undeniable as he skates his ass off, blocks shots, and wins face offs. Right in line with heart is grit; the ability to take blocked shots and keep playing, to take hits to make plays, to win 1-on-1's in the corners. Intangibles aren't the end all be all and, like statistics, they ebb and flow. I think intangibles should be valued equally with statistics as in part they represent the mental fortitude of a player to preform at his peak level of talent. Sports are as much mental as they are physical. As a result of my rambling, here is my formula for success:

Teamwork, heart, and grit + quality system + talent/stats = Stanley Cup.

Take away one of those and you don't win a cup.

Many FanPosts are written by readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Stanley Cup of Chowder, SB Nation, their sponsors, or business partners.

Tweet Comment 16 comments | 3 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Tangible – capable of being clearly grasped by the mind; substantial rather than imaginary.

That eliminates Teamwork and System from being considered intangibles. You can clearly grasp how a system works, and you can also grasp how players interact with each other in that system (teamwork).

Heart and Grit might be considered – Intangible, although a very good argument can be made that a player lacking such, is probably very unlikely to make it to the pros anyhow.

Also, I’d say it’s very inaccurate to say that statistics would determine the Presidents Trophy winner the Stanley Cup winner each year. This might be true if the playoffs presented a larger sample, say the best team from the east played the best team in the west in a best of 21 game series.

But because the playoffs are a series of small samples, statistics would actually defend the probability of upsets, rather than exclude them.

In fact, I’d actually contend what people define to be “intangibles” characteristics they ascribe to teams that are the beneficiary of small sample outcomes, is actually the much more taboo term “luck” or the more marketable “fortunate”.

An example of this. The 2011 Boston Bruins won the Stanley Cup. Yet in the FIRST ROUND of the playoffs against a lower seeded team, they found themselves in a game 7 overtime situation, where a fraction of an inch probably separated them from Championship Glory instead of Franchise Altering Defeat. If Brian Gionta aims a breakaway shot 1 inch higher, lower, left, right and Montreal wins, did that mean the Bruins had less heart, grit, intangibles? No, it means they were fortunate, and their very tangible talent level took advantage of that good fortune.

by Michael Taylor on Jul 6, 2011 11:20 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs

I love the point about fortune. I think that is a much better explanation.

Also thanks for bringing the actual definition of tangible out, I should have considered that more. I think I ended up writing more about non-statistical factors than intangibles. I feel that there is something to be said about the less skilled players that seem to contribute way more than their talent level suggests they should.

by tkent on Jul 6, 2011 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions

No problem, anything that starts good hockey discussion is fine by me. Intangible gets used by a lot of people, probably in place of “currently difficult to analyze/measure” What you describe about less skilled players (Chris Kelly?) is that even a 15 goal scorer has a certain, albeit low, probability that they could score 2 or 3 goals in a 7 game span. Because of the spotlight that tends to be on playoff series, that gets magnified, and in turns into “clutch”.

In the Kelly example, he scored 5 goals in a 25 game playoff run for an original 6 team who hadn’t won a cup in 40 years. He would appear to take on the perception of “clutch”. But overall, he scores .16 gpg in the regular season, and .15 gpg in the playoffs over his 61 game playoff career. Right about what you’d expect.

The reason it seems as though this happens isn’t specific to any one player, but more, if you’re going to have the good fortune to go on an extended playoff run, you’re likely going to have to have a player or two score ahead of their expected pace. This past season, the Bruins received that good fortune from Kelly and Ference. Nothing in their previous (significant) playoff histories would have identified those two players with any sort of ability to step up in big moments. But they combined for 9 goals in 25 games in THIS run, which was very fortunate. If they play to their normal career playoff rates, it’s possible the Bruins don’t even reach the finals, and another team somehow benefits from good fortune (most likely Tampa and Sean Bergenheim).

by Michael Taylor on Jul 6, 2011 12:13 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins: Gettin’ Lucky

Your 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins
Hockey Blog Adventure: New Post: 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins: YES!!! (I'm also on Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)

by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Jul 6, 2011 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions

Well Marshmont is anyway…

by TomServo42 on Jul 6, 2011 12:41 PM EDT up reply actions

Like almost every other Cup Champion before them. . .

by Michael Taylor on Jul 6, 2011 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

I’d like to believe there’s some magical Disney-movie connection between players during a successful playoff run that inspires them to fortunate performances. Just the hopeless dramatic in me.

by tkent on Jul 6, 2011 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions

That only works in National games. Grit, Heart, Determination, and Teamwork beat the commies, you know.

(and Jim Craig didn’t hurt)

Your 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins
Hockey Blog Adventure: New Post: 2011 Stanley Cup Champion Boston Bruins: YES!!! (I'm also on Twitter.) GO BRUINS! (and Wild!)

by Cornelius Hardenbergh on Jul 6, 2011 1:27 PM EDT up reply actions

craig was great

if it wasnt for that game we wouldnt have a stanley cup cuz thomas would be working in a paper mill hahaha

You know how I said my profile pic would always be an animal? well, Chara's a BEAST!

by muffinman2 on Jul 8, 2011 12:17 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

I feel that there is something to be said about the less skilled players that seem to contribute way more than their talent level suggests they should.

Well said and true in any sport.

by snowboard_kat on Jul 8, 2011 8:04 AM EDT up reply actions

I think maybe “intangible” in this case actually means “immeasurable” – you can’t put the effects of Mark Recchi’s leadership on a bar graph. You can’t chart what Marshmont’s peskyness does to the other team. Maybe it affects their stats and you see it on paper that way, but that doesn’t happen all the time. Patrice Bergeron’s will, although unyielding, doesn’t contribute to his statistics directly.

Fortune, as you mentioned above, is a big intangible and is always a question mark – you never know what’s going to happen. While it’s a mystery, it’s undoubtedly a very significant intangible.

I may not have conveyed it in yesterday’s conversation, but I love stats. Love them. Since the pre-internet days, I’ve been staring at the backs of hockey cards, memorizing stats for no apparent reason. I think they’re meaningful, but they aren’t all that matters.

Kick his ass, Seabass!

by phonymahoney on Jul 6, 2011 1:14 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs

I approve this message :D

by tkent on Jul 6, 2011 2:50 PM EDT up reply actions

I think you can. That stuff can’t get measured by itself, but will get lumped in with overall play: the team should play better under those influences, no?

Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
To help with basic Timeonice functions.
If I reference a lot of stats, just assume I haven't seen anything to contradict or invalidate them.

by red army line on Jul 16, 2011 3:29 PM EDT up reply actions

I think the intangibles/“immeasurables” affect stats and play – but we’ll never know just how much.

Looking back at this – I can’t believe someone tried to make the argument that desire, leadership, and experience are no match for talent. The Stanley Cup Finals proved that they indeed are.

Kick his ass, Seabass!

by phonymahoney on Jul 16, 2011 11:57 PM EDT up reply actions

Ehh, you could say that but hockey has the great equalizer in goaltending. I’d say that was the biggest factor. Probably is the biggest factor in any upset.

by red army line on Jul 17, 2011 10:55 PM EDT up reply actions