Why do most of the media refuse to get it? (Calgary vs. Edmonton)

By IJay Palansky

NHL teams have finally bought into hockey analytics, so why is it that most of the media remains oblivious? As just one shining example, Sportsnet recently ran an article headlined “Flames and Oilers Heading In Opposite Directions.” That headline was pretty much the only thing the article got right, and even that was accidental.

Calgary and Edmonton are indeed two teams heading in opposite directions, but it’s not the directions the author and most other people think.

The writer predictably contrasted Calgary’s surprising 12-6-2 start with Edmonton’s disappointing 6-11-2. The article marveled at Calgary’s “character” and “courage,” ever-so-delicately declaring that “Calgary has more guts than a killing floor.”

The writer proclaimed that 20 games into its “rebuild” Calgary has accomplished more than Edmonton has in 5 years.

Tune in to the talk shows and it’s tough to find anyone who isn’t on the on the Flames’ bandwagon. On the day the article ran, Sportsnet’s power rankings had Calgary 8^th and TSN’s had them 10^th. Both had Edmonton 28^th.

So my question is this: Are the big boys of hockey media so set in their reliance on their almost mystical explanations for things they can’t explain (Confidence! Momentum! . . . ) that they’re ignoring the most basic numbers that matter, or is their fundamental misunderstanding of the dynamics of hockey so ingrained that they just can’t see past it?

Obviously wins and losses are important. But if journalists are going to definitively proclaim the resounding success of one team’s “rebuild” and dismal failure of another’s, they should at least know enough to realize that just 20 games into a season, wins and losses are a seriously unreliable measuring stick.

In this respect hockey’s a lot like poker. Both are games of skill, and in the long run the best player/team will win. But whether you want to call it “luck” or “randomness” or “variance,” as anyone who’s ever been beaten by a 2-outer on the river can tell you, in the short run factors other than skill often tip the scales, especially in a league with as much parity as the NHL (as we described in our November 6 article).

Fortunately, analytics gives us much better metrics for gauging performance. Twenty games isn’t a huge sample, but there’s enough to get a sense of what’s going on.

And what’s going on is that, despite its uncanny ability to give up prime scoring chances with disturbing regularity, Edmonton is a better team than Calgary. Don’t get me wrong, nobody’s going to confuse the Oilers with a good team, and they probably make more glaring errors than any NHL team that isn’t located on the shores of Lake Ontario. But if you gave them average goaltending they’d be almost respectable.

As of the date of the Sportsnet article the Oilers’ Corsi For % of 50.4 was almost 7 points higher than Calgary’s (43.7), which ranked third worst overall. Calgary had a shot attempt differential of -205; Edmonton’s was +59.

While shot metrics alone never tell the whole story, there’s no universe where a team with a CF% of 43.7% through 20 games has been better than a team with a CF% of 50.4%.

Flames and Oilers Team Stats (2014-15, 5v5, as of 11.20.14)

Calgary’s much better record is mostly explained by its PDO (a common measure of “puck luck” consisting of save percentage plus shooting percentage) of 103.3, which was third highest in the league. Edmonton was 29^th, at 97.4. As we explained in our October 30 column, high PDOs are sustainable – if you have off-the-charts talent like the 1983 Edmonton Oilers. But the Flames aren’t even the 2014 Oilers, let alone the 1983 edition. Still, through 20 games Calgary somehow managed to put up the very best 5v5 shooting percentage in the league, at 10.6%.

Hands up everyone who thinks that’s gonna continue.

Finally, speaking specifically to each team’s rebuild, Edmonton’s CF% is 2.7% higher than last season’s, whereas Calgary’s is 2.6% lower. Somebody needs to explain to me where all those “guts” and “courage” and “character” are reflected in those numbers.

Much like the Leafs’ early success last season, Calgary’s start this year is smoke and mirrors.

Perception is a funny thing. Many journalists (and coaches, and fans) have a hard time separating results from actual performance, probably because they don’t realize just how big a role randomness/luck plays over a 20 (or 40 or even 80) game span. Hockey analytics can go a long way toward explaining what’s really going on by providing substance and insight that aren’t limited to the tired and trite hockey clichés that many people in the hockey establishment still treat like inviolable truths.